Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Dr James Ach and J/A (PMI PhD Student)

Lest anyone deem my response as unkind, I’m going to begin this article by showing how Colby Bonham treated Matthew Flynn (the subject of this article), so that nobody whines when I treat Colby’s article with the same fervor in which he treated Flynn’s.

I hope you have the discernment to see the idiocy of Mr. Flynn’s argument.

Although I’ve had this debate a million times- and no KJVO (King James Version Only) critic has ever raised a logical or Biblical defense to their criticism of the KJVO position on Psalm 12- from time to time some buffoon thinks he’s smarter than God and can just rewrite the Scriptures-in any language-and even alter basic rules of grammar-in any language.

Some Bible corrector named Colby Bonham decided to send me a link to his blog in response to an argument he had with another Twitter friend who is KJVO. The blog can be found here  . This is not a new attack on Psalm 12, but certainly one of the worst I’ve ever seen. The logic employed here is a stretch even for critics like James White and Daniel Wallace. But for the sake of a few of my friends that this guy repeatedly harasses, I’m going to peel his onion blog.*

Colby first states his goal is not to “critique KJVO position in its entirety”, but yet he maintains that anyone who holds to the KJVO view is mislead, dangerous, and teaching false doctrine. If that’s not a critique of the KJVO position in its entirety I don’t know what is.

I can’t speak on the points where he is apparently rebutting “Flynn’s” arguments because I do not have access to that blog’s content, so I will simply respond to the errors of Colby’s attacks on the KJVO position and specifically his ridiculous arguments on Psalm 12:6-7.

Traditional King James Only View of Psalm 12:6-7

Most people who understand the Bible and take it literally view Psalm 12:7 as referring to the words of the LORD in verse 6. When read naturally line upon line and in the normal flow of context and syntax, that’s how the passage reads. The words of the LORD are the natural antecedent of what God preserves. However, Bible correcting “scholars” have introduced a monkey wrench into this passage by claiming that it what God preserves are the poor of Psalm 12:5 instead of the words of the LORD of verse 6.  Colby is one of such that takes this foolish position and we shall dismantle his major errors below.

Colby  Error #1 Purified Silver

Colby admits that there is some symbolism used here. But he misses the point and presumes that “KJVOS assume God’s word needs purifying”. That’s the DUMBEST thing I’ve ever heard, and a blatant strawman attack that no KJVO holds to. Yes, the silver is a finished product being compared to the words of the LORD, but the TRYING OF THE SILVER isn’t to purify God’s words, it’s the process of bringing them to light to US.

Now I am not so dogmatic as to boldly claim that Psalm 12 refers to 7 translations prior to the KJV in 1611. I think it is certainly a shocking coincidence, but not one that I can claim with certainty. I think Laurence Vance has offered some convincing arguments for it, but it’s not a position that I am convinced is a MUST or necessity for a KJVO advocate. What I CAN claim with certainty is that Psalm 12:7 is a reference to the words of the LORD, not the poor of verse 5. More on that later but Colby was not merely attacking this view, but cited Doug Kutilek’s article in support of his argument in which Kutilek attacks the entire view that Psalm 12:7 is not a reference to the words of the LORD at all, and also, the commentators cited by Colby support this view as well.

Thus for Colby to claim that he is merely attacking the KJVO position of Psalm 12:7 as being a prophetic reference to the English translations that preceded the KJV is disingenuous and dishonest in light of the resources he cited in support of his position that ALL agree with each other (with the exception of a few that Colby misquoted), that Psalm 12:7 refers to “the poor” instead of the words of the LORD of Psalm 12:6. Colby is in fact attacking 2 different positions even though he claims to only be attacking one. This is an obvious attempt to “win by default” where if there is shown disagreement among even KJVOs and other commentators on Psalm 12 regarding the versions preceding the KJV, then by default that means Psalm 12:7 is not a reference to the words of the LORD. Quite a deceptive sleight-of-hand indeed.

Colby  Error #2 Hebrew Grammar

Naturally, as an Israeli born Hebrew speaking Jew, this one got my attention. I was eagerly waiting for the punch line of Colby’s devastating Hebrew analysis, and it never materialized. When I asked him where it went? He replied on Twitter “I never said I knew Hebrew”. Wait! Yes you did. You said, “The rules of Hebrew grammar prove that KJVOs are wrong on Psalm 12”. It’s one thing to quote someone else and claim that THEY SAID Hebrew grammar rules support their view, quite another to assert it as a fact of your argument when you admittedly don’t know Hebrew.

Colby cites Doug Kutilek, someone who’s NOT a Hebrew scholar, just a KJVO critic that many of us have dealt with before. Kutilek’s only real challenge offered where grammar is concerned is that the pronominal suffix in “keep them” a masculine gender and “the words of the LORD” (v6)  feminine in gender, and so he concludes the “them” must be a reference to the “people” of verse 5.

Gesenius, a Hebrew scholar, states,

“Through a weakening in the distinction of gender … masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives (E Kautzsch, ed,Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed by A E Cowley [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910], 440, sect O).

Other examples include, Genesis 31:8-9, “Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your [masculine plural pronoun suffix—refering to Rachel and Leah] father, and given them to me.”;  Genesis 32:15, “Thirty milch camels with their [masculine plural pronoun suffix—referring to the 30 female camels] colts, forty kine, and ten bulls, twenty she asses, and ten foals.”; Exodus 1:21, “And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them [masculine plural pronoun suffix — a reference to the midwives] houses.

Speaking on the remainder of grammar issues, Quek Suan Yew from Far Eastern Bible College states:

Anti-preservationists also argue that the pronominal suffix in “preserve them” (v7b) is in the singular, and so the KJV translators were wrong to render it as “them” (plural). It is true that the pronominal suffix for “preserve them” in verse 7b is a third person masculine singular suffix (him). Why did the KJV translators translate it as “them?” The answer is in the attaching of the energetic nun (the Hebrew letter n) to the pronominal suffix. When this occurs an additional rule applies in the Hebrew language. It is important to note that there is no masculine plural pronominal suffix in the third person when the energetic nun is applied to a verb (see Gesenius, 157-8,l sect 4, I). Hence the Scripture writer, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used the singular masculine pronominal suffix, retaining the same gender as in “keep them” in verse 7a. It is again very legitimate and consistent with Hebrew grammar for the KJV translators to translate the masculine singular pronominal suffix with the energetic nun as a masculine plural pronoun — “them.”

When we speak of context, it is the immediate context that is considered first, and not the distant context. The immediate context speaks of the words of the Lord. Hence the preservation and keeping (guarding) would be the words of the Lord. We know that the grammar and syntax allow it. Verse 6 is what is known as an emblematic parallelism where the purity of God’s Word is likened to the sevenfold purification (as pure as you can ever get) process of purging silver of every bit of dross leaving behind the purest silver (see Tremper Longman III, How to Read the Psalms [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988], 100). This verse teaches that the words of the Lord are without error or fallibility and it is 100% perfect.

Verse 7 is known as a synonymous parallelism where the second line restates what is mentioned in the first, but using different words (Longman III, 99). As mentioned before, the use of the energetic nun emphasises the act of preservation. This preservation is forever. The relationship between verses 6 and 7 is what we callsynthetic parallelism where the second verse adds or expands on the teaching mentioned in the first verse. These two verses combined teach that the words of God are forever perfect; like silver purified seven times, they will be preserved by God for eternity.

The contrast within the psalm would be the words of these evil men versus the words of the Lord. These evil men speak vanity and flattery (v2), and boast that their words will prevail and no one is lord over them (v4). The psalmist counters this by declaring that it is the words of the Lord that will prevail over the words of the evil ones. This is the assurance and comfort that the Lord gives to His people. Do not fear the words of these evil flatterers and boasters; trust in the words of the Lord that is purified seven times as opposed to the words of the evil men which are vain, proud and stem from a double heart (v2). God will keep (guard) His holy words and preserve (action is emphasised by the energetic nun) them from this generation forever. The Lord gave this verbal assurance to that generation and after because He knew they needed it. God’s people were distressed by the many wicked and confusing words that came from proud and evil men. But the thrice holy and perfect God encouraged His people by reminding them that His words and promises are ever true and will forever remain.

Published in The Burning Bush, Volume 10 Number 2 (July 2004)

Furthermore from Gesenius,

“The suffix gains still more strength, when instead of the union-vowels there is inserted between it and the verb a union-syllable n-, which, when the syllable has the tone, becomes n- (commonly called Nûn epenthetic or Nûn demonstrative), which, however, occurs only in the Imperfect and chiefly in pause, e.g. yebarkenehu he will bless him (Ps. 72,15)… This Nûn is, however, for the most part incorporated with the suffixes, and hence we get a new series of forms … Rem. The uncontracted forms with Nûn written distincly are rare and only poetic (Ex. 15,2) Deut. 32,10, Jer. 5,22,, 22,24) and do not occur at all in 3 fem. sing. and 1 plur. The contracted forms (with the Nûn assimilated) are rahter frequent also in prose, especially in pause (very seldom -nu as first pers. pl. Hosea 12, 5) This Nûn is of a demonstrative nature, and gives more emphasis to the word, and is therefore chiefly found in pause. But it occurs also in the union of the suffixes with certain particles.” Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, London: Asher & Co., 1903, p. 146. 

Interesting that the NASV altered the nun form in Psalm 12:7 even though they followed the rules in hundreds of other places (In Genesis alone Genesis  5:29; 9:5; 21:13; 42:4; 42:15; 43:9; Ex 21:29; 21:33; 22:21; 22:26; 23:4; 23:29; 25:2; 25:11; Le 1:3; 1:10; 3:1; 6:5; 7:6;  13:11; 13:44; 13:55; 13:57; 17:9; 23:11; 25:49; 25:53; 27:8; 27:10; 27:33; Nu 6:9; 9:16; 18:13; 22:6; 23:13; 23:25; 24:9; 24:17; 30:13; De 7:26; 12:15; 12:16; 12:18; 12:22; 12:24; 12:25; 13:9; 14:27; 15:8; 15:12; 15:13; 15:20; 15:21; 15:22; 15:23; 20:5; 20:6; 21:23; 23:21; 25:3; 28:30; 28:48; 30:13; 31:14-Thank you Brandon Staggs).

The masculine pronominal suffixes “them (תשׁמרם)”/”him (תצרנו)” and the feminine “words (אמרות)” are not an uncommon unpaired match and in this context when it is semantically masculine as a whole phrase (“אמרות יהוה”) the entire phrase takes on a masculine construction.

For more examples and a THOROUGH Hebrew analysis of the grammatical issues of Psalm 12:6-7 see Dr. Thomas Strauss

For a thorough response to Doug Kutilek’s butchering of Psalm 12, see Will Kinney, Answering Doug Kutilek’s anti- Preservation in Psalms 12

We also won’t mention that Kutilek relies much on “19th century writers..like Simon Patrick”, who lived from 1626-1707, hardly “19th century”, or how Doug lied about Rashi’s claims about Psalm 12:7 never referencing the words of the LORD, but who said Doug was good with FACTS!

See also Gender Discord by Kent Brandenburg and Sam Gipp Is the King James Bible inspired or preserved?

Colby Error #3 The King James Translators View of Psalm 12

Apparently, Colby seems to think that the KJV translators share his view of Psalm 12. He has obviously never seen the footnote in the 1611 KJV in context with the verse, “Heb. him. i. every one of them“. The translators knew it was grammatically singular and translated the pronoun as semantically plural in reference to the masculine being THEM-the words of God! For whatever reason Colby doesn’t get the footnote reference by the KJV translators. (More below as to the grammatical nature used here.)

Colby Error #4 Commentators Vs Hebrew Scholars

Colby seems to think that a person who blogs about KJVOs or writes commentaries qualifies as an expert in Hebrew grammar. He can’t seem to tell the difference between a textual scholar, linguistic expert, and a commentator.

But let’s look at the logic of some of the commentators.

Colby cites the Pulpit Commentary as follows:

Ver. 7. — Thou shalt keep them, O Lord. God having promised to set the righteous, who are oppressed, in a place of safety (ver. 5), the psalmist is sure that he will keep them and preserve them from the wicked“generation,”  which has possession of the earth, and bears rule in it

First of all, NOWHERE in Psalm 12 are the poor referred to as “the righteous”.  This is eisegetical suicide invented to make Psalm 12:7 fit their view. God commanded Israel to be courteous to the poor because they themselves were oppressed and strangers in Egypt.  Deut 15:11, 23:5-7, Ex 23:6. In fact, Deut 15:11 shows a distinction between “thy brother” and “the poor”. Just because God defends the poor doesn’t mean they are saved. More on this point later.

