Refute the View That the King James Version (KJV)

5/25/2018 Refute the View That the King James Version (KJV)

1/76

Introductory notes:

This outline is designed to refute the view that the King James Version (KJV) is the only

modern Bible on earth that is 100% accurate and error free.

1. Foremost, we feel that the KJV is an EXCELLENT translation, but not the

ONLY excellent translation.

2. In over 90 percent of the New Testament, readings are identical word-for-word,

regardless of the family. Of the remaining ten percent, MOST of the differences

between the texts are fairly irrelevant, such as calling the Lord "Christ Jesus"

instead of "Jesus Christ," or putting the word "the" before a noun. Less than

two percent would significantly alter the meaning of a passage, and NONE of

them would contradict or alter any of the basic points of Christian doctrine.

What we have, then, is a dispute concerning less than one-half of one percent of

the Bible. The other 99.5% we all agree on!

3. Because there are over 14,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament we can

absolutely be confident of its accuracy. With this large number of manuscripts,

comparing manuscripts easily reveals any place where a scribe has made an

error or where there is a variation. There are approximately 150,000 variations

in the manuscripts we have today. However, these variations represent only

10,000 places in the New Testament (if the same word was misspelled in 3,000

manuscripts, that is counted as 3,000 variations.) Of these 10,000 places, all but

400 are questions of spelling in accord with accepted usage, grammatical

construction, or order of words. Of the remaining variations, only 50 are ofsignificance (such as two manuscripts leaving out Acts 2:37). But of these 50,

not one alters even one article of faith which cannot be abundantly sustained by

other undoubted passages. There are some manuscripts that date as early as 130

AD, very close to the completion of the New Testament. These manuscripts are

nearly identical to those dating 900 years later, thus verifying the accuracy of

the scribes.

4. These advocates reject all others Bible's that post-date the KJV.

5. They believe that the KJV is not only inspired in the original language, but also

in the translation process.

6. This claim of an inspired translation process is not made for any other Bible

translation.

7. Only a very tiny fraction of people who use the KJV actually believe that the

translation process was inspired by the Holy Spirit.


2/76

8. We feel that the KJV is to be classed as one of several major standards of Bible

translations including, NASB, RSV, NKJV, ASV, NIV. All these translations

are equal in quality and all should be used for Bible study.

9. The TR itself was based on a very few, late scripts, not one of which contained

the entire Greek New Testament and none earlier than the 12th century. In thematter of the book of Revelation, a missing page was translated from the Latin

Vulgate BACK to the Greek. Acts 9:6 although found in the Latin Vulgate, and

thus the TR is found in no Greek manuscript at all. In light of its obvious

shortcomings, a greater number of older and more complete manuscripts were

used in the translation of subsequent versions (post-1881)} (The KJV Debate:

A Plea for Realism, D.A. Carson)

Steve Rudd

We speak the truth in Love...


3/76

Go To Start

We speak the truth in Love...

Click here to tell us of how we misrepresented KJV only position

Photo gallery of 1611 edition, KJV marginal variatio
http://www.bible.ca/bible.htmhttp://www.bible.ca/seek-comment.htmhttp://www.bible.ca/seekers.maphttp://www.bible.ca/seek-comment.htmhttp://www.bible.ca/bible.htm


4/76

This photo gallery single handedly refutes any notion that

the translators were inspired in their work of translation.

By Steve Rudd

Proof #1: that the translators were NOT inspired in their work of translation:

1. There are over 8000 alternate English renderings from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we

2. The first example (Judges 19:2) below shows a place where the meaning of the Hebrew is obs

"a year and four months"??? Quite a difference! But the structure of the Hebrew makes it diffic

to know for sure which it is. So they show the alternate reading, NOT KNOWING THEMSELWHICH IS CORRECT!

3. No one questions the Greek and Hebrew is inspired. But if the translators were also inspired bwork of translating the inspired Hebrew into English, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN GUIDED

INSPIRATION THE CORRECT RENDERING, hence no need for any alternate readings in th

4. Remember, although we have only shown one example of this first type of marginal reading, t

we have not shown!

5. The New American Standard Bible is in the left hand column for reference.


5/76

"But his concubine played the

harlot against him, and she wentaway from him to her father's

house in Bethlehem in Judah, and

was there for a period of four

months." Judges 19:2, NASB

The KJV reading is identical to the NAS

Proof #2: that the translators were NOT inspired in their work of translation:

1. Everyone agrees that there are minor variations in the copies of the original Greek and Hebrew

errors are typical of types of errors men make when they copy things and make absolutely no dpromised that "scripture cannot be broken" John 10:36 and Peter said, that the "imperishable ..

forever" 1 Peter 1:23-25.

