King James Only 
Topic: Bible  Type: Correspondence 

Author:  A. Allison Lewis & D. O. Fuller 


Mr. A. Allison Lewis
115 Leslie Street
Moncton, NB E1C 6M6

Dear Saints,

I believe that you will find the enclosed copies of correspondence between Dr. David O. Fuller and myself concerning his "King James Version only" position interesting though indeed very sad. I have sent copies to others in the past so it is possible that you have already read it.

Why did I write to Dr. Fuller? The first reason, of course, is because of the harm being done by him and his friends to the saints. Second because of his prominence in the KJV only movement. Third because I saw an opportunity to address a limited reference and that the heart of the issue–their claim that the KJV contains no errors and their blatant misrepresentation of those they quote ("friends" and "enemies"). To answer one of their booklets would involve following endless, useless "rabbit trails."

I have said from the beginning, when this issue became prominent in the 70’s, that the leaders of the movement, such as Fuller, Ruckman, Waite and Rockwood, were fully aware of the facts–that the King James Version does indeed contain errors AND that they were knowingly misrepresenting those they quote. With respect to Dr. Fuller the enclosed correspondence proves this very clearly. I will add here that his education and age made him more accountable and I saw NO sign whatever that he was senile. Unfortunately the vast majority of those following and promoting his position are simply gullible, trusting Christians and have been deceived. I feel very sorry for these people. The writings of Fuller and the other leaders are very convincing, standing alone, however their works are based on unmitigated false statements concerning the facts.

I should point out that I believe that there is certainly some room for discussion concerning the value of various manuscripts, though far less than a number of writers on the subject like to think. Having read quite extensively on the subject, including much of Warfield and Machen and carefully going through Hort’s INTRODUCTION and reading all the criticism of them that I could get my hands on I am convinced that the text produced by Westcott and Hort is extremely good. Any improvements which have or are likely to be made are VERY minor indeed. One thing which I have not seen discussed in apologetic works, and which I think is very significant, is the fact that the Modernists and Liberals, including B. H. Streeter, have not been able in more than a century–try as they have–to make even a dent in the basic method and the results of Westcott and Hort. There is little but minor fine tuning.

With respect to the first point Dr. Fuller just ignored the sample errors which I pointed out to him. For him to plead that he did not have time to address the matter was inexcusable. If he was wrong in his position he should have apologized to those he misled. To plead that he had no time is like a town in the valley below a big dam on being made aware that the dam has developed a leak saying "We do not have time to go and repair the dam," before it breaks and many are swept to their death and millions in possessions and property are destroyed.

With respect to the second point, Dr. Fuller’s statement in the last paragraph on page one of his letter of February, 1987 "To All On Our Mailing List" in connection with his last paragraph on page one of his letter to me of March 7, 1987 was a plain admission on his part that he knew full well that the Princeton defenders of the faith DID NOT hold in the least to his position. For him to infer that they were ignorant in the field of textual matters is false. Warfield even wrote a textbook on the subject!

I do not see how I could have done any more to help Dr. Fuller see the answer to his problem than I did in my second letter to him. Gaussen very ably and clearly addressed the problem in his book on inspiration and this I pointed out to Dr. Fuller.

The enclosed correspondence is self-explanatory:

1. My first letter to Dr. Fuller of September 24, 1986.
2. Dr. Fuller’s first letter to me of October 2, 1986. (He included several pieces of literature plus he had his three books on the subject sent to me).
3. My second letter to Dr. Fuller of February 25, 1987.
4. Dr. Fuller’s second letter to me of March 7, 1987. He included some more pieces of literature including his February, 1987 letter "To All On Our Mailing List" and his news release of December 2, 1986 "GOD WROTE ONLY ONE BIBLE."

The Bible is reliable. The evidence shows beyond any reasonable question that it is what it plainly claims to be--the verbally inerrant Word of God in the original autographs. Furthermore the evidence clearly shows that the manuscripts, texts and translations we have today are substantially accurate. My assessment of the King James Version and the modern versions is spelled out near the end of my first letter to Dr. Fuller.

The Modernists, Liberals and agnostics may simply deny the possibility that the Bible can be the Word of God. But an error just as destructive to vital Christian life is wide spread in "conservative" churches and that is treating the Gospel as though it were simply a vague hope. It may be very strongly held and defended, nevertheless, it is frequently presented simply as a hope and hope is not BELIEF. Paul’s statement and defense of the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 was not a story of some vague hope. It was a message of salvation based on real evidence. Four times he says HE WAS SEEN and adds concerning more than five hundred eye witnesses that the greater part remain unto this present. The Corinthians could if they wished check the facts for themselves.

I do trust that you will be able to use some of this material to help keep some from falling into this divisive and destructive movement and rescue others from it.

May our God richly bless you as you serve Him.

In Christ,

A. Allison Lewis

PS: The argument that so many translations cause confusion to the saints is merely a cover-up for lazy preachers and teachers to avoid the labor of educating themselves and the saints under their instruction as to which translations are safe and those which are not safe for common use. I am reminded of a very vivid illustration of what this laziness frequently leads to--lying. In the mid seventies a student at Bob Jones University having just returned from summer vacation told me the following incident. The student was from Indiana and during his vacation attended a little church in the Indianapolis area. One Sunday evening the young pastor spoke on the versions issue. In defending the use of only the King James Version he stated that only the King James Version was reliable and that all the other English translations were from "the pit of Hell." After the service the young student spoke to the pastor and said that he understood that the New American Standard Version was a good translation. The young pastor replied that the New American Standard Version may well be a reliable translation BUT he couldn’t let his congregation be confused with so many translations. In other words he knew full well that he had knowingly lied that night to his congregation. God does not need or approve of lying to defend His Word or Himself.