Furthermore, when David wrote Psalm 12, Israel was the dominant kingdom of the earth, not their enemies. Israel was not taken into captivity until well after Saul, David, and Solomon were memories. So to claim that Psalm 12 is about keeping the “righteous” away from the wicked who are IN POSSESSION AND RULE THE EARTH is a blunder of mammoth proportions because no wicked nation ruled the earth at that time, Israel did.

Colby erroneously relies on a handful of commentators to prove that the historicity of commentators debunks the KJVO position. That is just patently absurd. In the same breath, the existence of just as many commentators who say otherwise would therefore vindicate the KJVO position.

John Wesley, June 5, 1765 says,

Psalm 12:6. Pure-Without the least mixture of falsehood; and therefore shall infallibly be fulfilled.

V.7. Thou shalt keep them-Thy words or promises: these thou wilt observe and keep, both now, and from this generation for ever.

Noah Webster,

“Webster’s 1833 translation, and the Lesser Bible 1853 – “Thou shalt keep THEM, O LORD, thou shalt preserve THEM from this generation for ever.”

Dr. G. Campbell Morgan,

The psalmist breaks out into praise of the purity of His words, and declares that Jehovah will ‘keep them’ and ‘preserve them.’ The ‘them’ here refers to his words. There is no promise made of widespread revival or renewal. It is the salvation of a remnant and the preservation of His own words which Jehovah promises.” Exposition of the whole Bible, Psalms, pg 32

Hebrew Scholar J.H. Eaton,

…but we may rather follow the main Hebrew tradition: “Thou O Lord shalt keep them (i.e. watch over the words to fulfill them, Jer. 1:12)…” (Torch Bible Commentaries, 1967). [Confirming that the interpretation of ‘thou shalt keep them’ as referring to the words of God was in fact, established Hebrew tradition].

David Guzik, Study Guide for Psalm 12, 2008,

B.1.(b). You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them: This was David’s declaration of confidence in God’s ability to preserve His own words. He did not only give His word to mankind; His providential hand has protected the existence and integrity of His word through the centuries.

Trinitarian Bible Society,

Furthermore, since these Scriptures were placed near the ark, in theheart of the tabernacle or temple, they were separated from all common books. They were manifestly declared to be holy. Certainly, God’s written Word is pure and sublime. It is truth, without any mixture of error. “The
words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6).” Malcom H. Watts, The Lord Gave the Word, 1998, page 5.

Henry Ainsworth (1526)

the sayings” [of Psalm 12:7] are “words” or “promises” that are “tried” or “examined” “as in a fire.”

Dr. W. Gary Crampton,

Textual criticism over the last century has moved away from the textual critical principles of the Reformers and Puritans that was grounded in the doctrines of inspiration and preservation, and has led the church astray. We have been told that a few texts upon which the new translations are based are better than the majority of texts upon which the King James and the New King James versions are based. As this article has shown, however, this is not true. The Westcott-Hort critical text is not dependable. As Pickering wrote, it is unproved at every point. Neither the Westcott-Hort theory nor the Modern Critical Text theory of eclecticism (often called “reasoned eclecticism”) can rationally claim to believe that God has providentially preserved His Word throughout the centuries. Any view that disclaims passages such as Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8-11, and 1 John 5:7 (which have been “received” as a part of the New Testament for centuries) shows this to be the case. When God tell us that He will preserve His Word for us from generation to generation, as He does in Psalm 12:7; 119:152, 160; and Isaiah 40:8, then He will do so, because He “is not a man that He should lie” (Numbers 23:19).” Crampton: Bart D. Ehrman & Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue: The Reliability of the New Testament

For more scholars on Psalm 12:7, see David Cloud’s exhaustive research in For the Love of the Bible.

Suffice it to say “history” is not on Colby’s side because common sense would tell us that if history itself was the benchmark, then the earliest comment wins, and the evidence shows that the earlier commentators and Hebrew scholars (as opposed to Colby’s citation of recent ones) supported the Psalm 12:7 view as applied to the words of the Lord of verse 6. The paradigm shift in Psalm 12:7 among some scholars is a recent one, certainly not a “historical” position.

Colby Error #5 The Benjamin Wilkinson Fallacy

Most KJVO critics erroneously blame a 7th Day Adventist for many of the KJVO claims bypassing the common sense notion of figuring out where Wilkinson got HIS ideas from. They weren’t original, and in fact, even James White admits that most of what Wilkinson wrote in defense of the Textus Receptus and King James Version he got from An Inquiry Into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate by Dr. Frederick Nolan  (1784-1864) (White’s critique of Wilkinson’s book). Thus the claims made by Wilkinson were derived from a CALVINIST nearly 100 years BEFORE Wilkinson wrote his book. The idea of 7-fold purification was also mentioned by G. Campbell Morgan well before Wilkinson.

The very fact that Colby quotes John Gill who died in 1771 (long before Wilkinson was born) who shows his disagreement with Aben Ezra on Psalm 12 shows that there were Hebrew scholars that held this position long before Benjamin Wilkinson.

This is a classic “guilt by association” fallacy. The KJVO critics ignore the fact that a large amount of KJV translators were Calvinists and pick out folks like a 7th Day Adventist to slander the KJVO position. Granted, KJVOs have done this with the beliefs of Westcott & Hort, but neither of these men believed that the Scriptures were infallible and/or perfectly preserved and thus at this point what they believed made quite a difference in their bias in translation whereas in spite of the different views among the KJV translators, what they all DID have in common was that the word of God was preserved and was the final authority on all matters of faith and practice, hardly the same view held by the Catholic Bible translators (including the lesbians on the NIV committee).

What is really silly about this accusation is that there’s not one 7th Day Adventist today that holds Wilkinson’s position. In fact, the 7DA publication “Amazing Facts” is adamantly opposed to King James Only advocacy.

Nevertheless, when it comes to associations, I can hardly think of any worse association than a manuscript that is named after the Vatican (Codex Vaticanus) and a Roman Catholic owned monastery (St. Catherine’s, Codex Siniaticus) -both of which are the primary underlying texts that make up the critical text apparatus and all modern versions (including the Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘New World Translation’)- by those who claim to oppose the Roman Catholic Church.

Colby Error #7 God Never Uses Exclusiveness of Language

For nearly 2000 years, God used ONLY the Hebrew language to preserve and communicate His word to Israel. To claim that it is wrong for KJVOs to expect others to learn English because God wouldn’t require that of anyone defies the fact that that’s EXACTLY how God operated for 2,000 years. English is the universal language. It is impossible to conduct international business without knowledge of English. It is even impossible to get the right time zone without setting it to the standard of Greenwich, England. Why is that the rest of the world is fine with learning English for business and trade, but the KJVO critic is opposed to it for learning the Bible?

Moreover, it is even more absurd to claim that instead of learning English, the only way to truly know the Bible is to have a thorough knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. In other words, KJVO critics, in chastising us for expecting others to learn English, expect everyone else to learn TWO different languages in order to “properly” interpret and convey God’s “original” meaning.

This silly argument also ignores the fact that the KJV has been translated into hundreds of other languages. Thus the KJV is NOT JUST AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION. A little gloss that KJVO critics frequently (deliberately in my opinion) ignore.

Critics forget that God is the one that confounded the languages of man in the first place (Genesis ch 11). God did not WANT there to be common communication. He reserved ONE LANGUAGE for His people (Hebrew: and for the idiots who argue “you left out Aramaic”, Aramaic is a form of Hebrew, genius). There’s no reason to dismiss God using an exclusive GENTILE language during the times of the Gentiles.

Other Ridiculous Questions by Colby

“Why would God allow His people to remain in such an error all the way up until 1930?”

Considering that his ‘camp’ of Bible agnostics say the same thing about Codex Siniaticus and Codex Vaticanus, this is quite the accusation coming from KJVO critics. Let me explain. Critics like James White and ..well…every other KJVO critic and modern version proponent claim that neither Erasmus nor any of the KJV translators had the manuscripts available to them that were available to the Westcott & Hort Revision Committee that released their critical text and “revision” between 1881-1885. Thus according to all KJVO critics, not only did the KJV translators not have the word of God in 1611, neither did anyone else until at least the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in 1859 by Constantine von Tischendorf, which gave credence to Codex Vaticanus, both of which the Revision Committee used to rewrite the Greek New Testament and overthrow the Textus Receptus.

In other words, the position that critical text scholars and their fans take against the KJVO is the exact same position that should equally apply to their own position. But of course, KJVO critics are never consistent in their accusations. They make the absurd claim that KJVO proponents don’t think the word of God showed up until 1611, yet their own position doesn’t allow for the complete word of God to be discovered until over 200 years later, and published in 1865.

Furthermore, critics like James White chide KJVO advocates for not being ‘open minded’ enough to accept new discoveries. So like the evolutionist, new discoveries may some day prove that evolution is true, and shame on those closed-minded creationists for accepting as truth -right NOW- that the matter of creation is settled without one more bit of “scientific evidence” needed to vindicate creationism. For the KJV Bible critic, the issue of preservation is never settled. In fact, it is this very point that Muslims have used against James White to reinforce their attacks against the Bible. (See proof in our article “Jesus Didn’t Forgive Them” with Will Kinney , and video evidence citing by a Muslim).

For more, see Will Kinney’s Where Was The Bible Before 1611?

God Only Preserved His Word In the “Original Languages”

An oldie but a goodie. This is the Alexandrian Cult’s favorite line. Nevermind that Moses destroyed the originals that God made of the Ten Commandments, or a king destroying the “original” in Jeremiah 36, or that God reveals that COPIES of His word were still inspired Scripture (See Deut 17:18). While Colby uses a childish argument such as “where does the Bible say Psalm 12 refers to the King James”, there’s nothing in the Bible that says inspiration and preservation are limited to the “original languages”, and for that matter, where does the Bible mention NIV, ESV, ASV, NASB? #StupidArgument. If it were limited to God’s spoken words, then there are spoken words that John admits were never recorded that should actually be a part of Scripture, but they’re not. John 21:25. This Alexandrian logic leaves us with a blatant contradiction in the promise of preservation if preservation meant that ONLY God’s “original” spoken words were to be Scripture.

Apparently it is “OK” for the KJV to change/eliminate words, but it is not “OK” for the modern translations to change/eliminate words.

The KJV corrected printing errors and updated some of the language. That is NOT what modern versions have done, and every KJVO critic knows that. Changing a middle English “f” to a modern English “s” isn’t the same as eliminating an entire half of a chapter (Mark 16:9-21), or whole verses (Acts 28:29, 1 John 5:7-8, Acts 8:37), or making changes like “The Son of God” (KJV) to “a son of the gods” (All others) in Daniel 3:25. The modern versions are making corrections that alter the text from a Greek text that has been fabricated by Bible hating scoffers influenced by German Rationalists. THAT is the issue, and these KJVO critics are well aware of that, but they attempt to cloud the issue by comparing the changes the KJV translators made to the deliberate alterations and corruptions made by modern versions since 1881.

Forget of course, that KJV translators as well as Erasmus rejected many manuscripts as corrupt. That tells you that men of the Reformation discriminated against manuscripts they believed were corrupt. But today even many of those who call themselves Reformers scoff at the idea of choosing one manuscript over another or labeling ANY of them as corrupt. The one thing that the Reformers had in common was they all knew what a corrupt Greek, Hebrew, and Latin manuscript looked like, and refused to acknowledge it/them as the word(s) of God. It is only in recent times that this centuries accepted practice since the foundation of the church has been questioned, shunned, and anathematized in the church. Anyone today who practices the same textual discrimination that ALL of the early churches did is labeled “divisive”.

For more on the preposterous logic of “originals only” arguments, see Will Kinney’s Can Translations Be Inspired? 

 The Absurd Conclusion: Salvation of All Poor People

The conclusion we are left with if Colby’s (and his citations) are taken seriously is that all poor people are saved without exception or distinction: universalist salvation of all poor and oppressed. Colby did not offer any proof that God preserved any of the poor forever. Common sense and logic would tell us that for a person to be preserved forever they would have to be saved, yet according to the logic of KJVO critics, we can bypass the gospel and just become poor enough to be eternally secure. No repentance, no faith, no belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, ignore the deity of Christ, because according to this view of Psalm 12, poverty=salvation. Colby & Co have invented an exemption to the gospel for the poor, not to mention that the poor are then purified by fire in a furnace of earth!

This is the kind of “scholarship” and “logic” you deal with from MVO (Modern Version Onlyist) and “Original Onlyist” Googleogians. The clear and obvious antecedent to “thou shalt preserve THEM” is not a skip over verse 6 as if it’s just a parenthetical side comment, but a reference to the words of the LORD being preserved forever. It is obvious why greedy for filthy lucre scholars don’t want evidence of preservation, because it allows them to continue setting themselves up as the authority on the Bible, and to add to the word of God when they see fit. The Bible then can’t be added to or new discoveries uncovered to reveal some altering revelation that would revolutionize Christianity if Psalm 12:7 shows that God is the one that keeps and preserves His words. It also emphasizes man’s self efforts to maintain God’s words instead of having any real faith in God’s ability to transmit His own Scriptures. It is the Jesuit method of replacing the Dark Ages priest with the modern day “scholar” (Malachi 2:12).

