Posts Tagged ‘KJVO’

Dr James A, PhD

I’m beginning to think anyone that listens to James White is as brainwashed and lacking in proper cerebral oxygen flow as the liberal anti-morality mafias. White is simply a flat-out nutcase. And I really don’t care how many of his followers criticize the manner in which I address his character because he treats those who disagree with him in the EXACT same manner, if not worse. White normally takes what he considers the “radicals” of KJVO advocates, and uses them to broad-brush the entire group. He tries to use the “gotcha” moments to paint the worst caricature of any KJVO believer. White is one of the most dishonest and disingenuous critics I have ever encountered.

On 5/19/16, White discussed a video by Brian Denlinger that claimed James White was a Jesuit. Now I agree with Brian that James White is a Jesuit, but not for the reasons that Brian gives such as his book The King James Only Controversy being endorsed by Norman Geisler, who graduated from Loyola University-a known Jesuit college- in the late 1960s. However, where White sticks his foot in his mouth is that in the video, White admits that he always wondered about Geisler’s Jesuit connections, and that it bothered him. He also attributes Geisler’s rejection of Reformed Theology to Geisler’s training at Loyola (William Craig and Geisler both graduated from Wheaton, so does White attribute Craig’s rejection of Reformed Theology on Wheaton? White just did the exact same thing he accused Brian of. So should we attribute White’s rejection of the KJV on his degree from Fuller Seminary!). Did anyone catch that? Of course not. White’s followers rarely think through anything he says. If you KNEW Geisler was so influenced by a Jesuit university that it affected his view of your precious Reformed Theology, why would you have him endorse your book anyway? 

Anyway, on to the issue.

At the 1:10:00 mark, White made his normal spew against King James Only believers, with the exception that this time, he qualified that not all King James Only believers are “cultic”, which is quite ironic because that’s not what he said just a little over a month ago when he addressed yours truly on his radio show over the racist issues and once on what started as a joke I made about his bike riding stats that White took to a new level of crazy.

I challenged White to debate that KJVO advocates are cultists, and posted for all to see, and that my debate partner would be a KJVO Calvinist. Of course, White would never accept such a challenge because I win the moment I walk in the door with a person who holds to the same 1689 LBC confession that he does. So White has to modify his rhetoric to fit the topic of the day. So how does White “prove” that there are “KJVO Cultists”?….here it is….ready!!!

Because Peter Ruckman and Sam Gipp make the KJV CENTRAL to their theology, and believe if you don’t believe and use the KJV you’re going to hell!!!

Here’s an excerpt from Sam Gipp’s Answer Book , Question #35, that proves James White is a bald-faced liar.

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

EXPLANATION: Generally, the facts surrounding the gospel of Jesus Christ and the simplicity of salvation are found intact even in the grossest perversions of Scripture. It must be remembered though that the Bible is a weapon in the hand of the Christian. See Hebrews 4:12, Job 40:19 and II Timothy 3:16. It is also food that a new Christian might grow properly. See I Peter 2:2. It is in these areas that new bibles are weakened. In fact, the very verses given above are altered in many new versions, thus weakening Scripture. It is therefore possible to get saved through other versions, but you will never be a threat to the devil by growing.

Anyone who has ever read a few of Ruckman’s books knows he has NEVER said that a person who does not use the KJV is “going to hell”. Ruckman has given testimony on several occasions of entering Catholic homes and using their own Bible’s to lead them to Christ. The only thing White is ever consistent about is consistently foisting straw man arguments on to KJVO advocates.

Furthermore, White also made the comment that Ruckman, Gipp, etc…never “debate” Roman Catholics. Here’s Peter Ruckman debating Catholic apologist, Karl Keating . White seems to make “debating” the criteria for spreading the gospel, even though Paul makes it clear that it’s PREACHING (1 Cor 1). So I guess we could say that since James White never preached in the streets like Ruckman did (even at 93 years old), he’s a phony.

To add more fuel to the fire, White said that KJVO Baptists don’t have philosophy degrees. I have an earned PhD (not honorary) from Calvary Christian College & Seminary. Furthermore, I know quite a few KJVO Baptists with earned PhD’s (Waite, Sorenson, Brown, et al), and linguistic scholars who have demolished White-among other modern version proponents-regarding textual criticism (Pickering, Letis, Robinson). However, this is an interesting critique since White criticizes William Lane Craig, Jerry Walls, David Allen, and Leighton Flowers for their emphasis on philosophical attacks on Calvinism.

