KJV 1611, A Conviction, Not a Preference

8/2/2019 KJV 1611, A Conviction, Not a Preference

1/29

KJV 1611: Perfect!

A Conviction, Not a Preference

(Part One - Chapters 1-9)

By Dr. Roy L. Branson, Jr.

PO Box 757, Bristol, TN 37621 (423) 878-8542

Placed on the Internet by permission of author

Table of Contents (for all chapters)

1. Relief From Greek Speak and Manuscript Babble

2. How the Author Became a KJV Advocate

3. No Manuscript or Greek Skills Needed

4. Greek, Other Versions Undermine Faith

5. Ego Is the Felon that Fuels Renderings

6. Rummagers Violate Convictions of Others

7. Time to Put Up the Barbed Wire!

8. Rooting for Roots, and Euthanasia

9. What is a Ruckmanite?

10. The Opposition: The Rummagers Speak

11. Easy Reading on Manuscripts and Autographs, If You Care

12. Choose Just One: An Infallible Pope; An Infallible Rummager; Or, An Infallible Bible

13. Jehoiakim: An Early Rending Rummager

14. Christians Cavalier About the Bible

Dedicated to the late Dr. David Otis Fuller

One of the noblest defenders of the Word of God in the twentiethcentury.

Page 1 of 29KJV 1611: Perfect!

3/25/2012http://www.biblebelievers.com/Branson_KJV1.html


2/29

15. Can Churches Be Turned Back To the Bible - The Real Bible -The King James?

16. Summary and Conclusion

Other books about KJV issue

Other books by Dr. Roy Branson with ordering information

Chapter 1

RELIEF FROM MANUSCRIPT BABBLE AND GREEK-SPEAK

Do you believe Jesus Christ got drunk and had a knife fight at a wild party? (Read on, below)

You are tired of hearing about old manuscripts, Greek and Hebrew debates, and readingendless explanations of why such and such a word in the "original language" had a "root" themeaning of which is.......or hearing that some word or verse is "unfortunately translated" in theKing James as.... And, you really are not interested in Alephs, uncials and codices, whateverthey are.

What you really would like to know is if there is a Bible, somewhere, that you can read in yourlanguage, that you can trust in every case, and is all between one set of covers.

Here is relief!

In these pages you will find simple, common sense, easy to understand and impossible torefute reasons proving that the King James 1611 is the ONLY Word of God in English; THEBible that you can read in your language, trust in every word, and have it all between one setof covers. You need examine no manuscript, nor know a single word of Greek or Hebrew, owna Greek lexicon, dictionary nor any other such thing. In fact, you probably are better off by far ifyou do not.

Oh, how pleasant it would be if no preacher, teacher or professor had such fancied "helps." Ifwe could somehow blank their collective minds of all the Greek they had ever learned, andhide all their Greek and Hebrew texts, lexicons and the like, we would do the faith of Christbetter service than one would have done the ladies of London if they could have somehow

kept all sharp instruments from the hands of Jack the Ripper.

Forget the Manuscripts and the Original Languages!

You do not need them, and neither does anyone else! Much, much too much is made of so-called "manuscript evidence." It is true that advocates of the KJV can present overwhelmingmanuscript support for the KJV, but there are better ways to determine today just what andwhere the Word of God is. This will shock many of our scholars, and surely will bring somederision upon the author, but there are more certain ways to judge the translations - ways that




3/29

everyone can easily understand. That is what we intend to illustrate in the following pages.

WAIT! IS THIS NECESSARY?

"There is so little difference in the various versions that this issue really isn't important," versionscavengers and Greek browsers tell us; and that is what most Christians have been led to

believe. However, the differences between the KJV and even the best of other versions is vast,and defending the King James 1611 is not only necessary, but vital to the very faith deliveredby our fathers. Let us note ust a very few differences, and then we shall proceed asscheduled.

Illustration 1:

Jesus in a drunken knife fight? (See above) What a blasphemous thing. But that is exactlywhat one of the most popular translations in history says of Him. Zechariah 13:6 clearly is aprophecy of the betrayal and sacrifice of Jesus, referring to the nail scars in his hands. TheBible, the real Bible, the KJV, properly translates it, And one shall say unto him, What [are]these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in thehouse of my friends.

The Living Bible translates it "Then what are these scars on your chest and your back? he willsay, I got into a brawl at the home of a friend!"

Illustration 2:

Isaiah 7:14: The KJV properly translates the prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ as A virginshall conceive....

The RSV changes virgin to "young woman," thus, attacking the Divine birth of our Lord.

Illustration 3:

Luke 1:27: The KJV identifies Mary as a virgin, To a virgin espoused to a man whose namewas Joseph...and the virgin's name was Mary.

The 1968 edition of Good News for Modern Man, changes virgin in both instances to "a girl."

Illustration 4:

Well, how about that sweet little darling of the 1980's, and '90's, the chocolate drop of so many

conservatives and fundamentalists - none other than the NIV, The New International Version?

Psalm 12:6-7: This is a blessed promise from the mouth of God to preserve every single,individual word of Scripture forever. The KJV 1611 translates it perfectly, The words of theLORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shaltkeep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them forever.

The NIV translators mutilate both verses, but particularly the critical seventh verse,transmutilating it thus, "O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people




4/29

forever."

In a stroke, the NIV removes the promise of perfect, Divine preservation of the words of theWord of God, by changing the verse to refer to people being protected from other people.

Since there are many quite good books that give numerous side-by-side comparisons of theKJV with other translations, we shall give no more in this book. Our goal is to present the

simple, common sense argument that requires no comparisons, manuscripts, etc., as alreadystated. However, it was felt that at least a few needed to be given to answer the claim by theRummagers (see below for the definition of that title) that there are no important differencesbetween the various versions.

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

Now, don't get nervous. We are not going to start throwing Alephs and uncials and the likearound, but before continuing, we do realize that in order to deal in even the simplest way withthe claims and illusions of the Rummagers, (We'll explain that term soon), we must at leastglance at some of the more common terms used in this debate about where the Bible may befound. Therefore, since many readers will not be familiar with some of the terms used, let usgive some brief definitions. We may not use all of the following in this book, but the readermost likely has seen and heard them used often, so we will note them for that reason.

KJV 1611, or KJV, or The Authorized Version

All terms referring to the same Bible, the King James Bible. The 1611 refers simply to the yearthe final revisions were made by the translating commission. Since then only typographicalerrors have been corrected, and a handful of insignificant editing adjustments made - editingadjustments, not adjustments by retranslating. It is often called "The Authorized" version orBible because King James of England authorized the commission to go about their work.

It is NOT to be confounded with the erroneously called "King James II," nor any other Biblewith "King James" tacked on to another title word, which is why we often see the date, 1611,accompanying the KJV. No doubt, such dishonest impostors will soon start attaching that dateto their forgeries.

RSV, ASV, NIV, KJV II, etc.

These are abbreviations for corrupt and false translations of the Bible. You need not worryabout initials or names not mentioned here, or the meaning of which you are uncertain. Theyall come from the same polluted source - some are a little more wormy than others, and that is

the only difference. A little poison or a lot; the difference is one kills slowly and the other morequickly.

RV stands for Revised Version, the work of infidels Westcott and Hort, published in 1885 inEngland. Sometimes called the Revised English Version. All following translations aredaughters of this harlot.

ASV is American Standard Version, published by an American committee in 1901, and basedon the RV. Long the darling of many fundamentalists, conservatives, and evangelicals, it is just




5/29

another blob in the river of corruption.