2. Now KJV ONLY advocates believe that the translators were directed by the Holy Spirit to mabetween two variations in the Greek or Hebrew text.

3. There are a number of marginal readings that indicate alternate manuscriptreadings. This is di

readings from identical manuscripts.

4. The fact that the translators placed into the margin alternate manuscript readings PROVES BE

that they WERE NOT GUIDED by the Holy Spirit as to which one of the two readings were c

5. We have included in this collection 13 different places in the original 1611 edition of the KJV
http://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-judges-19-2.jpg


6/76

alternate manuscript readings.

6. The images on the right are from the original 1611 edition KJV. Few have ever seen it and areedition, like "modern versions" signal the reader of alternate readings in the underlying Greek

translators were inspired in their work... they didn't know it.

"Machnadebai, Shashai, Sharai"

Ezra 10:40, NASB

http://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-ezra-10-40.jpg


7/76

"For my days have been consumed

in smoke, And my bones havebeen scorched like a hearth" Ps

102:3, NASB

The NASB reads like the margin in the K

"and to Josiah were born Jeconiah

and his brothers, at the time of thedeportation to Babylon." Mt 1:11,

NASB

http://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-matthew-1-11.jpghttp://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-psalm-102-3.jpg


8/76

"All things have been handed over

to Me by My Father, and no oneknows who the Son is except the

Father, and who the Father is

except the Son, and anyone to

whom the Son wills to revealHim." Lk 10:22, NASB


"*["Two men will be in the field;

one will be taken and the other will

be left."]" *Margin: "Many

manuscripts do not contain thisverse"Lk 17:36, NASB

The KJV reading is identical to the NASB although both indic

verse is missing in most Greek manuscrip

"And after he had spent not more

than eight orten days among them,he went down to Caesarea; and on

the next day he took his seat on the

tribunal and ordered Paul to bebrought." Acts 25:6 NASB

http://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-acts-25-6.jpghttp://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-luke-17-36.jpghttp://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-luke-10-22.jpg


9/76

"And, masters, do the same things

to them, and give up threatening,knowing that both their Master and

yoursis in heaven, and there is no

partiality with Him." Eph 6:9,

NASB


But someone may wellsay, "You

have faith, and I have works; show

me your faith without the works,and I will show you my faith by

my works." James 2:18, NASB

http://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-ephesians-6-9.jpg


10/76

" For you have been called for this

purpose, since Christ also sufferedforyou, leaving youan example for

you to follow in His steps" 1 Peter

2:21, NASB


"And many will follow theirsensuality, and because of them the

way of the truth will be maligned"

2 Peter 2:2, NASB

http://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-2-peter-2-2.jpghttp://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-1-peter-2-21.jpg


11/76

"whereas angels who are greater in

might and power do not bring areviling judgment against them

before the Lord" 2 Peter 2:11,

NASB


"For speaking out

arrogant words of vanity theyentice by fleshly desires, by

sensuality, those who barely

escape from the ones who live in

error" 2 Peter 2:18, NASB

http://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-2-peter-2-18.jpghttp://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-2-peter-2-11.jpg


12/76

"Watch yourselves, that you might

not lose what *we haveaccomplished, but that you may

receive a full reward" *Margin:

"Some ancient mss. readyou"2

John 8, NASB

The KJV reading is identical to the NASB although both indicaGreek manuscripts read "you" instead of "

KJV ONLY advocates will make these incredible arguments:(actual arguments from those who defend the infallibility of the KJV)

KJV ONLY argument: Refutation of this argument:

#1: The original KJV in 1611 AD

when it first came out had no

marginal notes.

1. This is simply blind faith gone to seed!

2. A statement based on wishful thinking without any prooknown facts!

3. The very first KJV had marginal notes. TAKE A SECON

#2: These marginal notes were

added by the publishers and did

not originate with the inspiredtranslators.

1. As if the publishers would have the knowledge to make

alternate manuscripts.

2. As if the Translators would have silently allowed the pu

readers after the Holy Spirit had told them which reading

3. The translators made clear reference to the need of the m

the original preface

4. Click here to read it for yourself!

#3: The original

translatorspreface was not

1. As ridiculous as it is unfounded and without proof!
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#marginhttp://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#prefacehttp://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#marginhttp://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#prefacehttp://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-2-john-8.jpghttp://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#marginhttp://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#prefacehttp://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#marginhttp://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#preface


13/76

written by or authorized by thetranslators but was inserted

against their wishes by the

publishers.

