Updated November 15, 2006 (first published March 22, 2000) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

This is another installment in our series of testimonies of men and organizations that defend the King James Bible.

[The following is excerpted from the book For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Bible and the Received Text from 1800 to Present, copyright 1997 by David W. Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061 --

Jack Moorman (1941- ) has written several books and a number of articles in defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Greek and Hebrew texts. His book Forever Settled is a 300-page hardbound survey of the Bible version issue. It was prepared as a course for Gethsemane Bible College in Johannesburg, South Africa. In the foreword the author says, “I believe that God laid a hot coal on my heart concerning this subject some sixteen years ago, and the present survey is a systematizing of material gathered during that time.” This is dated October 1985. Other books by Moorman are Conies, Brass, and Easter: Answers to ‘Problem’ Passages in the Authorized Version; A Closer Look: Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version; and Early Church Fathers and the Authorized Version: A Demonstration. All of these are available from The Bible for Today (900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108).

Moorman graduated from Tennessee Temple Bible College in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in the 1960s and traveled to South Africa to begin a missionary church-planting ministry. He was there from 1968-88, counting two years he lived in England during that time. They started five churches, a Bible Institute, and a tract printing ministry. In 1988 they moved to England, and since November 1993, he has preached in London, and carried on a tract ministry to more than fifty market areas across the city.

It was during his years in South Africa that Moorman began an earnest examination of the Bible version issue.

“As with most who left Bible colleges (Tennessee Temple) in the 1960’s for the mission field, I knew nothing of the text and translation issue. In [1969 or 1970]  I became interested, and from the considerable libraries in Johannesburg, began to build up a file of textual material. This, in addition to separate volumes, is contained in 67 ring binders and has provided a good pool to work from. Today, as then, there is little formal training available in this area for those of our conviction and as most of the first-hand research is done by our opponents, it has been a case of getting as much as we can on our own and ‘out of the eater came forth meat’” (Letter, February 14, 1994).

In contrast to many that claim there is no harm in the multiplicity of Bible versions, Moorman understands just how crucial the Bible version issue is:

“THE DEBATE OVER THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS AS CRUCIAL AS ANY WE FACE TODAY. A NATION, CHURCH, OR INDIVIDUAL IS ONLY AS STRONG AS ITS BIBLE. The harvest can only be as good and full as the seed sown. The final court of appeal is no longer final if there are others of equal standing. MANY OF GOD’S PEOPLE NO LONGER HAVE AN ULTIMATE AUTHORITY. ‘WHAT DOES GOD’S WORD SAY,’ HAS BEEN REPLACED BY AN ANEMIC, ‘HOW DOES THIS VERSION RENDER THE PASSAGE.’ ... Those who defend the God-honored version are made to appear divisive, while the ones introducing the new and criticising the old ‘have a more balanced view.’ And so it goes.

“The attacks against the Book have become more virulent and sophisticated. Some of the heaviest blows have come from within the halls of evangelicalism and fundamentalism, and there is a strange peer pressure to conform. Faithfulness to a school, church, mission board is often placed above faithfulness to that Book which brought these institutions into being” (Jack Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the ‘Majority’ Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version, Preface, July 1988, p. iii).

The thing that most impresses me about Jack Moorman’s writings is his confidence in God’s promise of preservation. Consider this excerpt from his article “Modern Bibles—the Dark Secret,” which first appeared in Foundation magazine, September-October 1992:

“One hundred years ago John Burgon wrote: ‘If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been providentially preserved through the ages.’ This is the crux of the matter; does God preserve that Word which He originally inspired? And if so, to what extent? Is it merely the concepts and basic message that is kept intact; or does preservation, as inspiration, extend to the words themselves? ... We have a strange anomaly today; Christians claim to believe what the Bible says about it’s own inspiration but virtually ignore the equally direct statements concerning preservation. TO SAY THAT YOU BELIEVE IN THE FULL INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ACCEPTING THE TEXTUAL THEORIES INHERENT IN THE MODERN VERSIONS, IS ABOUT AS INCONGRUOUS AS TAKING GENESIS ONE LITERALLY WHILE HOLDING TO THE THEORIES OF DARWIN.”

