October 2, 2001 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org) The book From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man is filled with errors. (Most are dealt with in the extensive Bible Version Question-Answer Database at the Way of Life web site.) One of these is the charge made on page 141 that the King James translators gave their recommendation to all versions and refused to condemn any Bible translation.

The following answer to this false accusation is from Jeffrey Khoo's review of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man. Dr. Khoo is the Academic Dean of the Far Eastern Bible College in Singapore. (His review is available in the booklet "Reviews of the book From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man" by Thomas Strouse and J. Khoo, Pensacola Baptist Seminary, Pensacola, Florida.)

Following is an excerpt from Dr. Khoo's review:

In support of modern and corrupt versions, John Mincy (one of the authors of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man) argued that the KJV translators themselves "viewed even the worst English versions as the Word of God" (p. 141). He quoted them as saying, "Now to answer our enemies; we do not deny, rather we affirm and insist that the very worst translation of the Bible in English issued by Protestants contains the word of God, or rather, is the word of God."

This statement is most illogical and totally unbiblical!

Were the KJV translators capable of those words; the ones who extolled truth and condemned error? Consider what they wrote in their preface: "The Translators to the Readers."

"But now what piety without truth? What truth (what saving truth) without the word of God? What word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search (John 5:39; Isa. 8:20). They are reproved that were unskillful in them, or slow to believe them (Matt. 22:29; Luke 24:25). They can make us wise unto salvation (2 Tim. 3:15). If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us. Tolle, lege, Tolle, lege, Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures. . . . The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them? . . . It is not only an armor, but also a whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves and put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine. It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oil, which were for memory only, or for a meal's meat or two; but as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great, and as it were a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts discharged. In a word, it is a panary of wholesome food, against fenowed traditions; a physician's shop . . . of preservatives against poisoned heresies; a pandect of profitable laws against rebellious spirits; a treasure of most costly jewels against beggarly rudiments; finally, a fountain of most pure water springing up unto everlasting life. . . . Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night."

Could the men who penned the above words have sanctioned a corrupted translation of the Scriptures? Would they have cried, Tolle, lege, Tolle, lege, if John 1:29 had read thus, "Behold the Pig of God, which taketh away the sin of the world"? [This is how one common language version in South Asia reads.] If the "fountain of most pure water" had been polluted by enemies of the Word in such a way, I am quite certain that the KJV translators would have cursed that version for blasphemy, and cast it into the fire. It is truly absurd for Mincy to think that the KJV translators humoured wicked versions.

Indeed the Puritans among the KJV translators appealed to the king for a new English Bible because the Bible as found in the Communion book was, according to them, "a most corrupted translation." Evidently, corrupt translations did not sit well with them at all.

The question remains: Did the KJV translators really say that the "worst" versions are acceptable? They certainly did not. Mincy's quotation of the KJV translators is taken from Rhodes and Lupas's paraphrase (published by the American Bible Society in 1997) of the original statement. It is obvious that Rhodes and Lupas felt quite free to change the original intent of the words, taking them out of context. How did the original version read?

"Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King's speech which he uttered in parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace"

It is clear that by the word "meanest" they did not mean "worst" (i.e., "evil in the highest degree"). Who would dare mistranslate the king's speech? Clearly they were not talking about sense but style. By "meanest" they meant poor in literary grace. When beginning Greek students translate their Greek Bible into English, it may be rough and wooden; but if literal and precise, it is the Word of God.