Want Some Answers ???

These are K.J self-proclaimed PROFESSIONALS.  Are these the best defenders who rebuff my first mail?

CONTENTS

Hi Thomas.  Good of you to respond. You claim to hold a "a Th.D. in Textual Criticism and a Ph.D. in Ecclesiastical History". And even more -

>>teach Hebrew and Greek at the graduate and post graduate level, and teach Textual Criticism and Manuscript Evidence, as well as being Chairman of the Department of Biblical and Historical Theology at San Diego Baptist Theological Seminary<<

Well, this is going to be interesting writing to you. Or, are these claims true? We shall see. I doubt it.  KJ radicals don't always tell the truth for some reason. One person writing to me claimed he knew Greek; but he disappeared after a few letters [he knew nothing of what he claimed]. One claimed to have read all the books but it was not true. Some claim to be different but after a few letters they are obviously just as radical as Ruck himself.

Are you aware most KJ radicals are hard-core enemies to Textual Criticism? Because the ultimate purpose of this discipline is to discover what the writers of the NT actually wrote. KJ radicals think they know everything already.  Textual Critics don't follow the KJ idea that the KJV is the final word on understanding God's Word. And whether Textual, Source, Form, Redaction Criticism and Structural Analysis they all undermine any insistence the KJV is the most actuate version available. Textual Criticism concerns itself with the problems suggested by various kinds of errors in text. The NT is considered of such supreme importance that it's worth the attention of the textual critic to improve the text, if possible, even to a small degree. The greater understanding one has of NT Greek the further away one goes from any notion that the KJV is the most reliable version.

So I shall enjoy writing to you. I question your appreciation of the text behind the KJV and your understanding of textual criticism. Or perhaps this is a reflection on a poor state of scholarship at "San Diego Baptist Theological Seminary".

I mentioned KJ radicals give Bible words meanings that the Bible writers never intended.  When the KJV says "thy word" they imagine it refers to the KJV alone. You responded -

>>"Thy word" refers to the autographs, not to any translation. My English bible is the "word of God" only insofar as it is derived from the inspired and preserved Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek manuscripts.<<

May I add, that "God's Word" is God's message to man. It's called "the Bible" and we have it in various versions today, some more faithful than others. The KJ radicals claim that every version [but the KJV] contains error and are totally untrustworthy. They insist no one can be sure of salvation [or any doctrine] unless the KJV is used. We agree, salvation does not depend on a particular Bible version and its language. I can be sure of salvation [or ANY doctrine] and never have read the KJV. That fact indicates the KJV is just another version. Concerning 'Easter' you wrote,

>>Easter did not originate with the KJV, but originated with Tyndale in 1534, is also in the Cranmer version of 1539, and the Geneva Bible of 1557.<<

Yes its found in other versions. The word  'Easter' inserted by KJV translators, was borrowed from the ancient Anglo-Saxon service-books, or from the version of the Gospels, which always translates the Greek by this term; eg Mt.26:2: Ye know that after two days is the feast of the Passover. The Anglo-Saxon reads, Wite ye that aefter twam dagum beoth Eastro. Mt.16:19: And they made ready the Passover. (Anglo-Saxon) And hig gegearwodon hym Easter thenunga. And Mk 14:12,  And the first day of unleavened bread when they killed the Passover. (Anglo-Saxon) And tharm forman daegeazimorum, tha hi Eastron offrodon. Wiclif used the word paske, ie. Passover; but Tindal, Coverdale, Becke, and Cardmarden, follow the old Saxon mode of translation and insert Easter: the Geneva Bible properly renders it Passover.

The Anglo-Saxon used different modes of spelling the name of the goddess Easter, whose festival was celebrated in April; hence that month, in the Saxon calendar, is called 'Easter month'. Every view we can take of this subject shows the gross impropriety of retaining a name every way exceptionable and palpably absurd.

The word "Eostre" is foreign to the NT Greek [you should know]. Luke did not use the word or know it. So the text was wrongly altered to include it. I would rather read the words of the original writers. The KJ radicals defend this word with their life. They cannot admit to one error in the KJV or they have lost the whole argument about an inerrant KJV. You pretend to teach Greek, in all honesty Thomas, how can you deny truth for the sake of the KJ dogma? You wrote,

>>Furthermore, if you would look the word "Easter" up in the Oxford English Dictionary, the standard reference book on the English language, you would see that the word can mean either the great Christian holiday, OR it can mean, and I quote directly from page 19 of the "E" volume "2. The Jewish Passover."<<

With all due respect, the "Oxford Dictionary," is not the means where by we interpret Scripture or the reading in a particular verse. Where is your scholarship? Since when has the "English language" decided Scripture? Ask your self, which has the greater authority the NT Greek or the KJV? When it comes to a rendering we should follow the Greek manuscripts [mss] not the KJ translators. And how is you overlook the fact Biblical scholarship has not stood still since 1611?