Moorman’s “Modern Bibles—the Dark Secret” (available from Plain Paths Publishers, P.O. Box 830, Columbus, NC 28722, http://www.plainpath.org, 828-863-2736, plain@juno.com), contains an excellent overview of the Bible’s teaching on the Preservation of Scripture.

We would make mention of one more of Jack Moorman’s books: When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version. Consider some excerpts from this extremely important book:

Until recently the defense of the King James Version was a one-on-one debate with the Critical Text (Nestle-Aland, UBS, etc.). Much has been written. In recent days new arguments for and against have been raised. But the issue is still the same—the vast majority of MSS on the KJV side versus a few old ones for the critical texts and modern versions.

Now a new element has been introduced (though certain aspects of it have long been recognized), with the publication of ‘The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text’ (1982), published by Thomas Nelson, under the editorship of Zane Hodges and A.L. Farstad.

The Majority Text Edition concludes that the Greek text of our Authorised Version is represented by minority MS support in over 1800 readings and therefore is defective in these places. Thus our opponents (Critical Text, Modern Versions) say the AV New Testament is wrong in 5,300 places, and now our friends say it’s off in 1,800.

Zane Hodges has been a good ally. Several of the consulting editors, Harry Sturz, Jakob Van Bruggen, Alfred Martin, and Wilbur Pickering have contributed strongly to the defense of the Traditional Text. But, with this production they have left us with a ‘tentative’ Bible.

This is plainly stated on the jacket (second edition): ‘Scholarly discipline permeates the editor’s logic and conclusions; yet Hodges and Farstad make no claim that this text in all its particulars is the exact form of the originals.’ On page x we are told: ‘The editors do not imagine that the text of this edition represents in all particulars the exact form of the originals ... It should therefore be kept in mind that the present work ... is both preliminary and provisional.

WE ARE BOUND TO ASK, IF THIS ISN’T [THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD], IF THE AV-RECEIVED TEXT ISN’T, IF THE CRITICAL TEXT ISN’T; WHERE MUST WE GO TO GET A BIBLE TODAY? IF AFTER THESE CENTURIES WE STILL HAVE ONLY A PROVISIONAL, PRELIMINARY, TENTATIVE BIBLE, WHAT ARE WE TO DO? 

Three major errors of judgment have led to this ‘provisional’ edition:

1. The editors do not want to be seen relying upon God’s preservation of the text. 2. They have resorted to a source which cites only a minority of the evidence. 3. They have followed the wrong stream of MSS in the Book of Revelation.

Scrivener and Hoskier in an earlier generation, and Hodges, Pickering with others in our day have made an immeasurable contribution in defending the Received Text against the Hortian theories. They have provided us with a great store of factual material ... But sadly in Hoskier, Scrivener, and the editors of the Majority Text Edition, little or no reference is made to God’s promises of preserving Scripture. In fact, Hodges and Farstad make absolutely no mention of it. Thus, the foundation for textual research has been taken away.

Wilbur Pickering is listed as one of the consulting editors. His book The Identity of the New Testament Text has done a great deal to clarify and cause a rethink concerning Westcott and Hort. He is careful to state that he believes in preservation, yet in the presentation of his material he says: ‘I have deliberately avoided introducing any arguments based upon inspiration and preservation in the preceding discussion in the hope that I may not be misrepresented by critics in the same way that Burgon has been’ (p. 153).

But if the critics misrepresent us because we present Biblical truth, and if they become uncomfortable with this, what does it matter? Who are we trying to please, God or man? Must we participate in their neutrality and unbelief in order to gain a hearing from them? Must we yield to peer pressure? Must we put our good friends ahead of our good Bible?

WHEN AN INQUIRER INTO THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE (EVEN A DEFENDER OF THE RECEIVED TEXT) TAKES THIS NEUTRAL APPROACH IN ACCESSING THE EVIDENCE, IT WILL INEVITABLY LEAD DOWN THIS DEAD-END STREET OF HAVING ONLY A TENTATIVE BIBLE.

