The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his084/answers.lzh/ANSWERS.TXT

Text File | 1991-06-29 | 236.1 KB | 4,981 lines

KJB:Answers to those probing questions about the authority of the KJB

   QUESTION 1: Shouldn't we be loyal to the "original autographs" and
not a mere translation?

   ANSWER: We should put as much value on the "originals" as God does.

   EXPLANATION: It is impossible to be true to the originals because
the originals have long been lost. This well established fact should be
enough to make the sincere student of Scripture realize that an
affirmative answer to the question is an impossibility.

   But it does not explain the above answer. Just how much value does
God put on the originals?

   To get the answer we must explore seveal chapters in the book of
Jeremiah beginning with the famous passage in chapter 36 concerning the
roll that Jeremiah had written.

   In verse 21 the roll is brought before King Jehoiakim and read by
his servant Jehudi.

   According to verse 23 Jehudi read three or four leaves and King
Jehoiakim cut it up with a penknife and cast it into the fire on the
hearth until it was destroyed.

   Thus ends ORIGINAL #1!

   Then the Lord moved Jeremiah to rewrite the roll adding some words
to it. (Jeremiah 36:32)

   Thus ORIGINAL #2 is born.

   We are shown the text of this second original in Jeremiah 45- 51
where it reproduced for our benefit.

   Jeremiah told Seraiah to read this roll when he came into Babylon
(Jeremiah 51:59-61). Then Jeremiah instructed Seraiah, after he
finished reading the roll, to bind a stone to it and cast it into the
Euphrates river (Jeremiah 51:63)!

   Thus ends ORIGINAL #2!

   But wait! We have a copy of the text of the roll in chapters 45-51.
Where did it come from? It came from a copy of original #2 which we can
only call ORIGINAL #3!

   So there are two very big problems for those who overemphasize the
"originals."

   (1) Every Bible ever printed with a copy of Jeremiah in it has a
text in chapters 45-51 which is translated from a copy of the "second"
original, or ORIGINAL #3.

   (2) Secondly, NO ONE can overlook the fact that God didn't have the
least bit of interest in preserving the "original" once it had been
copied and its message delivered. So WHY should we put more of an
emphasis on the originals than God does? An emphasis which is plainly
unscriptural.

   Thus, since we have the text of the "originals" preserved in the
King James Bible we have no need of the originals, even if they were
available.

   QUESTION: Isn't "Easter" in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation of the word
pascha and shouldn't it be translated as "passover"?

   ANSWER: No, pascha is properly translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 as
the following explanation will show.

   EXPLANATION: The Greek word which is translated "Easter" in Acts
12:4 is the word pascha. This word appears twenty-nine times in the New
Testament. Twenty-eight of those times the word is rendered "passover"
in reference to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt and killed
all the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), thus setting Israel free
from four hundred years of bondage. The many opponents to the concept
of having a perfect Bible have made much of this translation of pascha.
Coming to the word "Easter" in God's Authorized Bible, they seize upon
it imagining that they have found proof that the Bible is not perfect.
Fortunately for lovers of the word of God, they are wrong. Easter, as
we know it, comes from the ancient pagan festival of Astarte. Also
known as Ishtar (pronounced "Easter"). This festival has always been
held late in the month of April. It was, in its original form, a
celebration of the earth "regenerating" itself after the winter season.
The festival involved a celebration of reproduction. For this reason
the common symbols of Easter festivities were the rabbit (the same
symbol as "Playboy" magazine), and the egg. Both are known for the
reproductive abilities. At the center of attention was Astarte, the
female deity. She is known in the Bible as the "queen of heaven"
(Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25). He is the mother of Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14)
who was also her husband! These perverted rituals would take place at
sunrise on Easter morning (Ezekiel 8:13-16). From the references in
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we can see that the true Easter has never had any
association with Jesus Christ. Problem: Even though the Jewish passover
was held in mid April (the fourteenth) and the pagan festival Easter
was held later the same month, how do we know that Herod was referring
to Easter in Acts 12:4 and not the Jewish passover? If he was referring
to the passover, the translation of pascha as "Easter" is incorrect. If
he was indeed referring to the pagan holyday (holiday) Easter, then the
King James Bible (1611) must truly be the very word and words of God
for it is the only Bible in print today which has the correct reading.

   To unravel the confusion concerning "Easter" in verse 4, we must
consult our FINAL authority, THE BIBLE. The key which unlocks the
puzzle is found not in verse 4, but in verse 3. (Then were the days of
unleavened bread...") To secure the answer that we seek, we must find
the relationship of the passover to the days of unleavened bread. We
must keep in mind that Peter was arrested during the "days of
unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3).

   Our investigation will need to start at the first passover. This was
the night in which the LORD smote all the firstborn in Egypt. The
Israelites were instructed to kill a lamb and strike its blood on the
two side posts and the upper door post (Exodus 12:4,5). Let us now see
what the Bible says concerning the first passover, and the days of
unleavened bread.

   Exodus 12:13-18: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the
houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you,
and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the
land of Egypt.

   14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep
it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a
feast by an ordinance for ever.

   15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye
shall put away leaven out of your houses; for whosoever eateth leavened
bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut
off from Israel.

   16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you;
no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must
eat, that only may be done of you.

   17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this
selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt:
therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance
for ever.

   18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even,
ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the
month at even."

   Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD
said that He would "pass over" all of the houses which had the blood of
the lamb marking the door.

   After the passover (Exodus 12:13,14), we find that seven days shall
be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are
the days of unleavened bread!

   In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April 14th
through the 21st.

   This religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers
28:16-18: "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover
of the LORD.

   17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days
shall unleavened bread be eaten.

   18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no
manner of servile work therein."

   In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the
14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the "days of
unleavened bread."

   Deuteronomy 16:1-8: "Observe the month of Abib (April), and keep the
passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy
God brought thee forth out of Egypt by might.

   2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God,
of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to
place his name there.

   3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou
eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction: for thou
camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest
remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all
the days of thy life.

   4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy
coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which
thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the
morning.

   5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates,
which the LORD thy God giveth thee:

   6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his
name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going
down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.

   7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy
God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy
tents.

   8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the ºeventh day
shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work
therein."

   Here in Deuteronomy we see again that the passover is sacrificed on
the first night (Deuteronomy 16:1). It is worth noting that the
passover was to be celebrated in the evening (vs. 6) not at sunrise
(Ezekiel 8:13-16).

   In II Chronicles 8:13 we see that the feast of unleavened bread was
one of the three Jewish feasts to be kept during the year.

   II Chronicles 8:13: "Even after a certain rate every day, offering
according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new
moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the
feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast
of tabernacles."

   Whenever the passover was kept, it always preceded the feast of
unleavened bread. In II Chronicles 30 some Jews who were unable to keep
the passover in the first month were allowed to keep it in the second.
But the dates remained the same.

   II Chronicles 30:15,21: "Then they killed the passover on the
fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites
were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt
offerings into the house of the LORD. And the children of Israel that
were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days
with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD
day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD."

   Ezra 6:19,22: "And the children of the captivity kept the passover
upon the fourteenth day of the first month. And kept the feast of
unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made them
joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to
strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of
Israel."

   We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the
subject that the order of events went as follows:

   (1) On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover.
No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover.

   (2) On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread,
also known as the feast of unleavened bread.

   It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the
New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the
night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread
are NEVER referred to as the passover. (It must be remembered that the
angel of the Lord passed over Egypt one night, not seven nights in a
row.)

   Now let us look at Acts 12:3,4: "And because he saw it pleased the
Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of
unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in
prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him;
intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

   Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened
bread (April 15-21). The Bible says: "Then were the days of unleavened
bread." The passover (April 14th) had already come and gone. Herod
could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his statement
concerning Easter. The next passover was a year away! But the pagan
holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan
Roman who worshipped the "queen of heaven." He was NOT a Jew. He had no
reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to
wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are
two grievous faults in this line of thinking.

   First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated
Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod's actions.
(to be continued)

   Second, he could not have been waiting until after the passover
because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious
holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matthew 26:17-19,47).
They were also excited about Herod's murder of James. Anyone knows that
a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious
festivities, not after.

   In further considering Herod's position as a Roman, we must remember
that the Herods were well known for celebrating (Matthew 14:6-11). In
fact, in Matthew chapter 14 we see that a Herod was even willing to
kill a man of God during one of his celebrations.

   It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested Peter
during the days of unleavened bread, after the passover. The days of
unleavened bread would end on the 21st of April. Shortly after that
would come Herod's celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed
Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he wanted to
wait until Easter. Since it is plain that both the Jews (Matthew
26:17-47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during a
religious celebration, Herod's opinion seemed that he was not going to
let the Jews "have all the fun." He would wait until his own pagan
festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.

   Thus we see that it was God's providence which had the Spirit-
filled translators of our Bible (King James) to CORRECTLY translate
pascha as "Easter." It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish
passover. In fact, to change it to "passover" would confuse the reader
and make the truth of the situation unclear.

   QUESTION 3: I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is
this true?

   ANSWER: No.

   EXPLANATION: King James I of England, who authorized the translation
of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of
the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.

   Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of
Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to
form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.

   At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in
English, King James' desire was that the common people should have the
Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of
history's most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a
time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in
spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift
that he could give them. Their own copy of the word of God in English.

   James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in
Italian and Spanish, even wrote a tract entitled "Counterblast to
Tobacco," which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in
England.

   Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon,
had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not
until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James, that Weldon saw
his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously,
James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.

   The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people
alive who knew it wasn't true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until
recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying
King James would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that
Christians would turn away from God's book to a more "modern"
translation.

   It seems, though, that Weldon's false account is being once again
largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of
those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.

   It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was
so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English
people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in
1605.

   In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the
direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in
the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which
he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After
killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-
establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who
resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been
one of the plot's victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other
conspirators were caught and hanged.

   It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of
King James join an unholy lot.

   QUESTION 4: Aren't there archaic words in the Bible, and don't we
need a modern translation to eliminate them?

   ANSWER: Yes and No. Yes there are archaic words in the Bible but No,
we do not need a modern translation to eliminate them.

   EXPLANATION: That there are archaic words in the Bible is very true.
An archaic word is a word which is no longer used in every day speech
and has been replaced by another. A good example of an archaic word is
found in I Corinthians 10:25.

   "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question
for conscience sake."

   The word "shambles" is archaic. It has been replaced in common
speech with the word "market place." Indeed we can be certain that
"shambles" was a much more accurate description of the ancient market
place (and many around the world today). It has none the less passed
from common use.

   Well then, shouldn't we publish a new translation which removes
"shambles" and inserts the more common "market place"?

   No, what we should do is turn to the Bible, our final authority in
all matters of faith and practice and see what the Bible practice is
concerning archaic words. For surely we believers in a perfect Bible
will want to follow the Bible's practice concerning archaic words.

   In searching the Scripture we find the Bible practice for handling
archaic words in I Samuel chapter 9:1-11. "Now there was a man of
Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Zeror, the son of Bechorath,
the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, a mighty man of valour.

   2 And he had a son, whose name was Saul, a choice young man, and a
goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier
person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of
the people.

   3 And the asses of Kish Saul's father were lost. And Kish said to
Saul his son, Take now one of the servants with thee, and arise, go
seek the asses.

   4 And he passed through mount Ephraim, and passed through the land
of Shalisha, but they found them not: then they passed through the land
of Shalim, and there they were not: and he passed through the land of
the Benjamites, but they found them not.

   5 And when they were come to the land of Zuph, Saul said to his
servant that was with him, Come, and let us return; lest my father
leave caring for the asses, and take thought for us.

   6 And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of
God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to
pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that
we should go.

   7 Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what shall
we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and there is
not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we?

   8 And the servant answered Saul aga^n, and said, Behold, I have here
at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I give to the
man of God, to tell us our way.

   9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he
spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a
Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)

   10 Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come let us go. So they
went unto the city where the man of God was.

   11 And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young
maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?"

   Here, in the first eleven verses of I Samuel 9, we are not only
confronted with an archaic word, but with the Bible practice for
handling it.

   We find Saul and one of his father's servants searching for the
asses that had run off (I Samuel 9:1-5). They decide to go to see
Samuel the seer and enlist his help in finding the asses (verses 6-8).

   In verse 11 we are going to run into an a¿chaic word. But, before we
do, God puts a parenthesis in the narrative (verse 9) to tell us about
it. Notice that verse 9 states that "he that is now called a Prophet
was beforetime called a Seer." Thus we see that, between the time that
this event took place and the time that the incident was divinely
recorded the word "Seer" had passed from common use to be replaced with
"Prophet." "Seer" was now archaic.

   BUT, look carefully at verse 11 where the archaic word appeared.

   "And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens
going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?"

   Please note that the verse retains the outdated word "seer." It does
not say, "Is the prophet here?"

   Thus we see that God Himself through the divine inspiration of the
Holy Spirit used verse 9 to explain the upcoming archaic word but did
not change the holy text!

   So we see that, the Bible practice for handling situations such as
we find in I Corinthians 10:25 when preaching is to tell the
congregation something to the effect that "What beforetime was called
`shambles' is now called `market place'." But we should leave the
archaic word in the text. This is what God did! Surely we sinners are
not going to come up with a better method for handling archaic words
than God has.

   So, the answer to the question is, "Yes, there are archaic words in
the Bible but No we do not need a modern translation to eliminate them.
God didn't change His Book, He certainly does not want us doing it.

   QUESTION: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James
Bible since 1611?

   ANSWER: No. There have been several editions but no revisions.

   EXPLANATION: One of the last ditch defenses of a badly shaken critic
of the Authorized version 1611 is the "revision hoax." They run to this
seeming fortress in an attempt to stave off ultimate defeat by their
opponents who overwhelm their feeble arguments with historic facts,
manuscript evidence and to obvious workings of the Holy Spirit. Once
inside, they turn self-confidently to their foes and ask with a smug
look, "Which King James do you use, the 1611 or the 1629 or perhaps the
1769?" The shock of this attack and the momentary confusion that
results usually allows them time to make good their escape.

   Unfortunately, upon entering their castle and closing the door
behind them they find that their fortress has been systematically torn
down, brick by brick, by a man named Dr. David F. Reagan.

   Dr. Reagan pastors the Trinity Baptist Temple in Knoxville,
Tennessee. He has written a devastating expose on the early editions of
the King James Bible entitled, "The King James Version of 1611--the
Myth of Early Revisions."

   Dr. Reagan has done an excellent job of destroying the last
stronghold of Bible critics. I see neither a way, nor a reason to try
to improve on his finding. So I have secured his permission to
reproduce his pamphlet in its entirety:

   THE KING JAMES VERSION OF 1611 THE MYTH OF EARLY REVISIONS

   Introduction

   Men have been "handling the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4:2)
ever since the devil first taught Eve how. From Cain to Balaam, from
Jehudi to the scribes and Pharisees, from the Dark Age theologians to
present-day scholars, the living words of the Almighty God have been
prime targets for man's corrupting hand. The attacks on the Word of God
are threefold: addition, subtraction, and substitution. From Adam's day
to the computer age, the strategies have remained the same. There is
nothing new under the sun.

   One attack which is receiving quite a bit of attention these days is
a direct attack on the Word of God as preserved in the English
language: the King James Version of 1611. The attack referred to is the
myth which claims that since the King James Version has already been
revised four times, there should be and can be no valid objection to
other revisions. This myth was used by the English Revisers of 1881 and
has been revived in recent years by Fundamentalist scholars hoping to
sell their latest translation. This book is given as an answer to this
attack. The purpose of the material is not to convince those who would
deny this preservation but to strengthen the faith of those who already
believe in a preserved English Bible.

   One major question often arises in any attack such as this. How far
should we go in answering the critics? If we were to attempt to answer
every shallow objection to the infallibility of the English Bible, we
would never be able to accomplish anything else. Sanity must prevail
somewhere. As always, the answer is in God's Word. Proverbs 26:4-5
states: Answer not a food according to his folly, lest thou also be
like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in
his own conceit.

   Obviously, there are times when a foolish query should be ignored
and times when it should be met with an answer. If to answer the attack
will make you look as foolish as the attacker, then the best answer is
to ignore the question. For instance, if you are told that the Bible
cannot be infallible because so-and-so believes that it is, and he is
divorced, then you may safely assume that silence is the best answer.
On the other hand, there are often questions and problems that, if
true, would be serious. To ignore these issues would be to leave the
Bible attacker wise in his own conceit. I believe that the question of
revisions to the King James Version of 1611 is a question of the second
class. If the King James Version has undergone four major revisions of
its text, then to oppose further revisions on the basis of an
established English text would truly be faulty. For this reason, this
attack should and must be answered. Can the argument be answered?
Certainly! That is the purpose of this book.

   I--THE PRINTING CONDITIONS OF 1611

   If God did preserve His Word in the English language through the
Authorized Version of 1611 (and He did), then where is our authority
for the infallible wording? Is it in the notes of the translators? Or
is it to be found in the proof copy sent to the printers? If so, then
our authority is lost because these papers are lost. But, you say, the
authority is in the first copy which came off the printing press. Alas,
that copy has also certainly perished. In fact, if the printing of the
English Bible followed the pattern of most printing jobs, the first
copy was probably discarded because of bad quality. That leaves us with
existing copies of the first printing. They are the ones often pointed
out as the standard by which all other King James Bibles are to be
compared. But are they? Can those early printers of the first edition
not be allowed to make printing errors? We need to establish one thing
from the outset. The authority for our preserved English text is not
found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible
English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will
still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will
preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man. Now, let us
look at the pressures on a printer in the year of 1611.

   Although the printing press had been invented in 1450 by Johann
Gutenburg in Germany (161 years before the 1611 printing), the
equipment used by the printer had changed very little. Printing was
still very slow and difficult. All type was set by hand, one piece at a
time (that's one piece at a time through the whole Bible), and errors
were an expected part of any completed book. Because of this difficulty
and also because the 1611 printers had no earlier editions from which
to profit, the very first edition of the King James version had a
number of printing errors. As shall later be demonstrated, these were
not the sort of textual alterations which are freely made in modern
bibles. They were simple, obvious printing errors of the sort that can
still be found at times in recent editions even with all of the
advantages of modern printing. These errors do not render a Bible
useless, but they should be corrected in later editions.

   The two original printings of the Authorized Version demonstrate the
difficulty of printing in 1611 without making mistakes. Both editions
were printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: 1611. The
same printers did both jobs. Most likely, both editions were printed on
the same printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two
editions, approximately 100 textual differences can be found. In the
same vein the King James critics can find only about 400 alleged
textual alterations in the King James Version after 375 years of
printing and four so-called revisions! Something is rotten in
Scholarsville! The time has come to examine these "revisions."

   II--THE FOUR SO-CALLED REVISIONS OF THE 1611 KJV

   Much of the information in this section is taken from a book by
F.H.A. Scrivener called The Authorized Edition of the English Bible
(1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. The book is
as pedantic as its title indicates. The interesting point is that
Scrivener, who published this book in 1884, was a member of the
Revision Committee of 1881. He was not a King James Bible believer, and
therefore his material is not biased toward the Authorized Version. In
the section of Scrivener's book dealing with the KJV "revisions," one
initial detail is striking. The first two so-called major revisions of
the King James Bible occurred within 27 years of the original printing.
(The language must have been changing very rapidly in those days.) The
1629 edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge is said to have been the
first revision. A revision it was not, but simply a careful correction
of earlier printing errors. Not only was this edition completed just
eighteen years after the translation, but two of the men who
participated in this printing, Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, had
worked on the original translation of the King James Version. Who
better to correct early errors than two who had worked on the original
translation! Only nine years later and in Cambridge again, another
edition came out which is supposed to have been the second major
revision. Both Ward and Bois were still alive, but it is not known if
they participated at this time. But even Scrivener, who as you remember
worked on the English Revised Version of 1881, admitted that the
Cambridge printers had simply reinstated words and clauses overlooked
by the 1611 printers and amended manifest errors. According to a study
which will be detailed later, 72% of the approximately 400 textual
corrections in the KJV were completed by the time of the 1638 Cambridge
edition, only 27 years after the original printing!

   Just as the first two so-called revisions were actually two stages
of one process--the purification of early printing errors--so the last
two so-called revisions were two stages in another process--the
standardization of the spelling. These two editions were only seven
years apart (1762 and 1769) with the second one completing what the
first had started. But when the scholars are numbering revisions, two
sounds better than one. Very few textual corrections were necessary at
this time. The thousands of alleged changes are spelling changes made
to match the established correct forms. These spelling changes will be
discussed later. Suffice it to say at this time that the tale of four
major revisions is truly a fraud and a myth. But you say, there are
still changes whether they be few or many. What are you going to do
with the changes that are still there? Let us now examine the character
of these changes.

   III--THE SO-CALLED THOUSANDS OF CHANGES

   Suppose someone were to take you to a museum to see an original copy
of the King James Version. You come to the glass case where the Bible
is displayed and look down at the opened Bible through the glass.
Although you are not allowed to flip through its pages, you can readily
tell that there are some very different things about this Bible from
the one you own. You can hardly read its words, and those you can make
out are spelled in odd and strange ways. Like others before you, you
leave with the impression that the King James Version has undergone a
multitude of changes since its original printing in 1611. But beware,
you have just been taken by a very clever ploy. The differences you saw
are not what they seem to be. Let's examine the evidence.

   Printing Changes

   For proper examination, the changes can be divided into three kinds:
printing changes, spelling changes, and textual changes. Printing
changes will be considered first. The type style used in 1611 by the
KJV translators was the Gothic Type Style. The type style you are
reading right now and are familiar with is Roman Type. Gothic Type is
sometimes called Germanic because it originated in Germany. Remember,
that is where printing was invented. The Gothic letters were formed to
resemble the hand-drawn manuscript lettering of the Middle Ages. At
first, it was the only style in use. The Roman Type Style was invented
fairly early, but many years passed before it became the predominant
style in most European countries. Gothic continued to be used in
Germany until recent years. In 1611 in England, Roman Type was already
very popular and would soon supersede the Gothic. However, the original
printers chose the Gothic Style for the KJV because it was considered
to be more beautiful and eloquent than the Roman. But the change to
Roman Type was not long in coming. In 1612, the first King James
Version using Roman Type was printed. Within a few years, all the
Bibles printed used the Roman Type Style.