We agree the KJ translators wrongly included and translated the Apocrypha for the 1611 [but not Easter?]. The radicals make an issue out of a faultless 1611 KJV that has "all the words of God". Anything the KJ translators included is regarded as becoming sacred from God, so finding the Apocrypha there is a real problem for them.  You wrote,

>>As to the "differences" between the 1611 and the later editions, I suggest you read F.H.A. Scrivener's excellent book "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives" (Cambridge University Press, 1884). This book outlines the actual changes from one edition to the next.<<

Scrivener is a strong defender of the TR. And onesided in his interpretations. And his Annotated Greek NT can be still purchased today and differences with the critical text are marked in the text and placed in the footnotes.  I also note that Scrivener's Greek text of 1894 differs from all previously printed editions of the RT. It was used to produce the NKJV. However it was Stephanus's standard textus receptus of 1550 that was used for the 1611. The radicals who claim the KJV is the 'unaltered word for word 1611' are wrong, its been altered many times. Does Scriveners text have fewer errors than the text behind the KJV? And today's KJV has less error than the 1611? [Perhaps you could tell me]. You mentioned Waite's book and wrote -

>>In this actual comparison of the 1611 edition and the 1769 (Oxford) edition, the author found 136 changes of substance, all of which corrected printers errors in the 1611 edition. If you compare the 1762 (Cambridge) edition you will find one additional change, for a total of 137.<<

I have two pages photocopied from the 1627 KJV. I count 139 changes on one page compared with today's modern KJV. The changes in today's KJV, from the 1611 have been estimated to be 75,000 [Pg.274 So Many Versions? S.Kudo & W.F. Specht. Pub.Zondervan]. One radical claimed there were only 24,000. But whether 24,000 or 75,000 a "change" is a "change". And it only takes one error to fail the perfect test. Why argue all other versions have corrections and changes and avoid using these words concerning the KJV? The orthographical errors alone verify a huge numbers of alterations.  KJ radicals claim -

"If you change ANYTHING you are a bible corrector!" "The KJB is the same word for word unaltered inerrant, unchanged 1611" "How can the true Word of God contain even one error?" "If the KJB is the true Word of God, then it cannot contain any error..." "Because Prov.30:5 states "EVERY word of God is PURE:... An inaccurate word is not a pure word".

Yet "bible correctors" have been busy with the KJV. Its had a long history of changes. So insisting the KJV has not contained any error is nonsense. Radicals condemn the errors in other versions as "corruptions and evil" while the errors in the KJV are brushed aside as trivial.  To claim 'all errors have now been corrected' flies in the face of the whole emphasis on a perfect, inerrant, infallible KJV. And we are now asked to believe that "Bible correctors" have given us an inerrant KJV.  The very fact of changes and errors proves that the SAME inspiration afforded to Scripture did not follow to any translation. You wrote,

>>Anyone who has ever studied textual criticism and transmission knows that scribal/printers errors do not affect the doctrine of inspiration.<<

And that's why I apply the doctrine of inspiration to other translations [not just the KJV]. But if you apply the words inspiration and inerrancy ONLY to the KJV, the scribal - printing errors and textual errors blow your argument right out of the water. You wrote,

>>There are a few readings in the KJV which have no EXTANT Greek mss support. Simply because there is no longer any EXTANT mss evidence does not preclude the existence of that evidence in years past.<<

As a 'textual scholar' you should know Erasmus had at his disposal no more than a few Greek manuscripts (we have thousands at our disposal today). Although Erasmus' edition provided a great boost to the study of the NT it had a number of problems. None of his sources had the last six verses of the book of Revelation, so Erasmus translated from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek! Thus, in his text several words and phrases may be found that are attested in no Greek ms whatsoever. In the first two editions of his NT, Erasmus left out I Jn.5:7 because it did not appear in any of his Greek ms. This omission caused complaints. So he promised to include the verse in a later edition if it could be found in a Greek ms. One was constructed by a Roman Catholic and although Erasmus didn't think the text was genuine, he kept his promise and included the verse. We have that MS today [minuscule 61]. You wrote,

>>Note that the KJV is not only translated from the original languages but the former translations have been diligently compared. Among the vernaculars that were consulted were the Old Latin (not the Vulgate of Jerome)<<

