Cloud's Article charging heresy
Cloud - Henry debate
DAVID CLOUD CHARGED
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:15-17)
BELIEVERS WHO CLAIM THAT
THE KING JAMES BIBLE
WAS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD
By John Henry
September 21, 2004
On August 4, 2003 Brother David Cloud wrote, "As for the term 'inspiration,' I agree with Dr. Waite that it applies only to the original giving of the Scripture as expressed in 2 Timothy 3:16. No translation is given by inspiration. The KJV is not given by inspiration, and it is heresy to say that it is. The process that occurred in 1611 was not inspiration and was not 2 Timothy 3:16." (Emphasis mine) 
With that statement Cloud branded me and numerous other King James Bible believers as heretics. I wonder if Cloud considers Dr. David Otis Fuller and Dr. Bruce Lackey, both promoted to glory, as heretics also? Cloud seems to disagree with the positions of these, his professed mentors! Both of these men clearly stated their belief in the derivative inspiration of the King James Scriptures. Neither of them was ashamed to say that the King James Bible is "the inspired Word of God" or "the breath of God."
Dr. Lackey says, "It is correct to call a translation of the Bible 'the inspired Word of God,' if it is a correct translation from uncorrupted manuscripts. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul refers to the Scriptures that Timothy had and calls them inspired. Timothy did not have the originals; he had only a copy. It is possible that he had the Old Testament in Hebrew, but more likely that he had the Greek translation of the Old Testament, since his father was a Greek and he lived in Derbe and/or Lystra, which were definitely Greek-speaking. Every reference in the New Testament to the scripture refers to copies of the autographs (original manuscripts) in Hebrew or to translations in Greek. No one had the autographs at that time. The scriptures which Timothy had were called 'holy,' that is different; set apart. They were 'set apart' in the sense that they were inspired and preserved, as God had promised in Psalm 12:6-7; Psalm 100:5 and other places. ... If only the autographs are inspired, no one has the inspired scripture. Thus, no one could obey Matthew 4:4, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Did God intend for only those who had the autographs to obey this? Or did He intend for only those who could read Hebrew and Greek to obey this? The answer must be obvious to any thinking Christian. When God made this statement, and when Christ repeated it, did He not know that the scripture would be copied and translated many times? Again, if only the autographs are inspired, we cannot ... have the benefit of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, being instructed and 'throughly furnished unto all good works.' Without the uncorrupted Word of God, we have no salvation. 1 Peter 1:23- 25 teaches that we are born again, of the incorruptible 'word of God, which liveth and abideth forever,' and states that 'this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.' ... Any correctly translated scripture, in any version, would be correctly called the inspired Word of God, if it is from uncorrupted texts. ... The issue is whether the verse is correct. ... Hence, a translation in English from uncorrupted texts would be equally inspired as a translation in Spanish from the same texts. ... I believe that the King James Version is a correct translation of uncorrupted manuscripts in both Hebrew and Greek and is worthy of being called the inspired Word of God." (Emphasis mine) 
Dr. David Otis Fuller's position is recorded in his Institute for Biblical Textual Studies statement on preservation:
"... The Institute is committed to .... 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." (Emphasis mine) 
Dr. Lackey states outright, "I believe that the King James Version is a correct translation of uncorrupted manuscripts in both Hebrew and Greek and is worthy of being called the inspired Word of God."
Dr. Fuller's belief in derivative inspiration is seen in his remark concerning "The breath of God [meaning inspiration] ... conveyed by translation ... will impart to that translation infallible authority .... For the English speaking world this revelation of God's authority is preserved in the Authorized Version." Dr. Fuller further indicates that this "breath of God" is "product, not process."
The product of inspired Scripture is inspired or God breathed Scripture. The Bible says that "ALL Scripture," not just the initially inspired Scripture, "is given by inspiration of God." This product of inspiration is "the breath of life" (Genesis 2:7). This breath of life "is given by inspiration of God."