Thus we have White lying about Ruckman’s and Gipp’s position on the KJV, lying about Baptists with PhDs, lying about KJVOs debating Catholics, ad nauseum… how does anyone take this guy seriously? Of course, I don’t really expect White to repent & retract his lies. He will ignore it, repeat it again some time in the future, and his followers that harass us will find a way to excuse it. What a shameful crowd.

So while White is bragging about debates (Romans 1:29) he does once or twice a year, in luxury hotels with accommodations and air conditioning, he’s slandering those who debate with unbelievers in the  streets of Miami, Pensacola, Chicago, Detroit, New York City, etc…. every day.

 


   

James A. ThM

One of the most disturbing trends behind the defense of modern “Bible” versions by “scholars” and “apologists” like James White, Daniel Wallace, Bruce Metzger, Norman Geisler, and their ilk is the deliberate omissions in their writings of the rationalists and occultists that laid the foundations for destructive textual criticism. The sycophants of James White often embrace his gibberish about Bible versions without ever bothering to study both sides of the issue, and White uses such vitriolic ad hominem attacks against King James Only Bible believers that he leaves his followers in the dark about the truth behind his influences.

Paul advised Timothy of the importance of knowing who is behind the teachings you embrace: “But continue thou in the things which thou has learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (2 Timothy 3:14). Any honest person should be horrified about the men who James White and his ilk endorse to support their attacks on the King James Bible and defense of their Roman Catholic texts.*

Here we will list** just a few of those heretics that James White wants you to trust when he excuses the fact that he can’t point you to a single book on earth or heaven that he can actually say IS the Bible, all the while claiming that he believes in something he calls “THE” Bible-he just can’t tell YOU where you can get your own copy.

Johann Jacob Griesbach (1745-1812)

Griesbach was influenced by a German Rationalist named Johann Semler. Semler did not believe that the entire canon of the Bible was inspired. He promoted the “accommodation theory” that holds one can give a person limited information about the truth because they presently lack the capacity to understand it. Semler taught that the New Testament writers’ miracles were fictitious and only written to appease certain needs of the followers of the apostles. He rejected the inspiration of Revelation calling it “the production of an extravagant dreamer”.

Bruce Metzger claimed that Westcott & Hort never collated any manuscripts, but simply “refined the critical methodology developed by Griesbach, Lachmann, and others, and applied it rigorously” (Metzger, Text of the New Testament, p. 129).

George Vance Smith (1816-1902), Westcott & Hort Revision Committee

Smith was a Unitarian that denied the deity of Christ and the blood atonement, the personality of the Holy Spirit, and the doctrine of the Trinity altogether. Smith did not believe in the inspiration of Scripture. Thousands of clergy protested Smith’s appointment to the revision committee of Westcott and Hort who threatened to quit if Smith was not allowed to remain on the committee.

Ezra Abbot (1819-1884)

Abbot was behind the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. He claimed that Christ should not be worshiped. He wrote in a footnote in John 9:3 of the 1901 ASV that Christ was a created being, and made a distinction between Christ (created) and God (Creator).

Eberhard Nestle (1851-1913)

Nestle, of the popular Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (nearly 30 different editions now), rejected the infallibility of the Bible, and believed it was no more than a normal piece of literature. He claimed that authors of the New Testament never expected their writings to be read by others let alone be taken as the authoritative word of God.

United Bible Society (UBS) Greek New Testament

The UBS, which is highly recommended by James White (along with NA 28, and Westcott & Hort’s critical Greek apparatus), is partnered with the Pontifical Biblical Institute of Rome. One of its leading editors added in 1967 (1967-2002) was a Jesuit priest, Carlo M. Martini. Martini believed in evolution, that the Bible was ordinary literature and embraced numerous New Age philosophies.

The UBS 5 was recently endorsed by Pope Francis. Imagine that! James White and Pope Francis both endorse the 5th edition of the UBS Greek New Testament.

Kurt and Barbara Aland

Partner with Eberhard Nestle (above), he and his wife are also contributors the UBS. Aland does not believe in verbal inspiration of the Bible, and that the Old Testament and the gospels are full of myths that were not inspired by God but merely a naturalistic process. Kurt Aland does not believe that the canon of Scripture is complete or settled.

Bruce Metzger (1914-2007)

Plagiarist Bruce Metzger also denies the infallibility of the Bible. In his notes on the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible, he rejected the authorship, dates, and supernatural inspiration of books written by Moses, Daniel, Paul, James and Peter. In the 1962 New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV, Metzger opined that the Old Testament is “a matrix of myth, legend and history”. He rejected the flood of Genesis, and said that Isaiah was written by two other authors, and the story of Jonah was a fairytale.