By about 400 the Old Latin Version had become so badly corrupted [because of repeated copying] that Damasus commissioned Jerome to correct the problem. The result was the Vulgate which became the text of the Western Church in the Middle Ages [not the Old Latin]. Note Acts.9.6 KJV "And he trembling and astonished said, lord, what wilt thou have me to do ?" These words are found in no Greek ms at all. Erasmus introduced them from "the Vulgate of Jerome". And they are an obvious assimilation to the parallel account in Ac.22.10. Erasmus knew Latin and when introducing material from the Vulgate he was criticised as 'attacking the Vulgate'. Indeed, his first edition [behind the KJV] was a diglot in Greek and his own elegant Latin. You wrote,

>>the Old Syriac, and the Old Coptic. These three ancient vernaculars represent the oldest versions known, dating to as early as the middle 2nd century (150 AD) and so agree with one another that their exemplar becomes known.<<

"The Old Syriac" was discovered in 1892 by Lewis & Gibson in the Monastery of Catherine on Mt Sinai. Perhaps you are thinking of another Syriac version? And the Coptic versions are the Alexandrian text-type [KJ radicals hate this text-type]. Yet it's clearly the best.

The earliest and best of the mss Erasmus consulted were from the 10th century [not 2nd], and he made little use of them because they differed most from the common RT. Beza had access to 2 mss of great value dating from the 5th and 6th centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. What a mess! Now we posses far more mss and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Our ms evidence is far better than for any other ancient book both in number of mss and their dates. In 1611 there was over 700 Greek words they didn't know the meaning to, and today there is just a handful and still going down. The Greek text of the KJV was essentially the Greek text of the NT as edited by Beza [1589]. He closely followed that published by Erasmus [1516-1535] and based it on a few medieval mss.

You will know that Stephanus had access to D [codex Bezae 5th cent.] that is a Greek and Latin ms. Although its only a fragment yet it is the best exemplar of the Western text-type; but it was sufficiently different from his other witnesses that he made little use of it. So he leaned heavily on Erasmus' 4-5th editions. Keep in mind the TR is not exactly the same as the Byzantine tradition. The Byzantine text-type is found in several thousand witnesses, while the TR did not refer to one hundredth of that evidence. You wrote,

>>When they all contain a reading, even if that reading has dropped out of the majority of the Greek manuscirpt evidence, there is very strong indication that it is authentic. Also, consult the Lectionaries for the "missing" Greek mss evidence.<<

"Consulting the Lectionaries" would not be the best way of finding missing Scripture verses. But yes, the best Greek mss for most Greek testaments are based on the concept of following the oldest and best mss, which are in the minority, not "majority". It's the quality of a NT that counts, not the quantity of its adherents. Witnesses should be weighted, not counted. Some bad mss were copied many times, many does mean better.

Do you have any knowledge of the procedures of textual criticism? Every method of textual criticism corresponds to some one class of textual facts. The best textual criticism is that which takes into account every type of textual fact. The genealogical method is something I would like to cover but feel at this stage you are not genuine. Prove you are by showing me how this method relates to the TR.

If you know the writings of the Greek scholars why not take notice of what they say? You seem to totally ignore them. The KJV translators, although remarkable scholars, wrongly believed the NT was originally written in the Attic Greek of the Classics. The relevant manuscripts had not yet been discovered. We now know it was "Koine" or 'Common Greek' of everyday life. This priceless discovery makes a huge difference when translating [Forward. An Expository Dictionary of NT Words. W.E.Wine Moody Press 1985].

It also teaches us from the very beginning God intended His Word to be clearly understood by the common man.  The difference between Attic and Koine is significant for the interpretation of the NT.  Scholars give numerous examples of how 'inaccurate' the Attic Greek is when reading the NT compared to the Koine Greek. [Pg.1013 The Language of the NT. D.J.Clines Zondervan TIBC 1986].  Most speakers of the Koine were non-Greeks, for many of them Greek was a second language. So Koine did not have the precision and elegance of the classical Attic tongue.

I wrote that "God's Word should be understandable to all, not a select few English speaking people" [The KJ radicals insist the KJV alone is the only one true 'Word of God']. And you replied that -

>>You seem confused on the issue of the wide spread availability of the Bible. In case you failed to notice, there are over 300 vernaculars of the Bible in 300 of the 500 cognate language groups in use around the world today. These would include, but are not limited to, the Diodoti in Italian, the Olivetan in French, Luther's German bible, etc. etc. etc.<<

What your comment has to do with what the KJ radicals teach, fails me altogether. Do you have a problem with what they say? No matter how times I read your comment, it doesn't point out any 'confusion' on my part. You wrote,

>>Now I understand your confusion. Ruckman et al are NOT the people you should be reading. He is a disgrace to the name of Christ.<<

What my 'confusion'? I have been telling you what the KJ radicals believe and you call me 'confused'. But I have never read Ruckman. You wrote,