   Please realize that a change in type style no more alters the text
of the Bible than a change in format or type size does. However, the
modern reader who has not become familiar with Gothic can find it very
difficult to understand. Besides some general change in form, several
specific letter changes need to be observed. For instance, the Gothic
"s" looks like the Roman "s" when used as a capital letter or at the
end of a word. But when it is used as a lower case "s" at the beginning
or in the middle of a word, the letter looks like our "f." Therefore,
also becomes alfo and set becomes fet. Another variation is found in
the German "v" and "u." The Gothic "v" looks like a Roman "u" while the
Gothic "u" looks like a Roman "v." This explains why our "w" is called
a double-u and not a double-v. Sound confusing? It is until you get
used to it. In the 1611 edition, love is loue, us is vs, and ever is
euer. But remember, these are not even spelling changes. They are
simply type style changes. In another instance, the Gothic "j" looks
like our "i." So Jesus becomes Iefus (notice the middle "s" changed to
"f") and joy becomes ioy. Even the Gothic "d" had the stem leaning back
over the circle in a shape resembling that of the Greek Delta. These
changes account for a large percentage of the "thousands" of changes in
the KJV, yet they do no harm whatsoever to the text. They are nothing
more than a smokescreen set up by the attackers of our English Bible.

   Spelling Changes

   Another kind of change found in the history of the Authorized
Version are changes of orthography or spelling. Most histories date the
beginning of Modern English around the year 1500. Therefore, by 1611
the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present-day English
had long been established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at
the same time. In the 1600s spelling was according to whim. There was
no such thing as correct spelling. No standards had been established.
An author often spelled the same word several different ways, often in
the same book and sometimes on the same page. And these were the
educated people. Some of you reading this today would have found the
1600s a spelling paradise. Not until the eighteenth century did the
spelling begin to take a stable form. Therefore, in the last half of
the eighteenth century, the spelling of the King James Version of 1611
was standardized.

   What kind of spelling variations can you expect to find between your
present edition and the 1611 printing? Although every spelling
difference cannot be categorized, several characteristics are very
common. Additional "e"'s were often found at the end of the words such
as feare, darke, and beare. Also, double vowels were much more common
than they are today. You would find mee, bee, and mooued instead of me,
be, and moved. Double consonants were also much more common. What would
ranne, euill, and ftarres be according to present- day spelling? See if
you can figure them out. The present-day spellings would be ran, evil,
and stars. These typographical and spelling changes account for almost
all of the so-called thousands of changes in the King James Bible. None
of them alter the text in any way. Therefore they cannot be honestly
compared with thousands of true textual changes which are blatantly
made in the modern versions.

   Textual Changes

   Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for. We now
come to the question of actual textual differences between our present
editions and that of 1611. There are some differences between the two,
but they are not the changes of a revision. They are instead the
correction of early printing errors. That this is a fact may be seen in
three things: (1) the character of the changes, (2) the frequency of
the changes throughout the Bible, and (3) the time the changes were
made. First, let us look at the character of the changes made from the
time of the first printing of the Authorized English Bible. The changes
from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual are obviously
printing errors because of the nature of these changes. They are not
textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing, words
were sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or
vice versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A
few times a word or even a phrase was omitted. The omissions were
obvious and did not have the doctrinal implications of those found in
modern translations. In fact, there is really no comparison between the
corrections made in the King James text and those proposed by the
scholars of today.

   F.H.A. Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the variations
between the 1611 edition of the KJV and later printings. A sampling of
these corrections is given below. In order to be objective, the samples
give the first textual correction on consecutive left-hand pages of
Scrivener's book. The 1611 reading is given first; then the present
reading; and finally, the date the correction was first made.

   1 this thing--this thing also (1638)

   2 shalt have remained--ye shall have remained (1762)

   3 Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik--of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of
Aphik (1762)

   4 requite good--requite me good (1629)

   5 this book of the Covenant--the book of this covenant (1629)

   6 chief rulers--chief ruler (1629)

   7 And Parbar--At Parbar (1638)

   8 For this cause--And for this cause (1638)

   9 For the king had appointed--for so the king had appointed (1629)

   10 Seek good--seek God (1617)

   11 The cormorant--But the cormorant (1629)

   12 returned--turned (1769)

   13 a fiery furnace--a burning fiery furnace (1638)

   14 The crowned--Thy crowned (1629)

   15 thy right doeth--thy right hand doeth (1613)

   16 the wayes side--the way side (1743)

   17 which was a Jew--which was a Jewess (1629)

   18 the city--the city of the Damascenes (1629)

   19 now and ever--both now and ever (1638)

   20 which was of our father's--which was our fathers (1616)

   Before your eyes are 5% of the textual changes made in the King
James Version in 375 years. Even if they were not corrections of
previous errors, they would be of no comparison to modern alterations.
But they are corrections of printing errors, and therefore no
comparison is at all possible. Look at the list for yourself and you
will find only one that has serious doctrinal implications. In fact, in
an examination of Scrivener's entire appendix, it is the only variation
found by this author that could be accused of being doctrinal. I am
referring to Psalm 69:32 where the 1611 edition has "seek good" when
the Bible should have read "seek God." Yet, even with this error, two
points demonstrate that this was indeed a printing error. First, the
similarity of the words "good" and "God" in spelling shows how easily a
weary typesetter could misread the proof and put the wrong word in the
text. Second, this error was so obvious that it was caught and
corrected in the year 1617, only six years after the original printing
and well before the first so-called revision. The myth that there are
several major revisions to the 1611 KJV should be getting clearer. But
there is more.

   Not only does the character of the changes show them to be printing
errors, so does their frequency. Fundamentalist scholars refer to the
thousands of revisions made to the 1611 as if they were on a par with
the recent bible versions. They are not. The overwhelming majority of
them are either type style or spelling changes. The few which do remain
are clearly corrections of printing errors made because of the
tediousness involved in the early printing process. The sample list
given above will demonstrate just how careful Scrivener was in listing
all the variations. Yet, even with this great care, only approximately
400 variations are named between the 1611 edition and modern copies.
Remember that there were 100 variations between the first two Oxford
editions which were both printed in 1611. Since there are almost 1200
chapters in the Bible, the average variation per chapter (after 375
years) is one third, i.e., one correction per every three chapters.
These are changes such as "chief rulers" to "chief ruler" and "And
Parbar" to "At Parbar." But there is yet one more evidence that these
variations are simply corrected printing errors: the early date at
which they were corrected.

   The character and frequency of the textual changes clearly separate
them from modern alterations. But the time the changes were made
settles the issue absolutely. The great majority of the 400 corrections
were made within a few years of the original printing. Take, for
example, our earlier sampling. Of the twenty corrections listed, one
was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in
1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in 1769. That means that 16 out
of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twenty-seven years of the
1611 printing. That is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions
the scholars would have you to believe. In another study made by
examining every other page of Scrivener's appendix in detail, 72% of
the textual corrections were made by 1638. There is no "revision" issue.

   The character of the textual changes is that of obvious errors. The
frequency of the textual changes is sparse, occurring only once per
three chapters. The chronology of the textual changes is early with
about three fourths of them occurring within twenty-seven years of the
first printing. All of these details establish the fact that there were
no true revisions in the sense of updating the language or correcting
translation errors. There were only editions which corrected early
typographical errors. Our source of authority for the exact wording of
the 1611 Authorized Version is not in the existing copies of the first
printing. Our source of authority for the exact wording of our English
Bible is in the preserving power of Almighty God. Just as God did not
leave us the original autographs to fight and squabble over, so He did
not see fit to leave us the proof copy of the translation. Our
authority is in the hand of God as always. You can praise the Lord for
that!

   IV--CHANGES IN THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES

   An in-depth study of the changes made in the book of Ecclesiastes
would help to illustrate the principles stated above. The author is
grateful to Dr. David Reese of Millbrook, Alabama, for his work in this
area. By comparing a 1611 reprint of the original edition put out by
Thomas Nelson & Sons with recent printing of the King James Version,
Dr. Reese was able to locate four variations in the book of
Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the text of the Thomas
Nelson 1611 reprint. This is followed by the reading of the present
editions of the 1611 KJV and the date the change was made:

   1 1:5 the place--his place (1638)

   2 2:16 shall be--shall all be (1629)

   3 8:17 out, yea further--out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther
(1629)

   4 11:17 thing is it--thing it is (?)

   Several things should be noted about these changes. The last
variation ("thing is it" to "thing it is") is not mentioned by
Scrivener who was a very careful and accurate scholar. Therefore, this
change may be a misprint in the Thomas Nelson reprint. That would be
interesting. The corrected omission in chapter eight is one of the
longest corrections of the original printing. But notice that it was
corrected in 1629. The frequency of printing errors is average (four
errors in twelve chapters). But the most outstanding fact is that the
entire book of Ecclesiastes reads exactly like our present editions
without even printing errors by the year 1638. That's more than 350
years ago. By that time, the Bible was being printed in Roman type.
Therefore, all (and I mean all) that has changed in 350 years in the
book of Ecclesiastes is that the spelling has been standardized! As
stated before, the main purpose of the 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions
was the correction of earlier printing errors. And the main purpose of
the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization of spelling.

   V--THE SO-CALLED JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER REVISIONS

   Maybe now you see that the King James Version of 1611 has not been
revised but only corrected. But why does it make that much difference?
Although there are several reasons why this issue is important, the
most pressing one is that fundamentalist scholars are using this myth
of past revisions to justify their own tampering with the text. The
editors of the New King James Version have probably been the worst in
recent years to use this propaganda ploy. In the preface of the New
King James they have stated, "For nearly four hundred years, and
throughout several revisions of its English form, the King James Bible
has been deeply revered among the English- speaking peoples of the
world." In the midst of their flowery rhetoric, they strongly imply
that their edition is only a continuation of the revisions that have
been going on for the past 375 years. This implication, which has been
stated directly by others, could not be more false. To prove this
point, we will go back to the book of Ecclesiastes.

   An examination of the first chapter in Ecclesiastes in the New King
James Version reveals approximately 50 changes from our present
edition. In order to be fair, spelling changes (cometh to comes; labour
to labor, etc.) were not included in this count. That means there are
probably about 600 alterations in the book of Ecclesiastes and
approximately 60,000 changes in the entire Bible. If you accuse me of
including every recognizable change, you are correct. But I am only
counting the sort of changes which were identified in analyzing the
1611 King James. That's only fair. Still, the number of changes is
especially baffling for a version which claims to be an updating in the
same vein as earlier revisions. According to the fundamentalist
scholar, the New King James is only a fifth in a series of revisions.
Then pray tell me how four "revisions" and 375 years brought only 400
changes while the fifth revision brought about 60,000 additional
changes? That means that the fifth revision made 150 times more changes
than the total number of changes in the first four! That's preposterous!

   Not only is the frequency of the changes unbelievable, but the
character of the alterations is serious. Although many of the
alterations seem harmless enough at first glance, many are much more
serious. The editors of the New King James Version were sly enough not
to alter the most serious blunders of the modern bibles. Yet, they were
not afraid to change the reading in those places that are unfamiliar to
the average fundamentalist. In these areas, the New King James Version
is dangerous. Below are some of the more harmful alterations made in
the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the
reading as found in the King James Version; and last, the reading as
found in the New King James Version.

   1:13 sore travail; grievous task

   1:14 vexation of spirit; grasping for the wind

   1:16 my heart had great experience of wisdom; My heart has
understood great wisdom

   2:3 to give myself unto; to gratify my flesh with

   2:3 acquainting; guiding

   2:21 equity; skill

   3:10 the travail, which God hath given; the God-given task

   3:11 the world; eternity

   3:18 that might manifest them; God tests them

   3:18 they themselves are beasts; they themselves are like beasts

   3:22 portion; heritage

   4:4 right work; skillful work

   5:1 Keep thy foot; Walk prudently

   5:6 the angel; the messenger of God

   5:8 he that is higher than the highest; high official

   5:20 God answereth him; God keeps him busy

   6:3 untimely birth; stillborn child

   7:29 inventions; schemes

   8:1 boldness; sternness

   8:10 the place of the holy; the place of holiness

   10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a
stinking savour; Dead flies putrefy the perfumer's ointment

   10:10 If the iron be blunt; If the ax is dull

   10:10 wisdom is profitable to direct; wisdom brings success

   12:9 gave good heed; pondered

   12:11 the masters of assemblies; scholars

   This is only a sampling of the changes in the book, but notice what
is done. Equity, which is a trait of godliness, becomes skill (2:21).
The world becomes eternity (3:11). Man without God is no longer a beast
but just like a beast (3:18). The clear reference to deity in
Ecclesiastes 5:8 ("he that is higher than the highest") is successfully
removed ("higher official"). But since success is what wisdom is
supposed to bring us (10:10), this must be progress. At least God is
keeping the scholars busy (5:20). Probably the most revealing of the
above mentioned changes is the last one listed where "the masters of
assemblies" become "scholars." According to the New King James, "the
words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd."
The masters of assemblies are replaced by the scholars who become the
source of the Shepherd's words. That is what these scholars would like
us to think, but it is not true.

   In conclusion, the New King James is not a revision in the vein of
former revisions of the King James Version. It is instead an entirely
new translation. As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this
book is not to convince those who use the other versions. The purpose
of this book is to expose a fallacious argument that has been
circulating in fundamentalist circles for what it is: an overblown
myth. That is, the myth that the New King James Version and others like
it are nothing more than a continuation of revisions which have
periodically been made to the King James Version since 1611. There is
one problem with this theory. There are no such revisions.

   The King James Bible of 1611 has not undergone four (or any) major
revisions. Therefore, the New King James Version is not a continuation
of what has gone on before. It should in fact be called the Thomas
Nelson Version. They hold the copyright. The King James Version we have
today has not been revised but purified. We still have no reason to
doubt that the Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God
preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its
veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James Version in
1611, or in the character of King James I, or in the scholarship of the
1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan
England, or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the
infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of
God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have His Word.

   Individual copies of Dr. Reagan's excellent pamphlet can be obtained
by sending one dollar to:

   Trinity Baptist Temple Bookstore 5709 N. Broadway Knoxville,
Tennessee 37918 [phone]

   QUESTION: Don't the best manuscripts support the new versions?

   ANSWER: No. The best manuscripts support the Bible, the Authorized
Version.

   EXPLANATION: The new versions are only supported by about five of
the over 5,000 manuscripts of Bible text. Critics of the Bible claim
that these manuscripts are better than those used by the translators of
the Authorized Version. This is not so.

   The two most prominent of these, Vaticanus, which is sole property
of the Roman Catholic Church, and Sinaiticus, are both known to be
overwhelmed with errors. It is said that Sinaiticus has been corrected
and altered by as many as ten different writers. In Vaticanus is found
the evidence of very sloppy workmanship. Time and again words and whole
phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while
the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or
persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact
identification of many of the characters impossible.

   Both manuscripts contain uninspired, anti-scriptural books which are
not found in the Bible.

   The only place where these error laden, unreliable manuscripts excel
is in the quality of the materials used on them. They have good
bindings and fine animal skin pages. Their physical appearance,
contrary to their worthless texts, are really rather attractive. But
then we have all heard the saying, "You can't judge a book by its
cover." The covers are beautiful but their texts are reprehensible.

   And yet in spite of these well-known corruptions, they are the basis
for many new versions such as the New American Standard Version and the
New International Version rendering these versions critically flawed
and unreliable.

   The manuscripts represented by the King James Bible have texts of
the highest quality. So we see that the best manuscripts are those used
by the King James translators.

   QUESTION: If there is a perfect Bible in English, doesn't there also
have to be a perfect Bible in French, and German, and Japanese, etc.?

   ANSWER: No. God has always given His word to one people in one
language to do one job--convert the world. The supposition that there
must be a perfect translation in every language is erroneous and
inconsistent with God's proven practice.

   EXPLANATION: This explanation comes in three parts: the Old
Testament, the New Testament, the entire Bible.

   (1) The Old Testament:

   It is an accepted fact that, with the exception of some portions of
Ezra and Daniel, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. It is also
accepted that it was divinely given to the Jews.

   Thus God initiates His pattern of operation. He gave His words to
one people in only one language.

   God, apparently unintimidated by modern scholarship, did not feel
obligated to supply His words in Egyptian, Chaldean, Syrian, Ethiopian,
or any other of the languages in use on the earth at the time the Old
Testament was written.

   (2) New Testament:

   It is also an accepted fact that the New Testament was written in
Greek, Koine Greek to be exact. Again, the Lord apparently saw no
reason to inspire a perfect original in all of the languages of the
world extant at that time.

   Only this time, instead of giving His Book to a nation, such as
Israel, He simply gave it to the Christians who were told to go out and
convert the world (Matthew 28:19). His choice of Greek as the language
of the New Testament was obvious in that it was the predominant
language of the world at the time.

   (3) The Entire Bible:

   It is obvious that God now needed to get both His Old Testament and
His New Testament welded together in a language that was common to the
world. Only English can be considered such a language.

   The English language had been developing for many centuries until
the late sixteenth century. About that time it finally reached a state
of excellence that no language on earth has ever attained. It would
seem that God did the rest. He chose this perfect language for the
consummation of His perfect Book.

   First England and later the United States swept the globe as the
most powerful nations on earth, establishing English in all corners of
the globe as either a primary or secondary language.

   Today nations who do not speak English must still teach English to
many of their citizens. Even nations antagonistic to the West such as
Russia and Red China must teach English to their business and military
personnel.

   Thus in choosing English in which to combine His two Testaments, God
chose the only language which the world would know. Just as He has
shown in His choosing only one language for the Old Testament and only
one language for the New Testament, He continued that practice by
combining those two testaments in only one language.

   But let us not forget the fact that, by choosing the English
language, God has given us a mandate to carry out the great commission.
He did not give us a perfect Bible to set placidly on the coffee table
in our living room to let our guests know that we are "religious." He
did not give it to us to press a flower from our first date, or to have
a record of our family tree. He gave it to us to read! And to tuck
under our arm and share with the lost world the good news of Jesus'
payment for sin that is found inside.

   Let's get busy!

   QUESTION: Where do Bible manuscripts come from?

   ANSWER: Most existing manuscripts of the Bible are divided into two
"families." These families are generally represented by the cities of
Alexandria, Egypt; and Antioch, Syria.

   EXPLANATION: There are only two Bibles, God's and the devil's. There
are only two views of the Bible. It is totally perfect or it is
imperfect.

   The two Bibles, in manuscript form, and their corresponding
ideologies originate in two vastly different locations in the Middle
East-- Alexandria, Egypt; and Antioch, Syria. Discerning which location
gives us the perfect Bible and the correct ideology and which gave us
the devil's bible and incorrect ideology is one of the easiest tasks
imaginable. This pursuit is made childishly easy due to one source, the
Bible.

   As we have stated so many times, yet shall again, we accept the
Bible as our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
Therefore, all anyone need do is to explore the Bible and discover what
GOD thinks of Alexandria, Egypt and what He thinks of Antioch, Syria.

   When studying Scripture a fundamental rule that is followed is
called "the law of first mention." This means that it is generally true
that the context in which someone or something is first mentioned sets
the Bible attitude for that person or place.

   In our study of Alexandria and Antioch we find it impossible to
ignore the Bible's attitude toward Egypt itself.

   Egypt

   (1) Egypt is first mentioned in Genesis 12:10-12.

   10 "And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into
Egypt to sojourn there: for the famine was grievous in the land.

   11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt,
that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a
fair woman to look upon:

   12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see
thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but
they will save thee alive."

   In Genesis 12:1-3 we find Abraham is given what is known as the
Abrahamic Covenant. Literally it is God's promise to deliver the world
to Abraham and his seed as their own private possession.

   In Genesis 12:10 Abraham goes down into Egypt to escape a famine in
his homeland. In verse 12 we find Abraham's fear that the Egyptians
might kill him and steal Sarai his wife. NOT exactly a positive
context. We see then that the first mention of Egypt is negative.

   (2) In Exodus 1:11-14 we find that the Jews were slaves in Egypt.

   11 "Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them
with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom
and Raamses.

   12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and
grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel.

   13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with
rigour:

   14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar,
and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their
service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour."

   In fact, Pharaoh decrees that all male Jewish babies are to be
killed in verses 15 and 16.

   15 "And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the
name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:

   16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew
women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill
him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live."

   Obviously a negative connotation.

   (3) In Exodus chapter 20, after He had brought the children out of
Egypt, God, with His own voice, tells what He thinks of Egypt in verse
2 where He describes it as a "house of bondage." "I am the LORD thy
God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house
of bondage."

   Again, a negative comment and this one directly from God's lips.

   (4) In Deuteronomy 4:20 Moses refers to Egypt as "the iron furnace."

   "But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron
furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as
ye are this day."

   (5) In Deuteronomy 17:16 Israel is told that, in the future, when
they have a king he is not to carry on commercial trade with Egypt.

   "But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people
to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses:
forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no
more that way."

   (6) And finally in Revelation 11:8, when God wants to denounce
Jerusalem, He compares it to Sodom and Egypt.

   "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city,
which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was
crucified."

   This brief study has shown what most Christians already know. The
Bible has a negative outlook on Egypt.

   Alexandria

   We find that Alexandria is mentioned only four times in Scripture
and that each mention is bad.

   (1) Alexandria is first mentioned in Acts 6:9.

   "Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the
synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of
them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen."

   It was Jews from Alexandria who were in the crowd that disputed with
and eventually killed Stephen.

   (2) The second mention of Alexandria is in Acts 18:24.

   "And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent
man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus."

   Here we find a Jew from Alexandria named Apollos who though fervent
in spirit was misinformed concerning the gospel. Not knowing the true
gospel of Jesus Christ he preached, in Ephesus, the baptism of John the
Baptist (Acts 18:25; 19:3). Apollos was not saved and neither were his
converts.

   Later, Apollos is led to Christ by Aquila and Priscilla (verse 26)
and gets his message straightened out (verse 28).

   But in its second mention, Alexandria is synonymous with bad Bible
teaching.

   (3) The third and fourth mentions of Alexandria are very similar.
After Paul is arrested in Acts 21 and appeals his case to Caesar he is
sent to Rome, and eventual death, on a ship from, of all places,
Alexandria (Acts 27:6).

   "And there the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing into
Italy; and he put us therein."

   (4) While sailing to Rome, Paul's ship is sunk in a tempest. After
spending three months on the island of Melita he is sent on his way to
eventual death on another ship. And where is this second ship from that
is so ready to carry Paul to his death?