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35

For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89

______________________

*It is interesting, as a side-note, that one of the first observations I had made about Colby’s blog was his erroneous use of descriptions of logic. He had initially referred to “laws of logic” as #1 being “law of contradiction”. He vehemently argued with me that this was correct even though no Christian scholar from Geisler to William Lane Craig uses it. Colby has now changed his blog to reflect the proper term, “Law of NON contradiction”. It is called the law of NON contradiction because the law asserts that truth does NOT contradict truth. Law of contradiction would imply that contradictions are necessary elements of logic.

Colby also doesn’t seem to grasp what logical fallacies are. The simple explaining of a contradiction does not itself identify what the logical fallacy is. Not all logical fallacies apply to the categorical syllogisms that Colby seems to be referring to. The law of Non Contradiction simply shows that a thing can not be both A and be NOT A at the same time. That is not the definition “logical fallacies”. Yet in all of Colby’s parading his new found Googlisms, he failed to expound on any known logical fallacies as applied in his arguments.

Colby also seems to think he was victorious in that I had “blocked” him a month or so ago (Ignored. If Colby had actually bothered to check he isn’t blocked, he just assumed so because I obviously never responded to him because I didn’t see any of his comments). My “blocking” him then had nothing to do with any inability to respond, but because every comment he made even if it was about which topping to put on a sandwich had my named tagged to it, and with 70 thousand followers it’s a little hard to follow comments when one person yields over 100 notifications that have nothing to do with a conversation I am involved in.

______________________________

Calvinists are known for inventing theological definitions that are not in Scripture, but it seems James White is now inventing terms that are neither Scriptural nor sociologically supported, at least not in the way he attempted to define (or lack of defining thereof) “culturally black church” on his October 23, 2014 podcast from the Alpha & Omega Ministries. We did not jump on this  until we heard  both sides of the issue. But after discussing the matter with “Fresh Word” we decided this needed to be published.

Most of White’s followers didn’t blink an eye, but one follower noticed the faux pas, and said something to White about it. In response, James White brushed this black man off as being “hyper-sensitive”.

I might have listened to my last DL. “you’re not likely to hear the gospel at culturally black Baptist Church” -Dr James White

What’s unique about this is that “Fresh Word” is not a James White critic, but an avid supporter of White’s ministry.

White defended his remarks by claiming that:

And what passes for the “black church” is more often a social club and a political base than it is anything else.

White followed this conversation up on October 27, with a podcast on his website, and the clean up is MUCH DIFFERENT than the first time he discussed it and had his “Freudian Slip”.

PROBLEM WITH WHITE’S EXPLANATION

White attempted to clarify that what he was referring to was the kind of “black church” that is politically motivated and not gospel motivated.  Although he didn’t mention Al Sharpton, or Jessie Jackson, in which we would AGREE that such “ministers” use the “race card” as a political and social tool disguised in religious rhetoric, White did nothing to prove that such was the case with the subject (Shadid Lewis) in which he was referring to. White’s ONLY criteria was that the church was black, and that an apostate man left the church because the preacher picked up a saxophone.

I described what Shadid experienced—if you want to take offense and identify with some guy breaking out a sax during his….sermon” and jamming with the band as a fine example of the Christian church…hey, I can’t stop you!

So in other words, if the church is predominately black, then it’s CULTURALLY BIASED. I wonder what he says about the churches that his Calvinist friend Voddie Bauchum speaks at (See photo below). Apparently, White doesn’t know that much about black churches. It is not uncommon for black preachers to “break out” in song in the middle of a service or play along with a choir, even in black Baptist churches. Whether White likes or agrees with it or not, there ARE cultural differences between blacks and whites (thanks to the restrictions that white Calvinist slave owners-among many others- imposed on them, and their treatment in America where they were not allowed to identify with American culture), and just because a black implements something in their church that is CULTURALLY DIFFERENT from a white church doesn’t mean you use that difference to distinguish what is or is not a gospel-preaching church.

What James White did was broadbrushed ALL black churches as culturally biased based on the testimony of one man that he deemed an apostate, and the only evidence White offered to identify even THAT church as a non-gospel church was….the preacher picking up a saxophone. Now, as odd as that may be, to someone who doesn’t understand the climate of that church or culture, that does not prove that it is not a gospel believing or preaching church. At most, it would cast credibility on the church/pastor’s ability to conduct their service “decently and in order” according to 1 Cor 14:40, but by no means is an indicator that the church is not gospel-oriented. As White himself even admitted, it may be a bad EXAMPLE of a Christian church, but that doesn’t mean that the church itself was not Christian-at least White never proved otherwise.

Again, James White’s ONLY TWO CRITERIA for identifying this particular black church as a non-gospel church was that:

1. It was black (clarified by the fact that he repeatedly referred to these churches as BLACK churches).

2. The preacher used a saxophone in the middle of the service.

Yes, James White attempted to add criteria for clarification SEVERAL DAYS LATER, but the problem is that he never used his follow up criteria and linked any evidence that such was the case with his initial description of black churches. White did not prove that the initial church he was referring to was a race-based church, nor did he prove that even Shadid Lewis description of that church was meant to convey that -although we would have to expect a professing Christian turned Muslim would not necessarily offer a fair description of ANY church, let alone any black church. But then again, it was White that made it a racial issue. Shadid Lewis’ perspective was not color vs color, but Bible vs Quran.

Considering that Genevan Calvinists and their Dutch East India Company made  enormous profits off of the slave trade for hundreds of years (two notorious Calvinist slave owners were Jonathon Edwards and George Whitefield-and please spare us the bogus “indentured slaves” rebuttal nonsense), in cooperation with Freemasons (Anderson) churches built in Africa for these Calvinists to capitalize on the Masonic/Calvinist sponsored apartheid, and their bragging that God gave them providence over the blacks, is it any wonder that we would see such staunch Calvinists reflecting that same sentiment today? We saw just a little bit more into what James White really believes with this slip of the tongue October 23.

Part of the congregation listening to Dr Voddie Baucham. 

Not only is this a predominantly black crowd, but it is specifically

African themed.

African Christian University

SICK of Baptist Perverts

Posted: November 2, 2013 in IFB, NEWS, Uncategorized

Once again, another fundamental Baptist pastor makes the headlines for sexual abuse of a minor. On October 27, 2013, the Administrator of the Kings Way Christian School wrote a letter to all of the parents of its students stating that the ministry had accepted Pastor Bill Wininger’s resignation.

http://douglasville.11alive.com/news/news/473972-douglasville-pastor-quits-after-child-molestation-allegations-surface

Bill Wininger was the pastor of Kings Way Baptist Church in Douglasville, Georgia, where he had been the pastor for 15 years until his recent resignation was given over allegations of sexual abuse by Bethany Leonard, who wrote an 11 page letter detailing her charges.

According to other news sources, similar allegations had surfaced in a previous church where Wininger was associated, and he wrote a book called, “A Church Falsely Accused”.

Here’s my idea for a book, “If Thine Anatomy Offends One of These Little Ones CUT IT OFF” I am so sick of reading about preachers in trusted positions manipulating and abusing young children while naming the name of Christ. God did not give you eyeballs to look upon a woman and child with lust. God did not give you hands to grope and feel up a little kid, and God did not give you a mouth to talk sexually to vulnerable children.

And those of you who work around these preachers that know exactly what is going on, WHERE ARE YOUR GONADS?? You gutless cowards make me sick and I would enjoy just 2 minutes alone with one of you perverts and your defenders to see how much of a man you really are. That child was fearfully and wonderfully made, and was not put on this earth to be the object of your sick affection. And the next time I am in the United States, and I visit one of your churches, I DARE one of you sissies to make a snide comment about this article. Grow up and act like men. “Oh but we’ll hurt the cause of Christ if we report it, who will run the church?” You moron, it’s GOD’S CHURCH, not the preachers, and it’s hurting the cause of Christ MORE by these actions, and you thin-skinned yellow bellies that keep it quiet.

There are thousands of Baptists who love the Lord, and strive to live lives pleasing to God, and study vigorously to win others to Christ, and you IDIOTS make it that much harder every time some new report comes out about another Baptist preacher that can’t keep his zipper intact.

Baptist preachers, deacons, church members, you have GOT to start standing up to the perverts in your church or the church is going to lose all credibility in its witness to the world, and lives are going to be devastated trying to overcome the abuse that your trusted ministers have put them through. If you are a church member that simply doesn’t care, well then stay home and shut up. But if you actually care, then start holding members and church leaders accountable. Now I’m not talking about unsubstantiated gossip, but if you KNOW something is going on, then be a Nathan and claim “Thou art the man”. This nonsense needs to stop in our churches. It’s pathetic.

Dr. James Ach

The following are excerpts from the Bible Believers Bulletin in response to the so-called “7 Errors” that James White claimed he would debate with Peter Ruckman. The debate failed to occur as White would not concede to certain conditions for the debate that would not skew the timing among other issues in his favor. White published correspondence between himself and Dr. Ruckman, but did not publish Ruckman’s final response to him.
Dr. Ruckman wrote a book of @ 500 pages addressing James White’s errors titled “The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust The Professional Liars” in response to White’s “The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust The Modern Versions?”
[Copyright belongs to Bible Baptist Bookstore]
James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 1 By Dr. Peter S. RuckmanIn a recent publication by a member of the “Alexandrian Cult,” the author pointed out what he considered to be either errors or “misleading” and “awkward” translations (or “inferior” translations) in the AV as compared with the two most corrupt Laodicean products on the market: the NIV and the NASV.

Both of these “Bibles” teach the two gods of The Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) by listing a begotten god and an unbegotten God in John 1:18.

Last spring, White challenged me to a debate, saying he could prove there were errors in the Authorized Version. I named a time and place (April 1, 1996, here at the Bible Baptist Church). He backed out. The most interesting thing about it was when I suggested that he prove ten errors giving him five minutes to prove each error he backed down to proving SEVEN. Why he didn’t insist on twenty or thirty I have no idea, but seven was all he could drum up.

Since he backed out, I thought our readers would like to know what Jimmy would have run into if he had gone through with his rash and stupid decision.

You see, what no nut like White (or his buddies, Ankerberg, MacRae, Kenneth Barker, Palmer, Bruce Metzger, John MacArthur, etc.) realizes is the BASIC FOUNDATION upon which they have to build the moment they reject ANY BIBLE as their final authority.

The poor fools don’t realize that this leaves all of them standing on the shifting sands of humanism and relativity. Thus, anyone (including their adversaries) can quote anything to prove anything.
Since liars have to have good memories, none of these characters (plus Doug Kutilek, Robert Sumner, Bob Jones III, Stewart Custer, etc.) can see what they are doing, even when they are doing it.

They are stating that everything must be tested by the Bible with no Bible in mind. Or everything must be tested by Scripture, when none of them have ever seen a copy. Or, as White puts it, “The standard is GOD’S TRUTH” meaning nothing.

In White’s case, “God’s Truth” turns out to be 271 pages of rehashed Hort, who was proved to be a liar on a dozen occasions more than one hundred years ago (by Scrivener, Hoskier, Burgon, and Miller).

The STANDARDS for criticizing the AV and finding “error” in it are NOT applied to the NASV or the NIV or the NRSV. So all we have to do to prove that any “error” in the AV is not an error is to use the same methods the Alexandrians use for proving the NIV and NASV are not in error; “even-Stephen, six of one, half a dozen of another.”

Gary Hudson stumbled into this trap, and now Jimmy White follows him.

Error No. 1 (Luke 2:22): Here, “Her purification” is an “error” according to all Alexandrians for the Greek texts say “their purification”. Thus the NIV and NASV are correct in saying “THEIR purification.” The only thing wrong with this is that it is a lie. Joseph didn’t need any purification according to the Biblical source for the Biblical quotation (Leviticus 12). Only the WOMAN needed to be purified; look at it.

Now, here is a perfect test case. If you “corrected the Greek with the English,” you would have preserved the INTEGRITY OF MOSES (John 5:45-47) and the SCRIPTURE (John 10:35). However, if you had translated “the Greek” literally (“THEIR”), you would have denied every Hebrew text extant of Leviticus 12, and you would have made a LIAR out of the Holy Spirit. What to do?

All Alexandrians are programmed clones; you know EXACTLY what they will do. They are more predictable than sunrise and sunset. They made a liar out of God.