NOTE: When hearers later discover that their pastor knowingly lied to them on one thing they will say, ‘What else did he lie about?’ The pastor loses his respect and the faith of his hearers is put in grave danger.

PS–2: The poor typing which Dr. Fuller mentions in his letters has been corrected. His typing is not the issue. His lying is the issue. ALSO PLEASE NOTE: Bible quotations AND other long quotations are in italics.

A. Allison Lewis
19 Suvla Road
Grand Falls, NF A2A 2A6

September 24, 1986

Dr. David Otis Fuller
C/O Wealthy Street Baptist Church
Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Dear Dr. Fuller:

In Dr. D. A. Waite’s BFTMonthly Newsreport for July 31, 1986 his wife wrote the following:

It was worth the trip just to hear Dr. David Otis Fuller say once again, "There’s not a single mistake in the King James Version; there may be problems, but there is an answer to every one of them. As my old Princeton professor, Dr. J. Gresham Machen, used to say, ‘Gentlemen, the things I don’t understand in the Bible (and he meant the King James Bible), I put down to my own ignorance.’" Fuller also said, "The battle (of the Bible Versions) is getting hotter and hotter, and the hotter it gets, the better I like it. I ask you now, is that my old nature or my new nature speaking?" Then he hollered out--and I do mean ‘hollered’--"Do you have only a preference, or do you have a CONVICTION?!"

Having read some of your writings on the subject I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of Mrs. Waite’s quotation of your remarks.

Dr. Fuller, for you to quote Dr. Machen in support of your position that the King James Bible contains "not a single mistake" is a gross misrepresentation of the dead. Your having sat under his ministry makes you that much less excusable. You know full well the position of the great Princeton theologians with regard to textual criticism and Bible translations.

What Dr. Machen believed with regard to the question at hand is spelled out in the plainest language possible in the following two paragraphs, given in full, from his own writings:

In the first place, then, let it be said that we believers in the plenary inspiration of the Bible do not hold that the Authorized Version or any other form of the English Bible is inspired. I beg your pardon for saying anything so obvious as that, but, do you know, my friends, it is necessary to say it. There are scarcely any limits to the ignorance which is attributed to us today by people who have never given themselves the trouble to discover what our view really is. Let it be said then very plainly that we do not hold that the Authorized Version or any other form of the English Bible is inspired. We are really quite well aware of the fact that the Bible was written in Hebrew and in Greek. The Authorized Version is a translation from the Hebrew and the Greek. It is a marvelously good translation, but it is not a perfect translation. THERE ARE ERRORS IN IT. THE TRANSLATORS WERE NOT SUPERNATURALLY PRESERVED FROM MAKING MISTAKES. It is not inspired [Emphasis added-aal].

In the second place, we do not hold that any one of the hundreds, even thousands, of the Greek and the Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible is free from error. Before the invention of printing the Bible was handed down from generation to generation by means of copies made by hand. Those copies were written out laboriously by scribes. Before one copy was worn out or lost another copy would be made to take its place, and so the Bible was handed down. Hundreds of thousands,–perhaps no one knows how many–of such copies or "manuscripts" were made. Several thousand of them, some of these containing of course only parts of the Bible or only parts of either Testament, are now in existence. These are just remnants from among the vast number that are lost. Now we believers in the inspiration of the Bible do not believe that the scribe who made any one of these manuscripts that we have was inspired. EVERY ONE OF THE MANUSCRIPTS CONTAINS ERRORS NO ONE OF THEM IS PERFECT [Emphasis added-aal]. What we do believe is that the writers of the Biblical books, as distinguished from scribes who later copied the books, were inspired. Only the autographs of the Biblical books, in other words--the books as they came from the pen of the sacred writers, and not any one of the copies of those autographs which we now possess--were produced with that supernatural impulsion and guidance of the Holy Spirit which we call inspiration [J. Gresham Machen, The Christian Faith in the Modern World. Pages 38, 39].

Dr. Fuller, I am fully aware of many of the problems that Christians today are facing. I realize that the multitude of English translations may be confusing to some of the weak and unlearned. Unfortunately you and those with you who are so energetically propagating your false views are compounding the problem. Great damage is being done to the present and future generations. Humble, untaught saints trusting their leaders today will be disillusioned in the future when they discover that those they dearly loved and trusted did not tell them the truth about their Bible. They will wonder, ‘If my pastor did not tell the truth about the Bible, can he be trusted in what he said about the way of salvation?’ This is serious indeed. Foolish and speculative teaching among the saints in "nonessentials" or where the Bible does not clearly state a matter is one thing, however, to knowingly misrepresent the facts is a totally different matter and is inexcusable.

Redefining error or mistake does not do away with the error or mistake. The perfectionists or holiness teachers have not yet turned any sin into righteousness by their redefinition’s. The facts still remain facts regardless of how men label them.

Secondly you misrepresent plain facts concerning Bible translations, particularly the KJV when you say that it contains "not a single mistake". The following are five illustrations of KJV translations which are plainly in error. Some are more serious than others, yet all are misleading to English readers who cannot read the Greek text and therefore must depend on the KJV, according to your position. Aside from differences of irrelevant spelling, word order and punctuation the question of the TR versus WH Greek editions do not enter the picture except in the case of 1 John 2:23 and even here I believe you prefer the Trinitarian Bible Society TR text over that of Hodges and Farstad. The TBS text in this passage is in agreement with WH. Also in this passage Hodges and Farstad in their footnote admit that the majority of Greek manuscripts support TBS, WH, etc. The problem is with the erroneous KJV translation in each case.

The FIRST example is MATTHEW 25:46.

In this verse the KJV translators advertised plan to add variety produces a misleading translation.

The verse reads (KJV): And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. The bold words, in the Greek, are exactly the same. The KJV gives the unlearned and ignorant the opportunity to think there is a difference between the time of the future punishment of the wicked and that of the life of the righteous.

kai apeleusontai outoi eiV kolasin aiwnion, oi de dikaioi eiV zwhn aiwnion.