Westcott & Hort

Westcott & Hort led the committee that created a never-before-seen Greek New Testament. They used as their exemplar, the Codex Vaticanus, an abandoned and dusty ms from the shelf of a Vatican library in 1475, “rediscoverd” in the late 1800s (ironically, shortly after the “discovery” of the Codex Sinaiticus), and the Codex Sinaiticus, a forged document by a Greek paleographer named Constantine Simonides in 1840, stolen from the trash room of a Catholic/Muslim*** monastery in Egypt (St. Catherine’s) by Constantine Tischendorf who was wined and dined by Rome for his endeavors. Both are missing entire books of the Bible and have been deliberate altered in thousands of places. Neither of them believed in the infallibility of the Bible.

They belonged to several occult societies and socialist groups, and had an affinity for the Mary of the Catholic. Arthur Westcott writes that upon the finding of a pieta (Roman Catholic statute of Mary holding the dead body of Christ), that BF Westcott stated, “Had I been there alone I could have knelt for hours”. Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol I, p 81 (1903).

Although much has been written about these men, their greatest influence on the revision committee was the Genealogical Method and Lucian Recension. (For a thorough take down of these two methods, see Wilbur Pickering’s Identity of the New Testament, II, chapter 3) There is no historical evidence to support either one, and Westcott & Hort themselves never applied the genealogical method to their own New Testament. It was only used to attack the Greek Textus Receptus. Not even modern scholars use the method, and yet it, as well as the ghost theory of the Lucian Recension are touted as justifications for the hatchet job that Westcott & Hort presented in 1881 as the “best and oldest” manuscripts.
If taking James White and his ilk seriously, we are to believe that the transmission of the Textus Receptus which was maintained by faithful, persecuted Christians since the inception of the church, was full of errors, mistakes, and deliberate alterations (like those in the Lucian recension which James White rejected my challenge to debate proof for), and was preserved by God through Christ denying heretics who didn’t believe the Bible was infallible or inspired, and who persecuted those who did. We are also led to believe that the church was kept in the dark until 1881 when Tischendorf “discovered” the “oldest” and “best” manuscripts.

KJVO critics often ask the dumbest question ever: “where was the Bible before 1611?”, which we have answered ad nauseum, and it wasn’t sitting on a shelf in a Vatican library collecting dust. But modern version onlyists never answer that same question: where was the Bible before 1881? Did God sandbag the church by hiding the best and oldest manuscripts from the entire church for 1800 years only to cause them to be found by heretics and rationalists on a dusty shelf and a library shared with Muslims in Egypt?

Those of you defending James White who believe his absurd rhetoric about King James Only”ism” need a serious reality check.

________________________________________________

*James White will often punt to his “debates” with Roman Catholics as proof that he does not support the Catholic church, but he never calls them to leave the Roman Catholic Church, he never refers to it as a cult (which it is)-of course while referring to King James Only advocates as cultists (many of whom are Calvinists like James White)- he has defended Pope Francis’ statement that Jesus death on the cross was a failure, and he is a staunch advocate for the two Roman Catholic manuscripts that underlie all of the modern Bible versions. James White is also an amillennialist which is the same eschatological heresy taught by the Catholic church. White ignores prophecy debates even though he claims to be an “apologist”. Any apologist who neglects the defense of over half of the Bible is no real apologist (Acts 20:27).

The subtlety of the devil and of the Jesuits is permitting just enough truth to appear orthodox, but leaving out enough that a person is never actually called to repentance and belief of the truth. Catholics frankly don’t care that White “debates” them, so long as White never encourages and of them to LEAVE even though he claims to believe in repentance. And as long as he endorses their Bibles, no honest critic of Catholicism could ever take him seriously that they have a common theological enemy.

** The outline follows chapter 2 of David Cloud’s exhaustive and excellent expose of this subject in For the Love of the Bible. WayofLife.Org

*** It is well known that St. Catherine’s was a Catholic monastery. What modern versionists do NOT tell you is that it was also shared with Egyptian Muslims who had numerous Islamic relics and writings stored there. This probably explains the reason why a 12th Islamic prophecy is scrawled in Arabic on the footnote of Revelation 7-8 on the Codex Sinaiticus. How 12th century Islamic prophecies using 18th Century Arabic writing style ended up on a supposed 4th century ms is an anomaly that James White has continually dodged, telling his followers that I and Dr. James Ach are “the biggest trolls on the internet”, and “beneath contempt

 

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.