RSV is the Revised Standard Version, published in 1952 and immediately attacked by mostconservatives, especially independent Baptists and fundamentalists. Strange that they shouldobject, since it is blood brother to their beloved ASV.

TLB is The Living Bible, published in 1971 as a paraphrase of the Bible; it is particularly vile.

NIV Is New International Version, published in 1978, little different from any of the others, but,like the ASV, somehow accepted as wonderful by those who think the RSV is terrible. The NIVis among the worst, probably worse than the RSV.

KJV II, NKJV are King James II and New King James, among the supposed KJV upgrades, allwhich scurrilously mislead buyers into thinking they do no more than change certain old, nolonger used words into modern words.

Buyers? That sets one thinking.

NEW SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE, same as the above, but added the sin of stealing thename of a dead man, Dr. C. I. Scofield. Though claiming to be both, it is neither a King Jamesnor a Scofield Bible. Most Bible bookstores present it without comment to unsuspecting buyerslooking for a Scofield Bible.

Buyers! Ah, yes! That word, again. Is that the key that opened the door to the avalanche ofdifferent translations? Millions and millions of buyers! Billions and billions of dollars!

There are scores of other versions and translations, but the above are among the moreprominent. Just remember, they all are found floating in the same river; a river filled with allkinds of bloated carcasses and unpleasant, putrid things. Some things, one just does not want

to stick his hand into.

Rummagers

A term referring to those who do not accept the KJV as the only Bible in English, but use otherversions and refer to Greek and Hebrew helps, and often give what they pass as their owntranslations of a word, verse or passage.

It is obvious that it would be awkward to constantly refer to them as "those who do not acceptthe KJV as....", so, we call them Rummagers, with no offense intended, because it describestheir method of trying to discover what the Bible says. They think they must rummage, or

search, through versions, translations, manuscripts, lexicons and the like to determine whatGod really says.

Then, they hold "rummage sales" wherein they offer all sorts of scruffy, scraggly, tacky, leftover, tossed out, secondhand, second-rate, paltry worthless odds and ends of "renderings,"versions, translations, "roots," and such like. They belabor you to buy their goods, strewn allover their theological yards and driveways, and clogging their ecclesiastical garages, assuringyou that their junk is the finest, latest, best, all brand name goods.

Buyer beware! Their goods were rejected for centuries by those who revered the Bible. Their




6/29

manuscripts, roots and renderings were dumped in trash cans and disposed of in garbageheaps where they belonged. Sadly, Rummagers have climbed and burrowed into thosereeking deposits of waste and pulled out what they could salvage, and have presented it to theworld as "the better manuscripts," and "better translations," etc.

Just who are the Rummagers?

Most Rummagers are rank modernists, liberals and outright infidels. You find them in IvyLeague "Divinity schools," among the "Jesus Fellows," who have denied over eighty percent ofthe words of Jesus as being authentic.

(Jesus Fellows? Have you noticed how so many unsavory groups take on names that aredesigned to make you think they are friends of those people and ideas which they areattacking? For example, People for the American Way are determined to destroy the Americanway.)

Jehovah's Witness and Mormon "scholars" are prominent Rummagers, as are Roman Catholictheologians.

Astoundingly, a growing number of those who call themselves fundamentalists and Bibleconservatives have joined ranks with Jehovah's Witnesses, Harvard theologians and the like,and proudly and arrogantly march side by side with them, jauntily waving the somewhatmildewed ensign of the Rummagers.

Since our readers are largely Bible believers who consider themselves fundamental,conservative, or evangelical, we are most concerned with helping them, and will so write interms familiar to them. The Ivy League, Jesus Fellows and the like are not likely to read thisbook. If any should, we say, "Welcome to the other side of the story."

If you are a Rummager, Please be not offended

In trying to help his readers be fully aware of the problems as he deeply believes them to be,the author will not always portray the opposing views in a flattering light. That is because he isconvinced that Christians must see the dangers, damages, and weaknesses; and because hebelieves the absurdities of the Westcott-Hort position must be shown as he believes they are;and, further, because he has no doubt that the Westcott-Hort position is the grand-master of amaster plan to destroy the Bible.

However, nothing is meant to be personal. He is dealing with the total issue, and the totalcommunity of what he calls Rummagers. You, though part of that community, he views as adisagreeing friend.

If, in spite of this, you are offended, he welcomes you to call him, backwoods, ignorant, aSouthern redneck, or any of the other terms so often used of those of his persuasion. After all,he is certainly Southern, loves the backwoods, and sunburns rather easily. He agrees not to beoffended by your caricature of him, if you will agree not to be offended by his sometimesunflattering portrayal of the total community of Rummagers.

In fact, he will not be offended even if some Rummagers call him numerous colorful names,while choosing to be offended themselves.




7/29

Rendering the original languages

This is a term referring to a Rummager - sometimes even a misguided KJV 1611 man - tryingto translate a word or phrase or passage directly from Greek or Hebrew, rather than trustingwhat the Bible - the KJV 1611 - says.

There are many problems with doing that. Among those problems is that the Greek or Hebrewtext they are using is almost always very corrupt and filled with errors because it is based onthe Alexandrian school of texts, and the works of the infidels, Westcott and Hort, bothdescribed below. One cannot make good apple butter with rotten apples. Another problem isthat the "renderer" is vastly underqualified compared to the team of mighty scholars whotranslated the KJV. When one "renders the original language," he is like the village doltinstructing Galileo in astronomy, Madonna instructing the woman of Proverbs 31:10 ff in virtue,Daffy Duck telling Pavarotti how to sing, the town drunk telling Peter and Paul how to preach, adraft dodger telling the Marines how to fight. (Actually, here in 1996, we do have a draft dodgertelling the Marines how to fight - he's in the White House.)

ff

Since that abbreviation was just used, let us define it also, since it may be used again. It simplymeans, "and forward." So, Proverbs 31:10 ff means beginning at verse 10 and reading on untilthere is a change of subject.

Root words

We shall say more about them later in the book. For now, it is enough to explain that a rootword is the base word from which a word in use comes. Often, the word in question has little orno common meaning with the root. Thus, using root words to alter the English meaning of aword in the KJV Bible is futile, foolish and invariably corrupts the questioned text.

Received Text, or TR, Or Textus Receptus

The line of ancient manuscripts and documents from which the King James Version wastranslated. The overwhelming majority of existing manuscript evidence is from this line. This isthe line of manuscripts that Christians loyal to the Bible have accepted and preserved from theearliest days. It is also known as the Majority Text.

Alexandrian Texts

Do not fear; we are not going to get bogged down in this, but you need at least a passing

knowledge of these terms so you will understand the references made to them later, as well aswhen you hear others speak of them.

Alexandrian texts are surviving manuscripts or copies primarily descending from certain earlyscholars of Alexandria, Egypt, and their disciples who followed after them, and those of theirgeneral persuasions. Two such manuscripts are used almost exclusively for all translationsother than the KJV; they are "Sinaiticus" and "Vaticanus," named for where they werediscovered in the last century. Those who used the "Received Text" down through thecenturies had access to Alexandrian texts such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but rejected them




8/29

as corrupt, and trashed them. That is why so few are in existence today.

Westcott and Hort

Two radical, extreme left wing "scholars" who embraced the two Alexandrian texts above in thelast century. Almost all Greek lexicons, interlinear texts, dictionaries, etc., are from their work,and all English Translations other than the KJV 1611 are based on their translations. Theywere liberals at best, outright infidels at worst.

Except in rare instances, whenever anyone - whether it is a preacher, college professor,teacher, television speaker, etc. - refers to the "original language," or "a better translation ofthis word," they are using texts based on Westcott's and Hort's translations of the two

Alexandrian texts.