The NKJV reads: And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

The RSV reads: And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

The NASV reads: And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

The NKJV does not correct the misleading translation of the KJV.


The SECOND example is PSALM 95:11 quoted in HEBREWS 3:11 and 4:3.

If this is the result of the translators desire for variety it is certainly one of the most inexcusable examples.

The verses read (KJV): Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest [PSA 95:11]; So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest [HEB 3:11]; and As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest [HEB 4:3]. The Greek of both verses in Hebrews is exactly the same and in turn exactly the same as the LXX which follows carefully the original Hebrew. THE ENGLISH IN ALL THREE PLACES SHOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME. Hebrews 4:3 completely misrepresents the original.

wV wmosa en th orgh mou, ei eiseleusontai eiV thn katapausin mou.

.yhwnm la z waby ma ypab ytub?n r?a

The NKJV reads in all three verses: So I swore in My wrath ‘They shall not enter My rest.’

The RSV reads: Therefore I swore in my anger that they should not enter my rest [PSA 95:11]; and As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall never enter my rest’ [HEB 3:11 and 4:3].

The NASV reads: Therefore I swore in My anger, Truly they shall not enter into My rest [PSA 95:11]; and As I swore in My wrath, They shall not enter My rest [HEB 3:11 and 4:3].

Of the four English translations the NKJV is the only one which shows consistency between the Old and New Testaments, but a combination of the two NASV translations would be closer to the Greek, i.e. As I swore in My wrath, They shall not enter into My rest. The editors should have brought the OT and NT translators and/or translations together where NT quotations of the OT are involved.

The THIRD example is TITUS 2:13.

The mistranslation here is undoubtedly a result of ignorance on the part of the KJV translators.

The part containing the error reads (KJV): of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

tou megalou qeou kai swthroV hmwn Cristou Ihsou.

The NKJV reads: of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

The RSV reads: of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

The NASV reads: of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.

All three of the modern translations render the Greek accurately. The NASV is the clearest. The Greek construction very plainly calls Jesus God, whereas the KJV makes the address to God the Father and to Jesus Christ the Son.

The FOURTH example is 1 JOHN 2:23.

Here the KJV translation is CORRECT but its use of italics misleads the reader to believe that the original Greek does not contain the last half of the verse.

The verse reads (KJV): Whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

The KJV translators were at this point, as in others, following the Latin Vulgate which here reads: Omnis, qui negat Filium, nec Patrem habet: qui confitetur Filium, et Patrem habet [Sixti V et Clementis VIII and Wordsworth & White editions].

paV o arnoumenoV ton uion oude ton patera ecei: o omologwn ton uion kai ton patera ecei.

The NKJV reads: Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

The RSV reads: No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.

The NASV reads: Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

The NASV is the closest to the Greek.

The FIFTH example is 1 JOHN 5:18.

This is an example of a mistranslation as a result of either ignorance or Arminian bias or both.

The verse reads (KJV): We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself and that wicked one toucheth him not.

oidamen oti paV o gegennhmenoV ek tou qeou ouc amartanei, all o gennhqeiV ek tou qeou tnrei auton, kai o ponhroV ouc aptetai autou.

The NKJV reads: We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself and the wicked one does not touch him.

The RSV reads: We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.

The NASV reads: We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him and the evil one does not touch him.

In this passage the NKJV does not correct the error of the KJV. Both the RSV and NASV get the meaning across correctly. In this case the RSV is the closest to the Greek wording but neither of them shows that the perfect occurs twice. For one of the places the NASV is born is certainly better than the born of the RSV.

The verse does not teach that Christians keep themselves as the KJV and NKJV read. The only begotten Son of God keeps the saints. The promise of the Bible is that God keeps us. 1 Peter 1:5 says in part: who are kept by the power of God [See also JOH 6:39, 40; 10:27-30].

These five passages in the KJV (and others) have errors, mistakes or mistranslations. Use whichever word you wish, they all mean that the translations do NOT correctly represent the original Greek from which they come. These passages have varying degrees of importance but all illustrate why a better translation than the KJV is needed for English readers. As for the three modern versions used for illustration:

–the NKJV is essentially a hurriedly done money making venture (this is not a reflection on the translators but the producer).

–the RSV is a scholarly, usually accurate translation BUT because of the Modernist bias, evident in places by false readings, it is NOT SAFE for popular use.

–the NASV, on the whole, is easily the most accurate and reliable translation in the English language at present. It sticks closest to the Hebrew and Greek texts. There is, however, still plenty of room for improvement.

Many other popular versions are even FAR WORSE than the RSV. For example the GOOD NEWS FOR MODERN MAN, PHILLIPS, NEB, Roman Catholic and cult versions, and one used more by "evangelicals" than by others–THE AMPLIFIED BIBLE. As a translation and paraphrase the LIVING BIBLE is totally unreliable.

As commentaries the NIV and AN AMERICAN TRANSLATION can be helpful. Their tendency is towards paraphrasing rather than sticking to the original Hebrew and Greek texts.

What every generation ought to have is the very best translation in their language that the best prepared and most able godly men can produce.

I personally still use the KJV the most and probably will till the Lord comes or takes me home. In the long line of Bible translations the majestic KJV has well served its place in the plan of God. However, the time for its replacement has long since passed.

Dr. Fuller your energies and that of those with you would be better spent in teaching the saints the truth about the Bible and its translations, and helping produce the most accurate translation possible for our use.

Yours very sincerely,

A. Allison Lewis

Copies to: D. A. Waite and others.

2233 Michigan Street, N.E.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503

"Of the 100 Versions of the Bible which is nearest to the original manuscripts?"

