Who is David Cloud?

The Underground Church

Edwards

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
117
Reaction score
1
Points
18
I am not always in the loop of things that are discussed on this forum, thus I look them up on line for details. I have seen the name "David Cloud" a number of times and have read a few of his articles (he seems to be an extreme dispensationalist, an IFB and not entirely in step with all IFB's) My question is - who is this guy? Is he an influence or an irritant? I am not attempting to start controversy or trying to give people a chance to bad mouth him - I'm just curious in case I run into his name again.
 

Walt

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
13
Points
38
David Cloud is a missionary to Nepal. He's in his 60s (I think; maybe 70s now); he was a hippy drug-dealer in the late 1960s / early 1970s and was truly saved in, I think 1973 (going by memory - his testimony is available on his website). I say "truly saved" because he grew up in a lukewarm SBC and made some profession of faith when young.

He began reading a lot of the Bible; he has done a lot of writing over the years.

His website is wayoflife.org - he is certainly not in step with any particular camp in the IFB world; he was warning about the cult-like antics of Jack Hyles long before many others began to sound warnings.

He's pretty strict and outspoken, and many of his stands annoy people.

He is utterly opposed to the contemporary Christian Music, and this has annoyed a lot of people.

He doesn't seem to follow man, but tries to follow what the Bible says; a lot of his writing has a lot of Scripture.

I, personally, appreciate what he does, but there any many who don't like him.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,124
Reaction score
33
Points
48
^^^ Ditto what Walt said.
 

brianb

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
976
Reaction score
10
Points
18
I am not always in the loop of things that are discussed on this forum, thus I look them up on line for details. I have seen the name "David Cloud" a number of times and have read a few of his articles (he seems to be an extreme dispensationalist, an IFB and not entirely in step with all IFB's) My question is - who is this guy? Is he an influence or an irritant? I am not attempting to start controversy or trying to give people a chance to bad mouth him - I'm just curious in case I run into his name again.
There are definitely some things I would disagree with him on but I appreciate some of the material he has put out - I have his Baptist History pdfs collection which he wrote almost twenty years ago. I could have got the books separately but it would have cost a lot more though better edited - when you have to copy old writings into digital format by yourself you are bound to have typos.

He's also not afraid to post negative mail that he gets in his "mailbox". A lot of websites just give positive testimonies. It's like how a Facebook page will have both positive and negative reviews.

On an unrelated note he's also a photographer and has a book on digital SLR photography.
 
Last edited:

ALAYMAN

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
5,421
Reaction score
31
Points
48
He is generally viewed on the FFF as a contrarian. Definitely militant style IFB Kjv-onlyist, trending heavy towards repentance akin to Lordshippers. A grad of Tennessee Temple during it's heyday.
 

brianb

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
976
Reaction score
10
Points
18
He is generally viewed on the FFF as a contrarian. Definitely militant style IFB Kjv-onlyist, trending heavy towards repentance akin to Lordshippers. A grad of Tennessee Temple during it's heyday.
He is KJV-only but not the Ruckmanite variety. He doesn't make an issue of what KJV one uses (Cambridge vs Oxford (published by Thomas Nelson)). In that sense he is merely TR only. He did an article on those who do make an issue of spelling differences and such between the two KJVs.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
319
Reaction score
2
Points
18
He is KJV-only but not the Ruckmanite variety. He doesn't make an issue of what KJV one uses (Cambridge vs Oxford (published by Thomas Nelson)). In that sense he is merely TR only.
Peter Ruckman wrote: “We recommend any edition of the AV (with any number of variations from any other edition)” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Sept., 1985, p. 3). In this same article, Ruckman commented: “In our group, we hold that ANY edition of the AV is reliable” (p. 2). In this article, Ruckman’s only stated exception from being an edition of the AV was the NKJV. Again concerning the KJV, Ruckman claimed that “any edition will do just fine” (Unknown Bible, pp. 1, 86). Ruckman referred to “any edition in any century” of the KJV (How to Teach the “Original” Greek, p. 119). Ruckman appealed to “a King James Bible (any edition from any year)“ (Difference in KJV Editions, pp. 9-10). Ruckman also referred to “a present copy of the AV, which anyone can buy anywhere” (p. 11). Ruckman claimed that “any edition of the AV (Edinburgh, London, Oxford, Nelson, Cambridge, New York, etc.) is vastly superior to the ‘originals’” (p. 18). Ruckman asserted: “The text of the AV in any edition is the text authorized by the Godhead, and it is the text that the Holy Spirit has continually stamped with His approval, in any edition” (Bible Babel, p. 92). Ruckman claimed: “You can find that word [the word of God] and those words [the words that God wants us to have] in ANY EDITION of an Authorized Version” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 414). In volume one of his commentary on the book of Psalms, Ruckman asserted: “We will leave every ‘jot and tittle: as it stands in the Authorized text” (p. vi).