______________________________

Dr. Elisha Weismann

Contrary to critics like James White, Rick Norris, Fred Butler, JD Hall, Doug Cutelick, and all modern professional liars, the King James Only view did not begin with Peter Ruckman, Ruckman was merely instrumental in causing professing Baptists to quit riding the fence on the issue.

Thomas Morris posted the following quote in a group on Facebook ran by a great Jewish brother of mine (“Boaz Baptist”):

Hey look! William Lyon Phelps was “King James only” in 1922. Phelps was an honored Professor of English at Yale for over 30 years. Listen to what he says,

“The Elizabethan period — a term loosely applied to the years between 1558 and 1642 — is properly regarded as the most important era in English literature…the crowning achievement of those spacious times was the Authorized Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611…our English translation is even better than the original Hebrew and Greek. There is only one way to explain this…I am confident that the Authorized Version was inspired. Now as the English-speaking people have the best Bible in the world, and as it is the most beautiful monument ever erected with the English alphabet, we ought to make the most of it, for it is an incomparably rich inheritance, free to all who can read. This means that we ought invariably in the church and on public occasions to use the’ Authorized Version; all others are inferior.”

(Phelps, William L. Human Nature in the Bible. New York: Scribner, 1922, pp. ix-xii)

This is just one of many such authors that we know that have supported, promoted, endorsed, and defended the King James Bible Only position long before Peter Ruckman started challenging the Bible agnostics at Bob Jones University and writing books about the professional con artists that they helped produce and send into “fundamental Baptist” churches.

Just a little reminder that the KJVO critics are wrong (as usual).

By Will Kinney

Is James White right about Westcott and Hort and the modern “Vatican Versions”?

Are the modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET,  Holman Standard etc. still based on the Westcott and Hort Revised Greek critical Text?

The short answer is an absolute and unequivocal Yes, they are.

Some proponents of today’s new Vatican Versions like  James White try to distance themselves from Westcott and Hort because so much information has come out documenting the beliefs and apostasy of these two men who are primarily responsible for the critical Greek text that underlies such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB.

In his book, the King James Only Controversy, James White makes some interesting and contradictory statements regarding Westcott and Hort. On page 33 Mr. White writes: “Westcott and Hort used Sinaiticus and Vaticanus  to produce their New Testament, a work that displaced the text used by the KJV, later known as the Textus Receptus, in scholarly studies.”

Note: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” by those who promote the UBS, Nestle-Aland Critical Greek text that underlies the N.T. of such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 as well.

Then on page 99 Mr. White writes: “KJV Only advocates love to hate B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Westcott and Hort’s work on the Greek New Testament is seen as a focal point of the attempt to “dethrone” the KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus. While modern Greek texts ARE NOT IDENTICAL to that created by Westcott and Hort, one will still find defenders of the AV drawing in black and white, saying that all modern versions are based on their work.”

James White further mixes truth with error when he writes on page 122 – “In the sense that Westcott and Hort correctly identified the need to examine the relationships of manuscripts, and demonstrated that it is simply not enough to COUNT manuscripts, but instead we must WEIGH manuscripts (some manuscripts being more important than other witnesses to the original text), one can say that MODERN TEXTS ARE BASED UPON THEIR WORK. [Caps are mine]  However, modern textual criticism HAS GONE FAR BEYOND Westcott and Hort, and has in MANY INSTANCES corrected imbalances in their own conclusions.” [Caps are mine].

James White is on the one hand admitting that the W.H. text “displaced the text used by the KJV (his own words) but is now trying to make it sound as though the modern versions are “in many instances” different from the W.H. text.  This is simply not true.  The Westcott Hort critical Greek text is virtually the same as that of the present day UBS/ Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts.  They have only changed in very minor ways.   The same 45 to 50 entire verses of the New Testament are either omitted from the text or called into question, and about 2000 additional words that are either omitted, changed or added are virtually the same as the Westcott Hort critical text that appeared in the English Revised Version of 1881.  Mr. White is most definitely fudging the truth here.


David Cloud writes: “While today’s textual scholars do not always admit that they follow Westcott and Hort, many of the more honest ones do admit that they are powerfully influenced by the these men.

Bruce Metzger is probably the most influential textual critic alive. He is one of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New
Testament and the author of many widely-used books on textual criticism. In his 1981 book The Westcott and Hort Greek New
Testament-Yesterday and Today, Metzger makes the following plain admission: “The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, NOT ONLY ADOPTED THE WESTCOTT AND HORT EDITION AS ITS BASIC TEXT, BUT FOLLOWED THEIR METHODOLOGY IN GIVING ATTENTION TO BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CONSIDERATION” (Metzger, cited by James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century, p. 264).