In nearly every instance, perhaps all, where the reader finds notes in his Bible that questionthe translation of any passage, the editor of that Bible is referring to Westcott's and Hort's workand the Alexandrian texts. Sometimes a marginal note will say something such as, "The bettermss read....," or, "Omitted in the better mss...."

In the original Scofield Bible, on page 1069, note 1 at the bottom of the page says, "Thepassage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaiticand Vatican...."

Based on the Alexandrian texts and the work of Westcott and Hort, some versions delete thevirgin birth of Christ. For example, in the Revised Standard Version, Isaiah 7:14 "virgin" ischanged to read "A young woman shall conceive".

Ms and Mss

Abbreviations for the singular manuscript, and plural manuscripts.

Liberals and Modernists

You see and hear those terms often, but you might not be sure of just what they mean. Theyare general terms for those who claim to be Christians but do not believe the Bible to be muchmore than a book written by clever men. They generally do not believe in the virgin birth, theResurrection, and other great essentials of the faith.

Not all Rummagers are liberals, but all liberals are Rummagers!

ASTOUNDING, BIZARRE EGOTISM

Required to believe that one has wisdom and insight beyond that given the KJV translators,and can thus offer a better translation. Also, a necessity for such careless, bawdy handling ofGod's Word. Rummaging is ego most bizarre!

Hopeful that all will now have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the terms commonly used inthis divisive issue, let us give a one line summary of this chapter, and continue on to the next.




9/29

ONE SENTENCE SUMMARY

We have defined the terms, but all you really need to prove the KJV is common sense faith inGod's promises, and a controlled ego.

Table of Contents

Chapter 2

HOW THE AUTHOR BECAME A KJV 1611 ADVOCATE

Let us continue this discussion with portions of a letter the author wrote when asked to relatehow and why he came to accept the KJV 1611 as the only reliable Bible in the Englishlanguage.

"Dear Brother,

"I do not know Peter Ruckman, nor had I ever heard of him until I saw a recent article abouthim...My stand on the KJV was arrived at entirely independent of anyone's influence. My firstpastor used only the KJV, but I was only under him for four months before moving to anotherstate. I cannot recall that he made any comments about the different versions during that time.

"For the next year I was under a pastor that used and heavily recommended the ASV, andused the 'original languages' many times in every message. In college the KJV was ridiculedand my pastor there used the 'original languages' freely. For a time, as you can understand, Ireferred to the original languages, since that seemed to be what everybody did. However, it

ust did not ever set with me, and I never felt secure in doing it.

Reasonable, obvious questions

"Always being one to think things through for myself, albeit slowly at times, I began to ask theobvious questions:.H1E# THE AUTHOR'S TESTIMONY

"Since good men corrected the KJV, ASV, etc.;and their corrections often disagreed withoneanother,and with the different translations;how could one be sure what the Bible reallysays?"

Since the Bible clearly and repeatedly guarantees,not just perfection in the originals,butperfection in perpetuity,was there not some source that could be reliedupon without fail?

"Further, when I started pastoring during my second year in college, I found person afterperson who reminded me that no one really knew what the Bible originally said, since theoriginal manuscripts were lost. There were friends and church members who would neverdiscuss a Bible passage until they brought out their Greek and Hebrew texts.

"To me, it seemed that this course could only lead to an eventual loss of faith in the Bible, even




10/29

among the strongest Bible believers, as it obviously already had for many.

"Even then, this disagreement about the text was an effective barrier in witnessing to the lost....

Unreasonable, foolish assurances

"It is true that I heard the repeated assurances that, 'Although no translation is completely

reliable, we can be confident that we do have God's word complete and preserved - that nosignificant loss has occurred, etc.'

"However, I am a reasoning, reasonable man, and no logical line of reasoning can lead to suchconclusions. Such statements are convenient ways to dismiss questions that cannot becomfortably answered.

"How can we be sure John 3:16 belongs in the Bible, if the last several verses of Mark do not?"How can we be sure that some old manuscript or other 'evidence' will not come to light in thefuture that is as convincing in removing the third chapter of John as the so-called 'bettermanuscripts' are in removing so many other portions of Scripture?

Blind faith rejected for Faith based on performance

" 'Have faith that such is not so,' some would say.

"However, God never asks for blind faith. He challenged us to prove His word by, for example,prophecy, Isaiah 41:21-24. Faith is based on unfailing past performance. To me, you see, thecontinual referrals to the 'original languages,' the constant corrections of the KJV, ASV, etc. - -especially of the KJV - the disagreement among even the strongest Bible believers as to thetrue meaning of various verses, called into question the veracity of every verse of Scripture.

"Logically, no one can dispute that, it seems to me. For example, how many times must aperson lie before you suspect everything he says? Likewise, how many 'lies' (errors intranslations or manuscripts) must one find in a translation or manuscript before he suspectsthe veracity of every portion of it?

Discovered that all liberals hate KJV 1611

"Further, I began to notice that every liberal and Bible skeptic scorned the KJV and promotedother versions. I have never known or heard of a liberal who was fond of the KJV. On the otherhand, I have never known anyone to be harmed or have their faith shaken by the KJV. To myknowledge, no one has ever turned from a sound doctrine to a false one because of theinfluence of the KJV.

"Multitudes, however, have questioned the virgin birth due to the influence of other versions.

God's timing of the KJV

"As a young preacher I began to realize that the KJV had been used of God exclusive of allother sources for over three hundred years, during the time of the greatest populating of theplanet, and coinciding with the emergence of the English language as the internationallanguage. From the KJV the Bible had been translated into a multitude of other languages,




11/29

thus making it the Bible God had used to reach the world. Under it the great mission programswere born

KING JAMES English: the pinnacle of the language

"Finally, as my education continued, I came to realize that the English language reached itshighest expressive eloquence with the King James English, and has been in a decline ever

since.

"Thus, I concluded that if God had really preserved His word as He promised, there was onlyone logical place it could be found.

"Later, of course, I began to read manuscript evidence justifying my conclusions - evidencethat was denied me in college, as it is yet today denied the great majority of students in ourChristian schools. I am grateful for Dr. David Otis Fuller, Edward Hill and others whose booksgive the full story of the manuscript evidence."

That letter outlines the author's position to this day. Using it as a starting point, let us examine

a few thoughts a little closer, keeping in mind that this is a handout book, thus curtailinglengthy discourse.


Faith in the KJV is based on its unfailing performance for 400 years.

Table of Contents

Chapter 3

NO MANUSCRIPT OR LANGUAGE SKILLS ARE NEEDED

TO KNOW THE TRUTH!

As you read the above letter, perhaps you noticed that manuscript evidence and likearguments had nothing to do with the author's conclusion that the 1611 King James is the onlyBible in the English language. One may know nothing of manuscripts and ancient languages,of this or that "school," but simple thought must lead him to conclude that if the KJV is not thevery word of God, then we either do not have it, or it is hopelessly lost or obscure.

So, let no one intimidate you with "original languages"

As you listen to the learned and supposedly learned pontificate about manuscripts,"autographs," and original languages, give it little heed. It has little more meaning than longand turgid discourses and debate as to whether a perfect circle is round. It is settled that it isround, and so it is settled that the KJV 1611 is the Word of God in English, and the only Wordof God, and the only Word of God the English language will ever have. Studies of manuscripts,languages and the like lead to the inescapable conclusion that this is so; but you have




12/29

something even better - the long performance and history of the KJV. That God brought it forthwhen He did, and has used it as He .H1E# NO GREEK SKILLS NEEDED

has for as long as He has, is enough proof. He is not the author of confusion, so He could notpossibly approve the various, confusing versions, translations, and "renderings." He promisedto protect and preserve every single word and detail exactly as He gave it in the firstmanuscripts penned by Moses, Isaiah, Matthew, etc. Therefore, He has so preserved it, for He

cannot lie, and He cannot fail.