   Acts 28:11, "And after three months we departed in a ship of
Alexandria, which had wintered in the isle, whose sign was Castor and
Pollux."

   We see then that all four Bible references to Alexandria are
negative. No one with any honesty could pretend that the Bible's
representation of Alexandria is good.

   It must also be noted here that Alexandria was a center of education
and philosophy (Colossians 2:8) which it received from Athens in about
100 B.C. (Acts 17:16). There was a school of the Scriptures founded
there by one Pantaenus who was a philosopher. Pantaenus interpreted
scripture both philosophically and allegorically. That is to say that
philosophically he believed truth to be relative, not absolute. He did
not believe that the Bible was infallible. By looking at the Bible
allegorically he believed that men such as Adam, Noah, Moses, and David
existed only in Jewish poetry and were not true historical characters.
He was succeeded as head of the school by Clement of Alexandria and
later by Origen--men who shared his skepticism.

   It was Origen, deceived by the dual intoxicants of education and
philosophy, who upon receipt of pure copies of scripture altered them
to parallel his twisted thinking. He is the father of all Bible critics
and is not only responsible for the physical manuscripts which delete
such verses as Luke 24:40, Acts 8:37 and I John 5:7, but he is also
responsible for the Alexandrian philosophy parroted by so many of our
fundamental scholars who claim that "The Bible is perfect and
infallible" with one breath and then state, "The Bible has mistakes and
mistranslations" with the very next. It is this demented ideology that
gave birth to the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts in the first place.
Thus we see that not only are the physical manuscripts of Alexandria
corrupt and to be rejected, but the Alexandrian philosophy, that the
Bible has mistakes in it and must be corrected, is even more subtle and
dangerous and must be forsaken by true Bible believers.

   Antioch

   Ironically the first mention of Antioch is found in the very same
book and chapter as Alexandria, Acts chapter 6, but in a radically
different context.

   (1) When the Apostles saw a need for helpers, helpers whom today we
know as "deacons," they gave instructions for what kind of men should
be chosen for the position.

   Acts 6:3,4: "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of
honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint
over this business.

   4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the
ministry of the word."

   The seven men chosen are listed in Acts 6:5.

   "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen,
a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus,
and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of
Antioch."

   Please notice that one of the first deacons, Nicolas, was of
Antioch. Is this a mere coincidence? Certainly not! Neither is it
coincidental that Nicolas is the only deacon whose home town is given.
Neither is it coincidental that Antioch is mentioned for the first time
in Scripture in the same chapter in which Alexandria is mentioned. And
it is certainly no difficult feat to see that one, Antioch, is first
mentioned in a positive light and the other, Alexandria, is first
mentioned in a negative light.

   The next few appearances of Antioch start as a trickle and end as a
flood of testimony to God's choice of Antioch for the center of His New
Testament church.

   (2) Antioch appears next in Scripture in Acts 11:19-21.

   19 "Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that
arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and
Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

   20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they
were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.

   21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number
believed, and turned unto the Lord."

   Here we find that certain of the Christians who had taken flight
during the persecution preached the gospel as they fled.

   Upon arrival in Antioch they, not knowing what had happened in Acts
10 with Peter opening the door of the gospel to the Gentiles, preached
the gospel to the Grecians. Verse 21 tells us that God's Holy Spirit
worked mightily in Antioch and that a "great number" were saved.

   We see then that the first great Gentile awakening occurred in
Antioch.

   (3) In Acts 11:22-24 we find that Barnabus (the son of consolation,
Acts 4:36) was sent to Antioch to see what was happening in Antioch.

   22 "Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church
which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go
as far as Antioch.

   23 Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and
exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto
the Lord.

   24 For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith:
and much people was added unto the Lord."

   Through the ministry of this great man of God, many more people were
added to Christ.

   (4) In Acts 11:25,26, two important facts are revealed.

   25 "Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he
had found him, he brought him unto Antioch.

   26 And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves
with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called
Christians first in Antioch."

   First, we find Barnabas departing for Tarsus to seek the young
convert Saul. It was Barnabas who defended Paul's conversion to the
doubting disciples in Acts 9:26,27. Doubtless he was grieved to see the
zealous young convert shipped off to Tarsus (Acts 9:30), and oblivion.
Upon finding Saul, Barnabas does not bring him back to Jerusalem. (And
certainly not to Alexandria.) He returns with him to Antioch, the
spiritual capital of the New Testament church. All that Paul ever
became, he owes to the gracious act of this godly old saint.

   (5) In Acts 11:26 we find that born again believers were called
"Christians" for the first time at Antioch. Thus every time we
believers refer to ourselves as "Christians" we complete a spiritual
connection to our spiritual forefathers in Antioch. Antioch is to the
Christian what Plymouth Rock is to the American.

   (6) In verses 27 and 28 we find that God has now packed up His
prophets and sent them north to Antioch.

   27 "And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.

   28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the
Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world:
which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar."

   Jerusalem is left spiritually abandoned--home only of the disciples,
who were told to leave it years earlier in Acts 1:8.

   (7) In Acts 11:29,30 we find that the saints, whom God is blessing
in Antioch, must send monetary aid to the saints whom God is not
blessing in Jerusalem.

   29 "Then the disciples, every man according to his ability,
determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:

   30 Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of
Barnabas and Saul."

   Yet these are not the final Biblical references to the capital of
God's New Testament church.

   (8) When God decides to send missionaries out into the world to
preach the gospel, He never even glances in the direction of Jerusalem.
(And most assuredly not Alexandria, Egypt). He looks instead to His
faithful servants at Antioch.

   Acts 13:1-3: "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch
certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called
Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with
Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

   2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said,
Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

   3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them,
they sent them away."

   Thus, it is evident that the first missionary journey mentioned in
Scripture originated in Antioch, with "Christians" from Antioch. And
when this great work was fulfilled, no one wasted any time sightseeing
or sending reports to Jerusalem. They simply returned to Antioch.

   Acts 14:25-28: "And when they had preached the word in Perga, they
went down unto Attalia:

   26 "And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been
recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.

   27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together,
they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened
the door of faith unto the Gentiles.

   28 And there they abode long time with the disciples."

   Our last two glimpses of Antioch give evidence that to be in Antioch
is to be in the middle of the will of God.

   (9) In Acts chapter 15 the disciples in Jerusalem feel a need to
send a pair of envoys to Antioch with their decrees concerning Gentile
believers.

   Acts 15:23-27: "And they wrote letters by them after this manner;
The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren
which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

   24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us
have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be
circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

   25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send
chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

   26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ.

   27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you
the same things by mouth."

   Following the completion of the mission, Judas returns to Jerusalem,
and oblivion. Silas elects to stay in Antioch, and it is Silas whom we
find gaining a prominent place in Scripture as Paul's missionary
partner on his second missionary journey.

   (10) Of course, the second missionary journey did not originate in
Jerusalem. It originated in the only place that it possibly could have,
Antioch, as Acts 15:40 illustrates.

   What was it about Antioch that was so attractive to God that He
chose it as the center of New Testament Christianity?

   It might be noted that Antioch, although it was a cultural center,
had not abandoned itself to pagan religion, pagan education and pagan
philosophy as had such prominent sites as Rome, Athens, and Alexandria.

   It might also be weighed that Antioch, unlike the above mentioned
cities, or even Jerusalem, was located almost exactly in the middle of
the known world, and was built at the crossing of the East-West trade
routes. It even boasted a sea port, via the Orontes River. These are
all important attributes for the capital of Christianity, which is
known for its mobility.

   It may be that many of the original autographs of Paul's epistles
were penned in Antioch.

   In the second century, a disciple by the name of Lucian founded a
school of the Scriptures at Antioch. Lucian was noted for his mistrust
of pagan philosophy. His school magnified the authority and divinity of
Scripture and taught that the Bible was to be taken literally, not
figuratively as the philosophers of Alexandria taught.

   So Antioch is not only the point of origin for the correct family of
Bible manuscripts, but is also the source for the ideology that accepts
the Bible as literally and perfectly God's words. Today many well
meaning, but "Alexandrian" educated preachers are uplifting the
Antiochian Bible (King James) but with the Alexandrian conviction that
it cannot be perfect. In fact, this Egyptian conviction states that
there cannot be a perfect Bible on earth, in spite of God's promise in
Psalm 12:6,7.

   To accept the proper Book with an improper attitude will only
predestine one to make the same mistakes and corruptions that their
Egyptian forefathers did.

   Can anyone ignore a Bible admonition and not fall?

   Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, ignored the Biblical
admonition to avoid Egypt and not go down to Egypt to multiply horses
(Deuteronomy 17:6). In I Kings 3:1 he married Pharaoh's daughter. In I
Kings 10:28 he had horses brought up out of Egypt. What was the result?
By I Kings 11:3,4 we find that his heart had been turned away from
following God. In verses 5-8 he began worshipping other gods. And by
verses 9-43 God has pronounced judgment on him. If God doesn't want His
people to go down to Egypt for horses, do we dare go there for a Bible
or an ideology?

   Solomon could not get away with ignoring the Bible's view of Egypt.
Are you wiser than Solomon?

   QUESTION: What is the LXX?

   ANSWER: A figment of someone's imagination.

   EXPLANATION: First, let's define what the LXX, also known as the
"Septuagint," is supposed to be. An ancient document called "The Letter
of Aristeas" revealed a plan to make an OFFICIAL translation of the
Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) in Greek. This translation was to be
accepted as the official Bible of the Jews and was to replace the
Hebrew Bible. Supposedly this translation work would be performed by 72
Jewish scholars (?), six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The
supposed location of the work was to be Alexandria, Egypt. The alleged
date of translation was supposedly around 250 BC, during the 400 years
of silence between the close of the Old Testament in 397 BC and the
birth of Christ in approximately 4 BC (due to a four-year error in the
calendar).

   It has become known as the Septuagint, "The Interpretation of the 70
Elders." Also it is represented by the Roman (?) numerals whose
combined value is 70, hence L-50, X-10, X-10. Why it isn't called the
LXXII I'll never know.

   This so-called "Letter of Aristeas" is the sole evidence for the
existence of this mystical document. There are absolutely NO Greek Old
Testament manuscripts in existence with a date of 250 BC or anywhere
near it. Neither is there any record in Jewish history of such a work
being contemplated or performed.

   When pressed to produce hard evidence of the existence of such a
document, scholars quickly point to Origen's Hexapla written around 200
AD, or approximately 450 years later than the LXX was supposedly
penned, and more than 100 years after the New Testament was completed.
The second column of Origen's Hexapla contains his own (hardly 72
Jewish scholars) Greek translation of the Old Testament including
spurious books such as "Bel and the Dragon," "Judith" and "Tobit" and
other apocryphal books accepted as authoritative only by the Roman
Catholic Church.

   Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't
translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the
second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it
were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added
the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!)
Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to
God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18).

   Thus we see that the second column of the Hexapla is Origen's
personal, unveilable translation of the Old Testament into Greek and
nothing more.

   Eucebius and Philo, both of questionable character, make mention of
a Greek Pentateuch. Hardly the entire Old Testament and not mentioned
as any kind of an officially accepted translation.

   Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE
the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the
Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No
more. No less. In fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that
led Eucebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentateuch had been
translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the
history of the Jews. It most certainly cannot be a portion of any
pretended official Old Testament translation into Greek. We can rest
assured that those 72 Jewish scholars supposedly chosen for the work in
250 BC would be just a mite feeble by 150 BC.

   Besides the non-existence of any reason to believe such a
translation was ever produced are several hurtles which the "Letter of
Aristeas," Origen's Hexapla, Ryland's #458, and Eucebius and Philo just
cannot clear.

   The first one is the "Letter of Aristeas" itself. There is little
doubt amongst scholars today that it was not written by anyone named
Aristeas. In fact, some believe its true author is Philo. This would
give it an A.D. date. If this were true, then its REAL intention would
be to deceive believers into thinking that Origen's second column is a
copy of the LXX--a feat that it has apparently accomplished "in spades."

   If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable
problems.

   First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his
six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered
by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12
tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was
impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.

   Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have
undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.

   (1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the
tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi
2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare join
such a forbidden enterprise.

   (2) It is obvious to any reader of the Bible that the Jews were to
be distinctly different from the Gentile nations around them. Unto them
was given such distinct practices as circumcision, Sabbath worship,
sundry laws of cleansing and their own homeland. Added to this is the
heritage of the Hebrew language. Even today, practicing Jews in China
and India refuse to teach their children any language but Hebrew. The
Falasha Jews of Ethiopia were distinct among the many tribes of their
country by the fact that they jealously retained the Hebrew language as
an evidence of their Jewish heritage.

   Are we to be so naive as to believe that the Jews who considered
Gentiles nothing more than dogs, would willingly forsake their
heritage, the Hebrew language, for a Gentile language into which would
be translated the holiest possession of all, their Bible? Such a
supposition is as insane as it is absurd.

   "What then," one might ask, "of the numerous quotes in the New
Testament of the Old Testament that are ascribed to the LXX?" The LXX
they speak of is nothing more than the second column of Origen's
Hexapla. The New Testament quotations are not quotes of any LXX or the
Hexapla. They are the author, the Holy Spirit, taking the liberty of
quoting His work in the Old Testament in whatever manner He wishes. And
we can rest assured that He certainly is not quoting any non- existent
Septuagint.

   Only one more question arises. Then why are scholars so quick to
accept the existence of this LXX in the face of such irrefutable
arguments against it? The answer is sad and simple.

   Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to learn. It takes years
of study to attain a passing knowledge of it, and many more to be well
enough versed to use it as a vehicle of study. By comparison a working
knowledge of Greek is easily attainable. Thus, IF THERE WAS an official
translation of the Old Testament into Greek, Bible critics could triple
the field of influence overnight without a painstaking study of
biblical Hebrew. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the existence of the
Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on pride and voracity.

   But stop and think. Even if such a spurious document as the LXX
really did exist, how could a Bible critic, who, in reference to the
King James Bible, say that "No translation has the authority of the
original language," and claim in the same breath that his pet LXX has
equal authority with the Hebrew "original"? This scholarly double- talk
is nothing more than a self-exalting authority striving to keep his
scholarly position above those "unschooled in the original languages."

   If you accept such an argument, I have a bridge to sell you in
Brooklyn!

   QUESTION: What does this statement mean: "The King James Bible was
good enough for the Apostle Paul, so it's good enough for me."

   ANSWER: This statement is usually made in a sarcastic manner in
order to embarrass Bible believers in their belief. The FACT is, the
King James Bible WAS good enough for Paul. We'll discuss this in detail
the next question. But for now I'd like you to see that it was the only
Bible that Luke would use.

   EXPLANATION: In Acts 1:1,2 Luke makes the following statement: "The
former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both
to do and teach.

   Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the
Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen."

   "The former treatise" is of course the Gospel of Luke which Luke
wrote to a believer named Theophilus. Theophilus was apparently an
early Christian who had never personally met the Lord while He was on
this earth. Considering, though, that he was the recipient of both the
Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, he was most certainly one
of the best informed.

   Luke, in what may have been a passing comment, in the second verse
of Acts chapter one, rings the death blow to the famous Nestle's Greek
New Testament and also the New American Standard Version. Luke states
that his "former treatise" told of all that Jesus began to do, and
continued, "until the day in which he was taken up." The things which
Jesus began to do are first recorded in Luke 2:41-52 in which He was
left behind in Jerusalem when Joseph and His mother left to return to
Nazareth. This correlates with Acts 1:1. Luke's Gospel is the only one
of the four Gospels which records any of Christ's actions prior to His
baptism at the age of thirty years old (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:9 and John
1:29-34).

   Luke's gospel ends with Christ being "carried up into heaven" in
Luke 24:51. This correlates with Acts 1:2, "Until the day in which he
was taken up."

   Thus, Luke states that his gospel begins with the earliest acts of
Christ and ends with His ascension. Therefore, any Greek manuscript or
manuscripts, no matter what their age, containing the Gospel of Luke,
which omits either of these accounts is not authentic. In an
examination of the 23rd edition of Nestle's Greek Text we find that the
Greek words, "Kai anepheroto eis ton huranon," "and was carried up into
the heaven" are not found in this text.

   The footnote in the critical apparatus indicates that the authority
for removing this phrase is no more than manuscript (MS) Sinaiticus, D,
one majuscule MS known as number 52 and one 5th century palimpsect (a
MS which has been erased and written over top of). The phrase "and
carried up into heaven" is found in B, C, E, F, G, H, L, S, T, V, Y, Z,
Delta, Theta, Psi, and Omega plus papyrus p75, and most remaining
witnesses. Yet on the basis of only two MSS the conservative scholars
of the secret Lockman Foundation have omitted this phrase from Luke
24:51 in the New American Standard Version (NASV). Hence, the NASV is
not truly a reliable translation. In fact, of most modern versions,
only the "liberal" scholars of the Revised Standard Version (RSV)
agreed with the "conservative" scholars of the NASV in omitting the
phrase. Thus the known Communistic liberals of the RSV and the
conservatives of the NASV are in full agreement that Christ did not
ascend bodily into heaven.

   So we see that if Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the
book of the Acts of the Apostles, could examine a King James Bible and
a New American Standard Version he would declare the New American
Standard Version a fraud and promptly proclaim the King James Bible as
authentic.

   Well, quite frankly, if it's good enough for Luke, it's good enough
for me.

   QUESTION: I've heard that the italicized words in the King James
Bible should be removed because they were added by the translators.
Should they be removed?

   ANSWER: If we remove any of the italicized words we must either
remove them ALL or accept them ALL as Scripture.

   EXPLANATION: Following are the problems with removing the italicized
words from the Bible:

   1. Anyone who has ever translated from one language to another knows
that words MUST be added to the finished work to complete the sentence
structure of the new language.

   All translators do this when translating the Bible. The King James
translators were men of integrity so they put the added words in
italics.

   Example #1:

   Psalm 23:1 reads "The LORD is my shepherd" in the King James Bible.
The word "is" was added by the translators to complete the sense of the
sentence, and is italicized.

   Psalm 23:1 in the New International Version reads, "The LORD is my
shepherd," with no italics.

   So it is plain to see that both sets of translators added the same
word to complete the sentence. Yet the King James translators put the
word in italics to inform the reader that they had added it.

   Example #2:

   John 1:8 reads, "He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness
of that Light" in the King James Bible.

   John 1:8 reads, "He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness
of that Light" in the New King James Version.

   Again, both sets of translators have added words to their
translation so that it would make sense. In this case it is the phrase
"was sent." Yet again, it is the King James translators who put their
addition in italics for clarity.

   Thus we see that the translators of our Bible should be commended on
their integrity and ethics for their addition of the italicized words
instead of castigated for a practice which all of our modern "would be"
scholars follow routinely--and less honestly, if you consider that they
don't bother to italicize their added words.

   2. Critics of the Bible, fundamental or otherwise, claim that the
italics can be removed, but NEVER remove them all. Usually they are
stumped by a passage such as the word "unknown" in 1 Corinthians 14.
Since they cannot explain the passage with the italicized word in the
passage they make the thoughtless statement reproduced above and remove
the problem word.

   But this opens a tremendously large "can of worms!" For if we say
that italicized words do not belong in the text, we cannot say that one
italicized word should be removed from the Bible, but we must say that
ALL italicized words must be removed from the Bible. Even the casual
student of Scripture knows that the Bible will make no sense at all if
ALL italicized words are removed.

   To remove one italicized word and leave another in is to claim
Divine Inspiration in knowing which words should go and which words
should stay.

   Regardless of how great a preacher, soul-winner, or scholar might be
none of us are going to bow our knees to them with the claim that they
are Divinely inspired to reject or accept words in the Bible. If we are
so foolish as to exalt a man's opinion in such a way, who should we
exalt? There are hundreds of Bible critics who would vie for the office
of "Official Divinely Inspired Bible Corrector." Who would be the lucky
person? How would we choose him? And WHO would be so naive as to think
that all Christians would follow his decrees? Yet without his decrees
we have NO WAY OF KNOWING which italicized words belong in the Bible
and which ones do not.

   So we see that overcoming problem passages will require prayer and
Bible reading instead of carelessly removing a troublesome word.

   3. One of the classic defenses for leaving the italicized words
alone is found in II Samuel 21:19.

   "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where
Elhanan the son of Jaaroregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of
Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."

   By omitting the italicized words we have the Bible saying that
Elhanan killed Goliath. Of course everyone knows that I Samuel 17 says
that David killed Goliath. So we finally have the Bible that all lost
men love to refer to when they say, "The Bible has contradictions in
it."

   Of course, our "Divinely inspired Bible Corrector" would probably
say the italics in II Samuel 21:19 do not need to be removed. But then
who's to know which words to remove or which ones to keep in unless God
"appeared" to them and told them.

   4. Our fourth and best reason for not meddling with God's choice of
words for His Bible comes from none other than the Apostles Peter and
Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

   First, take a Bible (King James, of course) and read Psalm 16:8. I
have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I
shall not be moved.

   You will notice that the two words "he is" are in italics. Yet when
we find the Apostle Peter quoting this verse in the New Testament in
Acts 2:25 we find it says:

   "For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before
my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:"

   So here we find the Apostle Peter quoting Psalm 16:8 italicized
words and all! You would almost believe that God wanted them in there
wouldn't you?

   Now it might be pointed out that Peter was an unlearned and ignorant
man (Acts 4:13) and so, lacking the "benefits" of a Bible college
education, he blindly accepted the Bible (King James?) as every word of
God. But let us look at the same phenomena concerning the Apostle Paul
and the Lord Jesus Christ.

   Paul, as did other New Testament writers, often quoted from the Old
Testament in his writings. In doing so, he quoted as did the others
directly from the Hebrew text. We have several of Paul's quotes which
contain words not found in the Hebrew original.

   In Romans 10:20 Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1.

   Romans 10:20: "But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of
them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not
after me."

   Isaiah 65:1: "I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found
of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation
that was not called by my name."

   Yet we see that the words "them that" which Paul quoted as though
they were in Isaiah 65:1 exist only in the italics of the King James
Bible.

   The same is true of I Corinthians 3:20, "And again, The Lord knoweth
the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain," which is a quote of
Psalm 94:11, "The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man that they are
vanity," where we find the word "are" supplied by the translators.

   But the most unexplainable is Paul's quote of Deuteronomy 25:4 in I
Corinthians 9:9. "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not
muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take
care for oxen?"

   Deut. 25:4, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the
corn."