In light of this admission by such a prominent textual authority, James White needs to explain for his readers why he condemns King James Bible defenders for claiming that Westcott-Hort are still followed.


Brooks further states, “There is nothing unique about Metzger’s theory of textual criticism. It is simply a refinement of Westcott
and Hort’s theory in the New Testament in the Original Greek (1881). . . this theory is dominant today in part because of Metzger’s great influence. It was the theory employed in producing the United Bible Societies Greek text. It is the theory lying behind the Greek text used by most modern versions: The Revised Standard, the New Revised Standard, the New English Bible, the Revised English Bible, the New American Bible, the New American Standard, the Good News Bible, the New International Version, and to a lesser extent, also the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible” (Ibid.)

In the introduction to the 24th edition of Nestle’s Greek New Testament, editors Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland make the following
admission:  “Thus THE TEXT, BUILT UP ON THE WORK OF THE 19TH CENTURY, HAS REMAINED AS A WHOLE UNCHANGED, particularly since the research of recent years has not yet led to the establishment of a generally acknowledged N.T. text” (Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 24th edition, 1960, p. 62).

James White is failing to acknowledge a fact that modern textual authorities such as Metzger, Colwell, and Nestle do acknowledge-that Westcott and Hort are key, pivotal men in the modern history of textual criticism and that the current “eclectic” Greek New Testaments continue to reflect, for the most part, the decisions made by Westcott and Hort. To deny their influence is similar to denying the influence of Darwin on contemporary evolutionary thought.” (End of quotes by David Cloud)

Rather than just mere allegations, you can see for yourself the textual changes made by Westcott and Hort and then compare them to the modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and the modern Catholic Versions.  They are all based on the same UBS/Nestle-Aland Critical Greek text that is the result of a formal agreement with the Vatican to create an “interconfessional” text for the New Testament. (More about this later)

See Westcott and Hort’s Magic Marker Binge Parts One and Two. And then compare the W.H. text to today’s new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and the modern Catholic Versions.  Does this look like Mr. White is being truthful when he says: “modern Greek texts ARE NOT IDENTICAL to that created by Westcott and Hort.”?

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

Now on to Westcott and Hort’s Magic Marker Binge!  Here are just some of the textual changes (usually omissions) that Westcott and Hort made to the Reformation text of the King James Bible. Compare the modern UBS/Nestle-Aland critical text versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and New Jerusalem bible 1985  to this list and see if they are not virtually the same.

Matthew

1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, 
bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: 
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom 
of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners
 to repentance.
12:35 A good man out of the good treasure 
of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
13:51 
Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.
15:8 This people 
draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
16:3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. 
O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was 
Jesus the Christ.
17:21 
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
18:11 
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: 
and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, 
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
20:7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; 
and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.
20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: 
for many be called, but few chosen.
20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, 
and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
23:14 
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour 
wherein the Son of man cometh.
27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: 
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
28:9 
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Mark

1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
1:31 And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and
 immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.
2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners 
to repentance.
6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. 
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
6:16 But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen
 from the dead.
7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, 
as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
7:16
 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
9:24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears,
 Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe 
in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
9:44 
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:46 
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:49 For every one shall be salted with fire, 
and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, 
take up the cross, and follow me.
11:10 Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh 
in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.
13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, 
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
13:33 Take ye heed, watch 
and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
14:68 But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
15:28
 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
16:9-20 
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

(typically marginalized or set in brackets. The RSV completely omitted these verses from the text. The NIV 2011 now sets them apart from the rest of the chapter and puts them in smaller italicized print.)

Luke

1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
4: And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone,
 but by every word of God.
4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, 
Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art 
Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.
7:31
 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?
9:54-56 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them,
 even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
11:2-4 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father 
which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas 
the prophet.
17:36 
Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
21:4 For all these have of their abundance 
cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.
22:31
 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
22:64 And when they had blindfolded him, 
they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
23:17 
(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
23:38 And a superscription also was written over him 
in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
23:42 And he said unto Jesus, 
Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
24:6
 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
24:40 
And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city 
of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, 
and carried up into heaven.

John

1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man 
which is in heaven.
3:15 That whosoever believeth in him
 should not perish, but have eternal life.
4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed
 the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
5:3-4 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, 
waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth
 on me hath everlasting life.
6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art 
that Christ, the Son of the living God.