Do all the many varying editions of the KJV actually have every” jot and tittle” the same so that they all can be left as they stand and still agree perfectly?

David Cloud is critical of some of Ruckman's KJV-only claims and some of Riplinger's claims, but he is still extremely KJV-only. He is advocating following the opinions and traditions of men in his non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.
 

brianb

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
976
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Peter Ruckman wrote: “We recommend any edition of the AV (with any number of variations from any other edition)” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Sept., 1985, p. 3). In this same article, Ruckman commented: “In our group, we hold that ANY edition of the AV is reliable” (p. 2). In this article, Ruckman’s only stated exception from being an edition of the AV was the NKJV. Again concerning the KJV, Ruckman claimed that “any edition will do just fine” (Unknown Bible, pp. 1, 86). Ruckman referred to “any edition in any century” of the KJV (How to Teach the “Original” Greek, p. 119). Ruckman appealed to “a King James Bible (any edition from any year)“ (Difference in KJV Editions, pp. 9-10). Ruckman also referred to “a present copy of the AV, which anyone can buy anywhere” (p. 11). Ruckman claimed that “any edition of the AV (Edinburgh, London, Oxford, Nelson, Cambridge, New York, etc.) is vastly superior to the ‘originals’” (p. 18). Ruckman asserted: “The text of the AV in any edition is the text authorized by the Godhead, and it is the text that the Holy Spirit has continually stamped with His approval, in any edition” (Bible Babel, p. 92). Ruckman claimed: “You can find that word [the word of God] and those words [the words that God wants us to have] in ANY EDITION of an Authorized Version” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 414). In volume one of his commentary on the book of Psalms, Ruckman asserted: “We will leave every ‘jot and tittle: as it stands in the Authorized text” (p. vi).

Do all the many varying editions of the KJV actually have every” jot and tittle” the same so that they all can be left as they stand and still agree perfectly?

David Cloud is critical of some of Ruckman's KJV-only claims and some of Riplinger's claims, but he is still extremely KJV-only. He is advocating following the opinions and traditions of men in his non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.
That may be so but it's still the view of the majority of IFB Baptists (especially pastors and teachers, though not the traditional view) including those who disagree with him on other matters like music. Also he is only KJV-only for English-speaking people at least from 1611 on. He and no one I know in the IFB movement has ever said previous English versions were wrong.

By the way the commonly accepted view today is that the Bible is without error in only the originals yet I haven't heard any one give scriptural support for that. There is none. Read 2 Timothy 3:16 and tell me if that is talking about the originals or (true) copies - all Timothy could have had were copies if they were Hebrew (he could have had Greek scriptures if he read Greek and they would be translations not copies). A true copyist would destroy the medium he is writing on if there is just one error - it shouldn't be called a copy but a miscopy.
 
Last edited:

brianb

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
976
Reaction score
10
Points
18
There was a guy on the old FFF who constantly posted articles from David Cloud the way Twisted posts Pulpit and Pen articles only much worse. I think it may have destroyed the old FFF. As a general rule on the FFF it's best not to post the views of someone else. Post your own views preferably with scriptural support.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
319
Reaction score
2
Points
18
By the way the commonly accepted view today is that the Bible is without error in only the originals yet I haven't heard any one give scriptural support for that. There is none. Read 2 Timothy 3:16 and tell me if that is talking about the originals or (true) copies -
2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the process of how the Scriptures were given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. There is no mention of the process of Bible translating in 2 Timothy 3:16.

When it is speculated, assumed, or claimed that the term Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 must refer to copies and especially even to translations, a consistent, just, and logical application of this speculative reasoning would in effect be asserting that it must include all that belong in the same sense (univocally) to those two classifications: copies and translations. Including all copies of the preserved original-language Scriptures would in effect make inspiration include any errors introduced by imperfect men in their copying of Scripture. Including all printed translations of Scripture would make inspiration include any errors made by translators or printers and include the conflicting and even contradictory renderings in varying Bible translations in different languages. Thus, consistency and just measures in applying the word “all” to Bible translations would be a serious problem for exclusive KJV-only reasoning concerning only one English translation.

