I attended the King James Bible Summit that was hosted by Jack Schaap at Hyles-Anderson College. I was disappointed with them, but excited about the beloved King James Bible.

I have written a four page summary of the summit; of course, it is my slant.

King James Bible Summit

Pastor David Hoffman

purewords@juno.com

Dr. Jack Schaap, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, hosted a King James Bible Summit in the auditorium of Hyles-Anderson College on July 14, 2009. The summit was very organized and under the absolute control of Pastor Schaap and his men and rightfully so. The meeting was impressive and the opinions that were expressed by each speaker could have convinced any novice about this subject.

I personally received letters of invitation to attend and a personal telephone call. The letters implied there would be much time to ask questions. I had my doubts about the opportunity to ask questions, but I chose to attend anyway. Any question had to be written on a card and the leadership of the summit chose the questions to answer. The summit began at 9:00 am and ended at 5:00 pm with the answers for the questions during the final 26 minutes. My two questions were not chosen to be answered. The host and his staff are to be commended for their graciousness in providing three meals and much material at no cost to the attendees. I chose not to accept the meals, but I accepted the materials.

I listened intently and objectively and took copious notes throughout the summit. I observed several inconsistencies as I understand the issue of the perfection and inerrancy of the beloved King James Bible. The co-laborers and followers of Pastor Schaap will probably interpret my comments to be an attack upon him and his ministry. Brother Schaap can believe and preach as he wishes. When he proclaims his viewpoint to others, it is one’s obligation to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good," and "receive the word with all readiness of mind, and search the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

People unfamiliar with the topic may have overlooked the subtle innuendos, half-truths, and inconsistencies of the speakers. I write these comments under the spirit of the admonishment of a brother (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15), but most likely the blindly loyal followers and co-laborers of Brother Schaap will consider the writer to be an enemy of their great work of God. So be it.

Psalm 12 was not mentioned once, but the actions of Psalm 12:2 were on full display. The typical fundamental Baptist credentials or verifications of rightness were demonstrated; such as, followers extolling the leadership, expressing the successes or numerical gains of the ministry, declaring the opinions of other great men, and mentioning the agreement amongst ourselves. Proverbs 18:17 says, "He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him." Dr. Jack Schaap is the pastor of the largest fundamental Baptist church. One could believe that they are right by evidence of their great results. Are the speakers correct that only the originals were given by inspiration of God and the King James Version of the Bible is the divinely preserved translation of the inspired Word of God for English-speaking people?

Brother Schaap displayed an old King James Bible that he referred as the "she" Bible. The argument is one edition of the King James Bible said "he went into the city," and other editions said, "she went into the city." This purported problem is found in Ruth 3:15. This was one of my two questions that was not answered. My question was, "Which word is wrong (he or she) because the context reveals that BOTH went into the city (Ruth 4:1).

Several speakers of the ministry taught on varies subjects. Ted Speer taught on the subject, "What the Translators Said About Their Own Translation and Their Sources." I heard him ask this question, "Were the King James translators moved upon to write by inspiration of God like the prophets and apostles?" He wisely stated that the phrase "saith the Lord" occurred many times by the prophets. He wisely referenced several passages. His basic position was the translators did not say they were inspired; therefore, they were not inspired. Here’s the problem as I see it: Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, and Jude did not say they were inspired. Samuel, Nehemiah, Ezra, Elihu, David, Solomon, Jonah, and Habakkuk did not claim inspiration either, so are their words given by inspiration of God?

Bob Marshall taught on the subject, "Revisions and Editions." I heard him say inspiration and preservation is the work of God, but translation is the work of men. I also heard him say the Hebrew and Greek is the final authority and a translation cannot be the final authority. I also heard him say a translation cannot be without error. He mentioned leviathan of Job 41:1, but he did not know who or what it was. Why? No lexicon or dictionary reveals who leviathan is; in fact, Brother Bob in his answer to one question said that leviathan was some big terrible thing. The pure English words of Isaiah 27:1 reveal to any twelve-year-old child that leviathan is the natural state of Satan. How could he miss something so easy and clear in the pure English Bible? 1 Thessalonians 2:13 says, "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." The word of God works in the ones that believe. If the King James Bible is a work of men because it is a translation than it is not really believed to be the word of God.

I heard Daryl Moore say, "The Bible never claims inspiration to any translation." This is true, but the intent of the statement is to support a false premise. It is as true as the 80% truths of Satan when he tempted Eve. If the King James Bible is allowed to be the final authority, there are several examples where translation is the work of God and a translation can be without error; in fact, it can be better than the original. God translated the kingdom from Saul to David and David’s kingdom was better than Saul’s (2 Samuel 3:10). God translates the converted sinner into the kingdom of His dear Son and the born again believer is better than the original man of Adam (Colossians 1:13). God translated Enoch and Enoch was better after the translation (Hebrews 11:5).

But, lest I be considered a dumb thump for believing the words and example of the King James Bible let’s look at a translation from one language to another in the final authority. When the New Testament writer wrote, "It is written," it is a translation from Hebrew to Greek given by inspiration of God. Is the original Greek translation better than the original Hebrew? The New Testament translation of "the just shall live by his faith" in Habakkuk 2:4 is better in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11. The New Testament translation of Deuteronomy 30:11-14 is better in Romans 10:5-8. When Paul spoke in Hebrew (Acts 22) and Luke recorded the speech in Greek, was the translation of Luke given by the inspiration of God? A Bible-believer concludes from the practice of the final authority that a translation can be given by inspiration of God.

Hypocrisy is revealed when men revere the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament in the Septuagint. The Septuagint was an apostate translation and it could not have been written in 200 B.C. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia reveals that NO Apocryphal book was written prior to 170 B.C. and the rest were written from said time to 90 A.D. How did the Apocryphal books get into the LXX before they were written? Why do men revere said apostate translation, but do not glorify the King James Bible? Dare I write, "Hypocrisy"?

