DAVID CLOUD HAS A DOUBLE STANDARD ON
ADVENTISTS IN REGARD TO FULLER'S "WHICH BIBLE?"
Brother Gary Hudson has been recently been exposing
David Cloud of the "King James Only Arts & Crafts Manufacturing Co." for
using a double-standard. It seems that Cloud has been condemning aother
pastor for some type of association with Seventh-Day Adventists, but Cloud
himself promotes David O. Fuller's book, "Which Bible?" which uses material from
Seventh-Day Adventist, Benjamin Wilkinson, to embellish "King James
Onlyism." Among other things, Brother Hudson replied to Cloud and exposed the
chicanery of the deliberate effort made to conceal Wilkinson's SDA
Why did you give the late Dr. David Otis Fuller a
pass for using Seventh-Day Adventist author, missionary, and SDA college
president Benjamin G. Wilkinson for half the material in his book,
Which Bible? To say we see a double-standard here indeed would be to put
In another article, Brother Hudson replies to
Any objective comparison of Wilkinson's original
Authorized Bible Vindicated with Fuller's "reproduction" thereof in
Which Bible? reveals a calculated, deliberate effort to conceal
Wilkinson's identity. The footnotes to Ellen G. White were omitted while
most all of the other footnotes remained. In fact, a whole paragraph is
reproduced and foot-noted by Wilkinson from Ellen G. White's Great
Controversy and the unsuspecting reader was never told by Fuller of
its true source in Which Bible? This was no "mistake" at all. In fact,
D. A. Waite told me in 1989 that "Dr. Fuller didn't like to
mention" that Wilkinson was SDA because "he knew how people would react."
That was no mere "mistake," my friend.
Bob to Gary
Thanks for the information about David Cloud's double-standard.
We learned long ago that Cloud is obviously making too much filthy lucre in his
"King James Only Arts & Crafts Manufacturing Co." franchise to say or do
anything which would tend to hinder the sale of products.
demonstrated he will use an Adventist, Romanists, Baptismal Regenerationalists,
even a Campbellite, if he thinks it will help promote the sale of his
hobbyhorses. Despite repeated requests, he has never produced the evidence from
C. H. Spurgeon that the quotation he uses which contains an alleged
statement by Spurgeon is actually valid information. Note the following which
was published several years ago:
SPURGEON'S REVIEW OF THE
REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE
The "Revised English Bible" was published in
1877, a few years before the version known as the "English Revised Version"
(1881-84). They are not the same, though similar
context of the translation controversy and the name of C. H. Spurgeon, the
"Revised English Version" of 1877 is of interest. Spurgeon had a review of
this translation in the September 1877 issue of The Sword and the
"This carries out the very work which was needed to be
done. Here is our own English Bible" [KJV] "with its
MISTRANSLATIONS amended, and its obsolete words and coarse phrases
removed, so that it can be read in families without the need to omit certain
verses on account of the children..
"Mr. Gurney has done great service to
the church by employing learned men to make the needful corrections" [of
"Not one word is altered more than it needed to be, nor are the
thoughts re-cast, it is our own grandmother's Bible" [KJV], "with many a
BLUNDER of the translator's set to rights" **[see Bob's note below]
"We commend the work heartily, and hope that every student in the Bible
will get a copy: we do not know what the price may be, or we would gladly insert
it. No production of the press has pleased us more than this." (S
& T, Sept. 1877, page 438).
"Mr. Gurney" was Joseph Gurney, and in a
review of the 1881 New Testament by G. Duncan in the S & T, page 344, there
is this remark:
"Twenty years ago a committee of BAPTIST scholars was
formed by Mr. Joseph Gurney to revise the whole Bible at his expense, and
the result appeared about four years ago in our revised English
**Bob's Note [below]:
SPURGEON AT LEAST
TWICE SAID THE KJV HAD "BLUNDERS"
The word "BLUNDER" makes me
wonder if this may not be the source of the "quote" attributed to Spurgeon by
T. H. Pattison, which is paraded on David Cloud's website without any
documentation whatsoever from Spurgeon. I have yet to find, nor has
anyone supplied, the source in Spurgeon of Pattison's alleged "quote" which
has Spurgeon calling the ERV of 1881 a "blunder Bible," as given in David
Cloud's Internet website and writings. Cloud could not supply the source in
Spurgeon for this alleged quote, nor has anyone else supplied it. I
think Pattison must have mistaken the application of Spurgeon's remark, which in
fact was in reference to the KJV's "blunders."
At any rate, in the
foregoing review from C. H. Spurgeon's "Sword and Trowel" magazine, it is clear
that the term "blunder" is plainly a reference to the King James Bible
itself. Spurgeon's "grandmother's Bible" was of course the King James
Bible, and he says this 1877 Revised English Bible set to rights "many a
BLUNDER of the translator's," referring to "blunders" by the KJV
Spurgeon also referred to "the common version" [KJV] in
sermon #1604 and said, "we desire that the common version be purged of EVERY
BLUNDER" (Metropolitan Tabernacle
Pulpit, 1881, Vol. 27, page 343).
This again relates the word "BLUNDER" to the KJV, not to the 1881
English Revised Version. It is obvious that Spurgeon was of the opinion
that any translation would likely have "blunders." If he made the statement
attributed to him by Pattison, then he could have only meant, "We did not
need ANOTHER Blunder Bible to go along with the KJV Blunder
This is just further evidence of Spurgeon's historic Baptist
position on Bible translations, consistent with the views of Dr. John Gill
and Andrew Fuller. While appreciating and using the KJV, they
did not regard it a "perfect" translation, as per the modern theory of "King
James Onlyites." In fact, Spurgeon "corrected" it on "baptize" in his
sermon # 383 (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 7, page 284). Here is what
But, Brethren, the text says, “baptizing them.” They
are to be taught and afterwards they are to be baptized. I know not why it is
that we yield to the superstitions of our Christian Brethren so much as to use
the word baptize at all. It is not an English, but a Greek word.
It has but one meaning and cannot bear another. Throughout all the
classics, without exception, it is not possible to translate it correctly,
except with the idea of immersion. And believing this and knowing this, if
the translation is not complete, we will complete it this morning. “Go you,
therefore and teach all nations, immersing them in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
and others who perpetuate the undocumented "quote" they use from Pattison are
irresponsible in their representation of Spurgeon, as it is based merely on
"hearsay." -- Bob L. Ross
DR. JOHN GILL [1697-1771] --
"To the Bible, in its
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES, is every TRANSLATION to be brought, and by it to be
examined, tried, and judged, to be CORRECTED and AMENDED: if this was not the
case, we should have NO INFALLIBLE RULE to go by." (1697-1771, Body of
Divinity, page 13-a).
FOR ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT "KING JAMES ONLYISM,"
SEE BROTHER HUDSON'S WEBSITE: <http://www.kjvonly.org/>
granted to copy and use this article.
By request, names are added to
my Email List, or removed
Publishers of C. H. Spurgeon's Sermons &
Send your snail-mail address for a printed Price List.
Publications, Box 66, Pasadena, TX 77501
Phone: (713) 477-4261.
Fax: (713) 477-7561