For decades, Chick Publications Inc. has gained popularity for attacking deceptive religious systems, hence, one would expect it to have a high degree of intellectual honesty in what it presents to the public. Sadly, that is not the case.
In fact, the Body of Christ needs to scrutinise and fact-check the claims made in their vlogs, books, articles and comics.
Last year, I pointed out a number of egregious errors and deliberate falsehoods in their materials which tragically continue to emanate from that ministry even now that its leadership rein in now in the hands of David Daniels.
The misleading information and flawed arguments in the Battle Cry May/June 2017 article entitled “Pope Decides It’s Okay to Read the Bible?” underscore the fact that KJV onlyism can only be sustained on tissues of lies.
I will be responding to that article. Quotes from it will appear in blue.
In his Sunday message to the faithful gathered in St. Peter’s Square, March 5, Pope Francis urged the people to carry their Bible as diligently as they do their smartphones. Protestants, and the civilized world in general, applaud that this dark-age “church” has seen the light. As head of an institution that tried for centuries to stamp out the Bible, this appears like a miracle
As far as I can see, only ignorant Protestants who are easily swayed by sweet words and pageantry will applaud the pope’s message. A part of it on the Vatican’s website reads:
“The Word of God: this has the strength to defeat Satan. For this reason, it is important to be familiar with the Bible; read it often, meditate on it, assimilate it. The Bible contains the Word of God, which is always timely and effective.”
Anyone familiar with Catholic teaching knows that when they talk about “the word of God,” they are referring to an amalgam of the Bible, traditions and teachings of the Magisterium, not Scripture alone.
The statement that “the Bible contains the Word of God” should give a red flag to a true Christian.
While modern Catholics are allowed (and even encouraged) to read the Bible, Rome still keeps it from their hearts by diminishing its authority and insisting that only the Magisterium can interpret it.
Fair enough, the Battle Cry article ends with this fact, but the meandering before it deserves some attention.
Unfortunately, there is a darker side of the story. The Bible that he is talking about is a very different Bible from the one which dozens tried to obliterate. But it wasn’t that the popes wanted to do away with all Bibles, they just had to stop one Bible. Even during the Inquisition the popes had their own approved Bible
Notice how the writer quickly deflects to the issue of Bible translations. He is pitting the Latin Vulgate (approved by the pope) with “one Bible” that dozens of popes wanted to stamp out. From other Chick works, we know he’s referring to the old Latin bible.
In the book, Did the Catholic Church Give us the Bible? (by David Daniels) we are told:
“Catholic Rome got the reins of government and began destroying God’s words in Old Latin” (p. 54).
This alternative history is uncritically lapped up by many KJO patrons, but there is no historical evidence that dozens of popes obliterated the Old Latin bible. These are stuff some people make up in their own heads and have the temerity to publish them as truth.
For most of Christian history, there has been a struggle over which Bible should be used. When the Revelation 17-18 counterfeit church was burning all the Bibles, (and Bible believers) during the Inquisition, they also had a counterfeit Bible they were promoting. Of course, “promoting” is hardly the right word when their “Bible” was chained to the pulpit and written in Latin, a language few could read
All through church history, Christians have always had preference for certain Bible translations – from the Septuagint to the Vulgate to the KJV.
The real struggle started when the Catholic religion decreed that only the Latin Vulgate version was divine – a cultic idea curiously similar to KJV onlyists’ claims about the KJV.
Just as the people had to learn Latin to know God’s Word at the time, today, everyone would have to learn English to know His Word as KJOs insist.
Earlier, we read that popes “just had to stop one Bible” but now we are told they were “burning all the Bibles.” How did one Bible became all the Bibles?
We need to ask: which Bible translation was the “only true Bible” during the Inquisition (between 12th-16th century)? It couldn’t have been the Old Latin versions (Italic, African and European) because their texts differ markedly from the Received text from which the KJV was translated. Bruce Metzger observed:
“The textual affinities of the Old Latin versions are unmistakably with the Western type of text … On the whole, the African form of the Old Latin presents the larger divergences from the generally received text and the European the smaller” (The Early Versions, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977, 325).
God’s counterattack was the invention of the printing press. Soon, copies of the right Bible began to flood the Western World. But his enemy did not give up easily. Satan’s plan B was to “fix” the supposedly “archaic language” of the real Bible. If it could be subtly altered to begin to match the counterfeit, maybe no one would notice. The astounding success of that plan is why the Pope can now urge his people to read the Bible
The first movable printing press was invented by Johannes Gutenberg circa 1450.
Between 1450 and 1611 when ‘the right Bible’ began to flood the West, which Bible translation was the ‘only real one’ and why was it replaced?
We need to know why the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishop or Geneva Bible versions were fake but the King James version was real.
Perhaps bereft of tangible arguments, the writer invokes “Satan’s plan B” to explain why the KJV translation wasn’t (and still isn’t) regarded as perfect.
In fact, the KJV used many outdated (and by modern usage, embarrassing) English terms e.g “cockatrice” for viper; “apothecary” for perfumer; “shambles” for meat markets; “unicorn” for wild ox; “dumb ass” instead of mute donkey; “bastard” instead of illegitimate; “spoil” instead of plunder; “Elias” for Elijah, “Eliseus” for Elisha and “Osee” instead of Hosea.
The purpose of every legitimate Bible translation is to render God’s Word in the simplest, clearest way possible such that even an uneducated person can understand it. Since the KJV failed in this regard, it necessitated a better English translation.
Furthermore, the Latin Vulgate (“the counterfeit”) had much influence on the KJV. Frederick Scrivener points out at least 60 places where the NT of the KJV follows the reading of the Latin Vulgate without a single Greek text as support (The New Testament in Greek, 1881, ix).