If the KJV 1611 is not that perfectly preserved Word, then it does not exist. It does not take aGreek scholar nor a manuscript expert to understand that. Anyone who thinks can see it.

So, do not be intimidated. Some fundamentalists, conservatives, evangelicals, or whatever titlethey go by, would have you think that your Bible is a mystery unless you can read Greek andHebrew, or you go to them for help. Though they mean well, they place themselves in leaguewith the Catholic church, which teaches the same thing to its people. If you cannot read andunderstand it for yourself, without knowing Greek and Hebrew, or referring to a lexicon orGreek text, you might as well go to a priest as to a preacher, professor or teacher, whether he

or she be titled a fundamentalist, conservative, or evangelical. A Rummager is a Rummager isa Rummager in this matter, and one is as good (bad?) as another. (Remember what aRummager is? He or she is anyone who does not accept the KJV as the only Word of God inthe English language. Go back to chapter one for a more complete definition)

Greek and Hebrew texts are just other versions

You may be wondering, "But, when I look at my Greek text, and see the translation rightunderneath the Greek, would that not be the best translation? After all, right there is the Greek,and right there is the English."

Somehow, we have been made to think there is something magical about such Greek orHebrew texts. But there is not. Just because the Greek is on the page does not make anydifference. It is just another translation - another version of Scripture. The King Jamestranslators looked at purer Greek texts than what you have, and translated it just right. TheRummager or Rummager committee that translated what you see underneath the sadly inferiorGreek in your text just tried to struggle through on their own and gave you their opinion - aprivate translation, or interpretation.

What do we mean by saying your text has inferior Greek?

Just that. Most Greek texts are based upon or are exact replica's of the ultra-modernistsWestcott and Hort, who started all this "updated translation" business over a hundred yearsago. We shall say a little more about them later.

They deliberately choose the most polluted and corrupted manuscripts in existence uponwhich to base their work and carry out their goal of undermining the Bible and the faith of thepeople.

For 1800 years, Rummager manuscripts were trashed by Bible believers.

You may have heard it said that the KJV translators did not have access to those manuscripts.




13/29

(Often erroneously called "better mss" in the margin of your Bible). The fact is that the KJVtranslators and their forerunners for centuries before rejected, trashed and probably burnedsimilar manuscripts because they were so obviously corrupt. One of those supposedly "bettermss" was actually found in an ancient equivalent of a garbage can on Mt. Sinai. Westcott andHort examined the garbage and proclaimed it pristine, and baptized the worms as holy. Theother of the two manuscripts, which all versions but the KJV 1611 are based upon, was foundin Rome's Vatican library. Thus, the one is labeled Vaticanus, and the other Sinaiticus.

Yes, those are the only two so-called "better manuscripts." You are led to believe there arelegions, but there are not - just those two corrupted rags and a handful of tatters here andthere that survived the trashing by our forefathers in the faith over the centuries.

Those are the reeking, rotted rags your Greek text is probably based upon, and that is why wesay it is an inferior Greek. But, even if you have a copy of a compilation of the honest Greektexts, called the Textus Receptus, neither you nor anyone else can improve upon the KJVtranslation of those honest Greek texts.


The KJV translation of the original Greek and Hebrew is better than anyone else's translation.

Table of Contents

Chapter 4

OTHER TRANSLATIONS AND USE OF GREEK

UNDERMINE FAITH

Very early, the author found that people questioned what the Bible really said. This was notonly true among preachers, but among church members. For example, he recalls one churchhome in which any reference to the Bible demanded Greek or Hebrew texts and lexicons bebrought out to "Find out the real meaning."

Even more tragically, it was a hindrance in witnessing, especially outside the South. In homeafter home on the west coast the lost took refuge in the fallacy, "No one knows what the Biblereally says." Some referred to the recently discovered, at that time, Dead Sea Scrolls, havingheard that they contradicted the KJV Bible in many places (which they do not). Now and then

someone would make a vague reference to "copies" that disagreed.

PREACHERS USING ORIGINAL LANGUAGES DO THE MOST DAMAGE

They do and they did. Most of those who doubted the accuracy of our Bible did so becausethey had heard preachers using such terms as, "In the original language, it says...."; or, "Thisword is mistranslated in the King James; it should read...."; or, "The better translation is...."; or,"The NASB (or some other version) gives the better translation."




14/29

Every time a preacher or teacher says such things, they are firing a fiery dart into the heart oftheir hearer's faith. How on earth can someone maintain faith in the Word of God if they areconstantly hearing that their Bible, whatever the version, has a passage poorly translated, orhas outright errors? Of course, back then, it was the KJV that was always being corrected.Today, there are translations by the score, and the one thing that everyone agrees upon is thatnone of them are trustworthy throughout.

Well, no, not everyone, and not none - there are many who gratefully realize and boldlyproclaim that there is one version that is perfectly accurate in every instance - the blessed KingJames 1611.

Questioning has led to rejection and ridicule of the Bible

With catastrophic national and personal results, the questioning of the accuracy of certainpassages of Scripture in the 1960's and '70's had turned to outright rejection and ridicule of theBible by the 1980's. Preachers who claimed to love the Bible, and many did, sowed the seedthat has grown into national unbelief of and hatred for the Word of God.

"Original Greek" mentality has also led to tampering with cardinal doctrines

It is difficult to see why so many of our fundamental, conservative, and evangelical brethrenwho claim to love the Bible, refuse to examine the fruits of their incessant referrals to theoriginal languages, their claims of poor or wrong translations of certain words or passages,their "better translations," quotes from a myriad of versions, and their proud pontificatings of"root words," and the like.

As already noted, they are responsible for providing grounds for both believers andunbelievers to doubt what Scripture really says, and the open, unrelenting scorn of the Biblethat has pervaded our society since the 1980's.

Further, within the Christian camp, they are as responsible for the questioning of cardinaldoctrines by those who do not know better, as well as are Satan's infiltrators, who have theirown agenda.

The Virgin Birth, for example. By sowing the mentality that one may freely correct the KJV,or any other version, by using the "original language," and by referring to various versionswhich disagree among themselves, Rummagers have given an invitation to any and all to"prove anything they want" with Scripture. After all, if the RSV denies the Virgin birth in Isaiah7:14, and the preacher has said this and that word or passage is wrongly translated, or refersto several versions, why may one not choose to accept the RSV translation of that verse?

Beginning there, perhaps, attacks upon cardinal doctrines have gone on a rampage of carnageand insult against every essential of Scripture.

GREEK USING FUNDAMENTALISTS AS MUCH TO BLAME AS LIBERALS!

Whether they think of themselves as conservatives, fundamentalists, or just old time Biblebelievers, numerous men who would reject with heat any suggestion that they were anythingbut ardent KJV only men, take part in undermining the Bible they really love and rightly revereas the only Word of God in the English language. How? By doing as the pastor in the following




15/29

example

We do not remember his exact words, but we read an interview with a well knownfundamentalist pastor who is supposedly a King James advocate; a man who has rightfullydeclared that if the KJV is not the only Word of God, and the whole Word of God, we have noBible. However, he often refers to Greek himself, and in the interview said that he neverprepared a sermon without using his Greek text. Though he is sincere in his support of the

KJV, he has failed to see that there is little or no difference in what he does and what thosewho use false translations do. (A false translation is any except the KJV 1611.)

