Ian Paisley comments on the KJV

sermonindex Aug 28, 2005

I know that a lot of people on SI have a tremendous amount of respect for Ian Paisley... and rightfully so. God has used him incredibly.I thought it would be interesting to post Ian Paisley's comments about the KJV (and these are but only a few of his comments on this topic).Read and enjoy...KrispyPS, the uppercase lettering is not mine...THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES VS. THE CONFUSION OF THE TRANSLATIONSIAN PAISLEY, 1983“But HE WHO WROTE THE BOOK PROVIDENTIALLY IN KEEPING WITH HIS PROMISE GLORIOUSLY PRESERVED IT UNTIL THE TIME OF REFORMATION CAME. THEN THERE AROSE A GLORIOUS COMPANY OF TRANSLATORS WHO SET TO WORK TO GIVE THE NATIONS THE BIBLE IN THEIR MOTHER TONGUE. ... I HAIL THIS BOOK THIS DAY. IT REMAINS AMID THE PASSING AND INJURIES OF TIME A HOLY TEMPLE, UNPROFANED BY THE FOOT OF THE ENEMY. IT REMAINS AN INVINCIBLE BUILDING OF GOD AMIDST THE CRUMBLING RUINS OF THE CENTURY. GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS BOOK AND WILL PRESERVE IT.“And now we come to the Bible’s Translation. ... The Reformation of the sixteenth century was the greatest revival the church had known since the day of Pentecost. It was brought about by the translation of God’s Word, and its propagation and preaching. The Reformation did not give us the Bible. The Bible gave us the Reformation. ... This is a dynamic book. The devil fears it. The pope fears it. I was arrested for giving out copies of it in Vatican Square some years ago, so I just stepped across the border into Italy and continued to give out the dynamite of God’s Word. ...“And now I say lovingly to my fundamentalist brethren who will differ from me in this: I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT WAS AN ERRONEOUS TEXT THAT BROUGHT ABOUT SUCH A SUPERNATURAL INTERVENTION OF ALMIGHTY GOD. NOR CAN I ACCEPT THAT THE MOST RELIABLE TEXTS WERE NOT THEN DISCOVERED. In fact, they weren’t discovered, we are told, until the nineteenth century when one was found in the trash can of a monastery and the other in the Pope’s library. Because of that I can accept what is known as the Majority Text. And I believe that this is the text which originated the line of what we might call our English translations. They were all based on that text. The line through which the King James or Authorized Version has come—it comes to us via Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. ...“Let me state again emphatically that no translation is given by inspiration of God. Inspiration applies only to the original autograph. Inspiration has to do with the giving of the Scriptures, not their translation. And those who speak otherwise deceive those that they address.“But what is more, the King James Version is a revision rather than a completely new translation. It is unique and special because it comes to us providentially as a direct result of the great Reformation and its line of Bibles. ... SO THE KING JAMES VERSION WAS THE APEX—THE CLIMAX OF THE REFORMATION ENGLISH BIBLES AND CAME WITH A SPECIAL SEAL OF HEAVEN UPON THAT GREAT REFORMATION WORK.“The King James Version is based on the Majority Text, on the Traditional Text, or the Received Text—received by the believers right up to the Reformation period. Again the King James Version was produced by men absolutely dedicated to the verbal inspiration of the Bible—hence, their use of italics to indicate an English word for which there is no equivalent in the original Hebrew and Greek.“The language of the King James Version is terse and reverent and is in timeless English that a child can read, learn, and understand. Its very rhythm has led to sanctity of thought, holy awe, and a worshipful approach to God. It is equally suitable to both private and public reading. THE KING JAMES IS SPECIAL AND UNIQUE, NOT BECAUSE IT IS OLDER, BUT BECAUSE OUT OF MORE THAN 100 ENGLISH VERSIONS OFFERED, IT IS IN MY OPINION THE BEST TRANSLATION. We cannot and will not exchange it for an inferior version. Its excellence, its faithfulness, its power, and its witfulness have been proved in our own hearts and in the hearts of millions more.“Now the question is asked, ‘Have I got God’s inspired Word in my hand?’ I want to answer it. ‘YES, I HAVE GOD’S INSPIRED WORD IN MY HAND.’ THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS A RELIABLE AND ACCURATE TRANSLATION OF THE VERBALLY INSPIRED WORD OF GOD, and I can pin my hopes on its promises knowing them to be the Word of a God that cannot lie. I CAN ABSOLUTELY DEPEND ON THIS BOOK. IT BRINGS TO ME ACCURATELY AND CLEARLY THE INSPIRED WORD OF THE LIVING GOD—the word eternally begotten in Heaven, and thank God, eternally settled in Heaven. ...“What is the devil doing now? He’s flooding the markets with a rash of counterfeit and corrupted Bibles. ...“I trust this night that sinners shall find a way to heaven, that backsliders shall be restored to their Lord, and that God’s people will have a holy fire set alight by God the Holy Ghost within their hearts that we’re going to read this book, we’re going to obey this book, we’re going to preach this book, we’re going to defend this book, and we’re going to propagate this book. May God make the fundamentalists men and women of the one book for Jesus’ sake. Amen” (Ian Paisley, The Authority of the Scriptures vs. the Confusion of Translations).