October 2, 1986

A. Allison Lewis
19 Suvla Road
Grand Falls, NF A2A 2A6

Dear Friend Lewis,

Thanks for your long letter. By now I dare say you have learned through Mrs. Waite that she had made a mistake in the name. She called me, long distance, a few weeks ago and was quite apologetic. Also her husband was on the phone and joined her in expressing their regrets for this mistake. Having known the Waites for many years I sincerely appreciated their attitude. All of us make mistakes, plenty of them and all of us should admit them but many don’t, alas!

Having gone to all that trouble in writing me at length I will try and match it though I may fall short. I am not a scholar although I have had the privilege of studying under some of the greatest in this country or indeed the world at Princeton Theological Seminary B.F. (before the foul flood of apostasy inundated those halls).

Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, my Hebrew professor, was the one I quoted, a linguistic genius, fluent in 45 languages and dialects. It is still fresh in my memory how he used to say in class, "Gentlemen, the things I do not understand in the Bible (and he had clear reference to the KJV) I put down to my own ignorance."

I knew "Das" Machen quite well, rooming across the hall from him at Alexander hall (he was a bachelor). I thought so much of him I asked if he would be best man at our wedding. He graciously consented. His Origin of Paul’s Religion and Virgin Birth of Christ along with other great works, classified him as a scholar of the highest rank.

There are two objects of Faith I have held for well over fifty years which I find so many scholars, and laymen too, just do not have. I believe I have the true, pure, inerrant Word of God found in the KJV [emphasis added - aal] which this Sovereign God has kept and used and honored and blessed for the past 375 years. THAT tells me HE expects ME to do the same as long as He gives me breath on planet Earth.

I also believe I worship a God Who KEEPS HIS WORD intact and pure through the ages [emphasis added - aal]. True, He kept them so in the originals but they are lost forever centuries ago, but I am quite sure He has kept them in the English as well as Greek and Hebrew God being the original linguist demonstrating so at the Tower of Babel.

"Every WORD of God is pure." (Prov. 30:5). "Thou hast magnified thy WORD above all thy Name." (Psalm 138:2b).

Page 2

IF this GREAT God we worship couldn’t or didn’t KEEP HIS WORD intact and pure and inerrant through the centuries I would not and could not worship Him. And I never would have attended, let alone graduated from Princeton, if I had not been absolutely certain I had such a Book to rest my weary soul upon for Time and Eternity. I would have quit the ministry altogether and adopted the slogan of that great multitude of lost souls today "Let’s eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die and go to hell."

I stand foursquare with those great scholars of over a century ago, the bishops and archbishops of the Church of England who protested the lapse of faith of one of their number, Bishop Colenso, [who said:]


I am calling the publisher this morning and having him send you the three books which the Lord helped me GREATLY in compiling and publishing. One of them WHICH BIBLE? (350 p. and now in its 11th ed.) has been used to show Christians they have no need of questioning or doubting or correcting the Holy Word of a Holy God.

I fear friend Lewis, that we are re-enacting the sad tragedy of the golden calf by worshipping the golden calf of scholarship. I believe in and thank God for truly Christian scholarship but NOT the type that builds on a foundation of sand such as four theories that do not have ONE fact to rest upon and yet have been used in all of the modern translations:


May the good Lord deliver us from such! Poor Westcott & Hort plucked those out of thin air and foisted them upon a gullible public which swallowed them hook, line, sinker and bait.

God bless you friend Lewis. Keep looking UP! Its MUCH, MUCH later than we think and THAT is the understatement of ALL understatements for the year.

Faithfully yours,

David Otis Fuller Sr.

Jer. 6:10, 11a
Isa. 8:19, 20

PS: Please pardon this atrocious typing. I SHOULD know something of the duties of a secretary, having had four full time ones when pastor of a large church here in the city for 40 years. But I have come to the solid and convinced conviction that as a secretary I would make an excellent blacksmith! SOOOOOO–when you see one of the numerous errors–blame the blacksmith! [Typing corrected - aal].

A. Allison Lewis
19 Suvla Rd.
Grand Falls, NF A2A 2A6

February 25, 1987  

Dr. David Otis Fuller
Box 7096
Grand Rapids, MI 49510

Dear Dr. Fuller:

Thank you for taking the time to reply (October 2, 1986) to my letter to you of September 24. Thank you also for the books, booklets and leaflets which you sent to me. I have since spent some time going through your literature (much of it of course I had already seen either in your own publications or that of others).

It is unfortunate that you were misquoted by Mrs. Y. Waite as to the source of your reference (i.e.) Machen incorrectly for R. D. Wilson. That is, however, quite irrelevant to the point in that part of my letter of September 24 as I will point out in a later paragraph.

There were two (2) issues that I addressed in my letter. FIRST the misuse of the writings of the dead (i.e.) using their writings in your works in a way that implies if not actually stating that they agreed with your position that the King James Version of the Bible contains no errors. SECOND I presented five (5) passages in which the King James Version of the Bible is either misleading or plainly in ERROR. The first issue you sidestepped on a technicality! The second issue–THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM (and the major portion of my letter) in the question concerning the King James Version versus any other version–you just simply IGNORED. PLEASE give me your reply to the issues I pointed out to you concerning those five passages: Matthew 25:46; Psalm 95:11 with Hebrews 3:11 and 4:3; Titus 2:13; 1 John 2:23; and 1 John 5:18.

With regard to your quote from Dr. R. D. Wilson, I do not question that you quote him correctly. However, in view of the published writings of Dr. Wilson I certainly do contest your interpretation of what he meant. Others have also used SIMILAR phraseology without meaning that the translation OR the Greek or Hebrew text in their hand was without error. One example in print is L. Gaussen in his THEOPNEUSTIA [David Scott’s Translation, n.d., published by John Ritchie, Scotland. p. 197] where we read:

. . . not only was the Scripture inspired on the day when God caused it to be written, but that we possess this word inspired eighteen hundred years ago; and that we may still, while holding our sacred text in one hand, and in the other all the readings collected by the learned in seven hundred manuscripts, exclaim, with thankfulness. I hold in my hands my Father’s testament, the eternal word of my God!