When he refers to the Greek or Hebrew meaning, though in the same sentence he declareshis confidence in the KJV, he is planting a seed of doubt - clipping a support from under thefaith of his hearers.

A thoughtful person cannot but think, "If the KJV is the Word of God, as he says, why does hetry to improve what it says by referring to "the original languages? After all, is that not what hasbeen done with the RSV, NIV, NASB, TEV, and all the others?"

The difference is only in scale, not in principle.

The other versions go to "the original languages" to redo the whole Bible. Some well meaning,sincere men and women unwittingly go to "the original languages" to redo a word or a verse.

Steal a little, steal a lot

One may protest that the thug robbed a bank of millions, while another only stole a few dollarsfrom the corner market. The fact is, both are equally thieves. So it is with well meaningpreachers, teachers and others who no doubt are sincere in their love for the KJV; they do loveit and they do believe it is the only Word of God, but they are dipping their theological hands in

the Biblical till all the same.

USING AN ENGLISH DICTIONARY TO DEFINE A GREEK WORD?

One correspondent, a good man, wrote the author that he would not be so absurd as to use anEnglish dictionary to define a Greek word. Ah! But he and others like him cannot seem tounderstand that the Greek word has already been defined by those God guided nobles ofscholarship that gave us the KJV 1611. Under the Divine, faultless direction of the Holy Spiritthey gave us the most exact possible English word for every word and phrase in the Bible.

When someone goes back to "the original languages" to supposedly find a more complete

understanding or definition of a word or phrase, he is actually retranslating that portion of theBible, as noted above. He has presumed that his understanding is better than that body of Godguided scholars, and that the Holy Spirit will guide him better than He guided them.

YES! You should use an English dictionary to define Bible words!

Except in a few instances, such as described a few paragraphs below, you had best use onlyan English dictionary, since you have been given the best possible English word or wordsalready in your KJV 1611 Bible; therefore, you can only produce a poorer, at best, orcompletely wrong, at worst, meaning by trying to do for yourself what God had done for you




16/29

nearly 400 years ago.

Whose "Rendering" will you believe?

As noted above, examining the Greek or Hebrew to define a word in the Bible is nothing morethan another private translation, as the following incident illustrates.

We have told this story in other books, of how some years ago a pastor friend questioned theauthor about a fellow speaker's rendering of Matthew 28:18-20. That speaker, a Calvinist, puton a Barnum and Bailey spectacle - quite marvelous to behold - of "rendering the originalGreek" to prove that the verses had nothing to do with witnessing, or seeking to win souls toChrist. When he was through, we had a complete revision of those verses.

"What do you think of his message?", our friend asked.

"I do not agree," the author replied.

"Why?"

"Because, my Bible does not say what he said."

"But, he was using 'the original Greek!'"

"I believe what my Bible says, not what he says it should say."

In some exasperation, our friend then inquired with visible incredulity, "Do you mean to say youaccept the King James to the rendering of the original Greek?"

To which we replied, "I accept the KJV rendering of the original Greek to his rendering of it."

My dear friend had not even thought of it in that way, and fell silent to ponder it. To ourknowledge, he never again asked such a question.

Exceptions: Transliterated words, names

Transliterated words are the only words in the Bible where one might find some help byreferring to a Greek or Hebrew reference, such as in Strong's Concordance. (Do not botherwith anything else, such as Greek texts, dictionaries or the like.) Transliterated words arewords that were not translated, but brought over into English basically in their original form.Basically, we say, for they have usually been colloqualized to fit our language. For example,

the words baptize and deacon, are transliterated from baptizo and diakanos. God saw fit tocreate new English words from them, rather than translating them. Why? That is His business.We could offer some thoughts, but that is not the purpose of this discussion. It is sometimeshelpful to examine definitions in the Greek or Hebrew for such words. However, even suchwords have been so long a part of our language that a good, complete English dictionary willoften give a complete and accurate definition.

Another example is in the names of people and places in the Bible. Those names and placesare usually transliterated. Most of the time such names have a definite meaning. Jesus meansSavior, and Jordan means flowing down, or descending, for example.




17/29

Such words are the only ones where one might be helped by seeking the Hebrew or Greekdefinitions. If you want to examine such a word, use a Strong's Concordance or the like, andforget the Greek texts, lexicons, etc.

THEOLOGICAL DELINQUENTS

Like a delinquent carving on the Mona Lisa, those who use Greek and Hebrew aids aretheological delinquents who only scar, never improve, their own or their hearers' understandingof the Bible, but mar the Scriptures with unsightly and obscene corruptions.


Rummaging undermines and mars faith!

Table of Contents

Chapter 5

EGO IS THE FELON THAT FUELS SUCH RENDERINGS

Standing before a church or class and declaring, "Now, in the original language....," is verysating to proud flesh, especially to the intellect. There is something just so delicious about it -that one can affect to have an insight into the secrets of "the original languages" that history'sgreatest corps of scholars did not have; that he -HE - can produce a revelation not found onthe page of your Bible; that HE has access to secrets that the common man cannot know; thatHE is among the elite that knows and understands "the original languages," so that the

common man must rely upon HIS wisdom, much as a Catholic must rely upon his priest, totruly understand the whole Bible.

IT IS SPIRITUAL COCAINE; A DRUG-LIKE ADDICTION; CULT-LIKE

Some things seem to get into a person's system in a way that makes them addicted. Drugscause a physical dependency and people foolish enough to use them desire them so badlythey will do almost anything to get them.

There are addictions of vanity. Many women and men are addicted to anything that has to dowith glamorizing themselves, whether it be Hollywood type clothing, hairstyles, makeup, or thelike.

There are addictions of group identity. Such people will refuse to dress, talk, or act in waysdifferent than their group. Thus, we had the hippies, and have the gangs, outlandish dress byteenagers and adults alike. The reader knows what we mean.

Some are addicted to the occult, religious cults, Satanism, Eastern mysticism, etc.

How can you tell when people are addicted?




18/29

They will not give up their addiction, no matter what the consequences, the opposition to it, thecosts or harm to others or themselves.

In the 1960's, "70's and 80's it was fashionable for men and boys to wear long, effeminate hair.It was an addiction to the point of being Satanic. Most Christian educators of that period whohad dress and grooming codes will agree that one of the most difficult things was getting theboys to cut their hair to codes. During the miniskirt craze, there was the same problem in

getting girls to dress decently. Later, when almost no women wore dresses, only pants, theproblem was to get them to wear dresses, if that was the school code. They were addicted to adress and grooming style that identified with their peers.

That is the way it is with so many Rummagers who are addicted to other translations and "theoriginal languages." It is an addiction that feeds the vanity and proud human intellect andmakes them dependent on the "rush" they get when using them. Further, it is an addiction thatthey fancy makes them "intellectually mature" and more acceptable to their non Christian andanti Christian peers. Just as cocaine feeds the nervous system and makes it dependent, so theuse of myriad translations, Greek and Hebrew, and giving "better translations," or "mytranslation of this verse," gives a heady, giddy surge of proud intellect and ego, making the

user more and more dependent upon the thing that gives them the vanity supercharge.

And, the lofty term "scholar," bestowed upon them by denominations, institutions, and peersgives perhaps the most delicious psychedelic charge of all.

How else can one explain it?

How else, indeed? After all, most Rummagers are quick to tell you they "Love the KJV, andmemorize from it," etc., but they continue to use other versions and frantically continue topractice their renderings.