Brother Cloud believes that "... the term 'inspiration' is used in a particular and technical manner in 2 Timothy 3:16 .... [and that] it applies only to the original giving of the Scripture ... "  Dr. Lackey, however, did not believe that. This is clear from this statement, "It is correct to call a translation of the Bible 'the inspired Word of God,' if it is a correct translation from uncorrupted manuscripts. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul refers to the Scriptures that Timothy had and calls them inspired. Timothy did not have the originals; he had only a copy. It is possible that he had the Old Testament in Hebrew, but more likely that he had the Greek translation of the Old Testament, since his father was a Greek and he lived in Derbe and/or Lystra, which were definitely Greek-speaking. Every reference in the New Testament to the scripture refers to copies of the autographs (original manuscripts) in Hebrew or to translations in Greek. No one had the autographs at that time." 
Cloud even admits that Dr. Fuller believed that the KJV is inspired where he says, "Only in this less technical sense do Dr. Waite and I disagree. I have argued with Dr. Waite that even Dr. David Otis Fuller, one of the founders of the DBS, used such terminology when he was preaching, but that he knew what he meant by it and did not hold to any sort of Ruckmanite view ..."  However, what Cloud says here is not completely true as Dr. Fuller made it perfectly clear that he did believe that the KJV was derivatively "given by inspiration of God."
Furthermore, believing that the KJV "is given by inspiration of God" does not make one a follower of Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. I believe Dr. Ruckman is in gross error in a few areas (i.e. he teaches various ways of salvation in the different dispensations [by far his worst error], advanced revelation, double inspiration and universal church). Many highly agree with him on these issues, but do believe that the KJV "is given by inspiration of God." However, Cloud slanders both them and the Word of God by saying, "The KJV is not given by inspiration, and it is heresy to say that it is." By trying to avoid "Ruckmanism" Cloud embraces another serious false doctrine.
Again Dr. Fuller said, "The breath of God, product, not process, conveyed by translation from ... copies of Scripture ... will impart to that translation infallible authority ..."  If the KJV was not "given by inspiration of God," then how, may I ask, did it get it's life and authority? Everything downstream from the originally inspired autographs must have a Scriptural rationale as to how it received these. Scripture is not inspired just because David Cloud say so. He is obligated to give a Scriptural rationale for this belief. Here is my Scriptural rationale for the inspiration of the KJV:
The Bible says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God ..." (2 Timothy 3:16). Many erroneously think that God inspired the prophets and apostles, but this verse clearly says that it is the Scriptures that are "given by inspiration of God." The prophets and apostles on the other hand "SPAKE as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." What is Scripture? Speech is not Scripture until it is written down. Scripture is defined as "holy writ" or "the sacred writings of the Bible." The word is translated from the Greek word "graphe" (Strong's #1124) which means "a writing." It's root word is "grapho" (Strong's #1125) meaning "to write letters." So Scripture is the written Word of God. As used in the Bible the word "Scripture" and "Scriptures" always mean the writings of the Word of God in whole or in part.
The process of God giving His words to the prophets and apostles to speak is called revelation. The process of God breathing life into those spoken words when they are written down is called inspiration. There is a final step in God's communication with us called illumination. Revelation is God's words from God to man (Galatians 1:12; Ephesians 3:3; Romans 16:25). Inspiration is God's words from man to paper (2 Timothy 3:16). Illumination is God's words from paper to man's heart (Psalm 119:130; Proverb 6:23; 2 Timothy 1:9-10; 2 Corinthians 4:3-6; Isaiah 8:20; 1 Corinthians 2:12-14). I do not believe in continuing revelation, but I do believe in continuing inspiration and illumination.
We have examples of the processes of revelation and inspiration in the Book of Jeremiah where it talks about "... Baruch the scribe and Jeremiah the prophet ..." (Jeremiah 36:26). It says, "... Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book." (Jeremiah 36:4)
The English word "inspiration" is used only once in each testament. The one time it is found in the Old Testament is in Job 32:8 where Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite said, "But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." Could those KJV translators have gotten understanding from the Almighty through the physical and spiritual life He gave them? The Hebrew word used in Job 32:8 is "neshawmaw" (Strong's #5397). "Neshawmaw" is found 24 times in the Old Testament. It's first use is in Genesis 2:7:
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Other examples of the use of "neshawmaw" are:
"All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died." (Genesis 7:22)
"All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils." (Job 27:3)
"The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." (Job 33:4)
"The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly." (Proverbs 20:27)
"... he that spread forth the earth ... he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein." (Isaiah 42:5)
"Neshawmaw" means to "breathe," a "blast" of God's breath, the "breath," "spirit" and "souls" of men and everything that "breatheth." A study of the Old Testament word "neshamah" reveals that it's primary and basic meaning is life.