R. D. Wilson spent a very long and dedicated life in the study of the Old Testament. His study concerned the Hebrew text and not any English translation of it. Wilson never claimed for any of the available Hebrew manuscripts or any printed edition of the text what you claim for the King James translation. You are, therefore, guilty indeed of misrepresenting the dead. Dr. Wilson did not believe that the King James Version is without error. Your reference to him was for the purpose of using his testimony to support your position that "There’s not a single mistake in the King James Version". Reading Wilson’s published works shows that he held the same position regarding the inspiration of the Bible (the autographs) and the preservation of the Hebrew and Greek manuscript copies of the autographs and the translations of them as did Machen, Warfield and the Hodge’s. Wilson did not claim to have a copy of a Hebrew manuscript or a printed edition of the text free of any and all "mistakes". He did claim to have a RELIABLE Hebrew text. The copyists mistakes he argued (and correctly so) though important were not critical. For example he wrote:

If, however, the original document cannot be produced, certified copies of the original, or copies approximating as nearly as possible to the original, may be introduced as evidence, and will have value for all parties to a controversy in proportion as they are recognized as genuine copies of the original. It is this fact that makes the question of the transmission of the text of the Old Testament fundamental to all discussions based upon the evidence of that text. Only insofar as we can establish a true copy of the original text shall we have before us reliable evidence for our inspection and interpretation. In regard to the Old Testament therefore, the first question to determine is whether we have a reliable copy of the original text. It is my purpose to convince my readers that the answer of experts to this question must be an unhesitating admission that in the text of our common Hebrew Bibles, corrected here and there, especially by the evidence of the ancient versions and through the evidence from paleography, we have presumptively the original text. That is, we have it with SUFFICIENT accuracy to be reliable as evidence on all great questions of doctrine, law, and history [emphasis added-aal].

With respect to some of the numbers as read in the Hebrew text Dr. Wilson wrote:

But, if some think they are incredible, let them remember that numbers, especially when denoted by a system of notation, are the hardest of all facts to transmit correctly. There is usually nothing in the context to preserve them from corruption. They may have been misread in the original sources or changed in the course of copying; but only those who have never engaged in the study of manuscripts will indict a whole document simply because some of the numerical notations are beyond the possibility of being read with certainty or accepted as original.

In your article Is the King James Version Nearest To The Original Autographs? published by The Peoples Gospel Hour you have written:

But first, let us ask a few pointed and practical questions: We as evangelicals believe the Bible to be the Verbally Inspired Word of God, Inerrant - namely, without error. THEN - we ask, is there one version extant among the multiplicity of versions which is without error today? If there is not then we worship a God who is either careless or impotent to keep His Word pure thru the ages. HOW can we say we believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God and yet say there are errors in every translation? [page 1-emphasis is in the printed article - aal].

Again in your article A Position Paper on the Versions of the Bible, published by Which Bible? Society, Inc., you have written:

. . . the glorious truth that God not only WROTE His Holy Word in the beginning thru "holy men of old" moved upon by the Blessed Holy Spirit, but also this same sovereign God KEPT His Word intact, and pure and without error all through the centuries to this present hour.

It all depends on what kind of a God we worship. IF He caused the originals to be written without error what good would that do, if He didn’t, or couldn’t keep His Word without error all thru the centuries? WHERE IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD? When all the volumes of facts are in, there is only ONE answer; found in the KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, which God in His Sovereignty has kept intact and pure and without error all thru these three hundred and fifty years or more [pages 1 and 8 emphasis is in the printed article - aal].

These quotes reveal the heart of your problem (i.e.) you believe that for Christians to have a RELIABLE authority for their religion they must have in their possession a book in their language without any mistake.

THE FACTS ARE that God did not see fit to preserve the original manuscripts (which were indeed without error of any kind and could not be improved by change of any kind) NOR to subsequently ensure that copyists and translators be kept from error in their transmission of the Bible to their own and succeeding generations–including the beloved King James Version. God has, however, seen to it that His Word has been RELIABLY transmitted, both in the Hebrew and Greek copies AND the translations.

A carefully reasoned and understandable answer to your problem is found in Gaussen’s book which has been quoted from in a previous paragraph and whose book you are obviously familiar with for you USED it in one of your own–TRUE or FALSE? [pages 42-45]. Gaussen treats the objections to the inspiration of the Bible in chapter IV. In section I the translations are addressed. He wrote:

It is objected that the fallibility of the translators of the Bible, renders the infallibility of the original text illusory; . . . [this is exactly your contention as quoted above - aal].

The first objection may be stated thus. It is sometimes said to us, You assert that the inspiration of the Scriptures extended to the very words of the original text; but wherefore all this verbal exactness of the Holy Word, seeing that, after all, the greater number of Christians can make use of such versions only as are more or less inexact? Thus, then, the privilege of such an inspiration is lost to the Church of modern times; for you will not venture to say that any translation is inspired.

This is a difficulty which, on account of its insignificance, we felt at first averse to noticing; but we cannot avoid doing so, being assured that it has obtained some currency among us, and some credit also.

Our first remark on this objection must be, that it is not one at all. It does not bear against the fact of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures; it only contests the advantages of that inspiration. With regard to the greater number of readers, it says, the benefit of such an intervention on the part of God, would be lost; because, instead of the infallible words of the original, they never can have better than the fallible words of a translation. But no man is entitled to deny a fact, because he does not at first perceive all the use that may be made of it; and no man is entitled to reject a doctrine for no better reason than that he has not perceived its utility.