If the term Scripture in a univocal sense at 2 Timothy 3:16 is assumed to include Bible translations, KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that it should apply only to the KJV and not also to the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible and to post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV. Could some KJV-only advocates attempt to read into or to draw from 2 Timothy 3:16 a specific conclusion about translating that has not clearly and legitimately been shown to be actually stated or taught by the verse? Do KJV-only advocates attempt to go beyond what 2 Timothy 3:16 actually states to try to make it say something additional to which it does not directly and clearly refer?

The sixteenth verse of 2 Timothy did not actually directly assert that God gave all Bible translations or one English Bible translation by the process or method of inspiration. Do KJV-only advocates use the term inspiration with one meaning (univocally) when they attempt to apply it to Bible translations? Do they use the term Bible translation with one meaning (univocally) if they attempt selectively to try to call one translation Scripture while denying the same for other English Bible translations? Do they attempt to read their own subjective, modern KJV-only opinions that were not in the mind of Paul into this verse? Did the earlier KJV-only opinions shape the later KJV-only interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16? Is the modern KJV-only interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 possibly an example of eisegesis? Is this KJV-only interpretive result already found in the unproven KJV-only premise or premises with which the KJV-only reader began? Is every man teaching that 2 Timothy 3:16 is a reference to the KJV advocating a non-scriptural opinion of men? Could KJV-only advocates confuse what the text actually says and means with their way of reading it or into it? Are some KJV-only advocates setting up their own reason and private interpretation as the final canon of truth? Are some KJV-only advocates seeking to manufacture support in the Scriptures for certain non-scriptural, human dogma or tradition which they may have merely presumed or assumed by use of fallacies such as begging the question and have accepted without proper, consistent, sound scriptural support? KJV-only advocates do not prove that their KJV-only doctrine is found and taught in any Greek New Testament manuscript. KJV-only advocates do not demonstrate that they soundly believe the Book when they merely read their own subjective KJV-only opinions into verses that do not actually directly state what they allege.

The Geneva Bible, the KJV, or the NKJV could be called Scripture because they are translations of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The assumption (likely involving the use of the fallacy of begging the question) that the KJV has to be directly given by a miracle of inspiration of God in order to be called scripture is not actually stated in 2 Timothy 3:16. It could also become an example of use of a false analogy if it is assumed that because two distinct things are alike in some ways or qualities that they must be alike in all ways or qualities.

A sound definition of the term Bible translation would have a bearing on how the term Scripture could or should be used for one. A Bible translation can have proper derived authority from the greater authority of its underlying original-language Scripture texts. It is very possible and even likely that there could be some degree of difference in meaning in the use of the term Scripture when used for a Bible translation such as the Geneva Bible, the KJV, or the NKJV as compared when used for copies of the original-language Scriptures. Are translations a different category or classification that should be distinguished somewhat from untranslated original-language texts of Scripture?

A Bible translation may be substantially or mostly the same as its underlying original-language Scripture text, but there are still differences between the two. A Bible translation with its different words in a different language can be compared to its underlying original-language texts, but it does not have the exact same, identical, specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. Mickey Carter asserted: “Things that are different are not the same. Bibles that are different are not the same” (Things That Are Different, p. 77). Do some KJV-only advocates attempt to ignore the truth that a Bible translation has different words than the original-language words given by inspiration of God? Would they in effect contradict their own claim and assert that different words are not different? There would be some greater differences between the original-language words and the English words in the KJV than the differences between the KJV’s English words and the NKJV’s English words.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
319
Reaction score
2
Points
18
David Cloud indicated that inspiration concerned "the divinely-guided writing of the original manuscripts (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21)" (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 45).

Concerning 2 Timothy 3:14-17, David Cloud wrote: "The term 'given by inspiration' applies directly only to the original process of the giving of Scripture. The same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21)" (Faith vs the Modern Bible Versions, p. 54). David Cloud noted: "No translation can lay claim to this process. No translation is 'given by inspiration'" (pp. 55, 593).
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
319
Reaction score
2
Points
18
Here is an example of how David Cloud repeats incorrect information about the KJV even after he has available more accurate information.

David Cloud quoted or cited D. A. Waite’s count of “421 changes”--“136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form” between the 1611 KJV edition and the KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible in at least five of his books (Way of Life Encyclopedia, pp. 232, 233; For Love of the Bible, p. 40; Faith, p. 590; Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 136, Glorious History of the KJB, p. 209). David Cloud highly commended the “diligent study” and “diligent research” of Waite, and he indicated that Waite should be taken as an example of those who defend the KJV” (Examining “the King James Only Controversy,” pp. 18-20). David Cloud also maintained that Waite “has tallied and categorized every change and has shown us exactly what the differences are” (p. 73). Cloud asserted that Waite “counted all the changes that could be heard” (Glorious History, p. 209). Is this an example of how some KJV-only authors seem to repeat the claims of others without checking soundly the evidence for themselves? Is this an example of Cloud and other KJV-only advocates leaning on “Waite’s research” (Examining, p. 81)?