2. The last gasp of a dying false doctrine!

#4: The fact is, the marginal

readings are NOT THE WORDSOF GOD and the TEXT IS. The

translators did not KNOW that

they were being guided totranslate His word correctly,

that much is certain. Just

because they wrote in the

margins doesn't mean the text is

not accurate!

1. Incredible!!! Imagine this. The KJV translators specifica

they were specially guided by God in thepreface, but didwrote in the preface was wrong. God was inspiring their

2. Unanswerable question: "If the translators died not know

HOW DID YOU FIND THIS OUT"???

Questions for "KJV only" advocates:

Some questions by Steve Rudd, who compiled the remaining questions from others.

1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.

2. What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there

was no Bible.

3. Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.

4. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611

version contained the apocrypha?
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#prefacehttp://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#prefacehttp://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#preface


14/76

5. If the KJV translators were inspire, why did they use a marginal reference to

the apocrypha:

6. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say

of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine

GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!

7. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat

the process again in modern language in each language?

8. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free,

why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?

9. Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation

possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no

alternates!

10.If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not

know it?

11.Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern

editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to

James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."?

12.When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do

you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?

13.If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the

KJV, why would italics be necessary?

14.In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good

thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just tounderstand the Bible in casual reading?

15.Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for

copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on

their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not

realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all

copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If
http://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-hebrews-11-35.jpg


15/76

"God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their

defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?

16.Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that

Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of

"translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)

17.Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated,

was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th

century?

18.If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of

Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for

these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then

translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?

19.Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer andmore precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible

students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English"

dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the

English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates

to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in

such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences

between "agape" and "phileo" love words.)

20.Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611

version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire theEnglish providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings?

(Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church.

This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He

prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of

Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the

day.)

21.Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to

Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke".

Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporarytheology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?

22.Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in

that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"?

(Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon

from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates

realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were


16/76

translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of

errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)

23.Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations

have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant,

because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translatedunder the inspired supervision of God?

24.Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of

mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat",

"cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of

these creatures is?

25.If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly

distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-

DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-

GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell

after judgement: Rev 20:14)

26.Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek

form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why

are they creating distinctions were none exist?

27.Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between

the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son

of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar

states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. The definite article was alsoadded to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54.)

28.How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when

Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript

known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is

used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of

life"?

29.How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn

5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably

written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who

took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the

doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse)

30.How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2

where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect

plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?


17/76

31.Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the

word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some

"limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation?

Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have

"the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with

them to North America?

32.Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest]

translation" is still "the word of God"?

33.Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of

God"?

34.Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct"

the English?

35.Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew andGreek texts from which it was translated?

36.Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?

37.Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]

38.WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV

major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762,

1769, and the last one in 1850?

39.In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach thatthe Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?

40.Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the

form of one seventeenth-century English translation?

41.Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?

42.Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New

Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.]

Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?

43.Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?

44.Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word

of God"?


18/76

45.What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was

absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and

copies still exist].

46.If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking

people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from1525-1604?

47.Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great

[1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible?

48.If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a

lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter

1:23]

49.If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek

originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?

50.Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired

"scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in

old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by

the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus - "For the King James

Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated

as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?

51.Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "whom ye"

[Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?52.Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "sin"

[Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?

53.Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?

54.Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in

punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words,

word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions,

prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you

say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701,1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

55.Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the

throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would

you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises this king as "most dread

Sovereign . . .Your Majesty's Royal Person . . ." - IF the historical FACT was

revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life?


19/76

[documentation - Antonia Fraser -- "King James VI of Scotland, I of England"

Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham -- "The Making of a

King" Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott -- "James I"

Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 ||

David H. Wilson -- "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101,

336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]

56.Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on

Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even

though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work?

[Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book

House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]

57.Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2: 3, could

give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?

58.Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the

KJV?

59.Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in

the KJV?

60.Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the

modern-English KJV reader? - "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you,

our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your

own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,)

be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood from the New InternationalVersion [NIV] - "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide

our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are

withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children -

open wide your hearts also."

61.Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark

6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by

the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?

62.Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in

the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8?

[Remember - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-

Onlyite!]

63.Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter

1:11 in the KJV? [Again - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are

a KJV-Onlyite!]


20/76

64.Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here

in Greek]

65.Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55

in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10]

66.Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans

8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"?

[Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 - see more Spurgeon

KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his & many others' views in the

article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]

67.Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of

John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent

and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace

Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian

Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect'

translation - the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there

is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek

into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao"

[translated "loved" in John. 3:16]."?

68.Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 - "No one, so far

as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible

and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally

given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is

a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"?

[Difficulties in the Bible, page 17]

69.Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus

replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June

1989, page 6]

70.Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to

English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above]

Indisputable, universally recognized errors in

the KJV


21/76

Special thanks to Bill Reid for providing some source documentation in this section.