In the New Testament the Greek word "pneo" (Strong's #4154) is equivalent to the Old Testament "neshawmaw." An example of the use of "pneo" is found in John 3 where the Lord Jesus was teaching on being "born again." The Lord said:
"... Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth [pneo] where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:5-8)
The word "water" in John 3:5 above is symbolic for the Word of God (cf. Eph 5:26; Isa 55:10-11; John 15:3, 17:17; Psalm 119:9). Both water and wind (air) are essential for physical life. Likewise the Word of God and the Holy Spirit are essential for spiritual life.
God breathed life into the words of the Scriptures, and life begets life. "God formed [Adam] ... and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ..." Adam then begat sons and daughters. Likewise God breathed life into the words of Scripture and they literally beget born again people.
"Of his own will begat he us with the Word of Truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1:18)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Now the phrase, "given by inspiration of God" in 2 Timothy 3:16 comes from the Greek compound word, "theopneustos" (Strong's #2315). It comes from the word "theo" meaning "God" (Strong's #2316), and "pneo" (Strong's #4154; cf. #1720) which means to breathe, to blow. "Pneo" is the equivalent of "neshawmaw" that we saw in John 3:8, and is also the root word for "pneuma" which means "spirit" (Strong's #4151).
In similar manner to the way physical life begets physical life and the way we are born again through Holy Scripture and the Holy Spirit, likewise the words of the Scriptures pass on their life when they go from language to language. The original "breath of life" from God or "inspiration" continues in copies and translations that are true to the original words of the Scriptures. The King James Bible is such a true translation. It received it's life from the Hebrew, Greek, Latin and other manuscripts that God provided for the translators.
The King James Bible was translated when the English language was at it's peak. It was translated by 57 of the most highly qualified translators ever assembled in History, most of them believers. The providence of God was in every facet of it's translation. The King James Bible has withstood the test of time and the attacks by apostates, liberals and Bible correctors. It has produced more spiritual fruit in souls saved, spiritual understanding and obedience in just 400 years than perhaps all other inspired Scriptures put together.
So the "technical" meaning "given by inspiration of God" is "given life by God."
Now let's break down 2 Timothy 3:16 where it says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God ..." First the Greek word for "all" (Strong's #3956) else where in the New Testament is translated, "[the] whole," "every [part]," and "all manner of." Secondly the Greek word for "Scripture" (Strong's #1124) means "writing" (i.e. written words). Thus, "All [every part, and all manner of] Scripture [God's written words] is given by inspiration of God [is given life, product, not process, by God] ..." The Spirit of God, the life of God, is in the words of all Scripture (i.e. translations also). It is the living Scriptures that give life to the lost. The Lord Jesus Christ said:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my Word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:24)
"It is the spirit that quickeneth [gives life]; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)
"... It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
"For the Word of God is quick [alive], and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)
The King James Bible is not twice inspired or re-inspired, but it rather received it's inspiration or life from the inspired manuscripts it was translated from.
"... [T]he Word of God ... liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
It is this inspiration of our King James Bible that makes it "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," and if it is not inspired then men of God for the past 400 years were not "throughly furnished unto all good works." But it is, so let us continue "holding forth the Word of life ..." (Philippians 2:16)
I would hope that Brother Cloud would now provide a rationale for how 2 Timothy 2:16 technically only applies to the originals. I do agree with his assessment of inspiration of many years ago:
"As accurate copies and translations of this inspired Scripture have been made, these also bear the holy impression of the originals. I believe an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew text can properly be called the inspired Word of God because its inspiration is derived from the original text. ... I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and beautiful translation of the preserved Scriptures and as such is the inspired Word of God--inspired derivatively, not directly." 