They are not likely to tell you the KJV will lead you into false doctrine, infidelity, or damnation;in fact, they will most assuredly tell you it will not.

They will agree it has been greatly used of God, and most will affirm it still is.

So, why do they insist on their contrary practices? Knowing that a multitude have deepconvictions that the other versions are corrupt and that the KJV is the only Word of God, whydo they insist on casting stumbling blocks and sowing division?

It is because they are addicted and do not even know it. They are as addicted as an addict tohis needle, pill, or powder; as a drunk to the bottle; as a Hollywood star to his or her glamour;as a nymph to sex; as a deviate to his deviation; as a glutton to food; as a sloth to slothfulness;as a buzzard to a carcass; as a most lawyers to lies; as Congress to corruption; as the newsmedia to fraud.


Questioning the accuracy of the KJV and using Greek and Hebrew is a cult-like, intellectualaddiction that feeds the ego.

Table of Contents




19/29

Chapter 6

WHY DO RUMMAGERS VIOLATE THE DEEPCONVICTIONS OF OTHERS TO PRACTICE THEIR

PREFERENCES?

As has often been said, one cannot compromise his spiritual, moral convictions, but he canand should yield his preferences to avoid conflict. What is the difference?

A conviction is something of which one is convinced is absolutely right or wrong. When onegives up a conviction to please others, he has surrendered his character, compromised whathe sees as an absolute. Thus, a conviction must not be yielded.

On the other hand, a preference is a favored choice, a predilection, a taste, inclination,penchant, bias, a bent. One violates no moral or spiritual code if he yields a preference.

Therefore, a Christian should never insist on his preference when it violates the conviction ofanother Christian!

Since most conservative and fundamentalist Rummagers are so quick to tell us how wonderfulthe KJV is, it is obvious they have no convictions that it is evil. Then, why do they absolutelyinsist on using versions other honest brethren are convinced are evil?

Why do they sneeringly condemn KJV people for standing by their heartfelt, honestconvictions?

Not one person we have ever heard of who uses other versions or personal translations isconvicted that any other version is the inviolable Word of God. They have no convictions aboutany version.

Again, why do they simply not yield their preference and exclusively use the KJV, which theyproclaim to be wonderful, beautiful, and other complimentary terms, while assuring all thatusing the KJV will not lead anyone astray?

They are addicted! They NEED the ego surge that using other versions and their owntranslations give them. They CANNOT WITHDRAW without emotional and intellectualwithdrawal symptoms akin to the needle users physical symptoms.

The reader must understand - KJV 1611 people are so because it is a deep conviction, theviolation of which would compromise their very soul. Rummagers have no such convictions -only preferences.


Personal preferences should give way to a brother's convictions every time!




20/29

Table of Contents

Chapter 7

IT IS TIME TO PUT UP THE BARBED WIRE!In Southern California, and perhaps elsewhere, gang members and other delinquents scrawltheir ugly graffiti on walls, buildings, sidewalks, signs, culverts, and everywhere there is asurface. They even climb onto the overhanging green signs above the crowded freeways andcover them with their obscenities, vulgarities and gang symbols. It is so bad that rolls of barbedwire have been put around the poles and the signs to keep them off.

Toddling along after their professors, pastors and others, the well meaning but deludedpurveyors of Greek graffiti have climbed and scuttled all over every page of Holy Writ, so thatthere is no place one may go from Genesis to Revelation where their theological gang symbolsand textual vulgarities are not found insulting the senses and shocking the soul.

It is time for those who revere the Bible to roll out the barbed wire to keep them off.

This author has long urged kindness and gentle persuasion when dealing with Rummagers.He still does, as will be discussed in a later chapter. However, the line must be drawn. Thedamage they have done is incalculable; the ranks of Christians who have confidence in a Final

Authority - a Bible without error - is dwindling at an alarming pace.

Harmless intent must be considered, but the harm must be stopped where we are able to stopit. One may drop poison in your cup, thinking it is only a helpful sedative, but the poisonknows .H1E# PUTTING UP THE BARBED WIRE

nothing of innocence or good intentions - it just goes about its work of killing.

So it is with the deadly army of English versions of the Bible, and the poisonous collage of"original language." No matter how good the intention of the purveyors of various versions,translations, and "better renderings," they are gradually burying the Bible and killing the faith ofour people.

It is time to line our perimeters with barbed wire to keep them out of our churches, schools,colleges and seminaries; to banish them from our Christian newspapers and magazines; todeny them leadership positions in our denominations and fellowships.

We are not talking about denying them fellowship or even not permitting them to preach, if theywill agree to use only the KJV 1611 while in our pulpits.

We must, after all, keep open the channel of honest discussion and debate. Many good men,extraordinarily good men, do not cleave to the KJV. They simply do not realize what they aredoing, and the awful damage that is being done. But, they need to be persuaded, wherepossible, and treated as brothers.




21/29

We are talking about denying them a platform to practice and promote, however innocently,subversion of the Word of God and the people of God.

How can we do that?

We think the answers are self evident, but let us number several ways.

1. In our churches, pastors should politely insist that any speaker use only the KJV 1611, andnever - not even once - refer to "original languages," or "original manuscripts," or "originalautographs," the currently puffed and popular term.

Be kind, but be unmoving.

Some years ago, a pastor who supported one of our Christian schools wanted the author topreach once a month in his pulpit; in exchange, he would teach chapel in the school severaltimes each month. That was agreeable, but we asked him to use only the KJV 1611, andrefrain from any reference to Hebrew or Greek. He became somewhat agitated at that andreplied that the "original languages" were the heart of his messages, and he just was unwilling

to not use them at all. When we refused to compromise, he refused to teach.

That was unpleasant because he was a good friend, but that is what we must do if we are toslow down in the least the onslaught against the Bible and the faith of our people.

By the way, that good man is still a friend.

2. Christians should withdraw, at once, all support from colleges, seminaries and Christianschools that are not openly and adamantly KJV 1611 only.

3. Christians should refuse to attend churches where other versions are used, or where the

pastor consistently and habitually gives his own translation or "rendering." An occasionalreferral to Greek or Hebrew might be overlooked, but when it is so regular that not doing it isan exception, one should seek another church.

Most especially, if a pastor regularly refers to the KJV as being wrongly translated, Biblebelievers should look elsewhere.

Note: Before abandoning such a church, like minded members should seek an audience withthe pastor, and kindly, gently, lovingly try to persuade him to correct his ways. If he will notlisten, move on.

4. Pastors and churches should obstinately refuse to use literature that is not strictly - in everyinstance, without a single failure - KJV 1611.

5. Pulpit committees should not even consider for a fraction of an eye blink a candidate that isnot enthusiastically, militantly KJV 1611.

On that subject, shortly before these paragraphs were written the author was talking to a goodman whose pastor used the scurrilous NIV. He explained thus, "When we asked him, he saidhe had no problem using the KJV, but after we called him, the NIV is all he used."




22/29

With few exceptions, never trust a preacher, teacher or professor to not Rummage, who is lessthan zealously enthusiastic about the KJV!

The exception is the man who is truly trying to find the truth about it. After all, most of ourreligious college educated people have been fed other versions as a daily course, garnishedwith heaping amounts of personal "renderings of the original languages," and no one told themthere might be a problem with all that. Some never give much thought to what they are taught,

but just accept it, since, after all, they are conditioned to believe their professors areknowledgeable and trustworthy. Having been exposed to little else but corruptions of Scripture,they genuinely do not know if there is a problem with what they are doing, but they know thatthere are others who believe there is, having been warned by their teachers to beware of "KJVnuts."