>>If you are honestly interested in the textual issue I suggest your read the writings of John Burgon. "The Revision Revised" "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark" "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" "The Causes of Corruption" etc. I have not only considered them, but I have been studying them for about 50 years.<<

What? "If" I am 'honest'? Those books are far from what I would suggest to those wanting an honest appraisal. You could also mention Brown, Bruggen, Miller, Hills, Fuller and what about the best 'Pickering'? All the radicals recommend them. After reading the likes of these books 'for 50 years' no wonder you believe what you do. You are still living in the days of Burgon, scholarship has moved forward. Can I suggest a few books?  -

A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974). M Metzger. F. G. Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible. W. Adams (London: Duckworth, 1975).). H Greenlee, Introduction to NT Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964).  M. Metzger, The Text of the NT: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. (N.Y: Oxford University, 1968) V. Taylor, The Text of the NT, A Short Introduction. (London: Macmillan, 1963); J. Finegan, Encountering NT. Manuscripts: The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols. (London: Cambridge University. 1970).  You wrote,

>>I hold a Th.D. in Textual Criticism and a Ph. D. in Ecclesiastical History<<

I hope you write again and prove yourself in these fields.  But I can be TOTALLY sure you won’t write again.  The books you mention are dated 1896 and they will not help you answer my comments. That’s why you can’t write again and use them to defend the KJV. You wrote,

>>My convictions concerning the superiority of the Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie the KJV were not arrived at lightly, nor without careful and prayerful study over several decades.<<

The more mss a Textual Critic has the greater the superiority of their Hebrew and Greek texts. The job of 'Textual Criticism' is to find errors, which need to be deleted and corrected wherever possible, trace additions and replace alterations. A Textual Critic attempts to reconstruct the original readings and explaining the reasons for the alterations. We should be grateful to textual critics throughout church history who have painstakingly endeavoured to know and exact words of Scripture as originally written. They have been hated by the KJ mob for their work yet they have given translations far better than the KJ. Men have no excuse today for their unbelief in the Bible. As never before in history, its closer to the autographs.

Today textual critics do not lean too heavily on one text-type, but the best mss available. And we have so much ms evidence it's difficult to decide which text-type is superior. Why should we be restricted to one text-type when God has provided such wealth?  No doctrine is lost or in doubt by using other text-types. No doctrine hinges on disputed readings, but the vast majority of the actual words in the NT are beyond doubt. And there's nothing in Scripture indicating a rejection of the Byzantine text results in ignorance of God's will. The research over the last 150 years has not presented us a radically different Bible. Not one article of the Christian creed has been overthrown by newly accepted readings. You wrote,

>>I could not help by notice that your email address is preceded by "Dr Mark Purchase." Would you care to share with me in what field you received your doctorate?<<

I think my doctorates and degrees are covered in my emails to others [Check the other mail].

Regards.  Mark         [Yes Thomas never replied]

_________________________

Yes Hi Doc.  You wrote,

>>OK, you tell me they are the 'inspired' 66 books, but where are they?  Are they in one volumne or many? I am sure that at some point in our discussion, you are going to tell me where this bible (singular) is that you study>>

The Bible comes only in one volume but there are many versions or translations. It’s the world most translated book. The last I heard, over 1700 translations. But keep in mind, no translation can be totally "accurate" in very sense of the word. Languages change and words are used differently worldwide. You wrote,

>>Begging your pardon, I am not caught up in a mob.  A mob is defined as a lawless or disorderly crowd.  Such is not the case.<<

I wish that I could call the KJ sect something nice, but their behaviour is far from just another doctrinal position of mainstream Christianity. For years I've been reading the "Bible Believers Bulletin" and many other publications published by the KJ group. And around the world one thing is always the same. Their pens are red-hot 'attacking people'. I can only describe this as "hate literature". They call users of other versions or those who question or challenge the KJ doctrine - "lairs, fools, dung, stupid-jerks, dogs, blasphemers, bigots, brain-washed, up-starts, hypocrites, deceitful" etc. Some comments are slanderous, others are libel. This ridicule and antagonism is one of the most damaging aspects to their theology.

The KJ radicals redefine the word “sin”. For example, to quote their literature, they say either “…you are a King James Bible Believer or you are an enemy of the Word of God” [Spackman]. They claim that reading all other versions is “apostate unbelief”. And if you use another version because you think its more correct and are not prepared to admit the KJV is right, then in effect you are “telling the Holy Spirit He is wrong” [Fuller]. This is referred to as, “next door to the unpardonable sin”. So they parallel the wilful rejection of the Gospel with a wilful rejection of the KJV [This is completely unscriptural]. Jesus refers to those who commit the “unpardonable sin” as in danger of eternal damnation (Mtt.12:31-32). But He was not talking about using Bible versions. So it’s another example of poor Scriptural exegesis by the KJ radicals.