However, now he seems to have gone off the deep end calling others heretics in order to distance himself from Dr. Peter S. Ruckman and align himself with Dr. Donald A. Waite.  It seems to me that Cloud is trading one false doctrine for another. I say, put politicks aside and just rightly divide the Word of Truth.
Any way you look at it Brother Cloud was completely out of order when he said, "As for the term 'inspiration,' I agree with Dr. Waite that it applies only to the original giving of the Scripture as expressed in 2 Timothy 3:16. No translation is given by inspiration. The KJV is not given by inspiration, and it is heresy to say that it is. The process that occurred in 1611 was not inspiration and was not 2 Timothy 3:16." (Emphasis mine) 
Back around 10 August of 2003 in an e-mail exchange Brother Cloud wrote this to me, "Yes, I said that to take a different view is heresy, and that appears to be what has set you fellows off -- that and my negative references to Ruckmanites, which gets too close to home with you fellows. Perhaps that was too strong a word, I don't know, but I will let it stand. I feel strongly about what 2 Timothy 3:16 is teaching. If one teaches contrary to the Scriptures, is that not heresy? So yes, in my book, to teach that 2 Timothy 3:16 is referring to something other than the giving of Scripture is heresy. If that shoe fits a certain man, he will have to wear it. Most KJV defenders will agree with me on this one and will not have a problem with any of this. It is the Ruckmanite who has the problem with it, and I always like to distance myself from Ruckman and his 'its.' I do that because I am deeply convinced that the man, by his weird and unscriptural doctrines and his ungodly spirit, has done great harm to the cause of Jesus Christ and to the King James Bible."
Well, I do "take a different view," a godly and Scriptural one, and the shoe does not fit, but I am wearing it, because I have been falsely accused. I do believe the KJV was "GIVEN by inspiration of God" and I am not a Ruckmanite. Ruckman is not the issue. Others also who disagree with Ruckman on double inspiration and advanced revelation who believe similarly to me have also been slandered. Now I have again given David Cloud my Scriptural rationale for claiming that the KJV was "GIVEN by inspiration of God." One year on I still contend that an apology for his false accusations is in order.
I have never and still do not level a charge of heresy on Brother Cloud. That is a serious charge, not to be uttered lightly. However, I do say he is dead wrong to split hairs to the point of calling others heretics on this issue. If he wants to be a Hebrew / Greek only Waitite, then go ahead. Personally, I believe along with many that the KJV is living and infallible, and I have again proven it with the Word of God. I believe the same as David Otis Fuller, Bruce Lackey, Herb Evans and many others. The only alternative to an inspired (living) Bible is an expired (dead) one.
1. Cloud, David W., Why I Did Not Signed The New D B S Statement, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, Port Huron, Ml, August 4, 2003.
2. Lackey, Bruce, Inspiration & Translation, O Timothy Magazine, Volume 9, Issue 11, 1992.
3. Way of Life Encyclopedia, Way of Life Literature, Port Huron, MI, 1997, pp. 357-358.
4. Cloud, David W., Why I Did Not Signed The New DBS Statement.
5. Lackey, Bruce, Inspiration & Translation.
6. Cloud, David W., Why I Did Not Signed The New DBS Statement.
7. Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 358.
8. Cloud, David W., Myths About The King James Bible: Myth # 4: Inspiration Is Perfect, But Preservation Is General, 1986.
9. Dr. Alan Cairns defines "heresy" thusly: "A deliberate denial of revealed truth, together with the acceptance of error (2 Peter 2:1). The basic meaning of the Greek word hairesis is 'choice,' giving the meaning of heresy as a self-willed opinion in opposition to Biblical truth. Such opinions frequently give rise to sects or parties (Acts 5:17, 15:5, 24:5,14, 26:5, 28:22; 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20). A heretic, therefore, is a sectarian. Thus he is to be cut off from church fellowship (Titus 3:10)." (Dictionary of Theological Terms)
10. Cloud, David W., Why I Did Not Signed The New DBS Statement.
Copyright 2004 (c) by John Henry.
Readers are encouraged to share this article with others. I only ask that you do not charge for it, and please include this notice and the below e-mail and web site addresses.