This author has known quite a few such good, honest men and women. They need to beinstructed with love and patience, and, if they truly wish to think, if they really care, and if theyare not too proud to examine their own views, they will come to the KJV position. Such peoplewill honestly tell you they are not sure and are still trying to find the truth about it.

It is the one who is not arrow direct you must beware of. An honest person will say withouthedging that he is not a KJV man, he is, or he just does not know. The one who is not honestwill tell you how he loves the KJV, but will not openly and adamantly guarantee he will not usethe others.

A man who truly is a KJV man, when you ask him, will get a light in his eye and a snap in hisspine, look you in the eye and, without any squirming, shuffling of feet, or diplomatic words tellyou he is KJV and only KJV!

When he begins to talk about how he loves the KJV, but likes this or that version also; but hewill use the KJV in the pulpit, and he memorizes from the KJV, and such like; take him to a

nice restaurant for dinner and say a fond farewell. He is not a KJV man. He will Greek andHebrew you into heathenism.

Especially avoid him if he says something such as, "I have no problem using the KJV," as didthe above pastor. You want a man who says, "I use only the KJV 1611! I won't pastor a churchthat insists I use anything else!"


While loving and fellowshipping as brothers with Rummagers, we must insist they use only theKJV when in our schools and churches.

Table of Contents

Chapter 8

ROOTING FOR ROOTS, AND EUTHANASIA




23/29

Hardened Rummagers, and many casual ones, tell us that we need to scavenge the Greekand breed new versions for four basic reasons.

First, they claim there are many inaccuracies in the KJV that must be corrected.

Second, they pontificate that we now have better manuscripts than the KJV translators had.

Third, they claim we must examine root words in their original language to "exegete," or rootout the full meaning of a word or passage.

Fourth, they remind us that there are old, or archaic words that are no longer in usage; thatthese ancient words cause confusion, since most people have no idea what they mean.Therefore, such words must be euthanized, or put to death as being too old and sick to beuseful.

We have already noted the egotistical, childish absurdity of suggesting the first and second.Let us now examine those two play toys rummaged from the Rummagers' toy box, "rootwords," and "archaic words."

(Remember, dear Rummager, no personal offense is meant. However, if you feel offended, weunderstand and will not be put-off, provoked, or hurt if you would like to pause here for amoment to call us rednecked, ignorant, etc. Remember, this author is not your enemy on apersonal level.)

WHAT ABOUT ROOT WORDS?

A root word in this context is the Greek or Hebrew base word from which the word in questionoriginated. By finding out all the shades of meaning of this root word, Rummagers, and evensome KJV people mistakenly think they can find a more complete and truer meaning.

Referring to a root word, however, may well be entirely misleading when determining themeanings of words descending from it. The meaning of the word in question is oftencompletely different from the root. If the meaning is not different, then there is no point inreferring to the root at all, since that would be redundant, or saying the same thing a secondtime.

For example, consider the English word villain; it means a scoundrel, a person who does badthings. However, the roots are the Old French word vilain, and Late Latin villanus, which meant"a farm servant," or "a peasant." These root words are from the Latin villa, which means "acountry house," or "farm." The word villager comes from the same root.

Thus, one can easily imagine someone from a non English speaking country, or a futureEnglish speaking "scholar" justifying a multiple murderer, such as Charles Manson, becausethey have read a publication calling him a villain. They will reason something like this:

"He was in reality a friendly, country boy. The word depicting him as a scoundrel and murdererhas been mistranslated and misunderstood. The root of "villain" is the Latin "villa," from whichcame the Old French "vilain," which simply means a farm servant. Also, the word "village"comes from the same root, and it means a small, country town. Therefore, we must concludethat Manson was a well liked, friendly, harmless farm boy who lived in a small rural




24/29

community.".H1E# WILD ROOTS AND EUTHANASIA

All too often, Rummagers, and sometimes even KJV advocates, wrestle roots to support theirpositions when the literal words on the Bible page do not. Such aerobics either result inoutright error, or a flighty, somewhat comical "rendering" that says exactly the same thing thatis on the page of your KJV 1611.

Thus, we can say with assurance that those who dig for roots invariably dig up wild onions thatspoil the milk and taint the meat.

EUTHANASIA: Kill those decrepit old words!

"There are just so awfully many old, 'archaic' words in the KJV," our Rummaging friends say,"and nobody knows what they mean anymore."

Really?

Archaic, or old words, there are aplenty in the KJV. Rather than calling them archaic, however,

one would be more accurate in calling them more colorful, descriptive, and precise. The KJVEnglish was the language at its most eloquent and beautiful, conveying the most fine andexquisite shades of meaning. What's more, it gives the Bible an aura of majesty that modernEnglish can never give.

Those archaic words, further, are so easily understood that most readers do not even have topause to mentally register them. After all, who is confused by such old usages as goeth,endureth, thee, thou, behold and the like?

Replacing the so-called archaic words with modern English is akin to replacing a fourteencourse meal prepared by the South's finest grandmother cooks, with a month old, unwrapped

twinkie from a hobo's pocket.

If you need help with the beautiful old words that our decayed, atrophied and rotted modernEnglish has shriveled from, we recommend Dr. Laurence Vance's book, Archaic Words andthe Authorized Version, which can be ordered from Vance Publications, POB 11781,Pensacola, Florida 32524, or call (904) 474-1626.

Most assuredly, we need not call in the multitude of would be, "wanna be," theological Dr.Kervorkians to end the lives of these rich, beautiful, exquisite, elegant, splendid, muscular oldwords.


Root words are of no value to understanding, because the KJV translation is already the bestpossible; and "archaic" words give finer meanings, and are not at all hard to learn andunderstand.

Table of Contents




25/29

Chapter 9

WHAT IS A RUCKMANITE?

The Rummagers often claim that no one ever thought the KJV to be the final Word of God inEnglish until Dr. Peter Ruckman, of Pensacola, Florida, came along. That, of course, is absurdto the point of comedy, since legions have believed that almost from the day the KJV was firstprinted, over 300 years before Dr. Ruckman was born.

However, Dr. Ruckman has been a central figure in the issue here in America for the betterpart of the last half of the twentieth century. Thus, in the following chapter, we shall say a wordabout him and others deeply involved in the dispute.

What is significant, and the reason this is being mentioned here is that the enemies, posingusually as friends, of the KJV have tried to dismiss and ridicule the KJV people as a modernmovement, almost a cult, who have blindly followed the teachings of one man, Dr. PeterRuckman, whom they are fond of wrongly portraying as a mad man.

If you have no answer, ridicule the questioner

It is an old ploy - if one cannot answer the arguments of the opposition, try to discredit themwith ridicule, insults, and innuendo, or portray them as blind, thick headed, and ignorantfollowers of a wild man; as Johnnies-come-lately with no support from reason nor backgroundfrom history.

This, by the way, is meant as no criticism of Dr. Ruckman. For whatever reasons, however, heis much hated and continually reviled by militant Rummagers. (He freely reviles them, too.)They have painted him in the bloodiest, darkest of colors. Having done so, they then attempt to

dip all KJV people in the same pots.

A Word about Dr. Peter Ruckman

Dr. Peter Ruckman, of Pensacola, Florida, is one of the most hated men in the Bible believingcamp. That is unfortunate, as many believe him to be of our most brilliant minds. The hatredstems almost exclusively from his stand for the King James 1611 Bible, and the causticcomments he often makes about those who disagree with that stand. A few examples of hisstatements will suffice to give an accurate overall picture.