7:53-8:11 And every man went unto his own house.
8:1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
(Westcott and Hort put all 12 verses in Double Brackets, indicating they did not consider them to be inspired Scripture. The UBS/Nestle-Aland text does the same.  The liberal RSV omitted these verses from the text. The ESV, NASB and St. Joseph NAB bracket them and the NIV 2011 now sets them apart by lines from the rest of the text and puts them in smaller italicized print.)

11:41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
16:16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, 
because I go to the Father.
17:12 While I was with them 
in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Acts

2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins,according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
7:30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel 
of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me;
 him shall ye hear.
8:37
 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
9:5-6 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? 
And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him,Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
10:6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: 
he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.
16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
17:26 And hath made of one
 blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom 
of God, shall see my face no more.
20:32 And now, 
brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
23:9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him,
 let us not fight against God.
24:6-8 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, 
and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.
24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection 
of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
28:16 And when we came to Rome, 
the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.
28:29 
And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

Romans

1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, 
fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, 
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
9:28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short 
in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel 
of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. 
But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, 
Thou shalt not bear false witness,Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, 
or is offended, or is made weak.
15:29 And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing 
of the gospel of Christ.
16:24
 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

1 Corinthians

5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, 
and in your spirit, which are God’s.
7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to
 fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake:
 for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof:
11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, 
Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the 
Lord’s body.
15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is 
the Lord from heaven.
16:22-23 If any man love not the Lord 
Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christbe with you.

2 Corinthians

4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by 
Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus
 Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Galatians

3:1  O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God 
in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God 
through Christ.
6:15 For
 in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
6:17 From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of
 the Lord Jesus.

Ephesians

3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5:30 For we are members of his body, 
of his flesh, and of his bones.
6:1 Children, obey your parents
 in the Lord: for this is right.
6:10 Finally, 
my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

Philippians

3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

Colossians

1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1:14 In whom we have redemption 
through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ
 Jesus:
2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of 
the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
3:6 For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh 
on the children of disobedience:

1 Thessalonians

1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2:19 For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus
 Christ at his coming?
3:11 Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus 
Christ, direct our way unto you.
3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus 
Christ with all his saints.

2 Thessalonians

1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1 Timothy

1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth 
in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: 
God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, 
in spirit,in faith, in purity.
6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: 
from such withdraw thyself.

2 Timothy

1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the
 Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
4:22 The Lord
 Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.

Titus

1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Philemon

1:6 That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.
1:12 Whom I have sent again: 
thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:

Hebrews

1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, 
and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession,
Christ Jesus;
7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever
 after the order of Melchisedec:)
10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, 
saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
10:34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have 
in heaven a better and an enduring substance.
11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, 
and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

1 Peter

1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered 
for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: 
on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
5:10-11 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ 
Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

2 Peter

2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

1 John

1:7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had 
from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus 
Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4:19 We love 
him, because he first loved us.
5:7-8 
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, 
and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Jude

1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Revelation

1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
1:11 Saying, 
I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
2:13 I know 
thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
5:14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped 
him that liveth for ever and ever.
6:1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come
 and see.
11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, 
and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to 
the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus 
Christ.
14:5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault 
before the throne of God.
16:17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple 
of heaven,from the throne, saying, It is done.
20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from 
God out of heaven, and devoured them.
21:24 And the nations 
of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

And these are only PARTS of the words that have been omitted or added to the texts that underlie the King James Bible. You can see a more complete list here –

”Is it true that all Bible versions are 99.5% the same?”

http://brandplucked.webs.com/arebibles995same.htm

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BELIEFS OF WESTCOTT AND HORT?

Once again, in his book, The KJV Controversy, James White makes a feeble attempt to defend the character and beliefs of Westcott and Hort.  Mr. White writes on page 244-245 “Question: Weren’t Westcott and Hort occultists (evil men, heretics, closet Roman Catholics, and any number of other accusations)?”

“Answer: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were not fundamental Baptists. Then again, neither were any of the KJV translators…Both were professing Christians. Both professed faith in the deity of Christ, His saving death, His resurrection.  Were they perfect men? No, they were not. Neither were the KJV translators….But were they terrible evil men, plotting with others in a grand conspiracy to overthrow God’s truth and lead everyone down the path to destruction? Such is utterly ridiculous….They are remembered as men who, while not perfect, recognized particular truths about the transmission of the New Testament text that have been verified by many who have come after them.  They are not idolized or worshiped, but are treated as all other scholars: their work is appreciated, reviewed, and where necessary, corrected.”  James White.