Bible scholars, W. E. Plater and H. J. White stated that even the vocabulary of the KJV repeats words directly lifted from the Vulgate e.g “publican,” “charity,” “Calvary” (A Grammar of the Vulgate, Oxford University Press, 1926, p. 4).
It is disingenuous for Chick’s team to demonize the Vulgate whilst idolizing the KJV.
Using modern research techniques, linguist David W. Daniels has uncovered the details of this epic war on God’s words
Unfortunately, much of the details Daniels presents are closer to tabloid sensationalism than established facts.
The footnotes and bibliography of Did the Catholic Church Give us the Bible? indicate that his information on Bible transmission were largely sourced from Chick materials, along with the questionable works of other KJOs like William Grady, David Otis Fuller, Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman.
Such self-quoting, “circle-the-bunkers” technique is an insult to credible research.
The move to “fix” the Bible involved forming “Bible societies,” bringing together linguists, translators, publishers and sophisticated marketing. Satan used the opportunity to infiltrate those “societies” with unbelievers and men dedicated to his agenda
How did the writer know these details? Interestingly, Daniels and Chick believed the KJV translators were also infiltrated by Jesuits. This idea came from Dr. Alberto Rivera’s “testimony” in the Crusaders’ comics:
“Among the group of men chosen by King James to translate the King James Bible in 1611, was a heavy concentration of undercover Jesuits posing as members of the Church of England. God, in His sovereign grace, preserved His written word, and they were not able to change it as they had planned” (The Force, 1983, p. 14).
Now if God could preserve His Word in spite of heavy Jesuit concentration among KJV translators, why didn’t He do the same for other Bible translations before and since then?
You see, a section of KJOs believe that the KJV is a perfect translation because its translators were also inspired by the Holy Spirit, therefore anyone suggesting that it’s flawed or clamours for a better translation is part of Satan’s folks! How convenient.
Rather than updating the language, a whole new basic Greek text was formed. Instead of using the thousands of manuscripts supporting the real Bible, a few new ones were faked as “oldest and best.” And coincidentally, their readings often supported the unbiblical doctrines of the counterfeit church…
1. This false, KJO Manichean binary of a ‘preserved’ Received text versus the ‘corrupted’ new Greek text needs to be disassembled.
Between 17th-19th century, several Protestant scholars collected several critical Greek texts other than Erasmus’ Received text.
Theodore de Beza (1519-1605), John Calvin’s successor, collected critical Greek texts.
John Mill (1645-1707) also collected and published Greek texts. Sir Richard Bentley (1662-1742) was the first to propose a revised Greek text.
Johann Bengel (1687-1751) critically studied Greek texts and was the first to classify them into Alexandrian and Byzantine.
About the only scholar from that period, John Martin Scholz, who published a text similar to the Received text, was a Catholic theologian.
2. Erasmus’ Greek text wasn’t based on “thousands of manuscripts.” He used 10 manuscripts, none of which were earlier than the 10th century.
The discovery of more ancient and larger number of manuscripts prompted newer English versions. Their differences with the KJV affect no vital doctrine.
3. According to Dr. James George Carleton, the KJV has taken some 2,803 readings, besides 140 marginal reading from the Catholic Rheims translation (The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, Clarendon Press, 1902, p. 259).
This shouldn’t be shocking since the KJV translators were 17th century Anglicans, not 20th century independent, fundamentalist Baptists.
Today, that bogus text, known as the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies Greek Text, is nearly universally accepted by translators of modern Bible versions …
Fake manuscripts like the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were “discovered” by men like Constantin Tischendorf. From them, Westcott and Hort prepared their Greek New Testament that became the foundation text for most modern versions
Never mind, the only reason the Nestle-Aland Greek text is termed “bogus” by KJOs is because it’s not Erasmus’ Catholic Greek text.
Bible manuscripts stand on their own merits, not by who possessed them, otherwise, the Byzantine Mss. used for the Received text would also be “fake” since they came from Eastern Orthodoxy.
The efforts of the above named scholars were geared towards producing a non-Catholic critical Greek text, and many of them were theologically conservative. Tischendorf, for example, was a Plymouth Brethren.
Many conservative Christian scholars in the 19th and 20th century preferred the revised critical texts over Erasmus’ Catholic-inclined Received text.
The next step was a broad marketing campaign to “sell” the church on the new Bibles. Part of that was an intensive effort to discredit the real Bible in English … This hugely successful effort has effectively persuaded churches, denominations, Bible colleges and seminaries to “speak evil” of the KJV in favor of the altered Bibles
This scenario was illustrated by Jack Chick on page 134 of Did the Catholic Church Give us the Bible? book.
The Pope asks his Jesuit general, “How is the Master Plan coming, General?” He replies, “We’ve funneled billions into the ‘new’ versions. No one will know which one to believe! Very soon the King James will be the most despised Bible on earth!”
To Christians with a ‘Daddy-there-is-a-Jesuit-in-my-pyjamas’ paranoid mindset, this is all the evidence they need to stay away from any other Bible version.
But a reasonable Christian questions the source of such a shallow rhetoric. I have said this before: without conspiracy theories, KJV onlyism cannot stand.
Notice also the writer’s use of emotional terms like “discredit” or “speak evil” for any criticism of the KJV.
This article offers one a glimpse into the pervasive shift in the KJV only camp: a shift from the gospel message to conspiracy tales; from fact to fiction; from faith to suspicion and a Christ-centered life to an obsession with a 17th century Bible version.
The outgrowth? Persons bereft of character and truth – who ironically see themselves as “better” Christians approved by God because they use the King James bible.