   Here we find Paul quoting the words "the corn" just as if they had
been in the Hebrew original even though they are only found in the
italics of our Authorized Version!

   If one were to argue that Paul was quoting a supposed Greek
Septuagint translation of the original Hebrew, our dilemma only
worsens. For now, two perplexing questions present themselves to us.
First, if such a Greek translation ever existed (which is not
documented in history), by what authority did the translators insert
these words? Secondly, if they were added by the translators, does
Paul's quoting of them confirm them as inspired?

   While you ponder these important questions, we will note that Jesus
also quoted from what appears to have been a King James Bible.

   We find Him quoting a word that wasn't in the "originals." In fact,
a word that only exists in the italics found in the pages of the King
James Bible.

   Read below, please, Deuteronomy 8:3.

   "And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with
manna, which thou knewest not, neither did they fathers know; that he
might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every
word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."

   You will note that the word "word" is in italics, meaning, of
course, that it was not in the Hebrew text. Upon examination of
Deuteronomy 8:3 in Hebrew one will find that the word "dabar" which is
Hebrew for "word" is not found anywhere in the verse.

   Yet in His contest with Satan we find Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 8:3
as follows in Matthew 4:4.

   "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by
bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

   While quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 Jesus quotes the entire verse
including the King James italicized word! Even an amateur "scholar" can
locate "ramati," a form of "rama," which is Greek for "word," in any
Greek New Testament.

   So, just as critics of the Bible like to joke and say, "Well, the
King James was good enough for the Apostle Paul so it's good enough for
me," a true Bible-believer can truly say, "Well, the King James was
good enough for the Apostles Peter and Paul and for the Lord Jesus
Christ, so it's good enough for me."

   So we see we have three options on what to do with the italicized
words in the Bible:

   (1) Remove all of them.

   (2) Exalt one of our fundamental Bible critics to the office of
"Official Divinely Inspired Bible Corrector" and then give his decrees
all the weight and allegiance that we would give to Jesus Christ.

   (3) Leave all the words in our divinely inspired Bible alone, and
trust that just maybe Jesus Christ is correct.

   As though we had a choice!

   QUESTION: Aren't there some great men who use other versions?

   ANSWER: Yes, but they are all in subjection to the perfect Bible.

   EXPLANATION: There are preachers who are considered "great" by many
who either openly or covertly disdain the concept of the Bible being
perfect. They correct it with regularity and openly attack those who
claim to accept it as infallible.

   There are also many Christian colleges and universities where a
student is shown "mistakes" in the King James Bible. The obvious
question is: "How can these great men and institutions be wrong and
still have God bless them?" The answer is found in the Bible, our final
authority in all matters of faith and practice.

   As we turn to II Kings 17 we find Israel in a sad state. They have
been conquered by Assyria, and the Israelites were carried away captive
(II Kings 17:23). The king of Assyria then planted heathen foreigners
in the land of Israel (II Kings 17:24). These people did not fear God
so He sent lions among them to kill them (verse 25), causing them to
cry out for Jewish priests to be sent to teach them how to worship "the
God of the land" (II Kings 17:26-28). The result is found in verses 32
and 41. The Bible says that, "They feared the LORD, and served their
own gods."

   This same thing is true among our fundamental preachers and
colleges. Many fundamental preachers really do not believe that the
Bible is infallible, but they dare not admit it. So they "fear the
LORD," i.e., they stand in the pulpit, hold the Bible in the air, and
declare, "This Book is the absolute word of God without a mixture of
error." Then, out of the pulpit they "serve their own gods" in that
they privately point to what they consider mistakes in the Bible and
ridicule anyone who really believes what they had just said in the
pulpit. This may seem hypocritical. It is. It may seem two-faced. It
is. But rest assured, they would never say that they believe the Bible
is perfect while standing in the pulpit if they didn't "Fear the LORD"
enough to know that they would be ruined if anyone knew what they
really believed. In other words, you'll never hear one of them stand in
the pulpit, hold up the Bible and say, "I believe that this Book is
poorly translated and full of errors and that there isn't a perfect
version on the face of this earth that you can hold in your hand." If
they ever made such an honest confession they know that they would be
"through." Thus God's "lions" MAKE them bow their knees to the perfect
Bible even if they do it only as lip service.

   Likewise, our Christian colleges and universities dare not say,
"Come to our school and we will destroy your faith in the perfect Bible
and show you that it is filled with errors." No, to only "serve their
own gods" in such a way would bring the "lions" to the campus doors.
They "Fear the LORD" enough to advertise themselves as schools who
"Stand without apology for the absolute authority of Scripture" or some
even go so far as to boast "We use only the King James Bible." Then,
after the student has been accepted, after the student has committed
himself to the school, then and only then, do they begin ever so subtly
to destroy their faith in the perfect Bible and show that the "good old
King James" is full of errors. But they know, and God knows that they
were too scared not to bend their knees to "the God of the land" and
His Book, the King James Bible.

   QUESTION: Where was the Bible before 1611?

   ANSWER: In the available Antiochian manuscripts.

   EXPLANATION: Critics of the perfect Bible like to throw out this
question as though it will "stun" Bible believers. It doesn't.

   The overwhelming majority of Bible manuscripts in existence
throughout history have been the text found in Antioch. They have
always been available in some form, either in copies of the original
Greek, or the old Latin of 150 A.D. (NOT to be confused with Jerome's
corrupt "Vulgate") or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 A.D.

   That it would be difficult indeed to gather all of these sources
together and place them in the hands of the common man gives credence
to God's reasoning for the collation and translation of the King James
Bible.

   QUESTION: Did the translators of the Authorized Version claim to be
inspired by God?

   ANSWER: No. But Biblically that does not mean that they could NOT
have been inspired.

   EXPLANATION: The men on the translation committee of the King James
Bible were, without dispute, the most learned men of their day and
vastly qualified for the job which they undertook. They were overall
both academically qualified by their cumulative knowledge and
spiritually qualified by their exemplary lives.

   Among their company were men who, academically, took a month's
vacation and used the time to learn and master an entirely foreign
language; wrote a Persian dictionary; invented a specialized
mathematical ruler; one was an architect; mastered oriental languages;
publicly debated in Greek; tutored Queen Elizabeth in Greek and
mathematics; and of one it was said, "Hebrew he had at his finger's
end." Yet head knowledge can be a curse if not tempered by a fervent,
pious heart.

   In this, the spiritual realm, they were light years ahead of many
today who flaunt their education yet fail in any attempt at a
practical, personal witness.

   This company was blessed with men known for their zeal and tact in
debating and converting Romanists to Christ. They spent hours in
private and family devotions. Many did the work of evangelism and even
that of missionary representatives of later Queen Elizabeth. One lived
to the age of one hundred and three years. In the closing years of his
life, after preaching for two full hours, he said to his congregation,
"I will no longer trespass on your patience"--to which the entire
congregation cried out with one consent, "For God's sake go on!" He
then continued his exposition of the Word of God at length.

   Yet humanity was a universal trait shared among them as is so amply
revealed in the Epistle Dedicatory:

   "So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons
at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor
instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto
the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness;
or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self- conceited
Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but
what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil;...."

   Yet, in spite of their outstanding character, they never claimed
divine inspiration. (A claim which, if they had made, would overjoy
their detractors as evidence of a prideful spirit.) They never even
claimed perfection for their finished work.

   Does this mean that, because they did not claim God's hand in
translating the Scripture, that He could not be or was not in control
of their commission? For the answer we must look to the Bible, our
final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

   When John the Baptist was accosted by the Levites in John chapter
one and asked if he was Elijah (John 1:21) he answered that he was not
Elijah. Yet in Matthew chapters 11:7-14 and 17:10-13 Jesus Christ
plainly stated that John was Elijah.

   Did John the Baptist lie? No. Did Jesus Christ lie? Of course not.
The answer is very simply that John was Elijah but he didn't know it!
Thus we see from our Bible example that a man can have God working
through him and not know it. Likewise, God could easily have divinely
directed the King James translators without their active knowledge.

   QUESTION: Aren't today's scholars better equipped to translate the
Bible than the King James translators were?

   ANSWER: No.

   EXPLANATION: The answer to the question is "No" for two reasons.

   First is that, the scholarship of the men who translated the King
James Bible is literally unsurpassable by today's scholars. Two books
available best illustrate this and should be read by anyone who wants
to seriously study the subject. They are Translators Revived, by
Alexander McClure (Maranatha Publications), and The Men Behind the King
James Version, by Gustavus Paine (Baker Book House).

   The men of the King James translation committee were scholars of
unparalleled ability. A brief description of their several abilities
was given under a previous question.

   Secondly, it would be foolish and contradictory to believe that
today's scholars ever could equal or surpass those of the Authorized
Version.

   Most Christians agree that the world, with time, degenerates. Morals
have degenerated since 1611. Character has degenerated since 1611. Even
our atmosphere has degenerated. Are we then to believe that education
has gotten better? Only a worshipper of education could pretend to
believe such a fairy tale. Education has degenerated along with the
entire world system and could never produce a scholar equal to those of
nearly four hundred years ago.

   QUESTION: Did King James authorize his translation to be used in the
churches in England?

   ANSWER: No. He authorized its translation, but not its usage.

   EXPLANATION: It is difficult for someone in the twentieth century,
especially someone in America, to fathom the conditions of nearly four
hundred years ago. We Christians not only have a Bible in our language,
but more often than not, we have several. Added to that is our
concordance and a raft of Bible commentaries and sundry other
"Christian" books.

   Yet the world of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was
quite different. The common man in England had no Bible. The only copy
available to him was chained to the altar of the church. As recently as
1536, William Tyndale had been burned at the stake for the high crime
of printing Bibles in the language of the common man, English. When
King James commissioned the fifty-four translators in 1603 he did not
mandate the upcoming translation to be used in churches. In fact, that
it was translated and not intended for the churches left it only one
explainable destiny. That is, that it should be supplied to the common
man.

   It might be noted that the world has no greater power than the
common man with the common Bible in his hand.

   QUESTION: If King James didn't authorize the Bible for use in
churches, who was it translated for?

   ANSWER: The common man.

   EXPLANATION: There is so much made of the perfection, or supposed
imperfection, of the Bible that one element in the equation is often
overlooked. That is, the reason for having a perfect Bible in the first
place, the common man. If there was no common man, there would be no
need for a Bible in the common language.

   Let us remember that the church (any religious organization in this
case) has always had access to scripture. The result of their having
the Bible has generally tended toward pride and a sense of "lording"
over the flock. But put the Bible in the hands of the common man and
it's a different story. It has been said, "Put a beggar on horseback
and he'll ride off at a gallop." This best describes a common man's
reaction to being given a perfect Bible.

   The common man is the moving (but not directing) force of the world.
He is needed to fill everything from armies to churches. He is the
consumer and not a gas station or grocery store can survive without
him. He obediently serves the state with little interest or information
concerning who is governing his life. His energy is used for profit by
those in control of him, but he must never be given the power of
government. He may be allowed to vote for those governing him, but he
must be kept out of the governmental system himself.

   The same is true in the ecclesiastical realm. Indeed, he should be
in subjection to his pastor, but no one has the right to keep him
ignorant of his Creator's will for his life. That will is found in the
Bible.

   Over the centuries, the prime violator in this area has been the
Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church has gone to great
lengths to keep its people and others ignorant of the Scriptures. Roman
Catholics are generally told that they can't understand the Bible. You
can understand the chagrin of a Roman Catholic priest when one of his
church members gets a Bible in his own language and claims to be able
to understand it.

   The war that the Roman Catholic Church has waged against the Bible
has been carried out primarily in two ways.

   1. Keep the people ignorant by controlling access to the Bible.

   2. Counter God's Bible with one of their own.

   Access to the Bible is controlled in two ways. First, the common man
is persuaded that he cannot understand the Scripture and must subject
himself to the authority of his priest and his private interpretation.
Where this method can't be used, such as with non-Catholics, the Roman
Catholic Church seeks to establish itself as a controlling factor in
the government (preferably the state religion) and then physically
confiscates all copies of the Bible and destroys them. Objectors are
killed. This pattern has been followed by the Roman Catholic Church for
centuries with great success.

   The second method to eliminate the Bible is to replace it with one
of Roman Catholic making. These then are used to fill any gap left by
the confiscation of the true Bible.

   In history this has been done several times. When the Roman Catholic
Church saw the popularity and the threat of the Old Latin Bible (called
the Vulgate from the Latin "vulgar" meaning "common") of 150 A.D. they
had their own Latin Bible translated from manuscripts which had been
corrupted in Alexandria, Egypt. This work was foisted upon a reluctant
Roman Catholic scholar by the name of Jerome and, upon publication in
380 A.D., was promptly and shamelessly entitled "The Vulgate." This
worthless book sat unused for 800 years until the Roman Catholic Church
"eliminated the competition" by burning all of the original (good)
Vulgates along with their owners. This, of course, ushered in the Dark
Ages, a time of unsurpassed power for the Roman Catholic Church. To
this day, most people upon hearing acclaim for the Latin Vulgate (the
good one, 150 A.D.) erroneously attribute it to the usurping Roman
Catholic Vulgate of 380 A.D.

   Most new English translations available today are from these same
corrupt Roman Catholic manuscripts. In the hands of the common man,
these bibles do nothing. They are perfectly safe to "the powers that
be."

   King James, whether he knew it or not, gave the common man back his
most valued possession, the true Bible in English. (The Roman Catholic
Church had translated its own English Bible in 1582 in Rheims, France.
It was worthless.) King James and his translating committee may have
never expected their new translation to go any farther than the shores
of England. But God and the common man saw fit to carry it around the
globe. It has even been to the MOON and back!

   Today the common man is in grave danger of having his perfect Bible
stolen from him again. This is being accomplished by two methods.

   First, an attempt is being made (and has been under way for 100
years) to physically replace the King James Bible with bibles
translated from corrupt Roman Catholic manuscripts. These books are
powerless and worthless, perfect for the job. Sadly, the King James
Bible is being attacked by many saved, fundamental teachers and
preachers who really may be well intentioned, but who do enjoy the
feeling of authority (Roman Catholic, pope-like authority) and power
that being able to "correct" the Bible brings them. This all important
transition is taking place in both churches and Bible colleges
("Bible-believing" Bible colleges at that).

   The second area of conquest is the very brain of the common man, and
it also is carried out in two phases.

   The first is the "suppressive phase" in which the victim is
bombarded with so much anti-King James propaganda that he is
spiritually suppressed from mentally accepting the true, perfect Bible.
This method robs his brain of the Bible even though his hand may
possess it. In other words, his Bible has been stolen from his brain
but not taken from him physically. (Yet!)

   The second phase is the "brain washing phase." This is carried out
by preachers, teachers and especially the "Christian" media. Christian
radio stations have almost universally desisted from using the King
James Bible. They have "Bible readings," daily memory verses, and even
read the Christmas story in Luke 2 from any bible but the King James.
This robs the subconscious mind of the true Bible. For you see, many
Bible rejecting preachers, upon trying to preach from a new version,
are confronted by some "unlearned and ignorant" (Acts 4:13) church
member who, though unable to argue down the pastor's sales pitch
concerning the new translation, retorts with, "But that just doesn't
`sound' like the Bible."

   By constantly hearing other versions read over radio, TV or in
Christian schools the younger generation of Christians will never have
the benefit of subconsciously knowing what "The Bible" sounds like.

   So we see that the real enemy of the Roman Catholic Church and the
Roman Catholic totalitarian spirit found among some fundamentalists is
NOT just the Bible. It is the Bible in the hand and heart of the common
man. The same person whom the devil hates and hopes to fill hell with.

   Has your Bible been stolen from your hand? What about your brain?

   QUESTION: Someone said, "The King James Bible is the Word of God
because I got saved through it!" Is that statement correct?

   ANSWER: No.

   EXPLANATION: The Bible is infallible and perfect without any
influence by any sinner. By accepting Christ as our personal Saviour we
impart nothing to Scripture, though God imparts eternal life to us.

   Many have been led to Christ by someone using other versions. I once
spoke with a man who vehemently claimed that the Good News for Modern
Man version was the infallible word of God because someone had led him
to Christ using it. Wrong! His getting saved through a Good News for
Modern Man did not correct so much as one of the many gross
inaccuracies in that version.

   I have a friend who believes the Bible (KJV) to be the infallible,
perfect word of God. Yet he himself was led to Christ by someone using
a Living Bible. Did the Living Bible become the infallible Word of God
the moment he believed? Of course not. It never was perfect and never
will be. But if it did become perfect because he got saved through it,
would it not have lost its perfection when he chose to use the King
James?

   So we see that the Bible, King James of course, is the infallible,
perfect word and words of God regardless of what someone used to lead
you or me to Christ. In fact, it would still be the perfect infallible
word and words of God, even if we hadn't gotten saved at all.

   QUESTION: Are people who believe the King James Bible "church
splitters?"

   ANSWER: No. The only church that a believer in the perfect Bible
could possibly split would have to be one that didn't believe that the
Bible was perfect.

   EXPLANATION: Sometimes false accusations are based on
misunderstandings. Sometimes they are based upon utter and complete
falsehood. The fallacy that people believing in the perfect Bible are
church splitters is unfortunately based entirely and maliciously on
falsehood.

   Sadly, there are many Christians who have been through the
traumatizing experience of a church split. It would be erroneous to
pretend that every church split was caused by someone believing that
the King James Bible was perfect.

   Churches split over everything from money issues to the question of
what color to paint the new auditorium. The FACT of the matter is that
Christians sadly lack the grace found in Romans 14 and Luke 17:1- 5. It
has nothing to do with the King James Bible. To try to claim that it
does is to be a great deal less than honest.

   QUESTION: Aren't all King James Bible believers "name callers?"

   ANSWER: No.

   EXPLANATION: In recent years, the issue of a perfect Bible has been
expertly handled by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. Dr. Ruckman is a highly
educated teacher/preacher who accepts the Antiochian manuscripts as
authentic and views them with the Antiochian ideology that accepts the
Bible as perfect.

   Dr. Ruckman's style is forceful in regard to the authority of
Scripture and his treatment of Bible critics is devastating. His
approach to most Bible issues is one of grace, where many Christians
lack such grace. But on the singular issue of the authority of
Scripture his approach is similar to the Apostle Paul (II Corinthians
10:10) and the great English scholar, John William Burgon.

   A very few advocates of the perfect Bible, lacking Dr. Ruckman's
scholastic qualifications, have assimilated his caustic style with
tragic results.

   The broad majority of King James Bible believers do not utilize this
style simply because it is not their natural style.

   QUESTION: Don't King James Bible believers "worship" the Bible?
Didn't God destroy the originals because He didn't want these people to
venerate them?

   ANSWER: No and no.

   EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible have become very
frustrated in recent years. This is due to the fact that their entire
argument against the Bible has been systematically destroyed by
historical fact, their own shortfall of scholastic ability and the
consistent blessing of the King James Bible by the Holy Spirit.

   In a desperate attempt to "sling mud" at Bible believers, they make
the two statements found above.

   Do King James Bible believers worship the Bible? No. They do not
pray to it as they do to Jesus Christ. They do not preach that "the
Bible saves" but that Jesus saves. They blissfully mark notes all over
their Bibles, though none would dare to do so to Jesus Christ.

   There is not even enough evidence to mistakenly believe that King
James Bible believers worship the Bible. Therefore, the charge is
unfortunately born of malice, not sincerity.

   Did God destroy the originals to keep King James Bible believers
from some day worshipping them? No. Nothing could be farther from fact.

   God allowed the originals to pass off the scene because their only
value was their words, which He preserved through copies. Once the
originals had served their purpose and were copied, they received no
loyalty from God or His people.

   If the originals were somehow to "miraculously" appear today, they
would be of little interest to Bible believers since they make little
of them now.

   If anyone would venerate them, it would probably be the crowd that
makes so much of them today, the Bible critics.

   QUESTION: Aren't King James Bible believers a cult?

   ANSWER: No.

   EXPLANATION: The charge that King James Bible believers are a cult
is similar to the charge that they worship the Bible. It is a result of
the same frustration and born of the same malice. Sadly, when facts do
not prove them right, character assassination is in order.

   Cults are somewhat difficult to define, although there are two
outstanding characteristics evident in all cults.

   First, a cult has a central body that makes decisions for all of its
disciples. Most King James Bible believers are fiercely independent and
many times disagree about other doctrines, even with one another. Their
only central authority is the Bible, not a college or university.

   Secondly, most cults fear that their disciples will investigate
their opposition's beliefs and then be converted by the truth.
Therefore, they make strict rules disallowing books and materials that
disagree with their doctrine.

   Again, since the facts support the Authorized Version, King James
Bible believers are not afraid to study the charges of their critics.
In fact, this series of questions and answers attempts to confront all
of the Bible critic's charges with complete candor.

   Now, it will be noted that, there are some Bible colleges and
universities which have a policy of confiscating books which support
the view of a perfect Bible.

   It makes one wonder just who is the "cult" and who isn't.

   QUESTION: Is it "heresy" to believe that the King James Bible is
perfect?

   ANSWER: No.

   EXPLANATION: It is amusing yet appalling that a King James Bible
believer, who BELIEVES the Bible to be inerrant, is called a "heretic"
by people who claim to believe that the Bible is inerrant.

   "Heresy," according to Webster, is "an opinion or doctrine contrary
to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs."

   It is "generally accepted" that the Bible is the perfect word of
God. I have often told people, "I don't believe that the King James
Bible is the inerrant word of God. I believe that the BIBLE is the
inerrant word of God. But if you ask me to give you a copy of that
Bible, I'll hand you a King James Bible."

   Critics of the King James Bible believe that the "Bible" is the
inerrant word of God. BUT, ask them to hand you a copy of that inerrant
Bible that they "believe" in, and you will find that it doesn't exist
anywhere on this earth!

   We King James Bible believers simply believe what they CLAIM to
believe. And for that we are called "heretics."

   Actually the "heretic" label is designed more to scare young
adherents away from the inerrant Bible, than to honestly define the
name callers' feelings. It is hoped by the Bible critic that the fear
of being labeled a "heretic" will discourage zealous Christians from
REALLY believing what Bible critics claim to believe.

   In fact, if it is "generally accepted by fundamentalists that the
Bible is the inerrant word of God" and the Bible critic can find a
mistake in every Bible that you put in his hand, then...who really is
the heretic?

   QUESTION: Who was Dean Burgon?