Now White’s reasoning is as follows: “If there are no variants then we have ‘INDEED THE ORIGINAL’ ” (see The King James Only Controversy, pp. 118,124). Since he has found no “variant” against (“their purification”) then “her purification” is not even a possibility. This is the Alexandrian mentality. ON the surface it looks logical. Look a little deeper.

White just approved changing more than three thousand words in the King James text (NIV and NASV) on the basis of “variants” that showed up AFTER the AV text was printed.

These came from Mill, Fell, Walton, Bentley, Griesbach, Tischendorf, Hort, Nestle, and Metzger AFTER only “one variant” in three thousand cases was extant.

Problem: what happens when “her purification” shows up later in a Greek manuscript? You say, “It couldn’t happen.” It did. Erasmus filled in the last six verses in Revelation from the Latin Vulgate (1520) with NO GREEK MANUSCRIPTS, and later (1800-1900) up showed more than sixty percent of his “fill-in” in Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, the Syriac, and the Sahidic.

You say, “It couldn’t happen.” It did. In 1 John 2:23, the AV translators put half the verse in italics (1611), going by NO Greek manuscripts. Nestle PRINTED THE GREEK TEXT (1979) THAT MATCHES THE ITALICS IN THE KING JAMES RE-CEPTUS. He printed it more than 270 years (1898) after the AV supplied him the words in ENGLISH: not Greek.

So White, instead of rushing in like a mad fool, should have been more “scholarly” and checked the facts. He was operating on an emotional level.

Now watch the birdie! In Nestle’s twenty-sixth edition the footnote omits a note found in ALL the editions preceding it by eighty years. It says latsyrs, an=auth “for HER purification”. A question mark follows this; in 1979 Nestle removed that entire piece of evidence. There was SOME evidence for “HER” purification; it just wasn’t in Greek. Note that the verse said “according to the LAW of Moses.” The Law of Moses (Leviticus 12) had no offering for the purification of any woman’s husband; it is only for the woman. Joseph had no purification to offer.

So here is a case where the AV translators saw a Biblical problem that White didn’t see, or didn’t want to see, because he was dead set on FORCING THE BIBLE TO CONTRADICT ITSELF. If he could use the Greek to do this with he would do it; he did it.

If the AV is in “error,” then the NIV and NASV have ten times as bad an error, for they made a false document out of the “Law of Moses.”

White’s job is to prove that “HER PURIFICATION” (AV) is an “error” because the AV chose it instead of “their.” He limited his proof to a Greek text that was extant, which might be, at any moment, replaced (see above). In doing so, he proved HE was in error, and the NIV was in error, and the NASV was in error; “according to the law of Moses,” only Mary needed a purification: “Her purification.”

The “mistake” in the AV was another advanced revelation carefully obscured in “the Greek” (see Acts 19:37 and Acts 12:4), as we have said many times before.

Furthermore, it told the truth: “their purification” would be a lie.

White proved nothing except he didn’t agree with how a pronoun was translated.

“Their purification” is a possible translation if it is interpreted to mean that, as “one flesh” Joseph would bring the offering for Mary (vs. 24), but it would be a very misleading translation for it would plainly IMPLY that Joseph was impure; he wasn’t. “Her purification” is “according to the Law of Moses.”
Still shaky? All right!

Note: White approves of inserting the word “PRIEST” and “PRIESTLY” into Romans 15:16 (NIV and NASV). THE WORD DOESN’T APPEAR IN ONE SINGLE GREEK MANUSCRIPT EXTANT.

Note: White approves of “sorts” and “kinds” added to 1 Timothy 6:10. Neither word appears in any Greek manuscript extant.

Note: White approves of translating PLURALS (“Their purification”) as SINGULARS (“HER”), for in the NIV and NASV, one man (Singular) is given credit for two different quotations from two different (Plural) men: Mark 1:2.

Note: According to White it is perfectly proper to make a SINGULAR out of a plural in Matthew 28:1 and Matthew 13:31,33.

To say, then, first of all, that Luke 2:22 is an error on the grounds that there is no Greek manuscript evidence for it is hypocrisy, and, secondly, to say that it is in error because a plural has been converted to a singular is hypocrisy. The error is in the hypocrite.

There are no Greek readings in any manuscript for “on whom his” and “with whom He” which will be found in Luke 2:14 (NIV and NASV). Absence of Greek words means nothing to White or his buddies, except where it occurs in a King James Bible.

At this point I would have ended my defense of Luke 2:22 if the debate had taken place, and poor Jimmy would have thought I was through. But in the rebuttal, I would have put the “quietus” on him.

You see I was only playing playing by THEIR rules. You see, all along I had “the” Greek” text with “her purification” in it. Jimmy just never found that Greek text. I have had it for more than thirty years.

“HER PURIFICATION” was in the “original Greek”; Jimmy just had the wrong “original Greek.” On page 108 of The New Testament The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Versions of 1611 (“the Greek text followed by the translators of the English Authorized Version of the Bible”), printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society, London, England, you will find it. You will find it on line 15 from the top of the page.

It was in “The Greek text.” Jimmy just was either too stupid or too lazy to look up the text. So he lied like a Persian rug. Lying in the Alexandrian Cult is a “lifestyle.”

If he had debated Luke 2:22, he would have lost his eye teeth and his suspenders.

James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 2 By Dr. Peter S. RuckmanWe are studying seven “errors” in the AV which James White was going to prove, publicly, before he backed down from a debate which he had instigated himself. He didn’t like the terms given him by the “challengee.” We gave him April 1, 1996 at the Bible Baptist Church. He dropped the debate like a hot rock.

Acts 5:30The idea here is the AV translators were too stupid to see that Jesus was slain AFTER he was hung on the tree. The word order proves there is an “error” in the AV. “It is difficult to see where the KJV derived its translation, as there is no ‘and’ in the text” (King James Only Controversy, White, p. 226).

Now this is the Alexandrian mentality; it is a weird sort of dementia that always infects an egotist as soon as he begins to mess with the AV text. Observe!

1. There is no “came” in 1 Thessalonians 2:5 (NASV). There is no article “the” in 1 Corinthians 2:16 (NIV). There is no “was after flesh” in 1 Timothy 3:16 (NASV). There is no “who had been” in Matthew 1:6 in the NASV. So? There is no “GOD” found in Acts 7:59 in the NKJV. So?

2. Jimmy added the word “BY” to the text under discussion (Acts 5:30), for the plural participle (Greek kremasantes) is in the Nominative case. By, in, to, with, for, etc. refer to the Genitive, Locative, Ablative, or Instrumental cases. White’s grammar screwed up on him.

How did he miss 2 Samuel 10:12 and 1 Samuel 17:51 and 2 Samuel 3:27?

Peter, James, and John were Sabbath-observing, temple worshipping, bearded, pork-abstaining, Old Testament Jews in Acts, Chapter 5.

They knew all about David SLAYING Goliath with a sword AFTER he “slew” him with a sling. They knew all about Abishai being guilty of Abner’s death, although he was not even in the vicinity when Joab “slew” him.

Being three times as intelligent as White or the NASV committee, they knew that Amasa “wallowed in blood in the midst of the highway” AFTER Joab “slew him.”

Every Hebrew manuscript extant reads THE SAME WAY in all three of those passages. That is the Hebrew way of stating it. But the roaring lion of the English Protestant Reformation is not through with silly Jimmy yet!

No Jew “SLEW” Christ and no Jew “CRUCIFIED” Christ.
It was Roman soldiers who mocked Him, whipped Him, and nailed Him.
That isn’t the worst of it. No Roman soldier could have “SLAIN” Christ if he had stayed up twenty centuries.

In his zeal to make a liar out of the Holy Spirit, White forgot that Jesus Christ laid down His life (John 10:15) because NO MAN (Roman or Jew) could “slay” Him (John 10:18). How did White miss the basic theological nature of the Crucifixion? Every Jew in Peter’s audience knew exactly what he was talking about.

The Jews murdered Christ (Acts 7:52, Stephen), and crucified Him (Luke 24:20) in the sense that they put Him in a position where He could be crucified (John 19:11). This precrucifixion act (John 19:11) is described as “killing” (1 Thess. 2:15), crucifying (Luke 24:20), and SLAYING Him (Acts 5:30).

It was certainly committed BEFORE the Romans took Him into custody. It took place in Mark 14:64. For all practical purposes, they SLEW him the moment they passed the death sentence on Him, and they did do that.

Abishai slew Abner because Abishai was in “kahoots” with his brother. He, himself, never touched Abner. David killed Uriah with the sword of the children of Ammon. Who didn’t know THAT but Jimmy White?

James White missed the entire point of all the verses in both testaments in his haste to destroy your faith in the AV text. And this pitiful whining child now stands before this array of Biblical facts and Biblical truth and complains “It is difficult to see where the AV derived its translation….”

Well, stupid, it derived it from the words of the Holy Ghost recorded in the Holy Bible. The error was YOURS from start to finish, and you erred “not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.”

Typical Alexandrian scholarship: just as clumsy and as stupid as blind Bartimaeus on an all-night drunk. Didn’t he know that Joseph hung the chief baker (Gen. 41:13)? He hung him before PHARAOH hung him (Gen. 40:22).

White’s “scholarship” above (believe it or not!) was recommended by John MacArthur, John Ankerberg, Bruce Metzger, and D. A. Carson as “superb, accurate, valuable, conclusive, clear, and balanced.”

What on God’s earth could be more pitiful or more ridiculous? Total ignorance of Jewish idioms, total ignorance of “accessories before the fact,” total ignorance of shared guilt, total ignorance of Scriptural example, and Scriptural revelation, total ignorance of WHO actually was involved in the crucifixion, plus total ignorance of why the blame was placed on the Jews.

And the jack rabbit thinks he is an intellectual who can find “errors” in the Holy Bible. He is Bugs Bunny in Star Trek. “Beam him up, Scotty!”

 James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 3

By Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

We are on “error” No. 3 as located by James White, who was going to debate seven errors in the AV, but decided that “discretion was the better part of valor” in view of the fact that the man he challenged set the time and place as April 1, 1996 at the Bible Baptist Church.
In spite of the fact that Jimmy said he had many people in the Pensacola area that would be interested in such a debate (which he instigated), he decided to retire.

Well, here is this terrible error in Hebrews 10:23. The word “faith” here should have been “hope” (Greek elpidos, from elpis). (This is the kind of thing you get into when you get with the gnat-strainers. We point out errors like two Jehovah’s Witness “gods” in John 1:18 in the NASV and NIV, or giving one of Christ’s titles to Satan in Isaiah 14:12 and their comeback is “faith should have been hope.” Typical. Absolutely typical.)

White’s typical comments are that the AV reading “is difficult to understand” and “leaves most people wondering as well” (The King James Only Controversy, p. 226).

Who these “most people” are, of course, is a mystery Sherlock Holmes and the Shadow couldn’t figure out. I never met any Christian who was “left wondering” at the “faith” of Hebrews 10:23, especially since the immediate context (vs. 22) and the nearest context are dealing with FAITH (Heb. 11:1-30, 10:22, and 10:38).

I assume “most people” are some elite group of Nicolaitan nuts who “want the preeminent place,” and spend their time picking at Greek words with Greek lexicons. They never have numbered more than one percent of the Body of Christ.

Hebrews 10:23 is a simple, case where a word that normally has been translated one way is now translated another way. Instances in the corrupt Bibles that White recommends are so numerous, no one could list them on five pages.

For example in the NIV, the word for “fornication” (Greek pornei) is translated as “marital unfaithfulness” in Matthew 5:32, “sexual immorality” in Matthew 19:9, “illegitimate children” in John 8:41, “evil” in Romans 1:29, and “sexual sin” in 2 Corinthians 12:21.

This was the NIV: six different ways to translate one word, and White says TWO different ways of translating “elpidos” is an ERROR.

The NIV, that White recommends to high heaven, says that porneias is “sexual immorality” twelve times and then says it’s “adultery” in Revelation 2:22.
Jimmy? Yoo, hoo! Jimbo! Hey deah, Jiiimmmeee!

“The Greek term (elpidos) appears thirteen times in the Textus Receptus and each time it is translated as hope’ with this one exception” (White, p. 226). But the AV is in error, is it? And the NIV is the best version of the Bible you can get, is it (White, p. 247, 186)? Scooby-dooby doo!

The word “hope” in the New Testament, for the child of God, is a word used many times for the Rapture of the Body of Christ, where the Christian will receive a new body (Rom. 5:2, 8:24 note the context Col. 1:5,27; 1 Thess. 1:3, 5:8; Titus 1:2, 2:13; 1 John 3:1-3. Our HOPE is a person. Note this in Hebrews 6:19. Even in the Jewish Old Testament, hope was in a resurrection (Acts 23:6, 24:15, 26:6), and in the New Testament, the Christian’s reward as a soul winner takes place when Christ comes for him (1 Thess. 2:19).

