The following report is from O Timothy magazine, Volume 9, Issue 11, 1992. 
All rights are reserved by the author. O Timothy is a monthly magazine. 
Annual subscription is US$20 FOR THE UNITED STATES. Send to Way of Life 
Literature, Bible Baptist Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, 
Washington 98277. FOR CANADA the subscription is $20 Canadian. Send to 
Bethel Baptist Church, P.O. Box 9075, London, Ontario N6E 1V0.

SOME THOUGHTS ON INSPIRATION AND PRESERVATION
David W. Cloud

I received a paper written by a Bible college professor in Canada recently 
which maligned me for teaching that the King James Version is the inspired 
Word of God. In replying to the man I said, "The position I hold 
regarding the TR and the KJV has been outlined expertly by four men I 
highly respect: the late Bruce Lackey (who was Dean of Tennessee Temple 
Bible School when I was there), David Otis Fuller (late founder of the 
Which Bible Society), Peter Van Kleeck (The Institute for Biblical Textual 
Studies), and D.A. Waite (Bible for Today ministries and the Dean Burgon 
Society). I am enclosing statements from these men. I would ask that you 
give careful attention to these statements and stop misrepresenting me in 
your public writings. I do not believe in `secondary inspiration,' nor do I 
believe in `further revelation'."

Let me hasten to say, though, that I DO believe in divine preservation! I 
praise the Lord for the fact that I can have confidence in my Bible. I 
believe I have the perfect, inspired Word of God because of God's promise 
of preservation. For me this is the bottom line in the Bible version issue. 
The only people who believe they have a perfect Bible are the widely 
misunderstood, despised and ridiculed "King James Only" crowd. The 
Wescott-Hort crowd admits they don't have a perfect text. The modern 
version crowd admits they don't have a perfect text. Well, friends, count 
me out. God has promised me a perfect Book, and I am confident in His 
promise.

In this issue of O Timothy we are reproducing an article by Dr. 
Bruce Lackey on inspiration and preservation. I also want to give 
statements by the three other men we have mentioned. I would also call our 
reader's attention to the excellent article on preservation by Jack Moorman 
which we printed in O Timothy, Volume 9, Issue 8, 1992. Bible 
preservation is one of the most neglected doctrines of the twentieth 
century.

INSTITUTE FOR BIBLICAL TEXTUAL STUDIES

"The Institute for Biblical Textual Studies was founded as an extension of 
Dr. David Otis Fuller's ambition to address the version issue and textual 
debate on a broader scale. The Institute is committed to:

"- the immediate, verbal, plenary inspiration of the original writings of 
Scripture and that they are therefore inerrant and infallible. This 
inspiration is unique, applicable both to the process of giving the 
original writings and the writings themselves which are that product;
   
"- the verbal preservation of the Greek Received Text as published by the 
Trinitarian Bible Society;

"- the verbal preservation of the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text of 
Daniel Bomberg, as edited by Jacob ben Chayim;

"- the position that translation is not an inherent boundary to verbal 
preservation. The breath of God, product, not process, conveyed by 
translation from the immediately inspired language copies of Scripture into 
any providentially prepared receptor language will impart to that 
translation infallible authority and doctrinal inerrancy inherent in the 
original language copies. Such a translation by the internal witness of the 
Holy Spirit, both with and through that translation, will evidence to the 
believer its own self-attestation and self-authentication whereby God 
asserts himself as the supreme Authority to that culture. For the English 
speaking world this revelation of God's authority is preserved in the 
Authorized Version" (Peter W. Van Kleeck is associate director of the 
Institute for Biblical Studies).

THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY

"We believe that the King James Version (or Authorized Version) of the 
English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two 
providentially preserved Texts [the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and 
the Received Greek Text], which in our time has no equal among all of the 
other English Translations. The translators did such a fine job in their 
translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorized Version 
of 1611 and say "This is the WORD OF GOD!" while at the same time realizing 
that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original language 
Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture.

"We believe that all the verses in the King James Version belong in the Old 
and the New Testaments because they represent words we believe were in the 
original Texts, although there might be other renderings from the original 
languages which could also be acceptable to us today. For an exhaustive 
study of any of the words or verses in the Bible, we urge the student to 
return directly to the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and the 
Traditional Received Greek Text rather than to any other translation for 
help.

"Bible inspiration and Bible preservation are supremely important. The 
undermining or destroying of either doctrine renders the other meaningless. 
If the Bible is not verbally, plenarily, and inerrantly inspired, and if 
inspiration does not extend to all matters of which the Bible speaks, it 
does not matter if the Bible has been preserved or how it has been 
presserved. It also follows that, if the Bible has not been preserved, it 
does not matter how it was inspired" (From the Committee Statement on Bible 
Preservation of the Dean Burgon Society, of which Dr. D.A. Waite is the 
president).

DAVID OTIS FULLER

"I DO NOT say the King James Version was inspired as the original    
manuscripts, but I DO say that God supervised and directed and chose by 
means of King James the First and his advisers, forty-eight of the greatest 
scholars of their time or ANY time in all history. The Holy Spirit caused 
them to choose the manuscripts of the Old and New Testament which were 
nearest to the originals and the most accurate of all the manuscripts. 

"I do not believe the King James Version has errors or mistakes in it. I do 
believe it has problems and I do not have the answer to all of those 
problems but I KNOW there is an answer to every one. You or others may call 
that "playing antics with semantics." It makes no difference what IT is 
called or I AM called, there I stand and refuse to give one inch. 

"Our Lovely Lord Jesus Christ, as you well know, quoted continually from 
the Old Testament and every time He did He let it be known that He was 
quoting His final authority. NOT ONCE did He cast a shadow of doubt over 
any quotation. IF there had been errors in those manuscripts He quoted His 
absolute honesty would have caused Him to say so. HE WAS NOT QUOTING FROM 
THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS as we well know. IF this Sovereign God could keep 
His word thru the centuries up until the Life and Death and Resurrection of 
the Eternal Son of God here on earth, I AM SURE this same God can and did 
keep His Word true and pure and inerrant all thru the centuries until this 
year of our Lord 1980" (David Otis Fuller, "My answer to those who have 
misinterpreted my stand on the inerrancy of the KJV," 1980, originally a 
letter to Dayton Hobbs, editor, The Projector).
(O Timothy magazine, Volume 9, issue 11, 1992)