In his 1990 booklet THE NIV: An "In-Depth" Documentation of Apostasy, he says, "The

contemporary apostates in America today are the Fundamentalists who 'use' the AV becausethey 'prefer' it ($$$), not because they believe it." His list of "apostates," as found in his variouswritings, include Dr. Lee Roberson, Dr. Curtis Hutson, Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. and Dr. Bob JonesIII, Dr. W. A. Criswell, Dr. John R. Rice, Bob Jones University, Tennessee Temple University,Bible Baptist College in Springfield, Missouri, and a host of others usually identified asfundamentalists.

He asserts that financial enrichment is the primary motivation for those who give birth to andsupport all translations other than the KJV 1611. His closing statement in the above bookletcalls anyone who does not accept the KJV, "A Bible-rejecting apostate", and says, "If any




26/29

sucker mistakes you for a Bible believer, fleece him: anyone that stupid doesn't deserve tokeep bus fare."

Strong language, indeed. Unquestionably divisive. What is questionable is if such language isa necessary or proper tool to educate and persuade those who are in even the most obviouserror, as the Rummagers certainly are.

However, fairness requires us to note that the language of leading Rummagers when referringto KJV believers is every bit as caustic, and even more bitter and malicious than Dr.Ruckman's.

Whatever one thinks of Dr. Ruckman, he has been piercingly astute in the following area.

MONEY! LOTS OF IT! That Is Why There Are Other Versions!

Let there be no mistake, though one may question Dr. Ruckman's way of saying some things,he is absolutely correct in asserting that the primary reason for the proliferation of Bibleversions is money, huge fortunes in money!

Money, and the equal lust for prestige and fame.

If one can produce a translation that will be published by a major publisher, he becomes quitewealthy and receives the laurels of "scholarship." Publishers make millions in profits off theseversions, and that is the solitary reason they continually print them and ceaselessly promotethem, and that's why most "Bible" bookstores sell and promote them. We will say more aboutsuch stores a few paragraphs below.

The English of Revision Westcott-Hort, the ASV, RSV, TEV, The Living Bible, NIV, and all therest have brought wealth and prestige to many people - people who have sold their characters,

some their very souls, in exchange for dollars and pounds.

Some, such as Westcott and Hort, and many of the liberal editors and organizations had andhave the added incentive of an abiding hatred for the Word of God.

Now, let's break for a ham biscuit, here, and make "Bible" bookstore owners happy. (Wonderwhy "Bible" is in quotes?)

HONEST JOHN'S BIBLE BOOKSTORE

Before discussing most "Bible" bookstores, lets say a word of praise and thanksgiving for the

rare Bible bookstores operated by dedicated, uncompromising men and women who will notviolate their convictions for lucre, and who seek to glorify God and honor His word.

Having given honor where it is unquestionably due, it is sadly true that the majority of Biblebookstores are unworthy of the title, Bible, and are proofs of Dr. Ruckman's claim that moneyis the engine that drives Bible translations. Most "Bible" book store operators show evidence ofhave little interest in honoring God, and caring only for the bottom line of their ledgers; they willsell anything that brings in money. It is appalling to see bookstore after bookstore with ownerswho otherwise seem to be caring Christians, carelessly put out for sale everything thatwanders down the pike of Biblical and theological corruption. Many seem to have genuine




27/29

convictions elsewhere, but when it comes to their business - selling religious material - theyare not distinguishable from the proverbial "Honest John's Used Cars."

Well, there is one distinction - the sawdust and grease packed car you get from a crooked cardealer will be better than the corruption and excess packed "Bibles" you find at suchbookstores.

(By the way, most used car dealers are good, decent people. The reader understands we donot mean to brand all with the old caricature.)

OLD CRACK CACKLES

Satan, Old Crack, cares not for money - he just hates God, Christ and the Bible. He has usedthe lust for money and fame to birth every English translation - every one of them - in his questto destroy the effectiveness of the Bible. How he must chuckle, cackle and roar with laughteras conservative and fundamentalist Rummagers render and rent!


MONEY and PRESTIGE are the motives behind all versions other than the KJV.

This is a good time to look at some representative arguments of the opposition to the KJV. Letus listen to and thoughtfully examine the words of the Rummagers.

Table of Contents

Part 2 of KJV 1611: Perfect!

FOR MORE INFORMATION

There is a growing number of books in defense of the one Bible, the King James Version of 1611. We thank Godfor the good men who have taken up the gauntlet. Following are a few books and sources for those who wish toread more and in more detail about manuscript evidence, and the differences between the KJV and all the rest.The list is by no means complete. Those included happened to be near at hand when this book was finished, and,though all are good, we do not mean to imply that there are not many more just as good.

Fuller, David Otis, Which Bible. Grand Rapids International Publications, P.O. Box 2607, Grand Rapids, MI49501. 1975 Also by Dr. Fuller, True or False, and Counterfeit or Genuine.

Gipp, Samuel C.,An Understandable History of the Bible. 1252 East Aurora Rd., Macedonia, OH 44056. 1987

Heaton, Paul, Could the NIV be the True Word of God? POB 42, Lupton, MI 48635. 1995

Hills, Edward F., The King James Version Defended. Christian Research Press, POB 2013, Des Moines, IA50310. 1973

Ray, James J., God Wrote Only One Bible. Eye Opener Publishers, Junction City, Oregon 97448. 1976.

Riplinger, G. A., New Age Bible Versions. 1252 East Aurora Rd., Macedonia, OH 44056. 1993




28/29

Ruckman, Peter, Manuscript Evidence. Pensacola Bible, POB 6036, Pensacola, FL 32503

Vance, Laurence M.,Archaic Words and the Authorized Version. POB 11781, Pensacola, FL 32524. 1996

Waite, D. A., Defending the King James Bible. 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. 1992

Many of the above have other volumes and helps of various kinds. We suggest you contact them for a completelist of books, flyers and other items defending the KJV. Also, you should find many helpful books through thefollowing:

Which Bible Society

2233 Michigan St. NE

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Table of Contents


Other books by Dr. Roy Branson, Jr.

All books hardback except as noted

DEAR PREACHER, PLEASE QUIT $16.00

Reveals pastors not called by God; the ministry shamed by egos and meanness. Encouragement for preachers;help for pastor's wife. Perhaps the most important book in a hundred years.

MOST CHRISTIANS DON'T KNOW and STUDY GUIDE $22.00

In over 80 nations. The best Bible study in the world! For use in Christian schools, family studies, Sunday schools,etc. Paperback. Books....$7.00 ea case of 54....$75.00

END OF THE WORLD (Two Vols) $24.00

See Armageddon as never shown before; The mighty rider on the white horse thunder across a stricken universe!Sensational! Never a book like this! NEVER!

CHURCH SPLIT (You will be amazed) $16.00

You probably will never encounter a problem not covered. Problem people, issues analyzed, answers given. Inputfrom over 30,000 churches, preachers, laymen. Thousands helped.

DEAR ABNER, I LOVE YOU. JOAB $17.00

Deals with divisive people and issues. Names names, because assassins roam the land, disguised as defendersof the Faith. Says what no one has dared say before.

A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT (2 vols) $20.00




29/29

A CHAMPION for that great army of divorced Christians. You are NOT tainted, second class: NOT disqualifiedfrom the pastorate, missions, or any other service.

Dr. Branson's sermon tapes also available.

Order from:

Landmark Publications

P.O. Box 757

Bristol, Tennessee 37621

(423) 878-8542

Table of Contents


Back to the Bible Believers' Home Page


Documents

KJV 1611, A Conviction, Not a Preference