Notice the disturbing kind of statement Pickering is prepared to make: ‘We do not at this moment have the precise wording of the original text’ (The Identity of the New Testament Text p. 153). ‘When all this evidence is in I believe the Textus Receptus will be found to differ from the original in something over a thousand places’ (pp. 232,33). ‘Most seriously misleading is the representation that I am calling for a return to the Textus Receptus ... While men like Brown, Fuller and Hills do call for a return to the TR as such, Hodges and I do not. We are advocating what Kurt Aland has called the majority text (‘Queen Anne ... and All That’: A Response, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 1978, p. 165).

Also listed as a consulting editor to the Majority Text Edition is Harry A. Sturz. ... Sturz presents a number of other not-so-well-known areas of evidence for the Byzantine text. We owe him a great debt for his research.  However, when he seeks to deny the theological/supernatural arguments for the preservation of the text he becomes unmoored.

You may be forgiven if you have difficulty understanding the following statement, or think it to be contradictory: ‘It should be pointed out that providential preservation is not a necessary consequence of inspiration. Preservation of the Word of God is promised in Scripture, and inspiration and preservation are related doctrines, but they are distinct from each other, and there is a danger of making one the necessary corollary of the other. The Scriptures do not do this. God, having given the perfect revelation by verbal inspiration, was under no special or logical obligation to see that man did not corrupt it’ (emphasis added) (The Byzantine Text, p. 38).

Coming now to Zane Hodges: In seeking to deny the charge that he might be leaning a little toward a theological/supernatural stance in textual matters, he gives the following lame reply when questioned about his contribution to the excellent book Which Bible?. ‘Finally, Fee ... seems to wish to continue to tag me with a theological slant that I have explicitly disavowed. The fact that I allowed an article of mine to be reprinted in a volume all of whose perspectives I did not share should not be used against me’ (‘Modern Textual Criticism and the Majority Text: A Surrejoinder,’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 1978, p. 163).

What a refreshing contrast it is to see the following appraisal of Edward Hills’ position: ‘He integrated the theological perspective with the discipline of New Testament text criticism. This is a taboo that recent Majority Text advocates have attempted not to transgress, preferring to work from within a purely scientific framework’ (King James Version Defended, p. vi).

So in order to gain a little respectability (the leading and liberal textual critic George Kilpatrick writes a commendation on the jacket), Hodges, Farstad and friends find themselves firmly in a textual half-way house (Jack Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version).

In this large work (153 pages, 8.5X11-inch format) Jack Moorman demonstrates the following: (1) the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text is established upon an insufficient and faulty foundation (the Von Sodom apparatus and the 046 MSS of Revelation); therefore, their conclusion that in 1,800 places the Authorized New Testament lacks majority text support is in error. “These two factors account for the vast majority of readings which they would like to alter in the Received Text.” (2) Even most of the remaining passages which do seem to have only a minority of MS support, “nevertheless [have] quite substantial support.” Moorman presents this support in 87 pages of listings. (3) Even the verse which has supposedly has less manuscript support than any other in the Authorized Version (1 John 5:7) has a wide variety of support and is inspired Scripture. Moorman gives an overview of the internal and external evidence for this important verse.

FOR LOVE OF THE BIBLE

Way of Life Literature has printed the second edition of a new book which traces the history of the defense of the KJV and the Received Text from 1800 to present. David W. Cloud is the author. The book, entitled FOR LOVE OF THE BIBLE: THE BATTLE FOR THE KING JAMES VERSION AND THE RECEIVED TEXT FROM 1800 TO PRESENT, is 460 pages and contains a 33-page bibliography and an extensive index. It has a lovely blue-vinyl hard cover binding. We spent several thousand dollars researching this material during the last few years and have written several hundred letters in this connection, communicating with men from around the world who stand for the KJV today. The book includes hundreds of testimonies and biographies; sketches of churches, schools, and organizations which have defended the KJV; a digest of reviews and condensations of major books and articles written in defense of the Old Bible in the past 200 years; excerpts from rare books on this subject which are no longer available; a comprehensive overview of the varied arguments in favor of the KJV. The arguments commonly put forth in defense of the modern versions are shown to be myths. Available from Way of Life Literature.

“For Love of the Bible is a masterpiece. It ought to be in every academic, public, and special library in the world.” (Michael Maynard, author of A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8).