   ANSWER: He was an outstanding 19th century Bible scholar.

   EXPLANATION: John William Burgon (1813-1888) was a man of tremendous
intellect and ranks among men such as Lancelot Andrews (1555-1626) and
Robert Dick Wilson (1856-1930) in scholarship. He became the Dean of
Chichester and has since been known as "Dean" Burgon.

   Dr. Burgon was contemporary with Westcott and Hort. He was an
advocate of the Textus Receptus and was the nemesis of Westcott and
Hort's feeble arguments against it. He believed, unlike Westcott and
Hort, in basing all conclusions on the solid foundation of facts rather
than the sand of theory. He would leave no stone unturned in his quest
for truth and no blow undelivered in his defense of it.

   His serious scholarship, quick wit and acid tongue drove Westcott
and Hort and all other Alexandrian scholars from the field of battle.
His arguments against the Alexandrian text and in favor of the last 12
verses of Mark and other questioned portions have proven to be as
unanswerable by modern scholarship as they were to his contemporaries.

   Today his name is as synonymous with the defense of the King James
Bible as the names of Hills, Fuller and Ruckman. He is not only known
as a champion of the Authorized Bible, but his works are an example of
what honest, objective and thorough scholarship can produce.

   QUESTION: What is the difference between a "Textus Receptus Man" and
a "King James Man"?

   ANSWER: A "TR Man" gets his manuscripts from Antioch and his
philosophy from Egypt.

   EXPLANATION: Under Question 8 concerning Alexandria and Antioch it
was pointed out that we derive two things from each of these locations.
We derive manuscripts and an ideology through which we judge those
manuscripts.

   From Alexandria we receive corrupted manuscripts, tainted by the
critical hand of Origen. We also receive an ideology that believes the
Bible to be Divine, but not perfect, not without error.

   From Antioch we receive the pure line of manuscripts culminating in
what is known as the "Received Text" or Textus Receptus. We also
receive the ideology that the Bible is not only Divine, but perfect,
without error.

   1. Most Bible critics do not believe that the Bible is perfect (The
Alexandrian Ideology). They usually also accept the Alexandrian
manuscripts as superior to those of Antioch.

   2. A King James Bible believer accepts the Antiochian manuscripts or
Textus Receptus as superior to the Alexandrian. They also accept the
Antiochian Ideology in that they accept the Bible as infallible and do
not believe it contains any errors or mistranslations and that it
cannot be improved.

   3. A Textus Receptus man also accepts the Antiochian manuscripts or
Textus Receptus as superior to the Alexandrian. But a Textus Receptus
man accepts the Antiochian manuscripts yet he views them with the
Alexandrian Ideology.

   He does not accept any translation as perfect and without error. He
generally feels that the King James is the best translation but can be
improved. He usually stumbles at Acts 12:4 and states that it is a
mistranslation.

   This contradiction is NOT the result of a bad or dishonest heart so
much as it is the result of a bad education. Most Textus Receptus men
have been taught by others who have been deceived into accepting,
unconsciously, the Alexandrian Ideology.

   QUESTION: Will a Bible college education clear up the controversy
over the issue of a perfect Bible?

   ANSWER: No. About ninety-nine out of one hundred times a Bible
college education will either confuse or destroy a student's faith in
the perfect Bible.

   EXPLANATION: There are many benefits to a Bible college education. A
student can learn invaluable lessons on pastoring and church planting.
A student weak on doctrine can be grounded in his faith. Friendships
and experiences from Bible college days will often last a lifetime.

   Unfortunately, faith that God has a perfect Bible is more often than
not a victim of Bible college education rather than a beneficiary. The
reason is simple. Most Bible colleges are staffed by very well meaning
men, many who do indeed love the Lord, who are victims of Alexandrian
teaching.

   Others, though set right about the proper manuscript family, are
still unconsciously afflicted with a faith in the Bible that is
weakened by the Alexandrian Ideology. They cannot mentally accept the
belief that the Bible, the one in their hand, is truly perfect.

   Sometimes, even schools which advertise that they are "King James
Only" or "Textus Receptus Only" are still afflicted with this malady.
Thus, a student will find himself confused when he hears his Bible
corrected in a college that claims to accept the Bible as perfect. Most
often, he will succumb to the diatribe and also become a critic of the
perfect Bible. If he does not accept the school's position he will
usually be branded as a "fanatic" and ostracized and sometimes even
dismissed.

   This does not mean that a Bible college education does not have its
advantages. It does mean however that a Bible college education seldom
strengthens a student's faith that the Bible is perfect.

   QUESTION: Do Christians and preachers who use other bibles "hate
God?"

   ANSWER: No, although some may abhor the thought of being in
subjection to "a Book."

   EXPLANATION: In Mark 9:38-41 we find the disciples upset with
someone who did not "follow" them. Yet the Lord told them to leave the
man alone.

   God desires worship and love from His creatures. There are many
preacher who, as Bible college students, were misled concerning the
King James Bible. They may very well love Jesus Christ but through
ignorance or deceit use the wrong bible. They certainly do not "hate
God."

   It has been found however that someone who loves the Lord and uses
the wrong bible must one day face the Bible issue and make a choice
between right and wrong. If they chose "right" their faith is
strengthened and they will cease to use other bibles and usually cease
to attempt to "correct" the Bible while reading or preaching.

   Some, however, upon reaching the point of decision, rebel at the
thought that their "Alma Mater" could be wrong. They would sooner
believe that the Bible is wrong. One preacher was heard to say, "I
accept the teaching that the King James Bible is perfect, but I can't
stand for it because my `Alma Mater' doesn't take that stand."

   Sometimes they weigh the damage to their prestige amongst their
peers and feel that they cannot afford to take a stand for God's
perfect Bible. One can imagine the financial damage a college professor
might experience if he took an Antiochian stand in an Alexandrian
school.

   Unfortunately, you cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore, one who
for whatever reason rejects the teaching that the Bible is perfect in
English usually becomes antagonistic toward those who disagree with
him. Usually, his contempt is generated more as a defensive measure
than intellectual conviction. But he dare not let you know this.

   It can happen that a Christian simply refuses to be in subjection to
what he considers a mere book. He rejects the authority of Scripture in
his life. It must be remembered that the Pharisees hated Jesus because
He spoke as one with authority (Matthew 7:29) and not as the scholars
of His day.

   QUESTION: Is the King James Bible inspired or preserved?

   ANSWER: The original autographs were inspired. The King James Bible
is those same autographs preserved up to today.

   EXPLANATION: The best way to simply describe inspiration and
preservation of the Bible is as follows:

   Inspiration is when God takes a blank piece of paper (papyrus,
vellum, etc.) and uses men to write His words.

   Preservation is when God takes those words already written and uses
men to preserve them to today.

   Both of these actions are DIVINE and are assured by God as recorded
in Psalm 12:6,7.

   6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a
furnace of earth, purified seven times.

   7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this
generation for ever."

   In Psalm 12:6 God assures us that His originals are perfect. Even
though penned by fallible men with the heinous sins of: murder (Moses
and David), adultery (David), idolatry (Solomon), and denial of the
Lord (Peter). God's words are untainted by the sins of the penmen.

   That the originals were inspired perfect in their entirety is an
undisputed belief among fundamentalists today.

   But most fundamentalists argue that only the "originals" were
perfect. They say that today we have nothing but copies and
translations of those copies. They seem indignant at the thought that
any "mere translation" should be considered a perfect copy of the
originals. They claim that copies and translations are products of
uninspired men and therefore must all contain mistakes.

   Fundamentalists clinging to this tenet are misled. Their folly in
accepting this erroneous teaching is fourfold.

   1. It is somewhat confusing and unexplainable that a person could
claim that God could not use sinful men to preserve His words when all
fundamentalists believe that he used sinful men to write His inspired
words. Certainly a God who had enough power to inspire His words would
also have enough power to preserve them. I highly doubt that He has
lost such ability over the years.

   2. Why would God inspire the originals and then lose them? Why give
a perfect Bible to men like Peter, John, James, Andrew and company and
not us? They had seen, heard, and touched the Lord (I John 1:1). We
haven't! If anyone ever needed a perfect Bible it is us, nearly two
thousand years separated from a Saviour we have never seen!

   Why did God inspire a perfect original if He didn't plan on
preserving it? Couldn't He have afforded some errors in His originals
just as some believe He has allowed some errors in today's Bible? Or do
critics of God's perfect Bible believe that God was unable to prevent
errors in the copies? It would seem like only half of a God who had the
power to do one but not the other.

   3. It is a "convenient" faith which cannot be tested. In other
words, it is rather safe to believe in a perfect set of originals which
have been LOST. Since they are lost, no one can ever practically
challenge such a belief. Adherents to such a shallow persuasion can
rest safely in the fact that they will never be proven wrong since the
evidence needed to prove them wrong (the "originals") is lost.

   But if they dare put the same faith in a Bible available today, they
know that they will definitely be bloodied defending their faith.

   Thus, to believe in a perfect set of originals, but not to believe
in a perfect English Bible, is to believe nothing at all.

   4. Regardless of their arguments against the doctrine of a preserved
perfect Bible, such a fact is as much guaranteed by Scripture as the
bodily return of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:8).

   Psalm 12:7 plainly states, "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt
preserve them from this generation for ever."

   Thus we have God promising to preserve the same words that He
inspired. Not too much of a feat to overwhelm such an omnipotent Being.

   The fearful fundamentalist launches two attacks on the Scriptural
teaching found in Psalm 12:7.

   1. They claim, "Verse 7 is talking about the Jews, not the Bible."
Then to add credence to their claim they rush out and publish a
translation that says just that in Psalm 12:7. Let's look at this verse
in the New International Version.

   "O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people
forever."

   This is an irresponsible and dishonest translation. The Hebrew word
"shamar" meaning "to keep" which the New International Version
translators render "you will keep us" is found in the future second
person singular "thou shalt keep" and is directed to the THIRD person
plural "them" and NOT the first person plural "us" as the New
International Version translators rendered it.

   Thus we see it is the King James, God's perfect, preserved Bible
which has accurately preserved the reading of the originals, not the
unreliable New International Version.

   Psalm 12:7 is not God's promise to preserve the Jews, a promise
which flourishes elsewhere in in Scripture. It is God's promise to
preserve His words, and is a direct reference to those words as
described in Psalm 12:6.

   2. Ofttimes a Christian, whose faith is too weak to accept the
literal truth of Psalm 12:6,7, will piously quote Psalm 119:89.

   "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."

   Then he will state that God actually meant that He preserved His
perfect Bible in Heaven, not on Earth. And they say this with a
straight face! This escape to a house of straw is embarrassingly
humorous.

   First, it is foolish for anyone to believe that God inspired a
perfect original on earth so that He could have it brought to Heaven.
Is that supposed to be the reason that He wrote the originals? The
answer is embarrassingly simple. The Bible is addressed to man, not
God. God did not write a perfect book directed to man and then put it
in a library in Heaven where man cannot benefit from its existence.
Again we ask, "What good to us, here and now, is a perfect book locked
up out of reach in Heaven?"

   Secondly, Psalm 12:6 makes reference to His words being on earth. To
preserve them somewhere other than on earth is not to preserve them at
all. So we see then that God inspired the originals perfectly. Then
over the centuries He has preserved those same words to today. They are
found in the Authorized Version.

   ADDITIONAL NOTE:

   In the area of "inspired translations," it might be noted that the
double truth of Genesis 22:8 which, in a King James Bible, is plainly
revealed as a prophetic reference to Jesus Christ, is lost in such weak
translations as the New King James, the New International Version, and
the New American Standard Version.

   QUESTION: Can a translation be inspired?

   ANSWER: Yes, God has inspired several.

   EXPLANATION: In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the
record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke
Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23.

   "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto
them by an interpreter."

   It is, of course, an accepted fact that no translation can be "word
perfect." Therefore we know that the Hebrew translation of Joseph's
Egyptian statements as found in the Old Testament manuscripts cannot be
an exact word for word copy. We are left with quite a dilemma. WHOM did
God inspire? Did He inspire Joseph's Egyptian statements, the Egyptian
interpreter's verbal translation, or Moses' written translation as
found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament?

   If God inspired Joseph, was his "original" statement marred by his
Egyptian interpreter, or by Moses' translation? Or did God inspire
Moses to pen an "inspired translation" which would fly in the face of
many fundamentalists' charges of "progressive inspiration?"

   This same question arises in Exodus chapters 4-14 in Moses' contest
with Pharaoh. Moses, though speaking for God to an Egyptian king in the
king's native Egyptian tongue, translates both his and Pharaoh's
statements into Hebrew when he records the account in writing. Which
did God inspire? The verbal statements made in Egyptian, a copy of
which NO ONE ON EARTH HAS? Or did He inspire Moses' Hebrew translation?

   The problem of inspired translations refuses to go away.

   In Acts 22 Paul speaks to his Jewish tormentors in the Hebrew
language (Acts 21:40; 22:2). The testimony found in verses 1 through 21
is all given orally in Hebrew. Yet there is NO manuscript extant of
Acts 22 which records Paul's statement in Hebrew. Luke wrote it all out
in Greek. Which did God inspire? Paul's verbal statement or Luke's
"progressive inspiration"?

   The answer is simple and is found in II Timothy 3:16.

   "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness."

   The word "scripture" by its very root, "script," is a term for
written words. Therefore, we can rest assured that the various
translations (there are more than the few that I have pointed out) we
have in our Bible are the inspired words of God. If a fundamentalist
chooses not to believe in inspired translations, he will have to do it
contrary to the Bible practice.

   QUESTION: The King James Bible is a mere translation from Greek to
English. A translation can't be as good as the originals, can it?

   ANSWER: A translation cannot only be "as good" as the originals, but
better.

   EXPLANATION: There are three "translations" spoken of in the Bible.
In all three cases, the translation referred to is better than the
original. Since we accept the Bible as our final authority in all
matters of faith and practice, ITS "practice" will have more authority
than any "mere human" opinion.

   1. The first translation mentioned in scripture is found in II
Samuel 3:7-10:

   7 "And Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of
Aiah: and Ish-bosheth said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto
my father's concubine?

   8 Then was Abner very wroth for the words of Ish-bosheth, and said,
Am I a dog's head, which against Judah do shew kindness this day unto
the house of Saul thy father, to his brethren, and to his friends, and
have not delivered thee into the hand of David, that thou chargest me
to day with a fault concerning this woman?

   9 So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the LORD hath sworn
to David, even so I do to him;

   10 To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up
the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to
Beersheba."

   After the death of King Saul in I Samuel 31, Abner, who had been the
captain of Saul's army, installed Ish-bosheth as King instead of David
(II Samuel 12:8,9).

   Later Ish-bosheth and Abner had a falling out. Abner, in anger,
announces to Ish-bosheth that he is going to "translate" the Kingdom of
Israel from Ish-bosheth to David.

   It is obvious by Abner's statement of II Samuel 3:9 that the LORD
wanted David to be king over all twelve tribes of Israel. Therefore the
"translation" of the kingdom of Israel to David was BETTER than the
"original" state which had a split kingdom with David rightly ruling
over one portion and Ish-bosheth wrongly ruling over the other section.
(Remember the law of first mentions.)

   2. The second translation spoken of in scripture is found in
Colossians 1:13.

   "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath
translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son."

   Here the "translation" spoken of is the conversion of a lost sinner
to a new life in Jesus Christ. No one in their right mind could even
pretend that this translation is not a massive improvement over the
"original" condition.

   3. The third translation found in the Bible is located in Hebrews
11:5.

   "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was
not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation
he had this testimony, that he pleased God."

   The word "translate" only appears five times in scripture--once in
II Samuel, once in Colossians and the remaining three times here in
Hebrews 11:5.

   A Christian with even a shallow knowledge of the Bible is familiar
with the story of Enoch from Genesis 5. Enoch walked with God and is
known to have pleased God. He was a prophet (Judge 14) and a man of
faith. God saw fit to physically take Enoch to heaven so that he would
not have to experience death. This individual action is a miniature
version of what Christians call "The Rapture," mentioned in I
Corinthians 15, I Thessalonians 4, Titus 2 and various other places in
the Bible. Since the word "Rapture" appears nowhere in scripture a more
proper name for this future occurrence might be "The Blessed Hope"
(Titus) or "The Catching Up" (I Thessalonians) or "Our Translation"
(Hebrews).

   It is obvious that Enoch's translation was an improvement over his
"original" condition.

   Thus we see that every translation mentioned in our final authority
in all matters is an improvement over the original.

   If you are a simple Bible believer you will have no trouble
accepting this. If you worship education or just hate to be wrong you
will reject this Bible fact as easily as you have rejected every Bible
fact that you couldn't agree with.

   It should be noted here that the perplexed translators of both the
New American Standard Version and the New International Version, when
faced with this glaring contradiction of their own personal prejudice,
could not bring themselves to allow the word "translation" in any of
the above mentioned passages.

   Which will you follow, the Bible or men?

   QUESTION: I can still find the fundamentals in other bibles. So how
can they be bad?

   ANSWER: Any fundamental found in any version is found purer or more
frequently in the King James Bible thus making the King James Bible the
best of the field.

   EXPLANATION: Most people who claim to be able to find the
fundamentals in other versions forget that the very fundamentals which
they claim to be able to find, were originally taught them from a King
James Bible.

   Following are just a few doctrines which can be found in other
versions but found in a weaker state than in the King James Bible. (The
versions mentioned are used as a cross-section of versions available
and do not necessarily include or exclude others.)

   1. The deity of Christ is watered down in Acts 3:13,26; 4:27,30 in
the New King James Version, the New International Version and New
American Standard Version where Jesus is called God's "servant" instead
of God's "Son."

   2. The doctrine of Hell is watered down in Luke 16:23 in the New
King James Version and New American Standard Version where they
transliterate "Hades" instead of translating it as "Hell."

   3. The salvation of the Ethiopian eunuch is eliminated in the New

   International Version and New American Standard Version where Acts
8:37 is removed from the text.

   4. The Ascension of Jesus Christ is left out of Luke 24:51 in a New
American Standard Version.

   5. The virgin birth of Jesus is denied in the New International
Version and New American Standard Version in Luke 2:33 where Joseph is
called Jesus' father.

   6. The doctrine of the Trinity is either removed or questioned in

   I John 5:7 where the New American Standard Version and New
International Version remove the verse and then split verse 6 and

   manufacture a false verse 7 and in the New King James Version where
a note casts doubt on its authenticity.

   These are just a few corruptions in the texts of today's modern
versions. It is not an exhaustive list by any means.

   It may be stated that such criticism of other bibles is
"nitpicking." But, let it be remembered that, if you can find a
particular doctrine in a modern bible, let's say, 200 times and you can
find the same doctrine more times in the King James, then

   the King James is stronger.

   QUESTION: If the King James is really perfect, how can so many
preachers and scholars be wrong about it?

   ANSWER: The majority is ALWAYS wrong.

   EXPLANATION: In Matthew 7:13,14 Jesus points out a great Bible
truth. The majority of the population will not get saved.

   "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is
the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in
thereat:

   Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth
unto life, and few there be that find it."

   This passage teaches us that the majority of people on the earth at
any given time will wrongly reject Christ and go to Hell.

   Even a casual look at the Bible will show that the majority is
always going to be wrong.

   The majority of people rejected Noah's preaching and died in the
flood.

   The majority of people perished in Sodom and Gomorrah.

   The majority of Israel worshipped Aaron's calf in Exodus 32.

   The majority of Israel rejected the ministry of the prophets such as
Jeremiah.

   The majority of people rejected Jesus Christ during His earthly
ministry.

   The majority of people alive today reject Jesus Christ as the
Saviour of the world.

   It would seem that throughout history, it has always been a small
group of people who have had a heart soft enough to accept God's
revealed truth.

   The fact that the majority of Bible "scholars" and preachers reject
the King James Bible is entirely scriptural. And WRONG.

   QUESTION: Isn't the Holy Spirit incorrectly called "it" in Romans
8:26 in the King James Bible?

   ANSWER: No. There is nothing wrong with the translation of "pneuma"
in Romans 8:26.

   EXPLANATION: The refutation of this popular though feeble charge
against the integrity of the Bible comes from three sources. First, the
Greek language itself; secondly, the hypocrisy of Bible critics; and
thirdly, from Jesus Christ Himself. (Since the Bible is our final
authority in all matters of faith and practice, His testimony should
hold considerable influence.

   First, the word translated "itself'' in Romans 8:26 is "pneuma''
which means "spirit." (Since the "spirit" is like air (Genesis 1:7,
John 3:8) we use the word "pneumatic' ' to describe things that are air
operated.) In Greek every word has its own distinct gender, masculine,
feminine or neuter. Masculine gender is denoted by the article "o,"
feminine by "a," and neuter by "to.'' The word for spirit, "pneuma" is
neuter, a fact which is known to even first year Greek language
students. Thus, the King James Bible correctly translates pneuma
"itself" because it would be grammatically incorrect to translate it
"himself" as many of today's inferior translations do. Since critics of
the King James Bible like to deride it for pretended "mistranslations "
of the Greek, it seems hypocritical indeed to criticize it here for
properly translating the Greek. Then to add insult to ignorance they
laud other versions such as the New American Standard Version, New
International Version, and New King James Version which INCORRECTLY
render pneuma as "himself."

   Secondly, in adding to their hypocrisy and exposing their disdain
for God's Bible, these same critics, who become indignant at the Holy
Spirit being called "it" in Romans 8 in a King James Bible, will
promote translations such as the New American Standard Version and the
New International Version which call God a "What" in Acts 17:23. The
Authorized Version correctly renders it "Whom."

   Thirdly, and most convincingly, is a statement that Jesus Christ
makes in John chapter 4 while dealing with the woman at the well.

   Jesus, completely unintimidated by twentieth century scholarship,
doesn't hesitate to say to the woman in verse 22, "Ye worship ye know
not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."

   To whom is Jesus referring to by the word "what?" The next verse
defines His statement perfectly.

   "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall
worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such
to worship him."

   Thus we see that Jesus finds referring to His own Father as "what"
in verse 22 a non-issue, while the mighty mice of twentieth century
scholarship would translate an entirely new version over it. Even
though they, in their own casual conversation, find no offense in
referring to the Holy Spirit in the neuter. Which will you follow?

   QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the
Apocrypha?

   ANSWER: Yes.

   EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out
that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that
fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to
get the factual picture.

   First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha
was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted
as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James
translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for
its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into
the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscnpts.