They insist Christian’s cannot grow in faith without the KJV. And if a Christian uses any other version they have “forsaken God’s word” and will be “punished” by God. Yet the facts are, Christian’s can use the KJV or any version all their life without developing any of the strange ideas of this group and grow spiritually in the Lord. Christian’s are not characterised or identified by the language or translation they use. They are characterised by the indwelling Holy Spirit (Gal.3:1), their love of Christ (Jn.14:15) and their  “love one to another” (Jn.13:35).

The testimony of God’s people is that God is using the clarity of modern versions to feed, speak and guide His people. These Christian’s are not “Bible-hating, Bible-rejecting apostates” But testify to receiving comfort, encouragement and guidance from God through modern versions. God speaks and glorifies His name through modern translations. Christians do not commit sin reading other versions, but it is more likely an incomprehensible translation [some of the KJV] could produce immature Christians. You wrote,

>>2 Cor 13:1  This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. If one states that the 'bible' is the original autographs, then accroding to the words I hold as the bible, one must produce 2-3 witnesses.<<

No not at all. We don’t have the original autographs, the Bible whatever version is only a copy from a copy from a copy etc. The manuscripts (MSS) are the witnesses to the text. Translators study them to establish a reading but even they are not perfect either. So how you get a perfect translation from imperfect MSS is something radicals have yet to prove. I asked what happens if MSS differ to the KJV? You wrote,

>>They won't.<<

But they do. Note Acts.9.6 KJV "And he trembling and astonished said, lord, what wilt thou have me to do ?" These words are found in no Greek MS at all. Erasmus introduced them from the Vulgate. And they are an obvious assimilation to the parallel account in Ac.22.10. Another example in the KJV is the word “Easter” in Act 12:4. Radicals claim the text was correctly altered to include the word. Yet it wasn’t used or known by Luke and it is foreign to the NT MSS. The KJ translators introduced “Esotre” from the ancient Anglo-Saxon service-books. Were they right and was Luke wrong?

Erasmus for the book of Revelation had but one MS and it was lacking the final leaf so he translated the Vulgate into Greek and published that. So there are words in the KJV that are in no MS whatever. He introduced other material from the Vulgate into the KJV and was criticised for ‘attacking the Vulgate’. 1 John 5:7-8 KJV has no support in the Byzantine family and Erasmus could not find the words in any Greek MS and was criticised for leaving them out. A MS was made to fool him that the reading was genuine, so he inserted the words with reluctance and under pressure. In the footnotes he mentioned with suspicion the MS was not genuine. So the words are in the KJV but missing in modern versions and the KJ radicals cry-out of a satanic conspiracy against the trinity. Yet they are not found in any MS prior to the 16th century.

Yet the KJ radicals insist if the words are in the KJV they are acceptable, if not, they are not acceptable.  The Byzantine text-type underpins the KJV. Yet of all the MSS in this tradition [which are only a few] no two agree perfectly. So to claim special inspiration for this text type is ridiculous.

If I examine word-meanings in the original languages to understand the meaning of the KJV, the radicals reject this. They believe if the Greek or Hebrew word-meanings differ from the word-meanings in the KJV, then the Greek MSS must be wrong.  They say the Greek has "no authority" in interpreting Scripture; the "final authority" is the KJV. One radical wrote, we "- - don't even know if the originals were in Greek - - in fact, the entire NT almost certainly was not written in Greek".  However, I note you people quote the Greek as an authority, when it supports the KJV.  I asked you -

>>Are you suggesting anything added to the 1611 became ‘inspired’? No. So when you asked me “where is this Inspired Scripture - I want a copy of it?” if I handed you the KJV that would not do.<<

The standard view held by  KJ hardliners is that [quote] -
“How can the true Word of God contain even one error???"
"If the KJB is the true Word of God, then it cannot Contain any error.”
"Because Prov.30:5 states 'EVERY word of God is PURE'... An inaccurate word is not a pure word". 

Some claim every word, every dot; every single letter, is inspired and inerrant. They disappear when I remind them of the huge amount of changes that have occurred in the KJV over the years. Those who don’t disappear change the subject. I asked about the Apocrypha? You wrote,

>>The Apocrypha never was scripture to begin, never was included as part of the original autographs. Never was quoted by any author of the known scripture.<<

I agree. Yet the 1611 translators translated the Apocrypha for the canon. Books that contain errors in the areas of geography and history. They contradict themselves, the Bible and history. They teach and uphold beliefs that contradict the canonical books. Lying is sanctioned, suicide and assassination are justified, salvation by works and by almsgiving, magical incantations, prayers of the dead for the dead, etc. There is a noticeable style and flow difference between these books and the books of the canon. The books contain many absurdities. When reading the Bible and then reading the apocryphal books there is a noticeable difference. The two do not belong together and constitute an error to be placed together in the 1611.