So, in spite of Mr. James White’s glowing recommendations of his fellow “scholars” and their textual work, let’s take a look at some hard facts about what these men actually believed.  These documented quotes are readily available all over the internet and in hard print in several books.


In 1896, a collection of Hort’s letters was published by his son in two volumes. The book entitled “Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort” by his son Arthur Fenton Hort.

In Vol. 1 on page 76 we read:  “The pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical”

On page 148, Hort said:  “…the ordinary confused evangelical notions, tho’ I would on no account alter the prayer book of catechism to make them more palatable to them.”

On page 400, Hort admits that: “The positive doctrines even of the evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible,”

On page 445, Hort says: “I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms.”

Hort shows his hatred for the TRUE Greek Text on page 211, were he states: “I had no idea till last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus.Westcott recommented me to get Bagster’s Critical, which has Scholz’s Text, and is most convenient in small quarto, with parallel Greek and English, and a wide margin on purpose for notes. This pleased me much; so many little alterations on good MS. authority made things clear not in a vulgar, notional way, but by giving a deeper and fuller meaning. But after all Scholz is very capricious and sparing in intorducing good readings; and Tischendorf I find a great acquisition, above all, because he gives various readings at the bottom of his page, and his prolegomena are invaluable. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones…”

In a letter to Westcott, Hort says on Page 430: “Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and suffering to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresey.

On page 120, Hort declars: “The fact is, I do not see how God’s justice can be satisfied without every man’s suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins. I know that it can, for if it could not in the case of some at least, the whole Bible would be a lie; but if in the case of some, why not in the case of all?”

Hort clearly did not believe that the death of Jesus on the cross was not enough to pay for his sins!!!

What about WESTCOTT, what did he believe?

In 1903, Westcott’s son “Arthur Westcott” published his fathers letters in a two volume book entitled, “Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott.”

On pages 228-229, Westcott told Hort what he thought of the Textus Receptus: “I feel most keenly the disgrace of circulating what I feel to be falsified copies of the Holy Scripture, and am most anxious to provide something to replace them.”

On page 52, Westcott said “I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it.”

In volume 2, on page 49 Westcott gives his view on Heaven, he writes “..it saves us from the error of connecting the presence of Christ’s glorified humanity with place: ‘heaven is a state and not a place.’ I cannot therefore but think that you should require the most exact rending of the whole.”

On page 394, Westcott states: “If Tennyson’s idea of heaven was true, that ‘heaven is the ministry of the soul to soul,’ we may reasonably hope, by patient, resolute, faithful, united endeavour, to find heaven about us here, the glory of our earthly life.”

Westcott shows his love for ROMAN CATHOLICISM on page 81, when he writes: “After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of neighbouring hill, and by a little scrambling we reached it. Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling–place; and behind a screen was a “Pietà” the size of life (i.e. a virgin and dead Christ). The sculpture was painted, and such a group in such a place and at such a time was deeply impressive. I could not help thinking on the fallen grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.”

Occultists, Spiritualist and Satanists commend the textual work of Westcott and Hort and despise the King James Bible.

Many of these quotations can be found on the internet and in their own books.  Brothers Brian Sirois and David Cloud have put many of them together in their articles on this subject.  Here are some of them.

Helena P. Blavatsky was deeply into spiritism and communication with the dead. She was the founder of the Theosophical Society. She also attended the “Ghostly Guild” meetings with Westcott and Hort, along with Charles Darwin. In her books Isis Unveiled Volumes 1 and 2 and The Secret Doctrine Volumes 1 and 2, Blavatsky says: “We have the Bible in truth in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.” And she goes on to say: “Westcott and Hort were true scholars that corrected the errors in previous versions.”

Madame Blavatsky also said: “Now that the ‘Revised Version’ of the gospels has been published by Westcott and Hort, and the most glaring mistranlations of the old version, the King James, are corrected, one will better understand the words. The text of the English Protestant Bible is in disagreement as usual with the Alexandrian text. That which for nearly 1500 years was opposed  on Christianism of a book which every word was written under direct supervision of the Holy Ghost; of which not one syllable or comma could be changed without Sacrilege, but now is being retranslated, revised and corrected and clipped of whole verses, and in some cases almost entire chapters.  And as soon as the new edition is out, its doctors Westcott and Hort will have us accept it as new revelation of the 19th century. And the King James translators have made such a jumble of it, that no one but an occultist can restore the Bible to its original form.” (H.P. Blavatsky, on the Bible, Isis Unveiled.)