The passage in Hebrews 10:16-25 is NOT Christ coming for any Christian on this earth. The “day” spoken of in 10:25 is a day where Israel is judged (vs. 30), and the Lord’s coming is in judgment (vs. 37) as found in Malachi 4:1-4. Hebrews is aimed at Hebrews. (White never could figure that one out, either.)

Note the citation in Hebrews 10:30-31 is from the “Song of Moses” in Deuteronomy, Chapter 32, that will be sung by 144,000 Tribulation Jews, who are virgins (Rev., Chapters 7 and 14). White doesn’t know enough about the Bible (any Bible translated from any set of manuscripts, by anybody, to even locate himself in Hebrews, Chap. 10).

Nobody ever held fast to a “profession of hope.” Timothy’s “good profession” (1 Tim. 6:12) before “many witnesses” was his profession of FAITH in Jesus Christ. Notice the identical profession in Hebrews 4:14. Our FAITH in Someone is our profession which we must “hold fast.”

You don’t go around declaring “I hope I’m saved, I hope I’m saved, I hope I’m saved.” That profession is worthless. The faith in Christ that the Hebrew is exhorted to “hold fast” in Hebrews 10:23 (“our faith”) is defined in verses 16-22: it is immediate access to Jesus Christ in the third heaven because of His blood atonement.

That is what left White’s buddies “wondering” and made it “difficult” (see above) to find out what was going on: the context of the same chapter.

Perhaps Gerhard Kittel can help White out with his lack of intelligence and scholarship.
“The definition of PISTIS (Faith, more than ninety times in the New Testament) as … in Hebrews 11:1 is quite in keeping with the Old Testament inter-relating of PISTUEIN (to believe) and ELPIZEIN … as well as ELPIS (“hope”)” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 531).

Hebrews, Chapter 11 is a review of the Old Testament. How did White fail to find such basic, fundamental precepts? “FAITH” is not only a possible translation in such a context, but it is recognized as such, and documented as such. But it is an “error,” is it, girls?

“With PISTIS (faith), ELPIS (hope), this constitutes Christian existence … what is denoted by ELPIS (hope) can be included in PISTIS (faith)” (White, p. 532).

So the AV has the correct word since it included BOTH words, and White’s doll babies (NIV and NASV) were just sorry displays of Beginner’s Greek Grammar.

And White was going to debate me on that verse as an “error”! Can you imagine the nerve of that greenhorn? Correct White’s Greek (elpidos) with the English (“faith”) in Hebrews 10:23. He never knew what he was talking about when he sat down to write: according to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 532 (Vol. 111).

James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 4

By Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

We have been examining “errors” in the King James Bible according to the author of The King James Only Controversy. This is the fourth one, Jimmy having already “bombed out” on three. Gary Hudson bombed out on eight (see King James Onlyism versus Scholarship Onlyism, 1992, pp. 60-78).

In The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship (1988) I listed forty-eight “errors” in the AV (chap. 9) to help the apostates out, but James White didn’t dare try more than two of them (Acts 12 and 19).
(I try to help the brethren out, but they don’t seem to appreciate it!)

This “error” in the AV, is found in Jeremiah 34:16. According to the protocols of the Alexandrian Cult, the “errors” in the AV always are either connected with magnifying Jesus Christ (see the NIV and NASV in John 1:18; 1 Timothy 3:16; Luke 2:33; John 3:13; Acts 4:27; et al.) or have to do with “he” should be “she,” or “ye” should be “they,” or “her” should have been “their” (Luke 2:22), and so forth.

It is either altering a verse that deals doctrinally with the person and work of Jesus Christ or altering a verse that a gnat strainer would not waste time with.

Westcott and Hort, after assenting to the rules laid down by the Westminster Convocation (1870) for revising the AV, figured that changes that were “absolutely necessary” amounted to an annihilation of the entire Greek text for the AV, and the substitution of 3,000 “alternate readings.” (The NIV decided that 64,000 were “absolutely necessary,” if you translated both Testaments.)

This was done while Jimmy White was swearing on a stack of slop by Warfield, A. T. Robertson, and Hort that only “one variant out of a thousand” was of any “concern” (White, pp. 39 40).

Liars reproduce liars; it is inherent in their nature: “after their kind.”

Well, here is this terrible “error” in Jeremiah 34:16. Here, White is worried about the fact that the Cambridge and Oxford editions of the AV don’t match word for word. To calm Jimmy’s shattered nerves, I sent him the copy of the AV that I believe and defend, with the notification that THAT was the one he was to prove error in. This was unacceptable to Jimmy. He insisted I defend some edition that I did not use or preach.

However, he should have stuck with the Book I mailed him, for it was a Gideon Bible that read “…and every man HIS handmaid whom HE had set at liberty….”

Jimmy had insisted that was an error. It should have read “…every man HIS handmaid whom YE had set at liberty….” (Cambridge edition). Jimmy considered this error to be of such a monstrous nature that he devoted two pages to discussing it and even consulted Dr. James Price (on the NKJV committee with Harold Ockenga, the founder of Neo-Evangelicalism) to get back to the “original text.”

They both agreed the text should say “ye” instead of “he.” The error got in “somehow” during the “final editing process and into print.”
P.S. “Future editions of the NKJV” (which denies that anyone corrupts the Bible, 2 Cor. 2:17; attacks the Deity of Christ, Acts 4:27; and forbids you to rightly divide the word of truth, 2 Tim. 2:15!) “will change the pronoun back to you” (White, p. 89).

Now analyze this Ding-bat Dementia.

1. Both apostates (Price and White) insisted that the plural “ye” should be maintained because “he,” being singular, was false. Whereupon they changed the “ye” (of the Cambridge edition) to “you.” But “you,” in English, is not plural, necessarily, as anyone knows who studied Greek or Hebrew. These languages both have a plural form for “you.” When more than one person is being addressed, it is printed as “ye” in the Oxford King James Bible.

“You” is a reference to a singular person. Modern English does not preserve this distinction. Then what was all the fuss about?

James Price and James White don’t know first grade Hebrew grammar. If they did, they “sacrificed something by translating the Hebrew into English.” (Ever hear THAT “gasser” before?)

2. The fuss was futile. The text said “every man” (sometimes “each man” in Hebrew interlinears: I have three of them) in the second clause. Not once did any Hebrew text say, “their servant” (plural) or “their handmaid’ (plural) before saying “whom HE had set at liberty” (AV). It said “HIS servant” and “HIS handmaid” (singular), as in “whom HE [singular] had set at liberty” (AV).

So, from the standpoint of an English text, either AV reading would have been absolutely correct (Cambridge or Oxford). From the standpoint of English and that is the standpoint Price and White took in the NKJV their correction of the “error” (“he” to “you”) means nothing. It doesn’t indicate a plural.

3. Now, following our usual standard of fixed, infallible, absolute TRUTH (John 17:17, 6:63, 8:47, etc.) (oh, my God, how apostates hate those last three words!) we will judge the “good, godly scholars” by the Holy Bible instead of their own, man-made, humanistic excursions into Tinker Bell’s Never-Never Land.

“Lest there should be among you man, or woman [singular], or family [plural], or tribe [plural], whose HEART [singular] … when HE [singular] heareth the words of this curse, that HE bless HIMSELF…” (Deut. 29:18 19).

The “he” is a reference to “tribes” and “families.” Did you get that? White and Price couldn’t. They don’t ever read the Bible; they analyze “variants.”

Well, BOTH variants in the AV (Jer. 34:16) were correct grammatically, if one deals with the English text or the Hebrew text. They (“ye” in the Cambridge) were being addressed as a group (plural, Jer. 34:13; as in Deut. 29), but the address was aimed at individual men (“he” in the Oxford edition), within the group. Either word would have been absolutely correct according to that great critic of critics, the word of God (Heb. 4:12-13).

It only failed to pass the test of hyper-critical, white-washed Pharisees whose spiritual lives (and power) are deader than a hammer on the beach.

For the correctness of “he” (AV) see the context: “every man … HIS manservant, and every man HIS maidservant … none should serve HIMSELF … HIS manservant, and every one HIS maidservant…” (vss. 9-10): seven singulars.

No “editor’ let anything slip by. White and Price think they are careful “editors.” The translators chose two different ways of saying the same thing, and both of them accorded with the context of the verse, and both of them told the TRUTH. But because they weren’t identical (Cambridge “ye,” Oxford “he”) the old self-righteous, practical atheists (no Alexandrian has any higher authority than his opinions or the opinions of his friends) claimed “error.”

Well, Campfire girls, Paul didn’t translate “his” in “his faith” from Habakkuk 2:4 when he quoted it in Romans 1:17. The words are NOT identical. Error? Come, come, you little Campfire Brownies, how did you overlook that monstrous “error” if you were careful “editors”? Isn’t that omitted “his” worse than Jeremiah’s “he,” especially in view of the fact that using “he” and “his” when speaking to a multitude (Deut. 29:18 20) is a common thing in the Old Testament?

“Therefore hear YE the word of the LORD, all Judah … my name shall no more be named in the MOUTH [singular] of any MAN [singular] … in all the land of Egypt … I will watch over, THEM [plural] for evil … and all the MEN [plural] of Judah that are in the land … until there be an end of THEM” (Jer. 44:26-27).

Note that White’s (and Price’s) final court of appeals is the “number” of one Hebrew pronoun. That is how desperate they were to find “error” in an English text.

Did you know that every modern version they recommend (the NKJV, the NIV, and the NASV, mainly) refused to translate a plural Greek word as a “plural” more than thirty times in the Gospels? Check ” “.

Why would any sane person let alone a sane Christian take these jokers seriously when they talked about one Hebrew pronoun being translated as a singular instead of a plural?

Both readings of the AV editions are correct, as in Ruth 3:15: “he” (Boaz) went into the city, and “she” (Ruth) went into the city.

You say, “The words don’t match”; neither do the inscriptions on the cross in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. “The words don’t match”; neither do they in the Lord’s prayer found in Luke 11:2 4 and Matthew 6:9 13. “The words don’t match”; neither do they in Isaiah 53:4 and Matthew 8:17.

If they don’t match in the “inspired originals” a famous Alexandrian Cult cliche why do they have to match in the English as long as both words are true to the text, and neither one is a lie?

They don’t. White and Price were simply mentally unbalanced. They can’t THINK. It is as common among apostate Conservative and Fundamentalist scholars as weeds in a garden.

So much for Jimmy’s fourth “error.”

James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 5 By Dr. Peter S. RuckmanShortly (Lord willing) we will have ready for the Bible believers a work called The Scholarship Only Controversy: — Are Professional Liars Trustworthy? In it we will point out forty-two errors that James White made trying to revive that fatuitous theory of Hort from the nineteenth century.

He said he would be content to prove seven in the Authorized Version (AV) of the Holy Bible. This is his fifth time “to bats.” The last four times he fanned out.

This time the “error” is in Revelation 16:5. Here the “mistake” is the expression “and shalt be.” Again, the alibi is that there is no manuscript evidence, in Greek, for the addition. But there was a problem with a “kai” after “Ho hen”: (“and wast”). This “kai” (meaning “and”) was thrown into the footnote of Nestle’s Apparatus even though it was found in an “early papyrus (to cite an Alexandrian cliche). This papyrus (P47) was 150 years older than any other Greek manuscript used by Nestle for the text (Rev. 16:5). His “goddess” (B, Vaticanus) wasn’t present. (B omits the whole book of Revelation; it also omits Gen. 1:1-4!)

White’s thinking is obvious. Who inserted “shall be” without Greek attestation? Obviously, an “error.” You see, when you deal with half-baked egotists like White, and the Cult, you can never take their professions or assertions seriously about anything, because all of their”facts” and “evidences” are produced by switching multiple standards.

White has TEN of them for discovering “the intent of the original author when he was inspired (White, p. 124, 48).

They include: taking the shorter reading over the longer one (but not always), trusting “godly scholars” (without naming them), going by the “best modern versions (without naming them), assuming that no one in church history intentionally perverted scripture (without citing one Bible verse for such a cock-eyed theory), etc. “Profession” (see White’s professions on pp. vii, viii, 13, 223, and 113) from a practical atheist means NOTHING.

Who inserted “priest” and “priestly” into Romans 15:16 (NIV and NASV) without manuscript attestation? Who inserted “committed in ignorance” into Hebrews 9:7 (NASV) without any Greek attestation? Who inserted a question mark into Hebrews 3:16, thereby denying the entire history of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy? The NIV and NASV did.

Who inserted “He” into the verse on the Incarnation of Deity (1 Tim.3:16) when no Greek manuscript said He.” The NIV, which did this, said in a footnote: “Some manuscripts read ‘God’.” Yeah, they sure do, you vile rascal: 289 of them do; 289 to ZERO.