The radicals call the 1611 "unaltered”, yet it was altered. They call it "preserved" yet we don't have a word for word 1611 today. They say 'without error', yet the Apocrypha was included [1 error fails the inerrant test]. Yet their admiration for the KJV translators even excuses their inclusion the Apocrypha persevered among “God’s very words”. You wrote,

>>Please name this infallible bible so that I may go and purchase me one.<<

Perhaps if you could tell me which KJV you consider ‘infallible’, the 1611 or today's? And are you asking me to find a Bible where the translators, copyists and printers were infallible? The facts are that even with the KJV, the translators, copyists or printers made mistakes, proven by the orthographical errors. They alone verify a huge numbers of alterations to the text. So which KJV the 1611 or today’s?

You seem to think there are many different Bibles. As said before, “V” stands for ‘version’. There's many books which have been translated into other languages and up-dated. Yet they are the same book read today. No doctrine is lost or in doubt in modern versions by using other text-types. No doctrine hinges on disputed readings, but the vast majority of the actual words in the NT are beyond doubt. And there’s nothing in Scripture indicating a rejection of the Byzantine text results in ignorance of God’s will. The research over the last 150 years has not presented us a radically different Bible. Not one article of the Christian creed has been overthrown by newly accepted readings. You wrote,

>>I am fully aware that the words bible, scriptures, original autographs, etc have various meanings.  These are used by preachers to confuse the masses. I know of preachers that hold up a King James Bible in front of their congregation and say to the effect: "The bible is the words of God." Such tactics as this leads the congregation to believe that the bible the man held up was the one he referred to when he stated that the bible is the words of God.  One must question the man and determine what bible he referred to.  Such deceitful tricks as that was why I left a church after 11 years.<<

Yes, but I hope you have found a church fellowship somewhere that can meet your spiritual needs. Christian’s need each other.  When I wrote that radicals have different word definitions, I was hoping you would come to understand that redefining words can cause misunderstanding. Apparently you have already had such an experience. What I meant by radicals reinterpreting words goes like this  –

There are other words with new meanings. However, this covers your mail
hopefully you have some food for thought.

Regards.  Mark

--------------------

Hi Doc.  Thanks for the mail

There was one question that you asked over and over. So it will be easy to address that. Your question –

>>WEll the old King James says this about the words of God that they will never pass away.  so where are they?  Are the words of God absolute? The only answer that is good enough is to say where the words of God are. You keep referring to them in one form or the others.  So where are they in one form? We are not talking about the so-called changes in the KJB.  I am asking you: where is the words of God? we ain't talking about KJ Radicals.  We are discussing: where is the words of God.  Nothing more or nothing less.  Where are they? Just tell me where are the words of God. .  I continue to ask you where is the words of God. where are the words of God?  we are not discussing faith.<<

So far our conversation has gone -

OK Doc? I leave it here for you to answer as to where I am wrong.

The common ploy of KJ radicals is to ask questions and never accept the answers. Because they cannot admit to one error in their argument [or the KJV] or they have lost the whole argument. It's a circular debate. I have answered these questions over and over –“What are the scriptures as defined in the bible, and what is the word of God?” "Where are the words of God?" And "Which Bible is the real one?" etc.

These become endless questions [I even said to someone “it's the KJV” yet that wasn't good enough]. You see, the KJ doctrine is a debate. It doesn’t exist if there’s no debate. I don't have a problem about these questions as far as answering them is concerned. I have answered them many times. The problem is, I know the answers YOU would give to these questions, yet MY questions remain unanswered. So what happens, at the end of the day, is that my concerns are not answered. If you had read my emails I sent you would have seen by now that I had answered them already.

Now you asked some other questions.

>>do we have a bible or a translation? which is it?<<

Obviously all Bibles are translations. The translators said that the KJV was a translation. If it’s not, what is it, and where did it come from? Down from heaven by one of the angels? You asked,

>>How long must they examine these manuscripts?  THey have been at it for thousands of years.....<<

New manuscripts are coming to light all the time. Not thousands very second day, but one every 5 years or so. These help our understanding of the languages of the NT time. The Dead Sea Scrolls have taken our understanding of the Hebrew back a thousand years. Why ignore what we discover? Besides, we need new translations because languages change over time. Words change their meaning, if we don’t revise the translation becomes confusing.