   That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the
seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text.
They are as follows:

   1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used
by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

   2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

   3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the
Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

   4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the
first four centuries of the Christian Church.

   5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict
not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two
Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different
deaths in as many different places.

   6. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible,
such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

   7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide,
assassination and magical incantation.

   If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as
authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts
from Alexandria, Egypt, must be totally worthless since their authors
obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and
incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving
it authority with Scripture.

   QUESTION: Can someone get saved if you are using a bible other than
the King James?

   ANSWER: Yes.

   EXPLANATION: Generally, the facts surrounding the gospel of Jesus
Christ and the simplicity of salvation are found intact even in the
grossest perversions of Scripture.

   It must be remembered though that the Bible is a weapon in the hand
of the Christian. See Hebrews 4:12, Job 40:19 and II Timothy 3:16.

   It is also food that a new Christian might grow properly. See I
Peter 2:2.

   It is in these areas that new bibles are weakened. In fact, the very
verses given above are altered in many new versions, thus weakening
Scripture.

   It is therefore possible to get saved through other versions, but
you will never be a threat to the devil by growing.

   QUESTION: Do the Dead Sea Scrolls render the King James Bible
obsolete?

   ANSWER: No, they support it.

   EXPLANATION: The Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found by an Arab
shepherd boy in 1947 in the Qumran caves near Jericho, Israel, have no
ill effect on the Bible.

   Their text actually agrees with the King James Bible. This fact
makes them unattractive to scholars desiring to overthrow the perfect
Bible. So, other than commenting on the irony of the way in which they
were found, they are largely ignored.

   The translators of the King James Bible did not need the Dead Sea
Scrolls since they already had the Textus Receptus which they match.

   QUESTION: What if I really have trouble with all of the "thee's" and
"thou's" in the Bible?

   ANSWER: So what? Read it anyway.

   EXPLANAlION: Someone once said, "God will give you a steak, but He
won't cut it up and feed it to you."

   Consider these facts:

   God has gone to all the trouble to inspire the perfect originals. He
has collated the books of the Old Testament and New Testament and
documented their authenticity. He has preserved His words against
attack from Roman Catholic tyrants and Alexandrian philosophers. This
process has cost Him the lives, homes and families of some of His most
faithful servants. He assembled the very best scholars in history and
had them translate it into the world's language (English) in its
absolutely purest form.

   And then YOU gripe about the "thee's" and "thou's". Shut up and eat
your steak!

   QUESTION: The New King James Version is based on the Antiochian
manuscripts. Is it an improvement over the King James Bible?

   ANSWER: No.

   EXPLANATION: The New King James Version is to the English Bible what
the Alexandrian manuscripts are to Greek─a corruption of a pure text by
men who hold the deplorable doctrine that the Bible cannot be perfect
(regardless of what they may say when they preach) and must be
corrected by the feeble intellect of man.

   The New King James Version, unlike most modern translations, is
based on the correct Antiochian manuscripts instead of the corrupt
Alexandrian manuscripts. Unfortunately, the men doing the translation
work view the Bible as imperfect. They would vehemently deny this
charge in public because their jobs depend on it, but in FACT they do
not believe that ANY Bible is perfect. Not even their own New King
James Version! Thus, to them, the Bible is lost ("settled" in heaven)
and the minds of scholars are the only hope of rescuing its "thoughts"
from oblivion.

   Many of the men on the board of translators may indeed be great
preachers and pastors, but that by no means entitles them to correct
the Bible.

   Sincerity cannot improve on perfection. Thus, instead of "making a
good thing better" they have only managed, for all of their trouble, to
make a "perfect thing tainted".

   It must be remembered, there is a great deal of prestige in sitting
on the board of translators of a "modern" version of the Bible (Matthew
23:5-7).

   QUESTION: Isn't the New Scofield Bible a King James Bible?

   ANSWER: Not only is the New Scofield Bible NOT a King James Bible,
it is not even a "Scofield" Bible.

   EXPLANATION: The first and most weighty reason why the New Scofield
Bible is not a Scofield Bible at all is shamefully simple. Dr. C.I.
Scofield did not edit it. Dr. Scofield died in 1921! Barring a very
"selective" resurrection, it is impossible for a man who died in 1921
to edit a book in 1967.

   The publisher's justification for a new "edition" is that Dr.
Scofield, whose reference Bible was first published in 1909, added
material and published another edition in 1917. But it is an author's
prerogative to alter his own works, but that certainly does not give
others, more than 45 years after his death, a blank check to make
alterations and then sign his name to it!

   If we altered the ending of "Macbeth" we would be less than honest
to claim that the change met Shakespeare's approval.

   Secondly, the editors exercised great liberty in changing attributes
of Dr. Scofield's reference work that Dr. Scofield himself felt
important enough to include in his work.

   In the introduction to their doubly dishonest 1967 publication they
admit such changes.

   New Scofield: "Among the changes and improvements in this edition
are: important word changes in the text to help the reader; a modified
system of self-pronunciation; revision of many of the introductions to
the books of the Bible, including designation of the author, theme, and
date; more subheadings; clarification of some footnotes, deletion of
others, and the addition of many new notes; more marginal references;
an entirely new chronology; a new index; a concordance especially
prepared for this edition; new maps; and more legible type. Some of
these features are explained below."

   By their own words, they admit to altering Dr. Scofield's text (the
King James Bible), introduction of books of the Bible, notes, marginal
references, chronology and many other features.

   Did Dr. Scofield give his approval to these changes? Not unless one
of the nine committee members had the witch of Endor conjure him up as
she had Samuel!

   In fact, the publisher even admits that the changes made were
arbitrary choices of the revision committee:

   "Each position taken represents the thinking or conviction of the
committee as a group."

   What are the results of such shenanigans? One example will suffice.
Let us examine the footnote found in Acts 8:12 of the New Scofield
Bible concerning baptism.

   "Baptism has, since the apostolic age, been practiced by every major
group in the Christian church and, in Protestant communions, is
recognized as one of two sacraments--the other being the Lord's Supper.
Since early in the Church's history three different modes of baptism
have been used: aspersion (sprinkling); affusion (pouring); and
immersion (dipping)."

   Here we see that the nine revisors (NOT Dr. Scofield) believe that
there is a difference between the true Christian church and Protestant
"communion". Might I ask? When one group is defined as "Protestant"
what is the other group called?

   Secondly, the nine apostate revisors (NOT Dr. Scofield) claim,
without scriptural proof, that Christians baptize by pouring and
sprinkling as well as immersion.

   Remember, the footnote is found in a S-C-O-F-I-E-L-D of 1967─a book
which claims on its title page that a dead man (Dr. Scofield) is one of
its editors.

   What does the footnote for Acts 8:12 say in the REAL Scofield Bible
of 1917 which had a living Dr. Scofield as its editor?

   Nothing. There IS no such footnote!

   That's right! The New "Scofield" bible has a "Scofield" note added
after the death of "Scofield" the editor which the REAL Dr. Scofield
never approved of and never had in a text any time in his lifetime!

   I ask you, is this honest?

   Proof that the New Scofield Bible isn't a King James Bible is found
on almost every page where the margin notes the twin Bible reading as
"KJV". The text of the New Scofield Bible is NOT a King James Bible and
it is NOT a Scofield Bible.

   It might be noted that in recent years the size and shape of the New
Scofield Bible has been changed to more resemble the Scofield Reference
Bible. Many Christians who desire a true Scofield Reference Bible have
purchased a New Scofield Bible by mistake.

   The "Bible" business is lucrative. Isn't it?

   QUESTION: Is the New International Version trustworthy?

   ANSWER: No.

   EXPLANATION: The New International Version is based on the 26th
edition of the Greek text of Eberhard Nestle published in 1979. It,
like the New American Standard Version which is based on Nestle's 23rd
edition of 1969, is an Egyptian bible. These and most modern
translations (except the New King James Version and New Scofield
Version which are handled separately in other questions in this series)
are all products of Origen's tainted manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt.

   A few of the corruptions found in the New International Version and
New American Standard Version are found under a previous section
dealing with fundamentals. This work is by no means an exhaustive study
of the many problems with these error riddled versions.

   We suffice it to say, "You can't get good fruit from a bad tree."
(Matthew 7:17,18)

   QUESTION: I've heard that there have been many manuscripts
discovered since 1611 that the King James translators didn't have
access to. Do these strengthen or weaken the King James Bible?

   ANSWER: They strengthen the King James Bible.

   EXPLANATION: There have been many manuscripts found since 1611, but
there have been no new READINGS found.

   Many critics of the Word of God have used the argument of "new
evidence" that the King James translators didn't have as a basis to
degrade its authority. The fact is, the King James translators had all
of the readings available to them that modern critics have available to
them today.

   One of the most prominent manuscripts which has been discovered
since 1611 is the Sinaitic manuscript. This witness, though horribly
flawed, was found amongst trash paper in St. Catherine's monastery at
the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1841 by Constantine Tischendorf.

   Sinaiticus is a sister manuscript of the corrupt manuscript
Vaticanus. Both read very similarly. So, although the Sinaitic
manuscript was discovered over 200 years after the Authorized Version
was translated, its READINGS were well known to the translators through
the Vatican manuscript which was discovered in 1481 and also through
the Jesuit Bible, an English translation of 1582.

   So we see that there are no readings available today to scholars
which were not already in the hands of the King James translators. We
might further add that an honest scholar will admit that this "great
number of newly discovered manuscripts" that are trumpt abroad agree
with the Greek text of the Authorized Version rather than challenging
it.

   QUESTION: Aren't modern English translations easier to understand?

   ANSWER: No. Some may seem easier to read, but none are easier to
understand.

   EXPLANATION: One of the primary advertising gimmicks used to sell
modern English translations is that they will be easier to understand
for the potential customers. The customer, having been assured that
he/she cannot possibly understand the "old archaic" King James,
gratefully purchases the modern English Bible and unknowingly condemns
himself to a life of biblical ignorance. Modern English translations
may be easier to read but they are not easier to understand.

   Let's look at the equation in simple terms. If the "archaic"
language and the "thee's" and "thou's" of the King James Bible really
do hamper the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit in communicating His
message to the Christian, then several things should be true of one or
all of the raft of modern English translations on the Bible market
today.

   1. If modern English translations, such as the New American Standard
Version, New Intemational Version, New King James Version, and Today's
English Version, were easier to understand, then the Holy Spirit's
message to the Christian would flow freer and accomplish greater
spiritual victories in the lives of God's people on an individual
basis. Yet it is sadly evident that this is not happening.

   In fact it is only too evident to any objective observer that
today's Christians are more worldly and less dedicated to Jesus Christ
than their nineteenth or even early twentieth century counterparts who
were raised on and read the King James Bible. Surely a Bible that was
"easier to understand" would have dramatically increased successes in
battling sin, worldliness and carnality, but this JUST HAS NOT HAPPENED.

   2. Secondly, if the modern English translations were really easier
to understand then I believe God would show a little more gratitude for
them by using at least one to spark a major revival in this nation.

   It is elementary to see that if the "old archaic" King James Bible
has been hampering the desired work of the Holy Spirit, then God should
be eager to bless the use of any translation that would be easier for
his people to understand.

   Again, it is all too obvious that no mass spiritual awakening of any
kind has been initiated by any one of today's modern translations.
Today's modern translations haven't been able to spark a revival in a
Christian school, let alone be expected to close a bar.

   In fact, since the arrival of our modern English translations,
beginning with the ASV of 1901, America has seen:

   1. God and prayer kicked out of our public school

   2. Abortion on demand legalized

   3. Homosexuality accepted nationally as an "altemate life style"

   4. In home pornography via TV and VCR

   5. Child kidnapping and pornography running rampant

   6. Dope has become an epidemic

   7. Satanism is on the rise

   If this is considered a "revival" then let's turn back to the King
James to STOP it.

   In fact, the ONLY scale used to claim success for a new translation
is how well it sells. This depraved Madison Avenue sales system should
set alarms ringing in the Christian. Instead, deluded by television,
they dutifully nod and remark that, "It must be good; everbody's buying
one."

   Is there any "good" coming from modern translations? Surely. The
publishing companies are making millions.

   Today American Christians ue spiritually anemic. They turn instead
to their favorite "Bible psychologist" for help rather than Scripture.
America as a whole is as morally decayed as Sodom and Gomorrah (Ezekiel
16:49).

   Where is the spiritual help and hope that an "easier to understand"
translation should bring?

   Instead, perhaps we are in this desperate condition because of those
very translations.

   QUESTION: Isn't the devil behind all the confusion and fighting over
Bible versions?

   ANSWER: Undoubtedly.

   EXPLANATION: It is a great irony that many of the critics of the
Bible claim rather indignantly that the devil is behind the battle over
the King James Bible. In this they are correct. But somehow they have
managed to assume that it is the people claiming perfection for the
Bible who the devil is guiding. Is this a correct assumption? Let us
consider the history of the battle.

   From the time of its publication in 1611 the King James Bible has
grown in popularity. Although not mandated by the King to be used in
the churches of England, it did, in a matter of a few years, manage to
supplant all of the great versions translated before it. Though it was
not advertised in the Madison Avenue fashion of today's versions, it
soon swept all other versions from the hearts and hands of the
citizenry of England and its colonies.

   With the conquest of the British Empire behind it, it crossed the
Atlantic to the United States. Landing here it overwhelmed the double
foothold of the Roman Catholic Church planted previously under the
flags of Spain and France.

   It then began to permeate young America with its ideals. Its truths
led to the establishment of an educational system, based on Scripture,
that was unparalleled in the world. It instilled in men the ideals of
freedom and personal liberty, thoughts so foreign to the minds of men
that their inclusion in our Constitution could only be described as an
"experiment" in government.

   It commissioned preachers of righteousness who, on foot and
horseback, broke trails into the wilderness and spread the truth of the
gospel and of right living. In its wake was left what could only be
described..."one nation, under God..." This accomplished, it set out
for the conquest of the heathen world. Bible colleges (Princeton,
Harvard, Yale) were founded. Mission societies formed. And eager young
missionaries began to scour the globe with little more than a King
James Bible and God's Holy Spirit.

   But these activities did not go unnoticed by Satan. He who had
successfully counterfeited God's church, ministers and powers certainly
could not be expected to let God's Bible roam the world unchallenged.
Through agents such as Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony
Hort, he published his own translation in 1884. (The New Testament had
been published in 1881.) Though there had been sporadic personal
translations between 1611 and 1884, this new translation, called the
Revised Version, was the first ever to be designed from its outset to
replace God's Authorized Bible. It failed to replace God's Bible, but
the arguments of its adherents were the first shots fired in a nearly
400-year battle for the hearts and minds of God's people concerning the
authority and fidelity of Scripture.

   In 1901 another round was fired in the form of the American Revised
Version, later called the American Standard Version. (An intentional
misnomer since it never became the "standard" for anything.) This
version, other than being the darling of critical American scholarship,
met a dismal end when, twenty-three years later, it was so totally
rejected by God's people that its copyright had to be sold. (Does this
sound like God's blessing?)

   The ASV was further revised and republished in 1954 as the Revised
Standard Version. This sequence of events has repeated itself
innumerable times, resulting in the New American Standard Version of
1960, the New Scofield Version of 1967, the New International Version
of 1978, and the New King James Version of 1979 to name a few.

   The process has never changed. Every new version that has been
launched has been, without exception, a product of Satan's Alexandrian
philosophy which rejects the premise of a perfect Bible. Furthermore,
they have been copied, on the most part, from the corrupt Alexandrian
manuscript (although a few have been translated from pure Antiochian
manuscripts after they were tainted by the Alexandrian philosophy).

   THIS then was Satan's battle in print, BUT by no means was it his
exclusive onslaught. He used a standard military "two-pronged'' attack.

   While popularizing his Alexandrian manuscripts via the press, he
began to promote his Alexandrian philosophy in and through Christian
Bible colleges.

   Soon sincere, naive, young Bible students attending FUNDAMENTAL
Bible colleges began to hear the infallibility of the Bible challenged
in their classrooms. In chapel services the Bible's perfection was much
touted. But then, the very same speakers would debase, degrade, and
even mock the English Bible, always assuring their students that they
were not a "liberal" or "modernist" because they believed that the
Bible was infallible in "the originals"─that non-existent,
unobtainable, mystical entity which ALL apostates shield their unbelief
behind.

   Soon stalwartness gave in to acceptance and fidelity to a perfect
Bible became fidelity to one's "Alma Mater". Young graduates,
disheartened and disarmed by their education, found themselves in
pulpits across America parroting the professor's shameful criticism of
the Word of God. They readily accepted new versions hot off the
Alexandrian presses.

   Then, when some Christian approached them claiming to believe the
Bible (one you could hold in your HAND, not a lost relic from bygone
days) was word perfect (a belief they had once held before their
education stole it from them) they felt threatened. They try to dispel
this "fanatic', this "cultist" . Finally they look this faith filled
Christian in the eye and piously ask, "Don't you feel that the devil is
using this Bible version issue to divide and hinder the cause of
Christ?"

   "Undoubtedly," comes back the answer. "But I'm certainly glad it's
not MY CROWD that he's using." (!) Whose side are YOU on?

   Additional Note:

   Here's something that you need to think about. If we King James
Bible believers have our way, a Preacher would stand in a pulpit to
read Scripture and everyone else in the church would read from the same
Bible. Isn't that UNITY?

   But if the Bible-correctors have their way everyone would read from
a different bible. That's confusion. And who is the author of confusion
(I Cor. 14:33)?

   QUESTION: Who were Westcott and Hort?

   ANSWER: Two unsaved Bible critics.

   EXPLANATION: Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony
Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully
steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible,"
they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian
Greek text, the Textus Receptus. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort
is well documented in this author's work entitled An Understandable
History of the Bible, 1987, Bible Believer's Press, P.O. Box 1249,
Pottstown, PA. 19464]

   It cannot be said that they believed that one could attain Heaven by
either works or faith, since both believed that Heaven existed only in
the mind of man.

   Westcott believed in and attempted to practice a form of Communism
whose ultimate goal was communal living on college campuses which he
called a "coenobium."

   Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many
attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and
entitled "The Ghostly Guild."

   Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were
admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah,
"Mary"), and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory
of evolution.

   It is obvious to even a casual observer why they were well equipped
to guide the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 away from God's Antiochian
text and into the spell of Alexandria.

   They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts,
which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they
secreted little by littIe to the Revision Committee─the result being a
totally new Alexandrian English bible instead of a "revision " of the
Authorized Version as it was claimed to be.

   It has only been in recent years that scholars have examined their
unbalanced theories concerning manuscript history and admitted that
their arguements were weak to non-existent.

   Sadly, both men died having never known the joy and peace of
claiming Jesus Christ as their Saviour.

   QUESTION: Can a person of Greek ethnic origin better understand the
Greek New Testament and therefore correct the English Bible?

   ANSWER: No.

   EXPLANATION: The Greek language as found in the New Testament and
the modern Greek language spoken in Greece are so vastly different from
each other as to be noninterchangeable one with the other.

   The faulty assumption that a "Greek" would be equipped, due to his
nationality, to change the Endish Bible is humorous at best and
arrogant at worst.

   No man, Greek or otherwise, has been inspired by God to change the
Bible.

   Teaching "from the Greek by a Greek" may sell many books and lead to
a rich Greek, but it certainly doesn't lead to a better understanding
of God's word.

   QUESTION: What is a "Ruckmanite?"

   ANSWER: "Ruckmanite" is a name Bible critics call anyone who
disagrees with them.

   EXPLANATION: Peter Sturges Ruckman was born in 1921. He has spent
years studying the manuscript history of the Bible. He received his
doctorate in philosophy from Bob Jones University.

   He has personally founded or helped to found dozens of churches. He
is the founder and president of the Pensacola Bible Institute in
Pensacola, Florida, where he has trained hundreds of preachers,
missionaries and Christian laymen. He has also authored over forty
books and Bible commentaries.

   He is, without a doubt, the most outspoken champion of the King
James Bible in this generation. He is considered an extremely dangerous
foe to the Bible critics who teach that God has not preserved His Bible
perfect (in spite of Psalms 12:6,7).

   His arsonal consists of an above average intellect, years of
studying Bible manuscripts and a caustic delivery. This abrasive
preaching style so offends (and scares) today's limpwristed "soldiers
of the Lord" that they shrink from any confrontation with him, OR the
facts he presents.

   ALL Bible critics claim to believe that the Bible is the perfect
word of God without a mixture of error." They make this claim to
deceive the people in their congregations. They live in fear that a
member of their congregation will pick up one of Dr. Ruckman's many
books and discover the difference between someone who "claims" to
believe that the Bible is perfect and someone who really does.

   Many Christians on their own have concluded that the Bible (King
James Bible) is the absolute perfect word of God. They, in complete
innocence, will question their pastor's "improvements" on scripture and
suddenly find themselves denounced as "Ruckmanite." In many cases they
have never even heard of Dr. Peter S. Ruckman.

   This denunciation is a simple yet desperate tactic. No Christian
wants to be guilty of "following a man." Therefore, the Bible critic
reasons that if Bible believers can be accused of "man following" they
will discard their conviction and humbly follow them.

   I once met a preacher who rejected the thought of being grouped with
Bible believers because he would then be a "Ruckmanite." He claimed, "I
don't follow any man."

   This sounds very pious. He later informed me that he was a
"Calvinist" (a follower of the teachings of the man, John Calvin).

   So, today, anyone who really believes that the Bible is the perfect
word of God without a mixture of error AND can produce it instead of
just talk about it can expect to be called a "Ruckmanite" by someone
who feels threatened by their faith and confidence.

   QUESTION: What about "nuggets" found only in the Greek?

   ANSWER: Why settle for "nuggets" when you can own the whole mine?

   EXPLANATION: Most "nuggets" that preachers find in the Greek exist
only in the fantasy of their minds.

   First, anyone who believes that the BibIe is the perfect word of
God, cannot believe that it can be improved on...even by them. Most men
who discover "nuggets" are filled with a prideful humility through
which they believe that God is going to show them something in the
Greek that no one else has found. Then they can "humbly" impress their
preacher friends with their monumental "grasp" of the original language.

   They do not, regardless of what they say in the pulpit, really
believe that the Bible is perfect as it stands, in English OR Greek.
Therefore they never read their Bible with a desire for the Holy Spirit
to help them understand it. They instead "pray" that He will show them
some better way to translate some Greek word.