Now, since White wrote his book to justify the sins of the NIV and NASV committees, do you think he was actually worried about “shalt be” in Revelation 16:5? You see the “and” in the verse was found in an early papyrus (P 47): “and…” what?

The NIV and the NASV and Nestle and Aland and Hort had to get rid of the earliest papyrus this time. It was an embarrassment because it messed up their sentence. If they had followed their profession (“the oldest and best,” etc.) they would have had to give you this: “Righteous art Thou, the Being One, AND the One who was, AND the Holy One.”

That is one awkward, cockeyed clause, so the “and” (“kai” in the papyrus) had to be dropped. Something originally followed that last “and,”and it certainly was not “the Holy One.”

Undoubtedly, “in the original” (a famous, worn-out, Alexandrian cliche) it read “the One being, and the One who was, AND the One who shall be.”

Now, that is a conjecture, but it is a conjecture in the light of early Greek manuscript evidence that was discarded by Mr. Nestle and Mr. White. He and his buddies had to violate their own standards to get rid of the AV reading. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in the Cult.

Furthermore, if the AV had just put “shalt be” in italics they would have passed the Alexandrians with flying colors, for the “and” should have been retained, according to Alexandrian standards. The Alexandrians couldn’t tolerate it for it bore witness to the possible authenticity of an AV reading; and those are what all Alexandrians want to get rid of.

They never waste their time on any text like they waste it on the English text of 1611. That is the one they hate. They can even tolerate the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, to some extent, but AAHHH! that Roaring Lion of the English Protestant Reformation!

For those of you who think I am “overstepping” myself:
Who inserted “nailed” into Acts 2:23 without being able to find one nail within one hundred verses of the verse (NASV)? There is not one Greek manuscript extant that says “nail” or “nails” or “nailing” or “nailed.”
But it doesn’t bother any Alexandrian except in Revelation 16:5 in an AV. Remarkable, isn’t it? What is “nothing” doing in the NASV in Acts 7:18? The text in ANY Greek manuscript extant (except D and E) said “Who not he knew the Joseph.” Manuscripts D and E said which doesn’t mean “nothing” at all; it doesn’t even mean “knew.” It means “remembered.”

How is any translated text in error when it inserts words not found in “the original Greek” because the words are either needed to make sense or should be added to complete the meaning of the Greek words that are extant?

White believes nothing of the kind, where it deals with his own income (selling NIVs and NASVs). His “baby dolls” do it to the tune of 400 pages “at a lick.”

Unlike the AV translators of Revelation 16:5, the translators of the NIV did not even put any of their additions in italics, in any verse, and White never squeaked. They made up scores of unique readings, with no manuscript evidence behind them, and none of them were put in italics. At least the AV translators made a “stab at it,” even in Revelation, chapter 16. Look at the italics in verses 3, 13, 14, 18, and 21.

Our position is clear, but then again, it always has been. We would judge White’s extant Greek texts on Revelation 16:5 to be defective, in regards to “shalt be,” and this is apparent from the rejected “kai” in Papyrus 47.
Why trade in absolute truth for a defective Greek manuscript? The truth is the Lord (vs. 5) had THREE lives (confirmed in Rev. 1:8, 8:8) and the “kai” (and) is found in both of those passages.
Someone messed with Revelation 16:5 in the Greek texts. It wasn’t the AV translators.

But you see, up to this point I have been teasing Jimbo. If James White had been stupid enough to take me on in a debate I would have ended my arguments at the paragraph above. Then, at the end, in the rebuttal, I would have produced the Greek text for the AV reading and placed it up before the TV camera where all of James White’s “comrades in arms” (Nestle, Metzger, MacRae, Archer, Aland, MacArthur, Ankerberg, et al.) could have seen it.

I have a Greek New Testament with “shall be” in the Greek (or as the Alexandrians say, the “original Greek” or the “Greek original” or “indeed the original” (White’s cliche, p. 48, 124).

My Greek New Testament (not his) says … (p. 469, 8th line from the bottom, Rev.16:5) the One being, and the One who was, and the One who will be.” Jimmy just didn’t have access to my Greek New Testament. Neither did Nestle or Aland, according to their own publications. My Greek New Testament is published by the Trinitarian Bible Society of London, it follows primarily Beza’s 1598 edition and corresponds to the Greek text edited by F. H. A. Scrivener in 1894 and 1902.

Jimmy lied again. It is as natural to an Alexandrian as breathing air. In a debate, James White would have lost his shirt and his britches.

James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Errors 6 & 7 By Dr. Peter S. RuckmanIn the last issues of the Bulletin we have been listing the seven nonexistent “errors” to be found in the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible, according to James White, the author of The King James Only Controversy (1995).

If you have been collecting these, and storing them back for future reference, you will now have five A-1 examples of the Alexandrian mentality behind all of the dead, orthodox apostates who worry about “Ruckmanism” or “King James Onlyism.”

If you will bother to obtain a copy of Scholarship Onlyism vs. King James Onlyism, 1992, pp.60-78, you will find eight more examples exactly like these: these were given by Gary Hudson back in 1991. Every Bible-believing preacher should start collecting these “test cases..” You have had thirteen discussed, and now, these last two “errors” will give you fifteen samples of the mental processes behind the apostates who produced the RV, NEB, RSV, NRSV, TEV, CEV, ASV, NWT, NASV, and NIV.

Bugs Bunny in Wonderland.

Acts 19:37 Our first “problem text” is Acts 19:37. Here, the Greek word for “temples,” found in all “text-types” and “families,” has been “mistranslated” by the king’s men (1611) as “churches,” instead of “temples.” This is an error, according to Jimbo.

However! Such translation is not an error in the NIV, that Jimbo recommends. Scores of times, in the NIV, this type of “dynamic equivalence” is used; as a matter of fact, it is used so many times that many Bible students think the NIV is more of a paraphrase than a translation.(As usual, when “Ruckman” says “as a matter of fact,” the FACT immediately appears. The passages are Matthew 6:22; Acts 26:20; Romans 1:3, 2:17, 6:4, 8:10, 1 Corinthians 2:4, 5:5, 7:17, 11:19, 12:6, Galatians 2:17, 3:3, 10, 4:21; Ephesians 1:23, 2:3, 4:2, 7, 17, 5:3; Colossians 2:2, 3:14; John 1:16, 14:30, 6:27; 1 Corinthians 7:4, etc.

These “dynamic equivalents” are so loose they might adequately qualify as paraphrases.)

Now, for the uneducated “laymen,” here is what is going on. No translating committee on earth (for 400 years) has ever translated every Greek word (from any text) exactly according to its lexicography (dictionary meaning) as given in a Greek lexicon. All translators “take liberties” in order to get across what they think the meaning should be in their language.

The NIV takes so many “liberties” that one would think its committee was made up of Gay Libbers, Women’s Libbers, and French revolutionists. But James White’s entire book was written to prove the NASV and the NIV were superior to the AV.

Why did he allow the NIV “affirmative action liberties” which he denied to the AV? I will tell you why: a vicious, irrational, Satanic prejudice against the greatest Book that ever showed up on this planet.

Consider:

1. When the king’s men substituted “churches” for “temples,” they had just translated the “hieron” of “hierosulos” as “temple” more than fifty times in Matthew-Acts. They knew the root of the word was “temples.” No ignorance was involved. James White pretended they erred through ignorance. He erred through ignorance.

2. You see, poor Jimbo’s NIV had just committed this same dastardly “error” in the same chapter, for right at verses 39 and 41 we read”assembly” (NIV) for “church”. But this word was “ekklesia.” The NIV had just translated it as “church”(or “churches”) twenty-two times in Matthew and Acts! Why? If “ecclesia” means” assembly”–and so the NIV and NASV translate it in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41–what is this same word doing standing as “church” in the rest of the book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles?

C’mon, Buster, tell us. You got the balloons.

“Church” is a dynamic equivalent for “ecclesia.” It is not “formal correspondence.” The AV translators WISELY chose–intentionally, with full knowledge–“churches” at Acts 19:37 to show you that the heathen who worship female goddesses (see the context!) not only have “temples,” but “churches,” as in St. Peter, St. Michael’s, St. Jude’s, The Lateran, etc. They simply gave you an advanced revelation “not found in the original Greek”!

Poor old Jim White will die declaring the NIV can do things like that, but if the AV does it it is an “error.” He is so screwed up he doesn’t know whether he is standing on his left hind leg or his front right paw.

1 John 5:7-8. This is the most “dearly beloved” verse in the New Testament for all dead, orthodox apostates and apostate Fundamentalists in the Alexandrian Cult; one may truly say, “it is their life-verse.” It is the greatest alibi for these Nicolaitans to sin against the Holy Spirit that they can find in the entire Bible. They “harp” on 1 John 5:7-8 morning, noon, and night (just like they thought they had good sense), and harp on it till their harp needs strings replaced on it twice a month.

You know the fictitious fables and scholarly mythology behind the Cult’s rejection of this portion of the Holy Scriptures: “Erasmus said that if he could find……”There is no Greek manuscript evidence for… ” “Only one late Greek manuscript contains…,” “It is not part of the original text…,” “It is not in the Majority Text of…… etc.

When I went to BJU, in 1950 (Greenville, S.C.), I got the “full load” from Dr. Brokenshire and Dr. Brunner (graduates of Princeton and Louisville Southern Baptist Seminary). It went like this:

1.”There is no Greek manuscript evidence for the reading.”

He lied. One showed up.

2. “But only one Greek manuscript has it.”

He lied again. I found two more that had it.

3. “But there is no evidence that it existed before 1520.”

He lied again. That is three in a row. I found evidence the reading existed in A.D. 200 and A.D. 415.
Question: When a good, “godly,” dedicated Fundamentalist in a “fortress of faith” (or “bastion of orthodoxy”) lies to a young man, three times in a row, in an effort to destroy his faith in the King James Bible, what is any Bible believer supposed to think?
You tell me, teller; you got the cash.

Now James White–an absolutely typical Alexandrian clone–was programmed by the same “good, godly, Conservative JACKASSES” that tried to program me. I don’t “program” too well. So when old Jimmy wrote his book, he made a vain attempt to handle the “gender” problem of Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Fee, Palmer, Barker, Bob Jones III, Custer, Afman, Panosian, Wisdom, Ross, Sandlin, Kutilek, Brunner, and Brokenshire, et al., on three neuter words taking a masculine article as masculine witnesses he stumbled, stuttered, and then bluffed his way through the passage without explaining anything.

Dr. Edward Hills had already nailed Jimbo to the wall way back in 1956: that was thirty-nine years before Jimbo wrote The King James Only Controversy (see Hills, The King James Version Defended, 1956, pp. 209-213).

But here is what Jimbo omitted. (Alexandria is noted for omissions [see Eve: Gen.3:2]. Alexandrians can not live without omitting facts.)

1. According to Prof. Michaelis (cited in Armin Panning’s New Testament Criticism), Manuscript 61 (which has the “Johannine Comma”) has chapters in Mark that posses “coincidences” with the Old Syriac (A.D. 150-180), which was extant more than 200 year before the Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, etc.) showed up.

2. Although Manuscript 61 was supposed to have been written around 1519, the question comes up,”From WHAT Greek text?”Jimmy was too stupid to ask the question: he didn’t even know why the question should be asked!

Ditto R. A.Torrey, John Broadus, Bob Jones Jr., Chuck Swindoll, Zane Hodges, Bob Jones III, John Ankerberg, and John MacArthur.

The text of Manuscript 61 did not come from Ximene’s Polyglott: it wasn’t published yet. It did not come from Erasmus for it doesn’t match his Greek text in scores of places. “The literal affinities of Manuscript 61 are with the Syriac (see Acts 11:26), and the Syriac Version was not even known in Europe until AFTER 1552 (Moses Mardin).

The Old Syriac (take Taitian’s Diatesseron for example) has the King James reading for Luke 2:33; Matthew 6:13; Luke 23:42; and John 9:35, against the ASV, NASV, RSV, CEV, NRSV, and NIV.

And Jimbo was going to prove there was no evidence for 1 John 5:7, 8? He would have lost his underwear, along with his shirt. He would have fallen flatter than Andy “the Panda” Sandlin trying to prove Post-millennialism.