The 1611 was a revised version and proof of the need and value of Bible revision. Revision does not seek to change the message but make the message clearer. The Great Bible (1539), and Matthew’s Bible (1537), and Bishop’s Bible (1568) were all revisions. And Tyndale after he produced his version (1525) he also revised it (1534).  Although the AV is the pickings of other versions much of Tyndale’s version is found in it. A case could equally be made for the inerrancy of the Great Bible or Tyndale’s. You would only trust the opinions and interpretations of the KJV translators. And must argue they had infallibly and equal inspiration to the original Bible writers. And then say that the Bible wasn’t complete or reliable until 1611. But the facts are that neither the KJV translators, copyists or printers were infallible.

So your claims become so exaggerated you cannot admit to one incorrect verse or word in the KJV. For that would mean you have lost the whole argument. You asked,

>>the only way they [translators] could know was to have the originals, something that is missing<<

Hope you don’t mind we adding the word “translators” to your question above? I need to, so I can answer the question. And this is what translators did. They had to add words to their translation in order for it to make sense. Because the originals are gone, all versions since have had to consider copies in order to find out if something is missing. So they must continual to examine MSS as they come to light. You comment,

>>Faith defies facts.  As I said before, you can not prove Jesus walked on the water.  You take it by faith.  Just because it is record in your versions of the word, does that make it so? If so, you tookit faith.<<

If ‘faith defies facts’ it can be based on something that is not true. That ‘faith’ then is a false faith. It is not a Biblical faith. Well, that’s answered your letter. Feel free to bring me back to any point that is overlooked.

Regards. Mark

_____________________________

Hi there Mike,  Thanks for the reply. Having read your letter I see we agree and differ at times. I would like to comment and explain why. You write,

>>I teach English Manuscript Evidence, Church History, and Bible Prophecy in our Bible Institute.<<

I find this hard to believe [about mss evidence].  It’s very unlikely you know anything about mss and texts other than what your specially selected books tell you. But please prove me wrong and I will wait for your ‘teaching’ skill to show itself. You wrote,

>>God has burdened me to be thoroughly familiar with questions related to the Bible Versions.  I am a King James Only man not because I believe that it is the only translation to be used throughout the world. I do believe that it is the only translation for the English speaking peoples.<<

It’s been said the “white-mans KJ club” is a “KJ club only for some”. It doesn’t just teach the KJV is for “English speaking people” but it teaches the KJV is for SOME English-speaking people. Because millions don’t have a firm grasp on the Kings English to use it. Many countries have their own form of English because language is a cultural expression. What might be a state of excellence for some, is a linguistically obstacle course for millions of others. An understandable English version is vital for them.  God has not selected grandiose sounding English and excluded modern English. Not according to Acts 10:35. Millions of Christians have the Bible in their modern tongue. They do not have a weak faith without the KJV. Or find it impossible to obey, trust and know God. Those who confine Scripture to a limited 1611 edition doubt the power of God’s Word and seek to restrict it, contrary to 2 Tim.2.9  “the word of God is not bound”. The English of the Colonial era is not modern English. Why can't God use modem English? You wrote,

>>You have also chosen to label all King James Only Christians with the Peter Ruckman label which makes you just like him. To be King James Only does not mean that you have to be a filthy mouthed individual like Peter Ruckman. Peter Ruckman is a bad example for all Christians; not just the King James Only people. You can be King James Only without being a Ruckmanite since you are obviously afraid to name his name. The conduct and language of Peter Ruckman is despicable! A twice divorced pastor is just not Scriptural.  Many of the folks that make the accusations such as you do accuse King James Only people of being divisive. To this accusation of divisiveness, I always have the question: "Who was here before you; the King James people? If the King James people were here first, then it was you and the anti King James people that created division and not the King James people." The problem is that most people who want a Bible in their own every day language will not read and study any version of the Bible.<<

I have never read Ruckman. The “filthy mouthed” language I referred to was from the publications of the KJ Only people.  “KJ Only people” seem to have lots of nasty comments about others, apparently part their doctrine, which they defend as scriptural. You wrote,

>>The word of God does not, and should not, read like the daily newspaper or some national magazine.  If it is the Word Of God, it never has read like that and it never will.  God's word is a holy book that is supposed to read like a holy book. To be holy means to be separated unto God.  That means to be separated in Language as well as Action.<<

Yes it’s “separate unto God” but don’t by your “actions’ “separate” it from men by “language”. Or you limit, restrict and relegate “God’s Word”. As English changes fewer are able to understand and read the KJV. God’s Word is not bound in 1611 but is “living and active” [Heb.4] today as when written.  Have your way, and there will come a time when God’s Word is not read at all [by English speakers].