   Since the Holy Spirit never does this, they usually resort to "The
Greek Game." This game can be played by anyone, even if they have had
no training in the Greek language. Simply put, all that the pseudo-
scholar needs to do is to own a Young's Concordance. In the very back
of a Young's Concordance is a list of the Greek and Hebrew words used
in the Bible. Under each word given is a list of the different ways
that that particular word was translated in the King James Bible. All
the eager critic needs to do is to interchange the English words used.

   For example, take the Greek word "haplotes." It was translated five
different ways in the Authorized Version.

   1. bountifulness II Corinthians 9:11

   2. liberal II Corinthians 9:13

   3. liberality II Corinthians 8:2

   4. simplicity Romans l2:8, II Corinthians l:12

   5. singleness Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22

   Now, in order for our zealous scholar to humbly display his massive
intellect, he must find a verse where "haplotes" is translated, let's
say, "singleness" or way #5 such as Ephesians 6:5.

   "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to
the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as
unto Christ;"

   Then in his preaching, when lighting upon his prearranged "victim"
he makes some statement that is critical of the King James translators
for having poorly chosen this translation. Then he chooses one of the
other words into which it was translated, say, way #3 or #4, and takes
10-15 minutes to expound on the virtues of his choice while ever
pointing out sadly the poor choice of the Authorized Version
translators. Of course, later when he reads a verse such as Romans
12:8, "Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do
it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth
mercy, with cheerfulness", where his pet Greek word is translated
"simplicity" or way #4, he will reverse the process and expound on the
virtue of choice #5─all the time lamenting, again, the poor choice of
God's translators.

   His audience, unaware of the ease with which this is accomplished,
stares on in awe of his intelligence and tremendous grasp of the Greek
language. They feel so fortunate to have a man of such caliber (.22
Blank!) to point out to them the errors in their Bible. And of course
they are totally convinced by this charade that they, lowly peons that
they are, can never truly understand the Bible as well as their exalted
teacher, because they lack the "tools" he possesses from the Greek.

   This scenario is NOT an overstatement. I have experienced it
firsthand.

   Once while listening to a self-impressed Bible scholar preach I
marveled at the ease with which he duped his audience. He was reading
Romans chapter 8. Upon reading a particular verse, he stopped at a
particular word and stated, "Now the King James translators
mistranslated the Greek word used here." Then he spent 10-12 minutes
expounding on the merits of his choice of translation. The audience was
duly impressed with this man's grasp of the "original language." (I
once heard a 14-year-old boy do the same thing in a "preaching
contest". You see, ANYONE can do it!)

   The very next day I was listening to another preacher on the radio.
Coincidentally this zealot was also preaching from Romans chapter 8. He
also read the same verse and ALSO stopped at the very same word that
the expert from the previous evening had accosted. He then stated,
"Sadly, the King James translators did not properly translate the Greek
word used here."

   I then braced myself for a rehash of the previous evening's
exposition. But it was not to be. For this particular scholar pointed
out that the word in question should have been translated an entirely
different way (choice #l vs. choice #4).

   He then, as the previous evening's butcher, expounded on the virtues
of HIS choice over that of the King James translators, or last
evening's expert. I was amazed! Two completely different men, two
entirely different opinions. In fact, their only point of agreement was
that the Bible could not possibly be correct as it was. I quickly
consigned their esteemed (and humble) opinions to the garbage heap of
education and accepted the choice that GOD had made for His Book in
1611.

   A second method of finding "nuggets" is for someone with a limited
understanding of Greek to do the same as the above, only they take
their choice of words from the Greek Lexicon instead of the Concordance.

   The result is always the same: the congregation is overwhelmed by
the "depth" of his study. They are also convinced that they can never
match his comprehension of the Bible without matching (Ha!) his
comprehension of "the Greek."

   A tremendous example of the fallacy of this method of Bible (?)
study is recorded in Dr. David Otis Fuller's book entitled Which Bible?
We quote it in its entirety.

   "An interesting story is found in Walton's biography of Bishop
Sanderson illustrating the truth of the old proverb, "a little learning
is a dangerous thing. " Dr. Kilbye, an excellent Hebrew scholar and
Professor of this language in the university, also expert in Greek and
chosen as one of the translators, went on a visit with Sanderson, and
at church on Sunday they heard a young preacher waste a great amount of
the time allotted for his sermon in criticizing several words in the
then recent translation. He carefully showed how one particular word
should have been translated in a different way. Later that evening the
preacher and the learned strangers were invited together to a meal, and
Dr. Kilbye took the opportunity to tell the preacher that he could have
used his time more profitably. The Doctor then explained that the
translators had very carefully considered the "three reasons" given by
the preacher, but they had found another thirteen more weighty reasons
for giving the rendering complained of by the young critic."

   A third type of "nugget" is one which actually does not exist except
in totally false statements made by a Bible critic.

   The greatest example of this is found in the analogy of the two
Greek words ''agape" and "phileo". Both of which are translated "love"
in John 21:15-17.

   15 ''So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son
of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord;
thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

   16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas,
lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord: thou knowest that l love
thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

   17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest
thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time,
Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord,thou knowest all things;
thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."

   We have all heard this passage expounded by a pseudoscholar
(sometimes in complete sincerity due to acceptance of bad teaching).
The presentation is made that "agape" in Greek speaks of a deep,
intimate, selfless love. "Phileo" on the other hand is little more than
a casual "friendly" type of love. Our scholar then laments, almost
tearfully, the constraints of the English language. He points out that
the Lord actually says, "Peter...lovest ("agape") thou me (with a deep,
intimate, selfless love) more than these?"

   Peter responds, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love (phileo ) thee
(with a casual, friendly type of love).

   Our Bible critic points out that the Lord, not receiving the answer
that He desires, asks again.

   "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest ("agape") thou me?"

   Peter, it is then pointed out, is unwilling to commit himself to
such a deep relationship so he responds again.

   "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love ("phileo") thee."

   At this point our Bible corrector points out that a saddened Saviour
gives in to Peter's lack of commitment and changes His own choice of
Greek words to "phileo."

   "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest ("phileo") thou me?"

   This sudden change supposedly shocks Peter into seeing his own
spiritual infidelity to the Lord. Thus, saddened he answers.

   "... thou knowest that I love ("phileo") thee."

   Our false teacher then points out to his audience that there is no
way to attain such depth of meaning from this passage using only the
feeble English. Once more the trusty "Greek" has enlightened us as
English can never do!

   This presentation is tremendously effective and has only ONE flaw.
The definitions given for "agape" and "phileo" are TOTALLY UNTRUE!

   I am about to make a statement concerning "agape" and "phileo" which
is not based on prejudice or opinion. It is based on careful honest
study of the way in which "agape" and "phileo" were used in the Bible
(' 'Ourfinal authority in all matters of faith and practice) by Jesus
Christ Himself and the New Testament writers.

   The statement is this: There was absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in New
Testament times between "agape" and "phileo" and that BOTH are used
interchangeably by Jesus Christ and the writers of the New Testament.
REGARDLESS of what Greek grammars, Greek teachers and Greek preachers
may say!

   If you have been steeped in the false teaching of "agape" and
"phileo" by your college professor or pastor, you will immediately (and
with much prejudice) reject my supposition. ("How could such godly men
be wrong?'' Right?)

   Yet, I will not attempt to prove it is true. The proof will come
from Jesus Christ, Paul, Peter and John, and any other New Testament
writer that I could have chosen for the comparison. But wait! They are
not my final witnesses. The final and most weighty argument will be
waged by YOU!

   For years I have been giving a test in Bible Conferences in which I
speak concerning this false teaching of "agape" and "phileo". A copy of
this test is reproduced below. IF you have the courage and IF you can
be honest with God and yourself, feel free to take it. Here's how it
goes.

   In part #I, I have reproduced quotes from the New Testament which
were made by Jesus Christ using "agape'' and "phileo". Without looking
at a Greek New Testament or Concordance or any other help, use the
false rules for "agape" and "philco" given by critics of the English
Bible. Read the quote. Decide whether Jesus is referring to "agape"
love (deep, intimate, selfless love) or "phileo'' love (casual,
friendly love). Then put an "A" for agape or "P" for phileo in the
blank before the quote.

   Part #II is identical to part #I except that the quotes are taken
from various New Testament writers. Do the same as in part one, putting
an "A" for agape and a "P" for phileo, using only the critics'
definition of these words. No guessing, no hunches. Use only their own
rule.

   After you have completed the test, turn to the answer sheet found in
Appendix #l in the back of this book.

   JOHN 21:1~17 - AGAPE vs. PHILEO

   INSTRUCTIONS:

   1. Read the Bible quote.

   2. Put an A or P in the blank before the quote to signify your
choice of the Greek word used, AGAPE or PHILEO.

   DEFINITIONS:

   AGAPE love: Deep, intimate, selfless love

   PHILEO love: Casual "friendly" love.

   I - Comparison: How Jesus used AGAPE and PHILEO.

   1. Luke 11:42 the love of God

   2. John 5:42 the love of God

   3. Matt 10:37 He that loveth father or mother

   4. Rev 3:9 to know that l have loved

   5. Rev 3:19 As many as l love

   6. Matt 23:6 love the uppermost. rooms

   7. John 12:25 He that loveth his life

   8. Luke 11:43 ye love the uppermost seats

   9. John 5:20 the Father loveth the Son

   10. John 16:27 the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved
me

   II - Comparison: How other New Testament writers used AGAPE and
PHILEO.

   l. II Tim. 3:4 of pleasures more than of God

   2. John 11:5 Jesus loved Martha

   3 John 20:2 the other disciple whom Jesus loved

   4 I Cor. 16:22 If any man love not the Lord

   5. Rom. 5:8 But God commendeth his love

   6. I Cor. 16:24 My love be with you all

   7. II Tim. 1:7 of power, and of love, and...

   8. Rom. 12:10 one to another with brotherly love

   9. II Thes. 3:12 abound in love one toward another\

   10. Titus 2:4 women to be sober, to love their husbands

   11. Eph. 5:28 So ought men to love their wives

   12. I Peter 2:17 Love the brotherhood

   13. Heb. 13:1 Let brotherly love continue

   14. Titus 3:4 and love of God our Saviour

   15. I John 2:5 in him verily is the love of God perfected

   If you have taken the test and if you have been honest, you have
found that the TRUTH of the matter is that neither Jesus nor any of the
New Testament writers acknowledged the false rule foisted on us by
heady and high-minded Bible critics.

   Thus we see that this little "nugget" is made only of "FOOL'S GOLD"
and has never really existed except in the deluded minds of men.

   Whom will you believe? Jesus Christ or your Greek professor?

   Here are the answers (A signifies "agape;" P signifies "phileo"):

   JOHN 21:15-17 ─AGAPE vs PHILEO

   I - Comparison: How Jesus used AGAPE and PHILEO.

   A 1. Luke 11:42 the love of God A 2. John 5:42 the love of God P 3.
Matt 10:37 He that loveth father or mother A 4. Rev 3:9 to know that
rhave loved P 5. Rev 3:19 As many as I love P 6. Matt 23:6 love the
uppermost rooms P 7. John 12:25 He that loveth his life A 8. Luke 11:43
ye love the uppermost seats P 9. John 5:20 the Father loveth the Son P
10. John 16:27 the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me

   II - Comparison: How other New Testament writers used AGAPE and
PHILEO.

   P 1. II Tim 3:4 of pleasures more than of God A 2. John 11:5 Jesus
loved Martha P 3. John 20:2 the other disciples whom Jesus loved P 4. I
Cor 16:22 If any man love not the Lord A 5. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth
his love A 6. I Cor 16:24 My love be with you all A 7. II Tim 1:7 of
power, and of love, and. .. P 8. Rom 12:10 one to another with
brotherly love A 9. II Thes 3:12 abound in love one toward another P
10. Titus 2:4 women to be sober, to love their husbands A 11. Eph 5:28
So ought men to love their wives A 12. I Peter 2:17 Love the
brotherhood P 13. Heb 13:1 Let brotherly love continue P 14. Titus 3:4
and love of God our Saviour A 15. I John 2:5 in him verily is the love
of God perfected

   IQUESTION: The Textus Receptus didn't appear until 1633 so how can
the King James Bible, which was translated in 1611, be translated from
it?

   ANSWER: Wrong.

   EXPLANATION: The Greek text which was used for the translation of
the King James Bible extends back through history to the pens of Moses,
David, Paul, John and the other inspired writers. Throughout history it
has been known by a variety of names. Over the years the Greek text of
the New Testament was collated by a number of different editors. The
most famous of these were Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert
Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure.

   Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament The first in
1516 was followed by another in 1519 which was used by Martin Luther
for his historic and earth-shaking German translation. His third,
fourth, and fifth followed in 1522, 1527 and 1535. Erasmus ' work was
magnificent and set the standard for centuries to come.

   Robert Stephanus published four editions, dating from 1546 through
1549, 1550 and lastly 1551.

   Theodore Beza published several editions of the Greek New Testament.
Four were published in 1565, 1582, 1588 and 1598. These were printed in
folio, meaning a sheet of paper was folded over once, thus producing
four separate pages of the book. He also published five octavo
editions, these dates being; 1565,1567,1580,1590 and 1604. "Octavo"
means that one printed sheet folded in such a way as to produce eight
separate pages of the text. Books printed in this manner tended to have
a smaller page size than folio works, but sometimes led to the need of
a work being printed in two or more volumes. It is Beza's edition of
1598 and Stephanus's edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the
primary sources by the King James translators.

   Some years later, the Elzevir brothers published three editions of
the Greek New Testament. The dates being; 1624, 1633 and 1641. They
followed closely the work of Beza, who in turn had followed the
standard set by Erasmus. In the preface to their edition of 1633 they
coined a phrase which was to become so popular as to be retrofitted to
texts which preceded it by many years. They stated in Latin "textum
ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." i.e. "According to the text
now held from the volume received..." Thus the title "Textus Receptus"
or "Received Text" was born.

   So we see that, even though the name "Textus Receptus was coined
twenty-two years after the Authorized Version was translated, it has
become synonymous with the true Greek Text originating in Antioch.

   (For your convenience, Appendix #2 in the back of this book lists
the many names used to describe both the Antiochian and Alexandrian
texts.)

   QUESTION: Is it true that the King James translators were nothing
but a bunch of Episcopalian baby sprinklers?

   ANSWER: No.

   EXPLANATION: The company of men who did the translating of the
Authorized Version was made up of Bible-believing men from both the
Anglican and Puritan churches. Their character and qualifications have
been attested earlier.

   Such a statement as, "The King James translators were nothing but a
bunch of Episcopalian baby sprinklers, " is one of those statements
which is sadly not based on fact nor conviction. It is made with the
hope of character assassination and an ultimate hope of overthrowing
the authority of the King James Bible in the minds of believers.

   It might be beneficial at this point to note what the King James
translators were NOT.

   They were not adulterers, as David. Nor were they murderers as Moses
and David. Nor had any of them sacrificed any of their children to
Chemosh or Molech as Solomon had in I Kings 11. Nor had they vehemently
denied the Lord as Peter.

   These shortcomings are not pointed out to bring disrespect on any of
the writers of scripture, but are noted so that we should be a little
more gracious in our description of the men whom God has chosen to use.

   QUESTION: Believing that the King James Bible is the perfect Word of
God is contrary to the stand that my "Alma Mater" takes. What should I
do?

   ANSWER: You should be loyal to God, Who SHOULD be a little higher on
your "loyalty list" than your college.

   EXPLANATION: First, let's get it straight. You do not have an "Alma
Mater." The term "Alma Mater" results from the combination of the
Hebrew word for "virgin" (almah) and the Greek word for "mother"
(meter). Thus when you speak of your "Alma Mater'' you refer to your
"Virgin Mother," a terminology which we fairly say can only be used by
Jesus Christ. Thus, although we may have to use the more lengthy
description "the college I attended" or just "my college," we show much
more respect for Jesus Christ than to go around claiming that we have a
"Virgin Mother" also.

   Secondly, you should appreciate the time, trouble and effort that
your college went through to educate you. Education does not happen by
accident; thus you should be appreciative of what was done on your
behalf.

   Thirdly, "appreciation" taken into consideration, you do not owe
your SOUL to your college as you do to Jesus Christ. Therefore you need
not be "eternally grateful" to it in such a humiliating manner that you
are not allowed to control your own convictions once you graduate.

   The receipt of "Dear Preacher Boy" letters from the college
President designed to pressure and intimidate you into "towing the
college line" should carry no more weight than the 3rd class "Dear
Occupant" mail which we all receive.

   Jesus said, "The truth shall make you FREE" and any school which is
constantly reminding you of your "debt" to them for "all we've done for
you" is not interested in your freedom, but your slavery. You needn't
feel any guilt in "respectfully" disregarding both their request and
the claims.

   Furthermore, if you went to a school where you paid your tuition,
your room and board, and the other associated costs of your education,
then you are totally free of any so called "debt" to your school. You
may wholeheartedly appreciate the "sacrifice, vision, dedication, etc."
of your school and its leaders, but your DEBT to it ended when you made
your final tuition payment. Your degree was not given to you as a gift
to show their benevolence. It was EARNED by your academic efforts and
PAID FOR by your cold cash, not to mention a little "sacrifice, vision
and dedication" of your own.

   Your college did not give you your degree because it thought that it
would be a "nice" gesture. They gave it to you because they could not
refuse to. You had EARNED it by fulfilling the requirements that they
demanded. Including paying your bill (plus interest in some cases).

   Thus if you find that the perfect Bible that your school spoke of
really does exist, and you fear being alienated from your college and
its "alumni" (Greek - "enlightened ones"?), then you should remember
that your debt to Jesus Christ is REAL while your "debt" to your
college is only imagined.

   Which do you prefer to be alienated from, Jesus Christ or your
college? They are NOT one in the same.

   John 8:32. QUESTION: Isn't it "Progressive Revelation" to believe
that the King James Bible is to be trusted more than the originals?

   ANSWER: No.

   EXPLANATION: The term "Progressive Revelation" is another one of
those tactics used by Bible critics to intimidate Bible believers into
surrendering their faith in God's perfect Bible.

   Their argument is: "Inspiration ended with the original autographs,
therefore to believe that a mere translation can reveal more than the
originals is to believe in a 'new' revelation, which is called
'Progressive Revelation'."

   Is there such a thing as "Progressive Revelation?" Of course, we
cannot afford to settle the matter on the weight of prejudice, opinion
or "conviction." Only our "final authority" can officially dictate what
is or is not proper to believe.

   The obvious question then is: "Is there an example of 'Progressive
Revelation' in the Bible?" The answer is: "No, there are at least two."

   Moses, in the book of Exodus, goes before Pharaoh to demand the
release of the children of Israel. He performs signs and wonders to
prove that he truly represents God. Early in the contest Pharaoh's
magicians endeavor to match Moses "miracle for miracle" (Exodus
7:11,12,22 and 8:7). We know that Pharaoh's principal two magicians
were Jannes and Jambres. BUT, those two names are not found anywhere in
the forty-eight chapters of the book of Exodus. Neither are they named
anywhere in any one of the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament. In
fact, their names are not revealed ("revelation") until some fifteen
centuries later. Could we not call that "Progressive Revelation?"

   Next let us look to I Kings 17:1. In this Old Testament verse we
find that Elijah prophesies that "there shall not be dew nor rain these
years, but according to my word." In I Kings 18:41 "according to his
word" Elijah lifts the three and one-half year drought from Israel. But
wait. Did I say "three and one-half year" drought? Nowhere in I Kings
is the length of time of the drought mentioned. In fact, we don't learn
the length of Elijah's drought until Jesus tells us in Luke 4:25 that
it was "three years and six months." (This information is repeated in
James 5:17.) Once again we see that one portion of an occurence is
recorded in the Old Testament while the remainder of the information is
revealed centuries later in the New Testament. Rather "progressive,"
wouldn't you say?

   So we see from the Bible that what the critics "poo-poo" is indeed a
Bible teaching.

   By the way, if you want to know what kind of rock Moses smote in
Exodus 17:6, don't look for the answer in Exodus. Read Psalm 114.

   QUESTION: I've been told that believing that the King James Bible is
the perfect word of God is not the "historic position." Is this true?

   ANSWER: The "historic" position is to accept Scripture as infallible
and deplore anyone who tries to alter it.

   EXPLANATION: One of the arguments that the Roman Catholic Church
uses in making its claim as the "true" church is the authority of
"tradition." The Roman Catholic Church claims that tradition is equal
with Scripture. This became official church dogma in 1545 at the
Council of Trent. At this council, tradition was elevated to a place of
equal authority with Scripture. Then the council officially cursed
anyone who did not accept its tenets.

   Unfortunately, "fundamental" Bible correctors have the same innate
Roman Catholic tendency to resort to the "authority" of tradition.
Strangely enough they do it for the very same reason─usurping authority
over Scripture. Of course, the fundamental Bible corrector realizes
that the moment he uses the word "tradition" from his pulpit that
"alarms" will sound in the heads of his congregation. So he shrewdly
resorts to a "translation." Instead of saying "tradition" he says "the
historic fundamental position is..." and completely fools his audience.
What is a "historic position?" It is a tradition of course.

   Therefore, when you hear someone flee to the feeble argument that
"believing the King James Bible is perfect is not the historic
fundamental position", BEWARE. You have just run into a person who is
Roman Catholic in spirit. If you doubt this, disagree with him and see
if he doesn't curse you.

   QUESTION: Should we make an issue of Bible translations?

   ANSWER: Only if you believe anything out of it.

   EXPLANATION: Many Christians attempt to evade the issue of whether
or not there really is a perfect Bible (as they are told from the
pulpit) by piously hiding behind the statement, "I don't make an issue
of Bible translations."

   It is perfectly acceptable to assume such a position as long as you
are consistent in your stand...or lack of it.

   In other words, if the issue of a perfect Bible is a "non-issue"
with you, then to be consistent, neither should be ANY of the following:

   1. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Isa 7:14

   2. The deity of Jesus Christ. I John 5:5

   3. The substitutionary death for sins made by Jesus Christ. Romans
5:8

   4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I Cor 15:4

   5. Salvation by grace alone without works. Eph 2:8,9

   6. The Pre-millennial return of Jesus Christ. I Thess 4

   7. The existence of a literal Heaven. John 3:13

   8. The existence of a literal Hell. Mark 9:42-44

   9. The acceptance of Creation over the theory of evolution. Gen 1:1

   This is by no means a comprehensive list of convictions held by
those who call themselves "Fundamentalists." Yet every one is taken
from the Bible. How on earth can a thinking, rational person make an
issue or have a conviction on something that they have taken out of the
Bible, but see "no issue" concerning the perfection of the Book on
which they base their every issue? IF the Bible has mistakes in it,
then how can we be sure that it is correct in those passages on which
we base our convictions?