. . . It must be acknowledged, then, that this objection, without directly attacking the dogma which we defend, only questions its advantages: these, it tells us, are lost to us, in the operation of translating from the original, and in that metamorphosis disappear.

We proceed, then to show how even this assertion, when reduced to these last terms, rests on no good foundation.

The divine word which the Bible reveals to us, passes through four successive forms before reaching us in a translation. First, it was from all eternity in the mind of God. Next, it was passed by Him into the mind of man. In the third place, under the operation of the Holy Spirit, and by a mysterious process, it passed from the prophets’ thoughts, into the types and symbols of an articulate language; it took shape in words. Finally, after having undergone this first translation, alike important and inexplicable, men have reproduced and counter--chalked it, by a new translation, in passing it from one human language into another human language. Of these four operations, the three first are divine; the fourth alone is human and fallible. Shall it be said, that because the last is human, the divinity of the three former should be a matter of indifference to us? Mark, however, that between the third and the fourth--I mean to say, between the first translation of the thought by the sensible signs of a human language, and the second translation of the words by other words--the difference is enormous. Between the doubts that may cleave to us respecting the exactness of the versions, and those with which we should be racked with respect to the correctness of the original text (if not inspired even in its language), the distance is infinite. It is said; of what consequence is it to me that the third operation is effected by the Spirit of God, if the last be accomplished only by the spirit of man? In other words, what avails it to me that the primitive language be inspired, if the translated version be not so? But people forget, in speaking thus, that we are infinitely more assured of the exactness of the translators, than we could be of that of the original text in the case of all the expressions not being given by God.

Of this, however, we may become perfectly convinced, by ….

1.... In order to a man’s expressing exactly the thought of God, it is necessary, if he be not guided in his language from above, that he have thoroughly comprehended it in its just measure, and in the whole extent and depth of its meaning. But this is by no means necessary in the case of a mere translation. The divine thought being already incarnated, as it were, in the language of the sacred text, what remains to be done in translation is no longer the giving of it a body, but only the changing of its dress, making it say in French what it had already said in Greek, and modestly substituting for each of its words an equivalent word. Such an operation is comparatively very inferior, very immaterial, without mystery, and infinitely less subject to error than the preceding. It even requires so little spirituality, that it may be performed to perfection by a trustworthy pagan who should possess in perfection a knowledge of both languages. The version of an accomplished rationalist who desires to be no more than a translator, I could better trust than that of an orthodox person and a saint, who should paraphrase the text, and undertake to present it to me more complete or more clear in his French than he found it in the Greek or in the Hebrew of the original. And let no one be surprised at this assertion; it is justified by facts. Thus, is not De Wette’s translation, among the Germans, preferred at the present day to that even of the great Luther? At least, is there not greater confidence felt in having the mind of the Holy Spirit in the lines of the Basel professor than in those of the great reformer; because the former has always kept very close to the expressions of his text, as a man of learning subject to the rules of philology alone; while the latter seems at times to have momentarily endeavored after something more, and sought to make himself interpreter as well as translator? . . . No longer, therefore, be it said, "What avails it to me, if the one be human, that the other is divine?"

2. A second character by which we perceive how different these two operations must be, and by which the making of our versions will be seen to be infinitely less subject to the chances of error than the original text (assuming that to be uninspired), is, that while the work required by our translations is done by a great many men of every tongue and country, capable of devoting their whole time and care to it–by men who have from age to age controlled and checked each other, and who have mutually instructed and perfected each other–the original text, on the contrary, behooved to be written at a given moment, and by a single man. With that man there was none but his God to put him right if he made a mistake, and to supply him with better expressions if he had chosen imperfect ones. If God, therefore, did not do this, no one could have done it. And if that man gave a bad rendering of the mind of the Holy Ghost, he had not, like our translators, friends to warn, predecessors to guide, successors to correct, not months, years, and ages in which to review and consummate his work. It was done by one man, and done once for all. This consideration, then, further shows how much more necessary the intervention of the Holy Spirit was to the sacred authors than to their translators.

3. A third consideration, which ought also to lead us to the same conclusion, is, that while all translators of the Scriptures were literate and laborious persons, and versed in the study of language, the sacred authors, on the contrary, were, for the most part, ignorant men, without literary cultivation, without the habit of writing their own tongue, and liable, from that very circumstance, if they expressed fallibly the divine revelation, to give us an infallible thought in a faulty way.

[After two more arguments he concludes this section by writing] Between the passing of the thoughts of God into human words, and the simple turning of these words into other words, the distance is as wide as from Heaven to Earth. God was required for the one; man sufficed for the other. Let it no longer be said, then, What would it avail to us that we have verbal inspiration in the one case, if we have not that inspiration in the other case? for between these two terms, which some would put on an equality, the difference is almost infinite [pages 153-161].

In summary I ask that you consider carefully these issues regarding your defense of your position concerning the KJV:

1. Your denial of any errors or mistakes in the KJV. There are real and not imagined errors in it. It is not merely a problem of an outdated language which could and should be changed.

2. Your affirmation that certain copies and translations of the Bible are inspired and therefore without "a single mistake". The fact is that ONLY the original manuscripts were verbally inspired by God and therefore without error or mistake of any kind.

3. Your use of men who DID NOT hold your position regarding translations AS THOUGH THEY DID.

There is a war to fight which is just as vital today as it was in the 1920’s. What was considered Evangelical, Conservative and Fundamentalist Christianity in the 40’s and 50’s is being swallowed up in the Charismatic and New Evangelical movements of the day. We need a return to believing, preaching and living according to the Word of God.

Yours sincerely,

A. Allison Lewis

2233 Michigan Street, N.E.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503

"Of the 100 versions of the Bible which is nearest to the original manuscripts?"