sermonindex Aug 28, 2005

I'm laughing. Never a disappointment... Praise God!

sermonindex Aug 28, 2005

I'm laughingI'm not sure I follow you... Krispy

sermonindex Aug 28, 2005

Sorry, bro,I mean, I'm delighted by what Ian Paisley said. 8-)

sermonindex Aug 28, 2005

Yea, I'm learning to not jump to conclusions so quickly. You're first post could have gone either way. :-D I gave ya the benefit of the doubt (and I'm glad I did!).Krispy

P

PTywama3 Aug 28, 2005

I think I have to agree with everything here.I should also point out that the emphasis was on assuredness rather than on falacy. I cannot say specifically that it is in my minor opinion the best translation, but I do know that I can depend on it.

N

Nellie Aug 29, 2005

I like to read and study the KJV of the Bible.God BlessNellie :-)

B

beenblake Aug 29, 2005

There is an obvious contradiction:He says, "I can pin my hopes on its promises knowing them to be the Word of a God that cannot lie."According to this statement, he is pinning his promises on "it" referring to the King James Version of the Bible. Does God's promise come from the bible, or does God's promise come through Jesus? The King James Bible itself says this:2 Timothy 1:1 (KJV)"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,"And it says, Galatians 3:22 - (KJV)"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." And so, if this man believes the bible is true, then he believes that the promise of God is "in Christ Jesus" or "by faith of Jesus Christ" as the above text says. If he believes the promise is in Jesus or by faith of Jesus, then why is he pinning his hopes on the bible? Additionally, there is no proof that any bible is accurate. We don't have the original texts written by the authors themselves. We have several different texts of different ages without any proof of which is the "correct" text. We have historical evidence of the bibles that date back to the reformation. However, we have no record or history of what occurred during the dark ages. (Which is why they are called the dark ages.)And so, how do we know if the bible is accurate? We don't. There is no proof. We have to believe in the bible by faith.The question is, does our faith in the bible come from Jesus? Or does our faith in Jesus come from the bible? If our faith in Jesus comes from the bible, then it immediately contradicts itself. The bible says we should place our faith in Jesus. If we put our faith in the bible, then we are disagreeing with the bible, for the bible says to put our faith in Jesus. (Unless of course, you are saying that the bible is Jesus. Is the bible God?)The only way the bible becomes valid is to first put your faith in Jesus. Once we do, then the bible really begins to speak and become true. If we put our faith in Jesus, we would not seek "THE BEST TRANSLATION" of the bible, because we would not depend on a book. We would depend on God who is Jesus Christ. If Jesus is truly our shepard, truly our God, will He not direct our paths if we seek Him? Will He not guide us in truth if let Him? Lastly, what has more authority, the scriptures or Jesus? In Christ,Blake

L

letsgetbusy Aug 29, 2005

I also prefer KJV. I don't worship my Bible, but I worship the God that wrote every single word. He has a few things to say about His individual words, too:Psalm 12:6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."Matthew 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."Luke 16:17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."John 6:63b "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."Revelation 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life"If I tell you the truth, then that is love, so I say this out of love: believe the Bible or not, but we will all be judged by it.

P

philologos Aug 29, 2005

hmmm? Krispy perhaps you don't know that the vast majority of evangelicals over here would not touch Ian Paisley 'with a barge pole', as the saying goes. (It means they would keep their distance) I would personally disassociate myself from almost all that he has represented over decades. His fierce tirades and implacable attitudes have caused enormous offence to many. The fact that it is his voice which opens the compilation on revival means that I, and I suspect many others, could never use it in the UK.

T

taco Aug 29, 2005

philologos wrote:hmmm? Krispy perhaps you don't know that the vast majority of evangelicals over here would not touch Ian Paisley 'with a barge pole', as the saying goes. (It means they would keep their distance) I would personally disassociate myself from almost all that he has represented over decades. His fierce tirades and implacable attitudes have caused enormous offence to many. The fact that it is his voice which opens the compilation on revival means that I, and I suspect many others, could never use it in the UK.As an Irishman, I have to agree with Ron.