3. Here is the evidence for retaining 1 John 5:7-8. In line with God promising to preserve His words (Ps. 12), we have this material which Jimbo slyly “swept under the rug.”

a. John Gill says that Fulgentius cited the AV reading in A.D. 510. Do you think he got it from an Irish manuscript written in A.D. 1519?

b. Jerome cites the verse from Eustochium A.D. 450, and then puts it into the Vulgate where it is preserved (Ps. 12) for 900 years.

c. But Athanasius quotes 1 John 5:7-8 before Jerome was born (A.D. 350). “Irish1519 manuscript” is it, kiddies? You silly smart-aleck little Twinkies!

d. But why stop here? In A.D. 415, at the Council of Carthage, we find the “fathers” cite (in Latin) the text of 1 John 5:7-8 (PATER,VERBUM ET SPIRITUS SANCTUS”).

e. But why stop here? “The wealth of information” and “embarrassment of riches” (two Alexandrian hackneyed cliches meaning “no evidence we can quote”), which Jimmy didn’t want you to find, says that Tertullian quoted the King James Version of 1 John, chapter 5 in A.D. 200 (Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, Vol.2, pp. 907-908).

f. That isn’t all. If I had debated Flimsy-Jimmy , I would have pulled Which Bible? on him (by David Otis Fuller) and put pages 211 and 212 before the video camera. You see, the King James translators had four Waldensian Bibles on their writing tables in 1611. These Waldensian Bibles had 1 John 5:7-8 in them. The trouble with Biblical illiterates like Andy Sandlin, Doug Kutilek, James White, F. F. Bruce, Bobby Ross, and John Ankerberg is not just that they have not “done their homework.” No one gave them any homework to do. Their teachers were bankrupt.

Watch God Almighty preserving His words, in spite of the negative, critical, destructive work of “godly” Conservative and Evangelical “scholars.”

A.D. 170: Old Syriac and Old Latin.
A.D. 180: Tatian and Old Syriac.
A.D. 200: Tertullian and Old Latin.
A.D. 250: Cyprian and Old Latin.
A.D. 350: Priscillian and Athanasius.
A.D. 415: Council of Carthage.
A.D. 450: Jerome’s Vulgate.
A.D. 510: Fulgentius.
A.D. 750: Wianburgensis.
A.D. 1150: Miniscule manuscript 88.
A.D. 1200-1500: Four Waldensen Bibles.
A.D. 1519: Greek Manuscript 61.
A.D. 1520-1611: Erasmus TR.
A.D. 1611: King James Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.

God had to work a miracle to get the truth of 1 John 5:7-8 preserved; He preserved it. You have it; but not in an RV, RSV, NRSV, CEV, ASV, NASV, or NIV.

And there are Jimmy White’s “Seven Errors” he wanted to debate, but (like Andy the Panda) he backed off when he was told where and when he would debate them. He would have bombed out seven out of seven; 100% error–on HIS part. Andy would have fared the same way.

So, the Bible believer now has fifteen of the most “scholarly,” highly intellectual, godly, Conservative criticisms of the AV ever laid out in print: seven from Jimbo and eight from Gary Hudson. They batted 1000, if by that you mean they didn’t contact the ball one time in fifteen times across the middle of the plate, waist high. That is fifteen strikeouts in a row; the equivalent of five men “fanning” out in succession.

I’ll let you in on a little secret: if their mentors, peers, associates, and role models had posited 1,500 “errors” in the AV, they too would have struck out–1,500 times in a row.

“Let God be true, but every man a liar.”

The liar always convinces his own kind that he has proved errors in the AV conclusively–“beyond the reasonable shadow of a doubt”–when all he did was REJECT the evidence against his own unbelief.

If poor old bankrupt Jimmy had showed up he would have been called upon to explain a phenomenon about 1 John 5:7-8 that he had never even considered, for the simple reason that his TEACHERS were too stupid to think.

Any man who had read the New Testament through, even ten times, would have seen, immediately, that 1 John 5:7-8 could not have been inserted by a heretic or deceiver, because the wording would have betrayed his intent. Any man intent on proving some doctrinal point (theological) by adding to the Scripture (note that is the theme of Jimmy White’s book), would not have dared to invent a new formula. He would have written:”the Father the Son the Holy Ghost” to “harmonize” (see White’s book) it with Matthew 28:19.

According to White’s own approach to “conflations, additions, and copyists’ harmonizing tendencies” (which he devoted more than forty pages to in his book), he wrote himself off as a commentator on 1 John 5:7-8; so did every jack rabbit who followed him. His own thesis cut his throat. No one added 1 John 5:7-8 to the “original Greek text.” It was subtracted from the “original Greek” text at an early date, the omission was preserved in the two most corrupt and “barbarously mutilated manuscripts” (Dean Burgon’s opinion) known to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (ASV, NASV, and NIV).God preserved it through many other channels until He produced His final and finished work: the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible in the universal language of the end time.

“When in doubt, always correct ‘THE’ Greek text with THE English text.”

“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.”

***All rights reserved by the Bible Baptist Bookstore. Reproduction or use of their name, products, literature, pictures, or illustrations, in whole or in part, in any form or medium, without express written permission of Bible Baptist Bookstore, is prohibited.

In Isaiah 26:18 the nation of Israel continues to complain “We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth; NEITHER HAVE THE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD FALLEN.”

This is the reading of the KJB, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1587 – “neither did the inhabitants of the world fall.”, the Douay-Rheims 1610, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, the RSV, Youngs, Darby, Douay 1950,  the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the NKJV 1982,  ESV 2001-2011, Holman Standard 2003, the Judaica Press Tanach – “neither do the inhabitants of the world fall.”, the Common English Bible (a critical text edition)of 2011 and the Knox Bible of 2012.

Coverdale’s bible says: “and the inhabitours of the worlde perish not.” Foreign language bibles that follow the Hebrew text and read as does the KJB are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1090, 1960, 1995 and the RV Gomez of 2010 – “ninguna liberación logramos en la tierra ni cayeron los moradores del mundo.”,  = “neither have the inhabitants of the earth fallen”, the Italian Nuova Diodati of 1991 – “e gli abitanti del mondo non sono caduti.” = “and the inhabitants of the earth are not fallen.”, the Portuguese A Sagrada Biblia em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 – “nem caíram os moradores do mundo.”= “neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen.”, the French Darby – “et les habitants du monde ne sont pas tombés” and Luther’s German bible 1545 – “und die Einwohner auf dem Erdboden wollen nicht fallen.”

However the NASB actually changes this to “WE HAVE NOT GIVEN BIRTH TO THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD”.  The NIV 1984 edition is similar with the equally ridiculous “NOR WERE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD BORN.”  However the NIV 2011 edition changed this verse once again and now it reads: “AND THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD HAVE NOT COME TO LIFE.”,which would be the exact opposite meaning of that found in the KJB, ESV, RV, ASV, etc.

The NASB concordance shows they have translated this word # 5307 as Fallen or Fall, as in Babylon is Fallen, 197 times but only once as “given birth”; and the NIV likewise has “Fall or Fallen” 237 times and only one time as “Born”.

Dan “Anything but the KJB” Wallace and company’s NET version also reads in a similar manner to the NASB, NIVs.  It says: “We were pregnant, we strained, we gave birth, as it were, to wind. We cannot produce deliverance on the earth; people to populate the world are not born. (30).  He then footnotes: “Heb “and the inhabitants of the world do not fall.”

The Voice 2012, put out by Thomas Nelson Company, the same people who give us the NKJV, reads: “WE COULDN’T MAKE IT TEEM WITH LIFE.” – Again, the opposite of what even the NKJV says.

Which other version do you think reads this way?  You got it. The modern Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 reads: “we have not given salvation to the earth, NO INHABITANTS FOR THE WORLD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO BIRTH.”  Oh, but wait.  Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it has gone back to the Hebrew reading – “For this reason, THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH HAVE NOT FALLEN.”

The RSV read as does the Hebrew and the KJB with: “AND THE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD HAVE NOT FALLEN.”  However the NRSV of 1989 went with: “and NO ONE IS BORN TO INHABIT THE WORLD.”  But then the revision of the revision of the revision, the ESV of 2001, went back to the Hebrew reading of “AND THE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD HAVE NOT FALLEN.”

The so called Greek Septuagint version is really messed up in this verse.  Instead of saying: “”We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth WIND; WE HAVE NOT WROUGHT ANY DELIVERANCE in the earth; NEITHER HAVE THE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD FALLEN.” (KJB) the LXX actually says: “We have conceived, O Lord, BECAUSE OF THY FEAR, and have been in pain and have brought forth THE BREATH OF THY SALVATION, WHICH WE HAVE WROUGHT UPON THE EARTH; WE SHALL NOT FALL, BUT ALL THAT DWELL UPON THE LAND SHALL FALL.”!!!  The meaning of the LXX is almost the exact opposite of the Hebrew text.  NO Bible version follows the so called Greek Septuagint in this verse.

However the Modern Greek Bible reads like the Hebrew text and the KJB saying: ” ουδε επεσαν οι κατοικοι του κοσμου.” = “neither have the inhabitants of the earth fallen.”

Any time some bible agnostic tries to tell you that “Thanks to the science of textual criticism, we are now very, very close to what the originals said.” you should know that he is full of baloney and hot air – not a good combination.

Jamison, Faucett and Brown remark in their commentary: neither . . . world fallen–The “world” at large, is in antithesis to Judea. The world at enmity with the city of God has not been subdued. But MAURER explains “fallen,” according to Arabic idiom, of the birth of a child, which is said to fall when being born; “inhabitants of the world are not yet born”; that is, the country as yet lies desolate, and is not yet populated.”

So, did the NASB, NIV follow this Arabic idiom instead of the Hebrew?

Here is the straight forward comment by Matthew Henry – neither have the inhabitants of the world, whom we have been contesting with, fallen before us, either in their power or in their hopes; but they are still as high and arrogant as ever.’’

John Gill comments – “neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen; worldly men, the great men, the kings of the earth; particularly such as commit fornication with the whore of Rome, Popish persecuting princes; these as yet are not fallen, though they shall in the battle of Armageddon.”

John Calvin comments on this verse saying: “And the inhabitants of the world have not fallen.  for lpn (naphal) signifies “to fall.” … if we follow the ordinary interpretation, we must view it as referring to the wicked. “The inhabitants of the world annoy us and do not fall; everything goes on prosperously with them.”

The Pulpit Commentary says: “we have not effected the downfall of our heathen enemies.”

Do you still think all bible say the same thing, but with different words?

~Will Kinney

gty_victim_boston_tk_130415_wblogThis know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.  2 Timothy 3:1-4

And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. Matthew 24:12.

One of the worst signs of the last days is the merciless and coward acts of violence perpetrated by terrorists such as the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, and now after eleven years of silence on the homeland, at least 3 people killed and over 100 wounded in a terrorist attack in Boston, Massachusetts on April 15, 2013, which included an eight year old child.

There has been “a person of interest” stated by the FBI, but nothing conclusive as to any possible motives and no terrorist groups have laid claim to the attacks. What we do know is that this attack occured on “Patriots Day”, and also while Israel has been celebrating it’s independence this week and remembering victims of the Holocaust. Boston has a substantial Jewish population. Thus the terrorist attacks could have been initiated by anyone from groups such as Al -Qaeda to domestic anti- Semitic organizations. Some of opined that it could be disgruntled anti-government radicals, but these groups typically target government agencies, not civilians.

We also know that at least 5 bombs total have been found, and it has been stated that they appear to be similar to the IED’s used in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, it would be too soon to jump to any conclusions until the site of the actual explosions can offer clues to the explosives used. Terrorist groups normally invest quite a bit of time and planning in these events and it is highly unlikely that 3 other bombs failed to detonate implying that the other bombs may have been deliberately left undetonated as decoys.

The attacks also follow controversy with North Korea as numerous threats have been made by NK leader, Kim Jong Un to attack the US with nuclear-capable weapons, and military was placed on high-alert in preparation for any potential aggression from the Koreans against US or South Korean interests.

130413-Audrie_Pott_244x183This week, a 15-year-old girl, Audrie Pott, committed suicide after photos were posted on the internet of boys raping her while she was unconscious at a party.

Before Audrie hung herself, she posted the following on her Facebook page:

“My life is over.”

“I’m in hell. Everyone knows about that night.”

“My life is ruined and I don’t even remember how.”

“I have a reputation for a night I don’t even remember and the whole school knows.”

The family has filed a class action lawsuit in an attempt to get a law passed entitled “Audrey’s Law” to combat the type of bullying that led to their daughter’s suicide.

It is truly amazing at the callousness of the 3 teenager boys not only in committing the act of raping an unconscious 15-year-old girl, but to have the audacity to post pictures of themselves with her on the internet.

As the scriptures foretold, in the last days the love of many would wax cold. The world as a whole has given up on God, economies are falling, the rich are trying to gain whatever they can before homes and business foreclose and go into bankruptcy, and families are doing what they can just to make ends meet. Politicians have shunned Biblical precepts regarding the life of unborn children and permit a definition of marriage that spits in God’s face.

