Whenever I read the word, “Bibles,” I get a bit of a chill down my spine.  Which Bible is the right Bible if there are plural Bibles, not singular Bible?  Isn’t there just one?  Why are we still producing more and different Bibles?  How many are there?  What I’m describing is the biggest issue today with translations, not the King James Version, but now it gets little to no coverage compared to other so-called problems.

Many anti-KJVO books have been written, most often, and this continues to be the case with Butler’s book, calling KJVO (King James Version Onlyism) “dangerous.”  It’s true that many KJV Onlyists do not believe a scriptural bibliology.  I would contend that most are sound, but it’s true also that many are not.  That would be a worthwhile criticism of KJVO, confronting those who do not believe in the preservation of scripture, who do not believe God preserved His Words in the original languages, apparently necessitating God’s correction of them in an English translation.  This happens to be the same doctrinal position as Fred Butler.  He just deals with the consequences of that belief in a different way.

I don’t know how “dangerous” it is to believe in a single Bible of which translation for English speaking people is the King James Version.  How will that get someone in trouble?  What’s the danger?  Even though Butler calls the position dangerous, he doesn’t explain why anywhere in his book, which I find is most often the case with books of this kind.  In general, KJVO take the general position that there is only one Bible, which there is.  That is a biblical, logical, and historical position:  one Bible.  Several Bibles is not.

In his preface, recounting his own personal journey away from the King James Version, Butler says,

I found myself helping them [speaking of others also departing] think critically through KJVO argumentation, as well as develop an orthodox view of our English Bibles.

Why and how is it orthodox to refer to the Bible in the plural, “Bibles”?  Again, there is only one Bible, and historically Christians have believed in only one.  Some type of multiple-versionism, I believe, creates far more confusion and danger.  Usually orthodoxy refers to doctrine.  Is the doctrine behind multiple versions and textual criticism orthodox?  It’s popular today, but not orthodox.

I’m not going to debunk most of the arguments of Butler’s book.  His book is exploring zero new territory others cover much more than he.  He mainly addresses KJVO advocates of either double inspiration or English preservationism, very low hanging fruit.  He barely to if-at-all distinguishes one view from another.  He lumps Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger with Edward Hills, D. A. Waite, and David Cloud.  He uses a very broad brush.  I would not anticipate his persuading one person to his position.

One unique argument I had never read was that KJVO are not Calvinist.   The idea here is that if you’re not a Calvinist, then you must be wrong in this position on the Bible.  The biggest movement of those who exclusively use the KJV as an English translation are Calvinists.  The Westminster Confession and London Baptist Confession, as well as many of these Calvinist confessions, hold to the perfect preservation of scripture, which is a one Bible position.

An orthodox view should be a scriptural view.  Butler doesn’t establish any kind of biblical and historical view of the preservation of scripture.  Butler writes this:

It is true God calls us to have faith, but our faith is grounded upon objective truth.

What is objective truth?  Is textual criticism objective truth?  No way, and he doesn’t make that connection.  It can’t be made.  Scripture is the truth on which bibliological positions stand.  Butler takes the view agreed by modern evangelicalism, not based upon scripture.  He has not faced a bit of criticism from the evangelicals who interview him.  He should sit down for a talk with someone who does not take his position to see how his arguments will stand up.

Most people who use the King James believe that it is an accurate translation of a preserved original language text.  Obviously, the King James Version itself has changed since 1611.  KJV supporters know that.  This indicates that they believe that the preservation of scripture occurs in the Hebrew and Greek text.  Butler writes:

The Bible never claims God’s Word is only found in one translation.  KJV onlyism is unsupported by the Bible itself.

Maybe that confronts Ruckmanism, but I’ve never heard a single person attempt to defend single-translationism from the Bible. The French, Spanish, Russian, etc. can all have a translation from the same text as the King James Version.  Butler knows this, but he makes this claim anyway, and it’s a strawman.  It doesn’t help anyone.  More than anything it gives fresh meat to evangelical friends in an evangelical bubble.  On the other hand, he never lays out what the Bible does claim.

There are varied views on preservation among evangelicals.  I don’t know of one modern version supporter, who believes in perfect preservation of scripture.  Daniel Wallace doesn’t believe scripture teaches the preservation of scripture and he has many supporters. That is now a very common view.  He believes in the preservation of the Word, but not the Words.  Butler takes a view that might be the most common for evangelicals.  Most evangelicals in the pew don’t know this position, but perhaps the majority of conservative evangelical leaders take the position Butler describes:

Yes, I believe God preserves His Word, but I believe it is in the totality of all the available manuscript evidence, variants and copyist errors included.