March 7, 1987

A. Allison Lewis
19 Suvla Road
Grand Falls NF A2A 2A6 Canada

Dear Friend Lewis;

Thanks for your long letter. I honestly feel flattered that you would spend so much time in writing me and I DO hope you will not think ill of me and that I am trying to pass by or ignore these questions which you have raised. I am up to my neck in work and the mail at times is heavy indeed. I am the only one in the office and have been for the past 11 years. We have been running on a shoe string BUT when we know WHO holds the other end (shoe string) we take courage and forge head.

There are just two questions which are the heart of this whole matter of Bible versions. One, do we have a God WHO KEEPS HIS WORD? As He has told us so many times in His Word that He DOES keep it. And then two, do we have one version of the Bible which we can make as our final absolute Authority, high above all other human authorities no matter WHAT they are.

I can answer a ringing YES to both questions. I am certain we DO have a Sovereign God WHO KEEPS HIS WORD and also we have that Word NOW (NOT in the original manuscripts which I personally consider the worst cop-out anyone could ever invent when these manuscripts have been lost for centuries.

I am not infallible, by any means. BUT when I know that this Sovereign God has honored and used and blessed and kept His Holy Word found in the KJV for the past 375 years AND ALSO when I know, as FAR as I know, there is not another version of the Bible which has ever started a revival blessed of God in any community or city.

This is a life or death matter with me and so very many with those to whom I write. IF–we do not have this inerrant, pure, true Word of God NOW THEN we are of all men most miserable and have but one option left; Let’s eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die and go to hell.

I am not a scholar, never claimed to be one but it has been my privilege, as I may have told you in my correspondence with you, to study under some of the greatest scholars in this country or indeed the world. It is true that "Das" Machen, my Greek teacher, (what a man and what a scholar he was) held to the W&H Greek text. The reason for that is, when I attended Princeton Seminary there was only ONE SIDE EVER REFERRED TO. The Greek T.R. (textus receptus) was unheard of as far as those in the Seminary were concerned [Emphasis added–aal].

"Every WORD of God is pure" (Prov. 30:5). "Thou hast magnified thy WORD above all thy Name" (Psalm 138:2b).

Page 2

I roomed across the hall from J. Gresham Machen for three years. I came to know him very well and I thought so much of him I asked him if he would be best man at our wedding, which he kindly consented to do. I am certain as I am about anything that IF "Das" Machen had known the other side he never would have considered the W&H text and theory both of which are the worst imaginable.

Again I say I hope you will not think ill of me for not answering your five or six page letter much as I would like to, but I just cannot neglect the mail that comes in every day and I have no secretary to help me with the mail. I hope to sometime and keep asking the Lord for funds to do so. The Lord knows what He is doing (He always does) and in His own good time He will supply I feel sure.

God bless you Allison. If you are ever in this vicinity give me a ring and if you have time I would be happy to have you as my guest for luncheon. My phone is 1(616)452-6400.

Keep looking UP! Its MUCH MUCH later than we think! And THAT is the understatement of ALL understatements for the year!

Faithfully yours,

David Otis Fuller Sr.

Jer. 6:10, 11a
Isa. 8:19, 20

2233 Michigan Street, N.E.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503

"Of the 100 Versions of the Bible which is nearest to the original manuscripts?"

February, 1987

To All On Our Mailing List:

Just returned from Florida! We were offered three weeks in a condo free and all expenses paid. We could not resist!

This is NOT an appeal for funds, I MEAN THAT! But I do ask you to PRAY FOR ME! I am the only one here in the office, at times I use a part time secretary (very part time). I thought I would be getting quite a bit of mail when I returned. I am confronted with a VOLUME of it!

I am doing the best I can, but I will make mistakes. Please forgive any oversights, not answering questions and requests.


I have, I believe with all by heart, the TRUE, INFALLIBLE, INERRANT WORD OF GOD, found in the KING JAMES VERSION. I have used the old (not the New Scofield Bible, which I cannot possibly recommend) Scofield Reference Bible for over 50 years. The notes help but are not inspired. I claim without hesitation, I have the true, pure, inerrant Word of God. If and when I am challenged and they tell me (the scholars) this and that should be changed, I merely reply, "I have in my hand the Holy Word of a Holy God which He has protected and directed to be brought into being by some 48-50 truly great scholars of that era or any era of world history. GOD HAS KEPT HIS WORD IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, JUST AS HE DID IN THE ORIGINALS [emphasis added - aal], which are lost forever now. God knows and understands English as well as Greek and Hebrew!.

IF–this GREAT GOD cannot or will not keep His word, I could not and would not worship Him, BUT HE HAS KEPT HIS WORD IN THE OLD KJV and I will accept it AS SUCH no matter how many others tell me I am wrong, because the scholars say it is wrong. I am all for scholarship when it is based on facts and not nebulous, cobwebby, good-for-nothing theories such as:

1. Transcriptional probability
2. Intrinsic probability
3. Syrian recension
4. Neutral text

Not one of which has one single fact to rest upon and yet all the modern versions are based upon these four utterly worthless theories.

It was my great privilege to study under some of the greatest scholars in this country or indeed the world, while attending Princeton Seminary. All of the professors then believed the Bible to be the true Word of God as found in the King James Version [Emphasis added - aal]. Robert Dick Wilson - fluent in 45 languages and dialects. J. Gresham Machen - my Greek Professor, one of the greatest men I have ever met. Cornelius Van Til - a brilliant philosopher and Bible teacher. Casper Wistar Hodge - grandson of the great Charles Hodge, who would say in class, "Gentlemen, if it had not been for the Grace of God in saving me, I would have been an atheist!"