sermonindex Aug 29, 2005

Bennblake... we were asked last week not to continue the conversation we were having. This thread was not a continuation, but your response was. I would ask that you abide by the request that sermonindex made. Having said that... I will ignore your post, and I'm asking others to do the same so that this thread doesnt get locked.Philologos and Taco... I have only been introduced to Ian Paisley fairly recently, and am not aware of the controversy. Not saying there isnt any, just that this was the first time I have heard of it. Since he does not consider himself an evangelical, but rather a fundamentalist, I can understand why there would be a controversy... and I'm certainly not trying to cause controversy by using his name.To be honest, it really doesnt matter whose thoughts I use concerning the KJV... someone, somewhere, isnt going to like them.Krispy

L

letsgetbusy Aug 29, 2005

Is it because he said things like this:"The church of Jesus Christ is largely sleeping, like a great bedroom and you have all the Christians in bed and they’re all sleeping ... and they’re saying "Please, don't wake me up! I want to sleep on!" Or is he dodged because of his stand against the Roman Catholic Church? If this is the case then Wesley, Ravenhill, Comfort, and many great preachers have the same stand. I haven't heard that either. Why is Paisley avoided? I heard John Rice say in one of his sermons that he and Ian preached in each other's churches. I know Rice had a heart the size of Texas. So could you guys that are saying Paisley should be avoided give a BRIEF list of why he should be avoided? Thx.In all honesty in sounds like he is avoided for speaking what he truly feels is right. I don't know whether he is wrong of right, but I get the feeling Paisley is avoided just like Jack Chick is avoided. Because he speaks the truth, even though his theology might not be 100% true.

P

philologos Aug 29, 2005

To be honest, it really doesnt matter whose thoughts I use concerning the KJV... someone, somewhere, isnt going to like them.Aw. c'mon Krisp... this was not about the KJV. There are names which come up in the forums and we folk over here have never heard of them although most folks from the US are up in arms about them. This is just the same shoe on the other foot. I am aware that many folks love the rasping sounds of the opening of the Revival Hymn, but it would be interesting to do a little poll of the UK SIers and get their reactions to this. Ian Paisley is a militant protestant; I don't describe him as evangelical or fundamentalist. Others may.

P

philologos Aug 29, 2005

In all honesty in sounds like he is avoided for speaking what he truly feels is right. I don't know whether he is wrong of right, but I get the feeling Paisley is avoided just like Jack Chick is avoided. Because he speaks the truth, even though his theology might not be 100% true.It is true that the Chick booklets give me the creeps but it is not Paisley's doctrine I object to, but his spirit.

P

philologos Aug 29, 2005

I have only been introduced to Ian Paisley fairly recently, and am not aware of the controversy. Not saying there isnt any, just that this was the first time I have heard of it.Sorry KrispyJust another bit. This was why I posted. Simply because I knew there would be many who do not know the reputation of Ian Paisley. This wikipedia will give you a flavour. You can take a short cut by going to the quotations. It is because of his willingness to advocate 'taking up the gun' to defend his view of protestant Northern Ireland that he has offended many evangelicals and almost everybody else.Ian Paisley

L

letsgetbusy Aug 29, 2005

phil,I know what you mean. Reading Chick's stuff is heavy, and I don't agree with everything he writes. But honestly, is Chick's stand on the Roman Catholic Church true or not?

C

ccchhhrrriiisss Aug 29, 2005

Hi philologos...!I'm reading this thread with great interest, because I am not at all familar with Mr. Paisley."In all honesty in sounds like he is avoided for speaking what he truly feels is right. I don't know whether he is wrong of right, but I get the feeling Paisley is avoided just like Jack Chick is avoided. Because he speaks the truth, even though his theology might not be 100% true."As much as I enjoy many of Jack Chick's publications and tracts, I couldn't bring myself to say that he "speaks the truth" in much of what he publishes. Alot of the material available from his company are quite controversial because of its doctrinal content, not because it preaches truth. Remember, Chick publishes the Alberto series of books and comics that claim that everything from the NIV to Kathryn Kuhlman are part of a vast Roman Catholic conspiracy. Chick also endorses and publishes several very controversial books, like He Came to Set the Captives Free, which tells strange tales that range from humans changing into real werewolves and vampires to Christians being demon-possessed. Saying that Jack Chick is avoided because "he speaks the truth" is like saying that Pat Robertson is avoided because "he speaks the truth" as well. While both of their messages contain underlying elements of truth, both men mingle their message with controversial subjects and comments. Remember, water with just a little dirt added, has become unclean. It is now dirty water -- no longer pure. While I doubt we will ever find someone that everyone completely agrees with on doctrinal matters, we can still "prove (test) everything" and "hold fast that which is good" (I Thessalonians 5:21). Regardless of whether the words that we are testing are from Ian Paisley, Pat Robertson, Jack Chick or even Leonard Ravenhill -- we should always use the Word of God as the litmus test about truth. I suspect that any true man of God would delight in such noble caution on the part of believers. :-)