Throughout her writings, Madame Blavatsky continually makes comments about the “wonderful scholarship” of Westcott and Hort and seems to take pot shots at the King James Bible whenever she can.  She writes: “the Revised Version does not repeat the mistakes of the Authorized Version.”  – “In the King James version, as it stands translated, it has no resemblance to the original.” (Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled) 

And here is a real whopper of a lie when she writes:  – “Add to this fact that out of the forty-seven translators of the King James Bible, only three understood Hebrew… and one may easily understand what reliance can be placed on the English version of the bible.  Now the Revised Version of the gospels has been published and the most glaring mistranslations of the old version are corrected, one will understand better the words in St. John.” (The Secret Doctrine, 1888)

One has to wonder what an avowed Satanist’s interest would be in the Bible in the first place and why she would so highly praise the likes of Westcott and Hort and so despise the King James Bible. Quite telling, isn’t it.

Brian Sirois documents for us that some of the immediate followers of Madame Blavatsky also claimed to be under the control of spirits through automatic writing and other methods.  He writes: “In 1891, Annie Besant (1847-1933) succeeded Blavatsky as head of the Theosophical Society. From 1889 until Blavatsky’s death in 1891, Besant was a co-editor of the Theosophical Society’s “Lucifer Magazine.”  Besant and her associates hated the King James Bible.  They write: “The English translation (Authorized Version, KJV) is  wretchedly imperfect. Errors abound in it, and some of them are of a most laughable description.  On this account great callss have been made for the new translation” (Charles Bradlaugh, Annie Wood Besant, Charles Watts. The Freethinker’s Text book.)

Brian also documents that later Theosophical writings continued to attack the King James Bible. “…the English translation called the Authorized Version…while it is dear to the English people…yet lacks entirely the proper spirit of the mystical Hebrew original; and the very fact that Englishmen love their King James Version so much distracts their attention away from the original Mystical sense of the Hebrew scriptures.  Go then to the original tongue…” (Lucifer Magazine, January to December, 1930)

The Vatican Connection-


Well, what about today?  What is the true nature of most of these modern versions that NOBODY seriously believes are the infallible words of God. You may be very surprised at what you are about to see, but it is all documented in black and white and there is simply no way to rationally deny it. Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. are in fact the result of a formal agreement with the Vatican to produce an interconfessional text that will ever be in the process of change.  Here are their own words.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm


Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are  the new “Vatican Versions”

“Mystery, Babylon the Great, The Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth..is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit…and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication…Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins” Revelation 17:2-5; 18:2-4

I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.

In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words: “The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament.”

There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not “definitive” – it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely “a stimulus to further efforts”.

The United Bible Societies Vice-President is Roman Catholic Cardinal Onitsha of Nigeria. On the executive committee is Roman Catholic Bishop Alilona of Italy and among the editors is Roman Catholic Cardinal Martini of Milan. Patrick Henry happily claims, “Catholics should work together with Protestants in the fundamental task of Biblical translation …[They can] work very well together and have the same approach and interpretation … This signals a new age in the church.” – Patrick Henry, New Directions in New Testament Study (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 232-234.

Here is the United Bible Societies own website where they announced in March of 2013 the news of the new Pope Francis’ longtime support of the UBS.

http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org/news/3575-united-bible-societies-welcomes-pope-francis/ 

United Bible Societies welcomes Pope Francis


MARCH 15, 2013 – “The election of Pope Francis, ‘a long-time friend of the Bible Societies’, is an encouragement to United Bible Societies (UBS) to work even harder to make the Bible available to everyone.”

Read Part One of this study. There is a lot more solid documentation. Then go to Part Two where you can see the actual black and white Verse Comparison Charts – very easy to follow. 

Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, Holman Standard, NET, NASBs are the new “Vatican Versions”  Part TWO  

http://brandplucked.webs.com/esvcatholicpart2.htm


Return to Articles – http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

“If we would destroy the Christian religion, we must first of all destroy man’s belief in the Bible.”  Voltaire – ex French philosopher and former atheist. 

 “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”  Luke 8:8

“But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” 1 Corinthians 14:38

[Editor’s Note: James White and many other anti KIng James Only authors have attributed much of the proliferation against the beliefs of Westcott & Hort to Gail Riplinger, author of New Age Bible Versions. But it must be kept in mind that there are many KJVO authors who are not in agreement with Riplinger on many facets of the KJVO debate, David Cloud in particular. Thus it must be emphasized that the views that Cloud and other KJVO proponents hold of Westcott & Hort can not automatically be attributed to the works of Gail Riplinger as White and others would have us believe.

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.