"Every WORD of God is pure." (Prov. 30:5) "Thou hast magnified thy WORD above all thy Name." (Psalm 138:2b)

Page 2

Please let me know if I have failed to send material you have requested or to answer your questions about the Bible. BUT REMEMBER, YOU WILL NEVER, NEVER GO WRONG IF YOU STAND OPENLY AND UNASHAMEDLY FOR THE KJV AS BEING YOUR FINAL AUTHORITY, ABOVE EVERY SINGLE OTHER AUTHORITY ON PLANET EARTH [emphasis added - aal]. Please - make your letter as short and concise as possible. Without a secretary I am handicapped. PRAY that the Lord will help us employ full time at least one person to help carry this load. All our bills are paid. We do not believe in going into debt. My dear Mother, now with the Lord, instilled in me a horror of debt of any kind and I am glad she did.

Friendly warning: AS YOU STAND WITHOUT APOLOGY OR QUESTION FOR THE KJV AS YOUR FINAL AUTHORITY, ABOVE ALL OTHERS, THEN YOU WILL LOSE FRIENDS AND MAKE ENEMIES. My only reply to that is "SO WHAT!". "Shall we be carried to the skies, On flow’ry beds of ease, While others fought to win the prize, and sailed thru bloody seas?"

REMEMBER–your forefathers and mine, rotted in dungeons, hung from the gallows, burned at the stake, were beheaded. ALL BECAUSE THEY MADE THE HOLY BIBLE (KJV) THEIR FINAL, ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY. The thin veneer of civilization is wearing off fast. The historian was so right when he penned the brief couplet: "SAD MORAL OF ALL HUMAN TALES, ’TIS BUT THE SAME REHEARSAL OF THE PAST, FIRST FREEDOM, THEN GLORY, WHEN THAT FAILS. WEALTH - VICE - CORRUPTION - BARBARISM - AT LAST"

The hour is late, I need not tell you. A poor sinner with an IQ of 10 can see that. There is so much evidence, concrete and iron clad, proving (for those who are willing to FACE THE FACTS and not push them away, not wishing to be confused by them) that the King James Version is exactly the version God expects us to live by, believe by, study by and if needs be, die by and for, because He has blessed and used and kept and honored the KJV for the past 375 years and that SHOUTS to me. He expects us to do the same thing as long as He allows us life on planet Earth. And woe be unto us if we don’t!

I am enclosing a brochure which tells you of three books (among many others) with a total of 900 pages filled with documented, steel plated facts concerning the authority and accuracy of the King James Version. IF - you cannot stand to loose friends and make enemies, and be ostracized in any Christian circles, than forget it please! But remember, you and I will stand before a Holy God some day and give an account as to what we did or did not do to lift up and magnify and stand for and proclaim the Holy Word of a Holy God which He has placed His stamp, His seal of approval upon for the past 375 years. I certainly do not wish to stand before Him with bowed head, reddened face, ashamed because I allowed the Devil, garbed as an "ANGEL OF LIGHT" to deceive me, frustrate me and dilute my testimony for the Lord in the VERY LAST DAYS. To my knowledge, NOT ONE SINGLE REVIVAL FOR THE PAST 375 YEARS HAS EVER BEEN LIGHTED AND CAUSED TO FLAME HIGH ACROSS THIS DARKENING WORLD, EXCEPT THROUGH THE KING JAMES VERSION.

Again, please believe me, I am not in any oblique way asking you for money when I say PLEASE PRAY FOR ME, if you believe in the almighty, sovereign, compelling, miracle working power of prayer.

God bless you abundantly, and I mean just that. Keep looking UP! It’s MUCH, MUCH later than we think! And that is the understatement of the year!

Faithfully yours,

Dr. David Otis Fuller, Sr.

Jer. 6:10, 11a
Isa. 8:19, 20

2233 Michigan Street, N.E
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503

"Of the 100 Versions of the Bible which is nearest to the original manuscripts?"



King James still reigns

The Press recently gave quite a bit of space to the New International Version of the Bible. ("NIV dethrones King James," Nov, 22). I would hope you would allow space for a reply in favor of the King James Version (KJV).

It has been my privilege to study this question of Bible versions for many years. Without hesitation I can say that if a Christian will take the KJV as his or her final, absolute authority, and test every other version by it, with the facts being so abundantly in favor of it, he will never go wrong.

For the past 375 years God has blessed and used and honored the KJV to millions of those who believe it to be the true, pure, unerring Word of God. This tells all those who make the KJV their final, absolute authority, God expects them to do the same as long as they are alive on planet Earth.

All the plays of Shakespeare were written in the same English as the KJV, but not once has any group of Shakespearean scholars ever tried to change the wording in any play [!-aal].

The concrete evidence is so very much in favor of the KJV that I cannot help wondering how anyone could say there was another side. The only reason for such is that they do not wish to be confused by the facts.

I know of no other Bible version that has ever brought revival to any area or community except the KJV. If such has happened I would consider it a great favor if they would tell me about it and the circumstances involved.

Pastor Emeritus
Wealthy Park Baptist Church

All the evidence anyone could ever ask for, favoring the King James Version as being nearest BY FAR to the original manuscripts, AND ALSO FAR, FAR, more accurate and authoritative than ALL of the modern versions, can be secured in three books!
WHICH BIBLE? (350 p. Now in its 11th ed.) Price $8.95.
TRUE OR FALSE? (290 p. Now in its 6th ed.) Price $7.95.
COUNTERFEIT OR GENUINE? Mark 16? John 8? (200 p. Now in its 4th ed.) Price $7.95.

Nearly 900 pages filled with documented evidence from some of the world’s greatest scholars showing so clearly that the KJV is indeed the ONE version God has blessed and used and honored and kept for the past 375 years. That tells us plainly WE should do the same.

May be secured at Kregel Publishers, 525 Eastern Ave., S.E.

"Every WORD of God is pure" (Prov. 30:5). "Thou hast magnified thy WORD above all thy Name." (Psalm 138:2b).

Return To Main Page

This Page Last Updated: 11/08/08 A. Allison Lewis