Try to find that in historical bibliological literature.  You won’t find it.  It really is a reactionary position to textual criticism among evangelicals.  It isn’t a biblical position.  Nowhere does the Bible teach it.  It’s very much like what you might read on creation today.  Confronted with science, professing Christians invent a day age theory for old earth creationism.

Almost all of what Butler finds are theologians, often unbelieving ones, willing to admit that there are copyist errors, which produce textual variants.  He and others act like KJVO don’t know that or don’t believe it happened.  The history of God’s preservation of scripture is not the same parchment and ink making its way down through time in a pristine condition.  God preserved His Words.  This physical copy view is not taught in the Bible and it’s only made up as a straw man to create a faux argument.

When you read Butler’s view in his above quote, look carefully at what he says.  First, he says God preserves His Word, not God preserved, completed action, like Jesus said, “It is written,” in the perfect tense.  He doesn’t say “Words,” because He would never say that.  It’s God’s Word in a very ambiguous sense.  Jesus said, my words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35).  Where does the Bible or even history present this “totality of available manuscript evidence” position?

For Butler the text isn’t settled, like the Bible speaks about itself. He doesn’t know what the Words are.  He doesn’t know all of the ones by which He is to live by.  I would contend he doesn’t even believe the position he espouses.  How would he account for new evidence, which is still coming?  What does he do with a passage like 1 Samuel 13:1?  I’ve never read an evangelical, who takes his position, who believes that we possess a manuscript with the very words of that verse.

What motivated me to write this post was one aspect of Butler’s book and that is his attack on the teaching of preservation in scripture.  Among everything that he writes, I want to deal only with Psalm 12:6-7, mainly to show how men like him deal with these preservation texts.  He writes:

The one passage that nearly all KJVO advocates use for establishing the promise argument is Psalm 12:6,7. . . . The immediate antecedent for the plural pronoun them is the plural pronoun, words. Thus, it would seem to make sense that we can conclude God has promised to preserve His words in a physical text.

The Hebrew language, however, is sharply different from English in that it has grammatical gender, something not common to English.  In Hebrew, the pronouns will match the antecedent nouns in both number and gender.  Here in Psalm 12:6, 7, the two thems of verse 7 are masculine in gender and with the second them being singular.

The closest antecedents in our English translation, the two nouns words found in verse 6, are feminine, so they do not match the masculine thems.

Butler goes on to say that “them” refers to the poor and needy back in verse 5 because they’re feminine.  Butler’s argument here has been thoroughly debunked.  He’s wrong.  First, however, there are many verses in the Bible that teach the perfect preservation of every Word of God.   Psalm 12:6, 7 are two of many.  There is a great chapter on these verses by Thomas Strouse in Thou Shalt Keep Them, our book on the preservation of scripture.  I’ve also written a lot on it (here, here, and here).

Here’s the short of it.  Repeatedly in the Old Testament, and as a part of Hebrew grammar, a masculine pronoun refers to a feminine Word of God.  You see it again and again in Psalm 119, the psalm entirely about the Word of God (verses 111, 129, 152, 167).  There are many other examples.  You can find this very rule in Gesenius’s Hebrew grammar, which I used in second year Hebrew in graduate school.

The number argument doesn’t work either, which is why the KJV translators translated the pronoun, “them,” the second time.  That’s also Hebrew grammar.  It is very common after a plural pronoun for a singular to follow in order to particularize every individual in the group.  A collective plural is suggested by the singular.  This is also why the NKJV translators, who are not KJVO, translated it “them.”

The Hebrew grammar says just the opposite of what Butler writes.  Critical text and modern version men continue to trot out this argument, when they should well know that it’s been answered many times.  I’ve never had one of them attempt to deal with it, because it is irrefutable.  It’s why many, many preachers and theologians through the centuries, including Jewish scholars, have said that “them” in verse seven refers to God’s “words” in verse six.  The gender disagreement argument is a moot point.  Without gender, the rule reverts back to proximity, and “words” is the closest antecedent to “them.”

Either Butler didn’t know the gender disagreement argument or he assumed that his readers wouldn’t know any better.  Knowing the Hebrew grammar and reading what he wrote, it reads like he was just borrowing from the writings of other people.  I’ve read this argument from Douglas Kutilek online.  He’s been confronted with the Hebrew grammar and he’s never answered me or anyone else on it.  He does not know what he’s talking about.

So much more could be said in review of Fred Butler’s book, but rest assured that God has preserved every one of His Words in the language in which He inspired them, and made them available for every generation of believers.  The King James Version is an accurate translation of those Words.