The Department of Defense recently released a “watch list” of terrorist threats, and number 1 on the list was “Evangelical Christians”, 563622_10200823565979047_2053242641_nbeating out Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and the Ku Klux Klan. The Colorado State Police have even begun a program to train officers to watch for “sovereign citizens” who take the Bible “too seriously”. The government is pushing hard to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens in the United States, and as with Germany and other countries, when that is accomplished, total government control will soon follow.

The end is certainly drawing near. “And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” Luke 21:28. This is no time for the church to be apathetic, complacent and callous. We still have a God who cares and wants His people to continue to reach out to the lost and the grieving. There is coming a time soon when a Christian will be the villain for preaching the word of God, and I believe that when the voice of the church has been forced into silence, God’s wrath will be unleashed on a nation that has virtually begged for His judgment.

Where will the Lord Jesus find you when He returns for His church? Are you praying for the lost and grieving? Are you visiting the sick and wounded? Do you pass out tracts or talk about Jesus wherever you go? Do you praise God in the storms of life, or do you complain for all the world to hear? Or are you consumed with the cares of this world, and distracted by its pleasantries? Is salvation just “fire insurance” for  you, or are you willing to demonstrate your gratefulness to God by sharing the love of Christ to a world that desperately needs it in these last days?

Will you fight as a soldier of the Lord for sound doctrine or will you give up when the storms blow against your comfortable life style, and question God as to why all the bad things in life seem to happen to just you? The love of many is growing colder, and we may be the only Bible someone ever reads. Will you sing with the hymnist your need for Him and seek God’s face for a compassion to win the lost.

I need Thee every hour, most gracious Lord;
No tender voice like Thine can peace afford.

I need Thee, O I need Thee;
Every hour I need Thee;
O bless me now, my Savior,
I come to Thee.

I need Thee every hour, stay Thou nearby;
Temptations lose their power when Thou art nigh

I need Thee every hour, in joy or pain;
Come quickly and abide, or life is in vain.

I need Thee every hour; teach me Thy will;
And Thy rich promises in me fulfill.

We reported on the issue of BJU staff member, Joseph Bartosch being fired here in our article “Why Fundamentalists Don’t Listen To Our Critics” but it needs its own article because of the sheer hypocrisy and double standards applied to the matter by Do Right Notables, Jeffrey Hoffman and Cathy Harris.

The crux of the matter is that Joseph Bartosch was terminated from BJU after 20 years of employment after BJU was “tipped” about a conviction he had 20 years prior for soliciting a prostitute.

Jeffrey Hoffman, BJUnity founder and “Do Right BJU” contributor, among others, are now criticizing BJU for firing Joseph Bartosch. One reader on his page noticed the hypocrisy and double standard and posted this”

Eric G. Wood Just a quick question, regardless of the motivation behind their actions, why does it appear that they are getting grief again for “doing the right thing?”

Exactly! Bingo. Over the plate, waste high.

Jeffrey states in this thread: 

Jeffrey Hoffman Eric, I wouldn’t say that BJU did the right thing at all. They publicized Joe’s being let go and have basically admitted that they didn’t do a background check. (Personally, I don’t believe that, but that is irrelevant). They did not protect their students and they have not followed the law. Letting Joe go was the right thing to do. It didn’t need to be publicized. But BJU made it public. Why?

Jeffrey Hoffman is now saying BJU did not do the right thing by publicizing it.

HOLD THE HORSES BACK.

On March 23, Jeffrey posted on this thread:

I want to know why this easy-to-construct chronology is not what is being shared with the media. What are you hiding, BJU?

Joseph Bartosch Facts
1982 05 00 — Graduated BJU as Speech Ed

1991 03 15 — Court Filing Date of Prostitution conviction https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/indexsearchnew/CaseNumberList.aspx?SearchValues=BARTOSCH%2CJOSEPH%2CJOHN%2C2079228

1991 03 26 — Arraignment

1994 04 20 — Probation ended.

1994 06 07 — Filed to start Sacramento Preparatory Academy

2001 08 00 — Assumes Staff GA over Perf Hall while he pursues MA in Dramatic Production while “on sabbatical” from SPA.

2002 05 00 — Bartosch appears in the yearbook as a Graduate Assistant from Sacramento, CA.

2002 05 01 — Played Antigonus in Winter’s Tale

2005 08 00 — Returns to BJU for a MS in Counseling.

2006 05 00 — Listed as a GA from Greenville, SC. Masters in Biblical Counseling.

2006 11 15 — Vincentio in Taming of the Shrew

2007 05 00 — Not listed in the yearbook.

2007 05 02 — Lord Chief Justice in Henry IV

2007 00 00 — Successfully defended his EdD diss in Curriculum and Instruction with proficiencies in biblical counseling, communications, and theology

2007 08 00 — Manager of IT.

2008 04 30 — Duke of Exeter in Henry V

2008 05 00 — Listed in the yearbook as Staff in IT from Greenville, SC

2009 05 00 — Listed in the yearbook as Staff in IT from Greenville, SC

2009 11 18 — Jaggers in Great Expectations

2010 05 00 — Listed in the yearbook as Staff in IT from Greenville, SC

2010 12 06 — Dean of Distance Learning.
http://www.greenville.com/news/bju0111.htmlhttp://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details3.asp?ID=27925
http://web.archive.org/web/20120201160141/http://www.bju.edu/news/2010-12-06-dean-distance-learning.php
Bob Jones University announced today the appointment of Dr. Joseph Bartosch as Dean of Distance Learning. Reporting to Dr. David Fisher, Provost, Dr. Bartosch is responsible for the further development of BJU’s online education program.

2011 05 00 — Listed in the yearbook as Staff in IT from Greenville, SC

2011 11 16 — Solinus in Comedy of Errors

2011 12 17 — Marries Christina Davis

2012 05 02 — Brabantio in Othello

2012 05 00 — Appears in the yearbook as an Administrator, “Dr. Joseph Bartosch, Dean of Distance Learning.”

2012 12 00 — Appointed Chief Branding Officer

This information gathered by Jeffrey was then reposted on Chuckles Travels and several other websites.

First of all, Jeffrey criticizes BJU for making Bartosch’s firing public WHEN HE POSTED THE MAN’S ENTIRE LIFE CHRONOLOGY ON LINE FOR ALL TO SEE.

Jeffrey later stated:

This is what happens when you let your alumni do your background checks instead of doing them yourself.
Of course, rumors abound that BJU administrators have long known about this man’s history; they just didn’t think it was a big deal.

So according to Jeffrey, BJU never thought it was a big deal, so keeping Bartosch on staff would be the “no big deal” part, but then criticizes BJU for firing him?

Secondly, Jeffrey criticized BJU for covering up the matter, (“what is BJU trying to hide”) and therefore since the entire matter was made public BY JEFFREY, what did he expect BJU to do? Jeffrey assisted in the PUBLIC dissemination of this information about Bartosch, and then criticizes BJU for giving a public response??

This is has got be some of the most ridiculous, hypocritical, deceitful, double-forked tongue tactics I have ever seen that demonstrate some people are willing to do anything in order to promote their agendas.

And to make matters worse adding fuel to the fire, Cathy Harris offers a story to explain how Bartosch could have had his charge reduced to a lower charge in order to explain why Bartosch was only charged with a misdemeanor.

NEWSFLASH CATHY: when charges are reduced, they are reduced to a LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE. Soliciting a prostitute is not a lesser included offense of rape, or any other sex crime. Lesser included offense would be like dropping rape down to sexual deviant conduct or murder down to aggravated assault or reckless homicide. You can’t take a charge of arson and drop it down to jay-walking. This is the law in every state.

As we stated on our previous thread about this matter, the Do Right crowd painted this as a sex abuse case, even calling the prostitute a victim. While we certainly do not condone soliciting a prostitute, even though there was no actual ACT performed (to LOOK upon a woman with lust is adultery, so Biblically, there doesn’t need to be an overt act) it was sinful, but was NOT a sex crime that had a victim. The woman Joseph Bartosch was charged with soliciting was receiving payment for sex which she willingly chose to do.

Furthermore, Jeffrey’s search that revealed his chronology was done in 2013. Big difference in searches that were available in 2013 than in 1991, and considering the “world wide web” was not released until 1989 with the first website being launched in 1990, and the release of “Windows” in 1995, it is HIGHLY doubtful that BJU would have obtained the same results that Jeffrey obtained in 2013.

I am not a fan of BJU as we have an enormous disagreement over the KJV issue, but I do not like seeing a fundamentalist institution, even one I don’t agree with, vilified by deception and pejorative rhetoric. As we said in our article before this one, this is one huge reason why we don’t pay attention to the blathering of our critics.

_____________________

And by the way, Trisha Lacroix who also opined on Jeffrey’s page, has a lot of nerve criticizing anyone for failing to be honest on an application when she told her employers that she had a marketing degree from Hyles Anderson College. View Evidence Here.

Posted: March 12, 2013 in Uncategorized

Updated

Do Right Christians

[Jeffrey Hoffman is the founder of BJUnity and regular contributor to the Do Right BJU Facebook page.] Giving Jeffrey Hoffman the benefit of a doubt that he may have been drunk when he posted the excerpt we are about to discuss*, I was quite surprised to see how Jeffrey seems to be totally oblivious to Islamic beliefs and practices.

On or about March 9, 2013, Jeffrey posted a cartoon of American’s claiming that not all Muslims are hateful, with a Muslim replying not all Christians are hateful. [1]. Jeffrey made it clear that he had Muslim friends that read his “wall” and that Islam should not be insulted. And then, Jeffrey stated this comment:

Do you know that Muslims are awaiting the second coming of JeSus? That Mohammed prophesied that Jesus would return?

This type of misunderstanding of the true nature of Islam has helped put American’s to sleep…

View original post 1,484 more words

By Will Kinney

Isaiah 48:1 “waters”, “loins” or “seed”?

Isaiah 48:1 KJB – “Here ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are ome forth out of the WATERS of Judah…”

The word here in the Hebrew Masoretic text is cleary WATERS of Judah, and is so rendered by the KJB, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible – “Heare yee this, O house of Iaakob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come out of the waters of Iudah”, the Douay-Rheims of 1610, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, Young’s, Webster’s 1833, Douay of 1950, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, Green’s literal 2000, the Judaica Press Tanach – “and who emanated from the waters of Judah”, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, the Concordant Literal Version,  the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Lexham Bible 2012,  the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and even the 2001 English Standard Version.

The NKJV needlessly alters this to the WELLSPRINGS of Judah, but at least retains the idea of water. The NASB, RSV, and NRSV say ‘the LOINS of Judah” with a footnote in the RSV telling us this is a correction to the text and that the Hebrew reads ‘waters’. The reading or interpretation of ‘loins’ comes from some Targum commentators but it is not what the Hebrew actually says. John Gill says the ‘seed of Judah’ is a Targum interpretation. The NIV likewise says “from the LINE of Judah.” According to a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the reading is “the LOINS of Judah” but they have a footnote telling us that the word was misspelled.

The Holman Standard of 2003 is a bit weird in that it just omits the phrase altogether and reads: “who are called by the name Israel and have DESCENDED FROM [1]  Judah”, but then in their Footnote they tell us “Literally ‘have come from the waters of Judah”.  Perhaps the Holman is following the so called Greek Septuagint here because the LXX likewise omits the phrase altogether and simply says “are come from Judah”.

Dan Wallace and company’s NET version likewise omits the phrase and has “and are descended from Judah.”  He then footnotes “The Hebrew text reads literally “and from the waters of Judah came out.”  The Latin Vulgate of 405 A.D. follows the Hebrew text in this place and says -“et de aquis Juda existis” = “waters of Judah”.

Once again we see the purification process in the previous English Bibles. Wycliffe 1395 correctly has “the waters of Judah” but Coverdale 1535 and the Bishops’ Bible 1568 erroneously have “the STOCK of Judah”. The Geneva Bible the went back to the Hebrew reading of “the waters of Judah”.Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion. The older Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both followed the Hebrew text and say “the WATERS of Judah”. But then the 1969 Jerusalem bible and the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible both changed this to “the STOCK of Judah”.  Oh, but wait!  Now the 1985 New Jerusalem bible and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version have gone back to the Hebrew reading of “the WATERS of Judah”.  Nothing like consistent inconsistency, is there.

Foreign language Bibles that also read “the waters of Judah” are Luther’s German bible 1545 and the 2000 Schlacher Bible – “aus dem Wasser Juda’s”, the Spanish Reina Valers 1960, 1995 – “los que salieron de las aguas de Judá”, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Almeida Corrigida E Fiel  – “e saístes das águas de Judá”, the Italian Diodati of 1649 – “e siete usciti delle acque di Giuda”, and the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible – “en uit de wateren van Juda”.  The Modern Greek Bible reads “the fountain of Judah” – “και εξελθοντες εκ της πηγης του Ιουδα·”

For additional articles defending the KJV, see the index of articles on his website here.