   Some may say, "I accept the Bible where it is accurately
translated." Fine! THAT is the statement of faith of every Mormon in
the world! WHO is to judge just where the Bible is "accurately
translated?"

   No, it is impossible to make "any issue" over even one doctrine from
the Bible and claim not to make an "issue" over the Bible itself.

   Why then do people make such a statement? Basically, it is out of
fear of the consequences of such a stand. They are afraid of the
rejection of their friends, family, and fellowworkers.

   How bold for the truth are you?

   QUESTION: Shouldn't we respect the education of our many "Drs." in
the issue of the Bible?

   ANSWER: Yes. IF there is any education associated with their degree.

   EXPLANATION: Today's Christianity proliferates with "Doctors." It
has often been joked that,''There are so many Doctors that you'd think
God was sick."

   There are only two types of Doctor's degrees─Earned and Honorary.

   An earned doctorate is an educational degree. It is bestowed on a
graduate by his college or university upon his fulfillment of that
school's requirements for such a degree. This involves certain academic
achievements and acknowledges the graduate's mastery of a broad field
of knowledge. Some common earned degrees are:

   M.D. Doctor of Medicine

   Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy

   Th.D. Doctor of Theology

   Ed.D. Doctor of Education

   An honorary doctorate is just that. It is bestowed upon the
recipient by some college or university as a way of honoring him or her
for some outstanding merit, or service to that school. It must be
remembered though that an honorary degree cannot bestow an "instant''
expertise in the area named, any more than bestowing a degree on
Dorothy's "Scare Crow" gave him a brain. The recipient of an honorary
degree would know no more about Bible manuscripts after he received his
degree than before he did. It is an honor only, not an academic degree.
(No one would wish to be operated on by a surgeon with an "honorary"
degree.) Their opinion on Bible questions certainly wouldn't outweigh
the findings of an earned degree, or even of someone who holds no
degree but has thoroughly investigated all of the available evidence.
Academically, an honorary doctorate is like an "honorary black belt" in
karate. Wear it around the house, but don't try to use it or you'll get
killed!

   Some common honorary degrees are:

   D.D. Doctor of Divinity

   D.Mus. Doctor of Music

   D.Sc. Doctor of Science

   L.H.D. Doctor of Human Letters

   Lit.D. Doctor of Literature (or D.Lit.)

   L.L.D. Doctor of Laws

   Litt.D. Doctor of Letters

   Both types of degrees have their place. The honorary degree is very
much a badge of merit, and should be respected as just that─an honor
bestowed upon the individual for his meritorious deeds performed for
Christ or his school.

   The earned degree is an academic title and stands on the merit of
the education that it represents.

   QUESTION: Shouldn't we emphasize love for Jesus Christ rather than
squabbling over Bible translations?

   ANSWER: There is no better way to emphasize our love for Jesus
Christ than to jealously and zealously guard His word.

   EXPLANATION: You can show your "love" for the Lord Jesus Christ in
two ways.

   1. Any method that YOU deem as sincere and valid in your own sight.
(See Lev. 10:1-3.)

   2. You can endeavor to keep Christ's Scriptural admonitions as
strictly as possible. (This tends to be a lifetime endeavor.)

   In John 14:23 one of the identifying marks of anyone who loves Him
is that they will "keep my words."

   You may say, "That just means to keep the things that He said to
do." BUT, the fact is that no "love" is required to keep His sayings as
evidenced in John 8:51,52. Love is required to keep His "words."

   Again an argument may be made that, "That just referred to the
original Greek." But alas, such a statement only leads you into a
deeper, more deadly trap. The following Scriptural example will explain.

   In the book of Jonah, it is recorded that Jonah, while running from
God, is swallowed by "a great fish" (Jonah 1:17).

   In Matthew 12:40 the "great fish" is identified by Jesus Christ as a
"whale. " (We are not arguing genetics here; we are arguing the value
of Christ's "w-o-r-d-s.")

   Strangely, at this very scripture, those who claim to be able to
"love" Christ and correct His Bible steal the words right out of His
mouth.

   Every new translation changes Jesus' word "whale" to "fish." This is
done because they learned in their seventh grade biology class that "a
whale is not a fish." Faced not only with a Bible that has a seeming
contradiction (not with itself but with their seventh grade biology
teacher) but also with a Saviour who is so uninformed and uneducated as
to not know that "a whale is not a fish," they panic. They rush to
Matthew 12:40 and remove the word "whale" from both the Bible (their
"authority in all matters of faith and practice") and from Jesus' lips
(their "Lord" and Saviour.)

   The Greek word used for "whale" in Matthew 12:40 is "ketos. " The
Greek word for "fish" is "ichthus." They are NOT the same. Jesus used
the Greek word "ichthus" in several places in Scripture, such as:
Matthew 7:10 and 17:28. Certainly He could have used it in Matthew
12:40 if He so desired.

   The fundamental Bible "enhancer" overlooks two monumental Scriptural
truths.

   First he overlooks the fact that Jonah was swallowed by a "great
fish" that was specially "prepared" by God. It should be noted here
that Adam gave names to all living creatures but one. God gave whales
their name in Genesis 1:21 BEFORE Adam named the rest of creation in
Genesis 2:19,20. That means the whale had a "pre-destination" (Gen.
1:21) and a "pre-destination" (Jonah 1:17) from the foundation of the
earth─NOT something even a Bible corrector should take lightly.

   The second truth ignored by God's little "helper" is that by
changing "whale" to "fish" in Jesus' statement of Matthew 12:40 he is
guilty of breaking Jesus' admonition of John 14:23 to "keep my
w-o-r-d-s." ("Correcting" the Bible is like "treading" quicksand. The
harder you kick, the faster you sink.)

   Thus the authors of the New American Standard Version, the New
International Version, the New King James Verslon and the rest of the
new translations are not only wrong in their translation of "ketos" but
in their defiance of Jesus mandate

   So, when Jesus says one thing (whale) and your pastor, parent, or
professor says another (fish) you are bound by LOVE for Christ to
reject man's opinion and embrace and defend Jesus' w-o-r-d-s.

   QUESTION: What should I do where my Bible and my Greek Lexicon
contradict?

   ANSWER: Throw out the Lexicon.

   EXPLANATION: Oftimes a critic of God's Bible will point to a Lexicon
or Greek grammar book for authority in an effort to prove that a word
has been mistranslated in the Bible. This is rather foolhardy, and
flies in the face of their purported claim to accept the Bible as their
final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

   It must be remembered that God never claimed that He would provide
us with a perfect lexicon or an inerrant Greek grammar. He said that He
would provide us with a perfect Bible.

   Thus, on the weight of our own acceptance of the Bible as our "final
authority in all matters of faith and practice" we must all accept its
rendering of the Greek as more accurate and authoritative than the
opinion of the fallible human authors of our Greek study guides.

   QUESTION: Was Erasmus, the editor of the Textus Receptus, a "good"
Roman Catholic?

   ANSWER: Erasmus, who edited the Greek text which was later to be
known as the Textus Receptus, was an embarrassment to the pope and a
poor example of a "good" Roman Catholic.

   EXPLANATION: Desiderius Erasmus was born in 1466 and died in 1536 at
the age of seventy. This was no mean feat during the days when the
plagues, coupled with primeval medical practices, worked together to
limit the average age of a man's life to approximately 35-40 years.

   Both of his parents fell victim to that same plague while Erasmus
was just a lad. He and his brother were then placed in the care of an
uncle who promptly sent them off to a monastery just to be rid of them.
Thus Erasmus's destiny was sealed long before he could ever have a say
in the matter.

   Young Erasmus became well known for his charm, urbanity and wit, and
was in possession of an obviously above average intellect. He was later
to choose to be an Augustinian on the sole attribute that they were
known to have the finest of libraries.

   His behavior was somewhat bizarre by Augustinian standards. He
refused to keep vigils, never hesitated to eat meat on Fridays, and
though ordained, chose never to function as a priest. The Roman Church
had captured his body, but quite apparently his mind and heart were
still unfettered.

   He is known to history as one of the most prolific writers of all
times.

   Erasmus was a constant and verbal opponent of the many excesses of
his church. He berated the papacy, the priesthood and the
overindulgences of the monks. He stated that the monks would not touch
money, but that they were not so scrupulous concerning wine and women.
He constantly attacked clerical concubinage and the cruelty with which
the Roman Catholic Church dealt with so-called "heretics. " He is even
credited with saving a man from the Inquisition.

   One of his many writings consisted of a tract entitled "Against the
Barbarians" which was directed against the overt wickedness of the
Roman Catholic Church.

   He was a constant critic of Pope Julius and the papal monarchy. He
often compared the crusade-leading Pope Julius to Julius Caesar. He is
quoted as saying, "How truly is Julius playing the part of Julius!" He
also stated, "This monarchy of the Roman pontiff is the pest of
Christendom." He advised the church to "get rid of the Roman See." When
a scathing satire, in which Pope Julius was portrayed as going to Hell,
written in anonymity, was circulated, it was fairly common knowledge
that its author was Erasmus

   He was offered a bishopric in hopes that it would silence his
criticism. He rejected the bribe flat.

   Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament in Greek. They
were brought out successively in 1516, 1519 1522, 1527 and 1535. His
first two editions did not contain I John 5:7 although the reading had
been found in many non-Greek texts dating back as early as 15OA.D.
Erasmus desired to include the verse but knew the conflict that would
rage if he did so without at least one Greek manuscript for authority.
Following the publication of his second edition, which like his first
consisted of both the Greek New Testament and his own Latin
translation, he said that he would include I John 5:7 in his next
edition if just one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it.
Opponents of the reading today erringly charge that the two manuscripts
found had been specially produced just to oblige Erasmus 's request,
but this charge has never been validated and was not held at the time
of Erasmus 's work.

   The Roman Catholic Church criticized his works for his refusal to
use Jerome's Latin translation, a translation that he said was
inaccurate. He opposed Jerome's translation in two vital areas.

   He detected that the Greek text had been corrupted as early as the
fourth century. He knew that Jerome's translation had been based solely
on the Alexandrian manuscript, Vaticanus, written itself early in the
fourth century.

   He also differed with Jerome on the translation of certain passages
which were vital to the claimed authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

   Jerome rendered Matthew 4:17 thus: "Do penance, for the kingdom of
Heaven is at hand."

   Erasmus differed with: "Be penitent for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand."

   Erasmus was also a staunch defender of both Mark 16:9-21 and John
8:1- 12─zeal which our modern-day scholars cannot seem to find.

   Possibly Erasmus's greatest gift to mankind was his attitude toward
the common man. In the rigidly "classed" society in which he lived, he
was an indefatigable advocate of putting the Scripture in the hands of
the common man. While Jerome's Latin had been translated at the bidding
of the Roman hierarchy, Erasmus translated his Latin with the express
purpose of putting it into the hands of the common people of his day─a
practice that the Roman Catholic Church knew could be dangerous to its
plan to control the masses.

   Erasmus is quoted as saying, "Do you think that the Scriptures are
fit only for the perfumed?" "I venture to think that anyone who reads
my translation at home will profit thereby." He boldly stated that he
longed to see the Bible in the hands of "the farmer, the tailor, the
traveler and the Turk." Later, to the astonishment of his upper classed
colleagues, he added, "the masons, the prostitutes and the pimps" to
that declaration.

   Knowing his desire to see the Bible in the hands of God's common
people, it seems not so surprising that God was to use his Greek text
for the basis of the English Bible that was translated with the common
man in mind, the King James Bible.

   It has been said that "Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched."
There is probably far more truth to this statement than can be casually
discerned. For the reformers were armed with Erasmus's Bible, his
writings and his attitude of resistance to Roman Catholic intimidation.
Of Luther he said, "I favor Luther as much as I can, even if my cause
is everywhere linked with his." He wrote several letters on Luther's
behalf, and wholeheartedly agreed with him that salvation was entirely
by grace, not works. He refused pressure by his Roman Catholic
superiors to denounce Luther as a heretic . If Erasmus had turned the
power of his pen on Luther, it would undoubtedly have caused far more
damage than the powerless threats of the pope and his imps were able to
do. As it is, only his disagreement with Luther's doctrine of
predestination ever prompted him to criticize the Reformer with pen and
ink.

   Erasmus's greatest point of dissension with the Roman Church was
over its doctrine of salvation through works and the tenets of the
church.

   He taught that salvation was a personal matter between the
individual and God and was by faith alone. Of the Roman system of
salvation he complained, "Aristotle is so in vogue that there is
scarcely time in the churches to interpret the gospel." And what was
"the gospel" to which Erasmus referred? We will let him speak for
himself.

   "Our hope is in the mercy of God and the merits of Christ." Of Jesus
Christ he stated, "He...nailed our sins to the cross, sealed our
redemption with his blood." He boldly stated that no rites of the
Church were necessary for an individual's salvation. "The way to enter
Paradise," he said, "is the way of the penitent thief, say simply, Thy
will be done. The world to me is crucified and I to the world."

   Concerning the most biblical sect of his time, the Anabaptists, he
reserved a great deal of respect. He mentioned them as early as 1523
even though he himself was often called the "only Anabaptist of the
16th century." He stated that the Anabaptists that he was familiar with
called themselves "Baptists." (Ironically, Erasmus was also the FIRST
person to use the term "fundamental.'')

   So we see that when Erasmus died on July 11, 1536, he had led a life
that could hardly be construed to be an example of what could be
considered a "good Catholic."

   But perhaps the greatest compliment, though veiled, that Erasmus's
independent nature ever received came in 1559, twenty-three years after
his death. That is when Pope Paul IV put Erasmus's writings on the
"Index" of books, forbidden to be read by Roman Catholics.

   QUESTION: How many mistakes are there in the King James Bible?

   ANSWER: None.

   EXPLANATION: None.

   QUESTION: I want to be successful in my circle of friends. A stand
for the King James Bible would be a detriment to my future promotion.
What should I do?

   ANSWER: Either stand for God's Bible and trust HIM to promote you,
or sell out your integrity and grovel for your peers as a dog does for
a bone. The choice is yours.

   QUESTION: What about a contradiction that can't be successfully
explained?

   ANSWER: You will have to accept the perfection of the Authorized
Version by faith.

   EXPLANATION: Many years ago the phone in my kitchen rang. On the
line was a young man who was a student in a class I was teaching in a
nearby Bible College.

   He said that his pastor had showed him a contradiction in the King
James Bible. (Great "man of faith.") He asked if I could explain it. As
he began to tell me the contradiction, I, being familiar with the
argument, finished quoting it.

   "Oh, you know about it then?" he asked.

   "Sure," I replied.

   "What's the answer?" he urged expectantly

   "I don 't know, " I answered, knowing what I had just done to his
faith in me. (In me, that is.)

   I explained my reply to him as I will now explain it to you.

   NO ONE can have ALL of the answers. There are two reasons for this.

   First, if I or any other defender of the Authorized Version had ALL
of the answers, we would be GOD. But there are innumerable differences
between our infinite GOD and His finite creatures. Thus, although some
can have many answers, and a few can have a great many answers, no one
can have ALL of the answers.

   Second, and most importantly, if we could get ALL of our questions
answered then concerning the Bible issue, we would be walking by sight
not by faith (Hebrews 11:6, II Corinthians 5:7).

   I believe there will always have to be some questions which remain
unexplainable by our human reason. This would make our FINAL judgment
on the infallibility of the Bible contingent on the reliability of
God's statements such as Psalm 12:6,7 and Matthew 24:35 instead of the
education and intellect of our favorite "defenders of the faith."

   Of course, the proponent of the Authorized Version feels a little
vulnerable with this conclusion, knowing that our antagonists will be
quick to exploit what they perceive as a hole in our armor. BUT a
resort to "faith" as our final and "last ditch" defense is not as
inconsistent or precarious as it first might seem.

   Not inconsistent, because, as previously stated, God would rather we
have faith in Him in the face of the unexplainable, as so many of the
Old and New Testament saints have exhibited, than to have faith in our
own human ability to "find an answer" concerning difficult passages.

   It is certainly not precarious in that it does not leave us at the
mercy of our vindictive opponents. For believing in the perfection of a
Book which we can hold in our hands is surely not as vulnerable as a
professed faith in the perfection of some lost originals.

   The reason most critics are so vehement about the infallibility of
the originals is because they know that the originals can NEVER be
produced, so their faith can never be tried or upended.

   We are willing, on the other hand, to take the abuse from our "self
conceited brethren'' and give answers for our reasonable faith in a
tangible Book rather than in an idealistic original. We need not
apologize.

   QUESTlON: What if there really ARE mistakes in the King James Bible?

   ANSWER: Then it's up to YOU to find the Book that God was talking
about in Psalm 12:6,7 and Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:35.

   EXPLANATION: I learned a great lesson in the late 1960s. I watched
on television as riotous hippies burned down the Bank of America
offices. Other rioters razed entire neighborhoods to the chant of
"Burn, Baby, Burn." The hippies' claim was that they had to burn this
country to the ground in order to build a new one. And THAT is what I
learned: ANY hippie can burn down a building, but I've NEVER seen even
one building that a hippie built.

   The cruel truth is that when you become a rebel against authority,
such as the hippies were, you become an EXPERT in the art of
destruction (II Peter 2:9-15). A life committed to destroying is
difficult to reverse. Thus, hippies know how to destroy buildings which
were built by others. But the cannot build anything in a productive
manner that improves on what they destroyed.

   This rebellious hatred for AUTHORITY is also manifested in the rabid
attacks on the Holy Bible by self-proclaimed scholars. They can wax
eloquent in their destructive criticism of God's perfect Book., then,
after reducing it to ashes in the hearts and minds of students and
church members, are unable to replace it with anything that even
compares with the divine writings they have so viciously attacked.

   If you have been convinced by some spiritual hippie that the King
James Bible has mistakes in it, then I suggest you ask them to REPLACE
it with a Bible that is perfect.

   They may point to the New International Version, or New American
Standard Version, or New King James Version as a "better translation."
But none will DARE to claim that any of these are the Bible referred to
in Psalm 12:6,7 or Matthew 24:35.

   If you press the issue they will most likely run you through the
brambles and briers of the claim that God's Word is found only in "the
Greek." But the fact is that their very limited knowledge of the
original languages leaves them unable to read, study or preach from
either Hebrew or Greek. Even if they COULD translate either the Textus
Receptus or the local Egyptian text of Alexandria literally, they would
be forced to admit that there are readings in both that they cannot
accept as infallible.

   The FACT is, that, like their hippie counterparts of the late 1960's
they find themselves standing on a pile of smoldering ruins, without
any ability whatsoever to rebuild even an outhouse, let alone render a
perfect Bible.

   No, if you have been convinced by someone that the King James Bible
has errors IN SPITE of the facts, then you have accepted that thesis
for only one reason: your love for and loyalty to the Bible's
antagonist. The critic is your father, brother, pastor, youth director,
college professor, or just someone you love too much to confront or
withstand on the Bible issue.

   So, if you have been convinced by someone that the Authorized
Version has mistakes in it, you should toss your King James Bible into
the wastebasket on top of your NIV, NASV, NKJV and both of the Greek
texts. Then go to that person, fall on your knees, kiss their ring and
say, ''Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"

   But remember one thing: Your god is a REBELLIOUS HIPPIE!

   QUESTION: I'm convinced that the King James Bible is the infallible
Word of God. Now what should I do?

   ANSWER: Act like you believe it.

   EXPLANATION: If you REALLY believe that the Bible (AV 1611) is the
infallible, perfect word of God, you will first begin to READ IT. There
is no excuse for any Christian to NOT be reading the Bible through from
cover to cover. Why do you think He gave it to you?

   Put away all of the other versions, all your commentaries, all of
your "study helps" and simply read God's Book. Remember the Author
resides within you (I Corinthians 6:19,20) so He should be able to help
you to understand it.

   Start your reading with the Gospel of John and read to the end of
the New Testament. Read at least ten pages a day. That's not too much
to ask! God has gone to a lot of trouble to put that Book in your hand.
You can go to a little trouble to put it in your heart. After finishing
Revelation, go to Genesis and read to John. THAT'S ONCE! Now start
again! Read it every day that you are alive until the Lord comes back

   Beware! There will be days that you read and don't feel like you
"got" anything. There will be days when the reading seems "dry" such as
the first nine chapters of I Chronicles. There will be days when you
are extremely busy. There will be whole passages that you don't
understand. NONE of these circumstances are valid reasons to quit
reading. If you can continue to read ten pages a day under the
conditions mentioned above, you will have passed one of the greatest
tests of character known to man.

   Remember. Besides the dry days, you will have days when that Book
gently settles your heart and mind. You will have days when you will
learn new truths. And perhaps most importantly, you will get to know
your God and Saviour in a most personal way.

   Secondly, you don't need to go on a rampage against your preacher,
teachers or friends who don't believe it. Having read this series of
questions and answers you should be equipped to answer most of their
protests with grace. You may want to secure another copy to pass along
to them. But REMEMBER─this is a HEART matter, not a head matter. Their
final acceptance will rely on whether they, or you for that matter, can
find it within themselves to humble themselves and accept God's Book as
perfect. It will be a high pressure decision, but will depend on which
they choose to be more loyal to─their Saviour and God, or their friends
and school.

   If you are a preacher, you will have to remove those little so
called "nuggets" from the imperfect Greek. You will find that building
your people's confidence in God's perfect Bible and encouraging them to
read it will be much more gratifying for both you and them. Remember, a
congregation that is "in their Bibles" and reading it, is no threat to
a pastor who is "in his Bible" and reading it.

   If you have a friend, a professor or pastor who changes the Bible
whom you love and respect dearly, continue to love and respect them.
But when they "correct" or attack God's Book simply discount it from
their message. Some may reject you. Some may put pressure on you.
Remember. To have to admit that they have been "wrong all those years"
is extremely difficult for the heart to accept. If they finally reject
the Book they will also finally reject you. Continue to love them, but
don't let your love/respect allow you to compromise God's Truth. Don't
forget that we owe Him far more than any man. Now, get busy reading
your perfect Bible!