PRIDE IS THE CULPRIT

The King James Bible versus Modernism controversy has been going on for years. Liberals now claim to have won the victory. Supporters of the KJV seem to have basically lost the war over the true Word of God to unbelieving or confused Liberals. The NIV, NASV and other dubious works dominate the market. This is due in large part to our "good, Godly, Fundamentalists" of years gone by who, trying to make themselves appear "educated" in the eyes of the world, seized every opportunity to point out imagined "errors" and "unfortunate mistranslations in the King James Bible. The "venerable" C.I. Scofield, the "grand-daddy" of pulpit evolutionists and undercover modernists, led the way. He made us all think that he preferred and supported the KJV, even supposedly based his Reference Bible on the AV, but check the small print in the margins. There you will find hundreds of corrections, and they come right out of a modern translation!

The anti-KJV activists, along with the modernists, get wackier all the time, and we might wonder how they have managed to get the upper hand, deceiving so many thousands, except for the fact that too many church-goers don't know their Bible, and don't really care to. Just let them sing a few songs on Sunday morning, listen to an uplifting sermon, and then go home to fried chicken and a TV ball game. Sunday school usually is a joke.

The most obnoxious in-your-face Bible rewrite is Luke 2:33. The NASV, NIV, NRSV, and others, referring to the Lord Jesus Christ: "And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were said about Him." For hundreds of years the real Bible made certain no reader would be confused as to who is the Father of Jesus, yet these arrogant geniuses had the audacity to make an "improvement," and now, if you truly believe in their translation, you cannot be sure who His Father really is: the God of heaven, or Joseph?

Ask a Modernist the question, "Who is the Father of Jesus?" and, of course, the reply is that His Father is the God of heaven. It is amazing to see how sure they are of their answer in view of the fact that their favorite Bible is not. But if they believe so strongly that the God in heaven is the Father of Jesus, why yet adhere to a Bible which generates doubt?

When confronted with this obvious aberration of truth, the modern apologist is hard-pressed to find an answer which seems logical and sensible. The answer he does provide is clever, but in reality misses the point, and explains nothing, which is all that anyone trying to explain this nonsense can do. James R. White, an anti-KJV Only enthusiast, writes:

"Luke 2:33 is a textual issue...Here the charge that is leveled is obvious: the use of "father" rather than "Joseph" lends itself to a denial of the virgin birth, making Jesus the Son of Joseph. Yet, given the plain teaching of Luke's gospel that Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus, is it not much more natural to take this term as referring to the role of Joseph in Jesus's life? Was not Joseph the husband of Mary? Are we to believe that Jesus never referred to, or thought of, Joseph as His earthly father? Could this not be a perfectly plausible explanation? Surely it is." (The King James Only Controversy, p 218)

But as to Mr. White's other question, "Are we to believe that Jesus never referred to, or thought of, Joseph as His earthly father? Could this not be a perfectly plausible explanation?"

Mr. White bases this explanation on the conjecture that Jesus (perhaps in His humanity) surely must have thought of Joseph as His "earthly father." But is there any Scripture anywhere to indicate so? There are none. In the Scriptures, there has never been a time when Jesus referred to Joseph as His earthly father. Even at a very young age, when Joseph and Mary found Him in the temple, He didn't say, "Earthly Dad, I must be about my heavenly Father's business." He never refered to Joseph as His father in any way. "And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" (Luke 2:49)

Jesus had many brothers, and sisters, and mothers, but only one Father. All who do His Father's will are His mother, or His sister, or His brother, but nobody can be His Father, spiritual or otherwise; Jesus has only one Father, and He has never dishonored Him by referring to anyone else as His father, earthly, spiritual, or otherwise. Such modern views of Luke 2:33 as expressed by Mr. White come from below, not from above. But the sophisticates who will promote anything as long as it's not the KJV, are never at loss for ways to excuse such blasphemy. He points to all the places in modern translations where there are stronger affirmations of the deity of Christ than in the KJV, as if that is supposed to somehow make up for such obvious blasphemy as calling a mortal, human being His father. Such helpless, hopeless logic is the equivalent of a four-year-old who has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and reminds his mother that, even though the jar is full, he only took one cookie. The King James Bible removes all questions, difficulties, and nonsense, which modern translations create, aand which they cannot overcome, except with more nonsense.

The KJV: "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him" (Luke 2:33). The KJV does not leave us wondering whether or not Joseph is His father. The modernists are caught red-handed, with no reasonable excuse for such a translation whatsoever. Still, the anti-KJV enthusiasts are unstoppable. They searched hard, and found that the KJV is guilty of the same double-standard: "And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." (Luke 2:48) The defender of Modern translations glibly comments: "Here, from the very lips of Mary, no less, we have the use of the term 'father' of Joseph with reference to the Christ Child, and that in the Authorized Version of 1611! This use of 'father' is perfectly consistent with the use of 'father' at Luke 2:33, where both Mary and Joseph are in view as a family unit." This preacher happily has put KJV advocates in their place.

Not quite. There may not always have been the need for formality within the private family unit, and taking shortcuts for practical purposes, such as referring Joseph as the father bore no serious consequences. But that was Mary speaking. We hold Mary, the mother of Christ in high esteem among women, but we don't for a moment believe that what she says must be placed on the same level as that which the Holy Spirit says. That these words from the very lips of Mary are found in the KJV is not at all inconsistent with God's truth. Here, Luke is quoting her verbatim, without error, which is what a Bible writer was supposed to do, but in Luke 2:33 he is directly quoting the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit did not say that Joseph was the father. According to Him, the Father in heaven is Christ's one and only Father. The KJV everywhere, and at all times, reflects this quite accurately.

In Luke 2:41, the KJV refers to Joseph as His parents, but again there is no inconsistency here. Anyone can parent any child. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "parent" as, among other things, "A guardian: protector."

These modern translators did not seek to make their translation better, or more accurate, or more consistent. They simply sought to make their translation different from the KJV, and apparently, didn't pay close attention to what they were doing. Today, their apologists are in a strain to find logical excuses for some of their incompetent dabblings in the Word of God.