But don’t get me wrong. I agree with some of what you say here.  I too stress the holiness of Scripture. But you are turning this from the holiness of Scripture, [inerrancy and inspiration] to the question which version is Scripture?  I believe that God has given the Bible but there are many translations. You wrote,

>>Normally, I would not have responded to your e-mail, but your e-mail was an outright frontal attack and assault upon those who hold to the KJV Only position.<<

My concerns were mainly about the radical KJ doctrine. My final point was about the “bad mouth” practice.  It seems you agreed and dissociated from that or don’t you? I realize many English-speaking Christians love the KJV and have been brought up on its Shakespearian eloquence, memorising Scripture in that form. With such I have respect, I have used that version since childhood and join with all who desire God use His Word (whatever version) for the blessing of many.  But there are those who exaggerate the KJV beyond itself.  You wrote,

>>You chose to invade the privacy of my home and assault my beliefs via and e-mail address that you obtained from a website which I cannot even access.<<

Your address\email phone etc, are on the website run by [and full of] King James nasties. With friends like that, who needs enemies? You don't want "e-mail" about the Bible? Ok. Write and tell them you don’t want people invading the “privacy of your home and assaulting your beliefs via e-mail”. Tell them people are getting your “address” from their website.  Maybe they will remove your address.  I prefer writing to people who are more open minded and happy. You wrote,

>>You display an un-Christ-like attitude in your attack upon Christians who hold to a King James Only position.<<

 You know very little about a “un-Christ-like attitude” till you have had the KJ radicals write to you. The King James Only people are often quite divisive in their comments, while being quite caustic in their attacks on those that disagree with them. A plea for sanity, fairness, logic, and Christian love is needed. A lack of love is powerful evidence the radicals don’t walk in the truth. You wrote,

>>You got off to a bad start when you insinuated that just because someone is King James Only that they might send you some virus contaminated e-mail.<<

A good general rule for all who receive email. But particularly concerning the KJ gang for two reasons. [1] They attack people personally with hate literature.  And target any who question or challenge them.  They love antagonism, personal ridicule, abusive phone-calls and silly mail posted anonymously with bogus names and addresses. [2] Many are lazy and post other peoples work because they don’t think for themselves. You wrote,

>>You have chosen to label all King James Only people as uneducated, simple minded (might I say simpleton) hate mongers.  Your comments are akin to calling all blacks lazy, all whites trashy honkeys, all Jews chinchy, all American Indians cutthroats, and all Asians filthy.<<

 You twist my comments and have it ‘back the front’. It is I who reject the KJ doctrine that excludes people on the grounds of language and robs what rightfully belongs to the whole church. For thats racist and discriminatory.  And the KJ people think they know more than everyone else. If God only gives the ‘KJV for English’ then millions of English speakers have no chance of understanding Him (1 Cor.14:6-9).  Obviously every Christian must learn to read old English in order to read the words of the only correct Bible. And there become two classes of people in the Church – learned intellectuals who can read and speak the right English and those “uneducated” who cannot but use Satanic counterfeits.  A recipe for division among God’s people. You wrote,

>>You have accused all King James Only people of being liars without having investigated the whole realm of truth related to what these men stand for and what their position actually is.<<

I have studied enough to know “whole realm of truth related to what these men stand for and what their position actually is”. Hence a reason for writing. You wrote,

>>That is shoddy research that is indicative of shoddy scholarship.  The King James Only position is not what you have stated that it is.  This means that you have either told half truths or half lies.  You have allowed the poison of Peter Ruckman's position to color your whole view as it relates to King James Only people.<<

If I have been quoted “half truths or half lies” feel free to correct them. I say again, ‘never read Ruckman’. Clearly you are not answering my email but directing your comment at me, not at my comments.  And I have found many who distance themselves from Ruckman turn out to be similar in word and deed. They use the same words with the same nasty comments about those who question KJ dogma. You wrote,

>>You went into this thing with your mind already made up. "Don't confuse the issue with facts.  My mind is already made up."<<

I’m waiting for your “facts” and quite happy for anyone to provide “facts”, as my email clearly indicated. You wrote,

>>Emotion always points fingers and throws hand grenades in the hope that it will hit something."  I am a King James Only man not because someone told me that is what I should be.<<

I have hit a very raw nerve with KJ radicals. Those who are more moderate understand immediately what I’m saying and never misunderstand. It seems to me the book you quoted and the others you recommend have “told” you what to believe. Or you would never have taken so much of your letter in quoting one. You wrote,

>>I have sacrificed the time and effort to be well informed on the issue.<<

Please share your “informed” learned knowledge with me. You wrote,

>>I am convinced that the Bible version issue is the most important issue that the Church faces outside the issue of salvation of souls in this apostate day.<<

We shall see if you really do. I wonder how much patience you have with this “most important issue”? You dismiss my concerns as “false statements and erroneous conclusions based upon a false, preconceived hypothesis” Hopefully you will have some time in the future to address them with a little more detail and some facts.

Kind regards. Mark.

‘All the Word of God for all the People of God’