I heard Daryl Whitehouse say, "The Bible determines what to believe." Amen and amen, but what does he mean when he says, "The Bible." I can only conclude by the example of the speakers and the host of the summit that he means the original languages. All of their definitions of words came from dictionaries and lexicons. This is a classic case of he who defines the terms wins the argument. The word "inspiration" was defined by Brother Schaap in a publication (The Voice) that was mailed throughout the country and offered free at the summit. Brother Schaap claims to get his theology from God’s Word, but his sources for the definition of inspiration was three dictionaries and one lexicon. He who defines the term wins the argument.

My other question that was not chosen to be answered was, "Since the King James Bible is a self-interpreting Book, why was not Job 32:8 mentioned for the Bible definition of inspiration?" The word "inspiration" is clearly defined by its only other occurrence in the Bible. The usage of the word reveals its definition. Job 32:8 says, "But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." Noah Webster got the Scriptural definition right on the third definition of the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. The pure King James Bible defines inspiration to mean the infusion of ideas into the mind by the Holy Ghost (John 16:13). This is why all scripture IS given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:15-17). It is present tense. Brother Schaap and company limited inspiration to the past originals. Preservation without inspiration is pointless. Fruit that is not preserved in its natural state is of little or no value. The fruit of the words of God is preserved with its in-spir-ation in the King James Bible.

Understanding of the truths of the pure Scriptures IS given by the inspiration of God today and IS profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness today. The giving of understanding to the spirit of the believer is through the Spirit of God (Romans 8:16). Is this too simple? Any humble child can believe and understand that the Author of Scripture is the Interpreter of the words of Scripture (Genesis 40:8; 1 Corinthians 2:9-16).

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. The Son is given to the sincere believer today. The same is true for the written word of God. Understanding of the Scriptures is given to the sincere believer without the scholarship of the original languages. When Phil Pins revealed his wonderful knowledge of the Greek language and his scholarly explanation of 2 Timothy 3:16, he subtly implied the phrase "is given" was referring to the originals in the past; however, said phrase is also in the great commission that is available to Brother Pins today while he wisely wins souls today.

1 Peter 5:1-4 reveals the opportunity to receive a crown of glory to the faithful shepherd who feeds the word of God to his people. There is a vital condition upon receiving the crown of glory in Proverbs 4:7-9. The crown of glory is only given to the faithful shepherd who gives glory and honour to whom it is due. Proverbs 4:7-9 says, "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her. She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee." The crown of glory will be given to the shepherd who glorified the wisdom and understanding of the words of God. Psalm 138:2 says, "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." 2 Thessalonians 3:1 says, "Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you." Praise and glory for personal understanding the words of God rightfully belongs to God the Spirit and the words of God (Genesis 41:15-16; Daniel 2:19-23; Luke 24:44-45; 1 Timothy 4:1; Revelation 3:17-22).

I heard Brother Schaap say that we should have a child-like interest in learning. Amen and amen. The source of the learning doesn’t matter to a child. A sincere and humble child believes truth from any source. Truth is truth no matter who says it and an error is an error no matter who says. Just prior to the lunch break I sadly heard Brother Schaap rail about two believers who are faithful to the words of God, but these two believers had been divorced and remarried. I heard him say the name "Ruckman" during this time, but I didn’t hear him say the name "Riplinger." I heard the dear brother piously say he would not mention her name, but Paul mentioned the names of heretics and people who forsook the faith under the inspiration of God. Anyone who has studied this issue knows the books and materials of Gail Riplinger. I heard Brother Schaap equated her to Mary Baker Eddy and Aimee McPherson, but the main difference though is neither of said women believed the words of God in the King James Bible.

I heard a comment that Dr. Jack Hyles did not attack his attackers, but I wonder if Dr. Jack Schaap’s comments about Riplinger would be considered an attack by his people. I heard him equate Gail Riplinger to Aimee McPherson. The insinuation is that believing the documentation of the books of Riplinger is like accepting Charismatic theology. Brother Schaap refuses to get his theology from a woman. I did knot know she had material that taught theology. I heard Brother Schaap say that men need to stay busy in the work of God and quit bickering and fighting. Amen and amen. Within that context he implied to build greater works than Jesus Christ (John 14:12). Does he think his work is greater than the Lord Jesus Christ’s work? That statement was addressed to the apostles. I’ve heard several Charismatics quote the same verse about their works. Now, who is acting like a Charismatic? Paul warned Timothy about men who think gain is godliness (1 Timothy 6:4-5). If gain is godliness, Obama and his Muslim friends have us all beat.

I heard Brother Jack mention that you pastors would not have a divorced man for a deacon; therefore, you should not get theology from divorced people. If divorce and remarriage discredits or disqualifies the author or preacher, than why does Brother Schaap sell Scofield Reference Bibles? C. I. Scofield was divorced and remarried. Will Brother Schaap discard all of the Scofield Reference Bibles in his ministry? Will Brother Schaap remove the Psalms of David and the Proverbs of Solomon because of their marriage problems? Will he remove the book of Hosea because he was divorced and remarried? Will he ignore God Himself because of God divorced Israel (Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8)? Will he discredit the revival of Ezra 10 that began with several divorces? I think someone was feeling insecure during his diatribe against other believers in Christ. Truth is truth no matter who says it.

I appreciate the work of the host and his staff of the summit. Nothing that was said caused me to question my faith in the pure words of the King James Bible; in fact, my faith in the inerrancy of the 1611 Authorized King James Bible was verified again. By God’s grace I will continue to use, believe, and glorify said Bible fulfilling the work of God.