D. A. Waite evidently overlooked many differences or “changes affecting the sound” between the 1611 and the post-1900 Oxford KJV text in the Scofield Reference Bible. I have counted over one thousand of the same-type changes not listed by Waite. Is there any indication in Waite’s own reports of his 1985 research that he might have overlooked or missed over 1000 changes? According to actual available evidence, it becomes clear that Waite did not list and count over two-thirds of the total changes of sound and less than one-half of those he termed “substantial changes.” Since it is suggested that Waite’s list is an almost complete list of all the “changes affecting the sound” except possibly a place or two as documented above, a more careful and just examination of the evidence would demonstrate that both Waite’s count of 421 changes and his count of 136 substantial changes can be and should be regarded as inaccurate misinformation.

A copy of an earlier 2006 edition of a list of over 2,000 changes was mailed to D. A. Waite. Since looking at that evidence, Waite is said to have revised his count up to 1095 changes. Concerning this list, Waite wrote: “Another man looked at the changes and came up with 2,000, but when I examined each of these, I found there to be only about 1,000 differences” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, p. 32). Waite asserted: “Another gentleman used his eyes rather than his ears and came up with 2,000 small changes of words. I analyzed his research and cut his total to only about 1,000 small changes of words” (p. 33). On what consistent, objective, sound, or just basis did Waite cut the total of over 2,000 in half? Is all the evidence objectively taken into consideration concerning changes to the 1611 edition? So far as this author knows, Waite has yet to present and publish his new list of 1095 changes, and he has not explained his actual basis for cutting around 1000 changes from this list.

After being mailed an edition of this same evidence, David Cloud evidently did not even examine it or check it out. Instead of making any effort to check the available, relevant facts and evidence mailed to him, David Cloud merely repeated Waite’s new count. David Cloud asserted: “Waite found only 1,095 changes that affect the sound” (Answering the Myths, p. 79).

Is David Cloud in effect admitting that Waite’s earlier 1985 research was not as diligent, exhaustive, and complete as he had claimed and that it did not actually tally and categorize every change? Does David Cloud explain why he so strongly praised and recommended this 1985 research with its 421 count that was less than 50% accurate? How does David Cloud know whether Waite’s 1095 count is factual or accurate when he refuses to consider the available pertinent evidence? Even after being seriously misled and misinformed by Waite’s earlier inaccurate 1985 research and count, some may still choose to accept blindly whatever he claims.

Some may choose to close their eyes and mind to available, verifiable, pertinent evidence that can be examined and checked.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
319
Reaction score
2
Points
18
A grad of Tennessee Temple during it's heyday.
According to my Tennessee Temple yearbooks, David Cloud is listed as a First year Bible School student in 1975, a second year student in 1976, and a third year student in 1977.

We were there some of the same years although I do not think that I met or knew him there.
 

Walt

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
13
Points
38
According to my Tennessee Temple yearbooks, David Cloud is listed as a First year Bible School student in 1975, a second year student in 1976, and a third year student in 1977.

We were there some of the same years although I do not think that I met or knew him there.
I'm not sure that he graduated from Tennessee Temple.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
319
Reaction score
2
Points
18
I'm not sure that he graduated from Tennessee Temple.
I also do not know whether David Cloud graduated from Tennessee Temple Bible School.

The Bible School had both a three year program and a four year program. As I recall, one teacher in the Bible school was dismissed during those years, supposedly for teaching KJV-onlyism.
 

Walt

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
13
Points
38
I also do not know whether David Cloud graduated from Tennessee Temple Bible School.

The Bible School had both a three year program and a four year program. As I recall, one teacher in the Bible school was dismissed during those years, supposedly for teaching KJV-onlyism.
My recollection from his testimony is that he attended there, not that he graduated there, but I'm not so obsessed with him that I recall everything about him.

UPDATE: I was wrong; I did a little searching, and apparently he is a graduate of Temple.
 

ALAYMAN

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
5,421
Reaction score
31
Points
48
According to my Tennessee Temple yearbooks, David Cloud is listed as a First year Bible School student in 1975, a second year student in 1976, and a third year student in 1977.

We were there some of the same years although I do not think that I met or knew him there.

I may have overstated my case, as I am not sure if he graduated or not, only that he attended. And of course that statement was merely a descriptor for the OP (Edwards) to have some context to answer the nature of his query.
 
Top