Errors where the KJV translation disagrees with the Textus

Receptus:

KJV translates... Textus Receptus actually says..."robbers of churches." Acts 19:37 Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS

"Lucifer" Is 14:12"O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname fo

devil but the king of Babylon)

"Easter" Acts 12:4"Passover"(Easter very poor choice as it confuses theholy day with what the TR clearly says is the Jewish

"Baptism" (entire New Testament) Acts 2:38;

22:16

immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of bapti

transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to trans

"Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12"all I acquire" (Not only variant with the TR, but quit

capital, only increase)"Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24 "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to C

"God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16,1Kings 1:25

"May the king live" ("God" not in TR, but reflects thethe translators used dynamic equivalents.)

"God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13;

9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14

"may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word

because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof

equivalents.)

"sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18 "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- tast

"ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38 "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by usi

"flagon" 2 Sam 6!# ! $hron !6%# SoS 2

'osea %!

(hese verses contain the word "flagon" which is a flu

'owever, the 'ebrew word is "ashishah" which has

is especially true in 'os %! because raisin ca)es werobvious error in translation.

Inconsistency in translating identical words

and phrases in the KJV

Special thanks to Bill Reid for providing some source documentation in this section.

Inconsistency in translating identical words and phrRom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6 Quotes Gen 15:6 KJV translates identical Greek phrases diffe

Rom 12:19, Heb 10:30 quotes Deut 32:35 KJV translates identical Greek phrases diffe

Heb 3:11; 4:3 quotes Ps 95:11 KJV translates identical Greek phrases diffe


22/76

1 Cor 3:17 KJV translates identical Greek words into: "

Mk 15:33, Lk 23:44 KJV translates identical Greek phrases: "wh

Rev 4:4 KJV translates identical Greek words into: "

Mt 25:46 KJV translates identical Greek words into: "

Rom 4:3,4,5,6,9,10,11, 22,24 KJV translates identical Greek verbs: "coun

Rom 7 KJV translates identical Greek "epithumeo"

A Good Translation, But Nothing More

This text article by Jeff Smelser

The King James Version, or "Authorized Version," of the Bible, first published in1611 under the authority of England's King James (hence the designation,

"Authorized"), was in that day a very good translation, and is yet today a useful

translation. However, it has never been due the reverence which many people have

toward it. In fact, no translation is due the reverence which many have toward the

King James Version.

The inspired word of God was and is free from error, being the work not merely of

men, but of men directed by the Spirit of God (2 Pt. 1:20-21, Acts 1:16, 2 Tim. 3:16).

Translations of that word, however, are subject to the limitations of human ability, and

therefore, are imperfect. Moreover, errors arise not only in the process of translatingfrom the original languages utilized by God to other languages, but also due to the fact

that translations are made from texts of God's word in the original languages, texts

which are themselves imperfect in varying degrees. This last point is that with which

we shall concern ourselves in this study, and especially as it has to do with the King

James Version. No scriptures exist today in the hand of the original writer. Rather

hand-made copies, and in reality, copies of copies, of the originals exist, some very

ancient. These are called manuscripts. These manuscripts are imperfect copies,

containing the same kinds of errors that slip into hand-made copies of any piece of

literature, whether it be a work of Shakespeare, Homer, or a book report for school.

Translators work with compilations of these manuscripts. These compilations

represent the efforts of men to weed out the errors (interpolations, omissions, and

substitutions) of each individual manuscript by comparing various manuscripts, and

arrive at a text which represents as accurately as possible the original text of the

scriptures. This process is referred to as textual criticism.


23/76

Over five thousand manuscripts, including several from as early as the third century,

are available to textual critics today. Some of these include virtually the entire Bible,

while others contain only certain books, or groups of books of the Bible. Some are

mere fragments. Such extensive manuscript evidence contributes to the ability of

modern textual critics to present us with a reliable text of God's word.

However, such extensive and ancient manuscript evidence was not available at the

time the King James Version was translated. Even such manuscript evidence as was

available was not used as effectively as it could have been in attempting to determine

the original text.

The Text Behind the King James Version

The Greek text used by the translators who made the King James Version is

commonly referred to as the Received Text, which in turn had its beginnings in theearly 1500's when the first printed Greek texts were made. The Complutensian Bible

was a polyglot Bible, published in several volumes. The fifth volume, which included

a Greek text of the New Testament, was printed in 1514. However, Erasmus' Greek

text, printed in 1516, was the first to be marketed. For this reason, and others, the text

prepared by Erasmus surpassed the Complutensian text in popularity, and exerted the

greatest influence on all the texts to follow for the next few centuries.

After Erasmus' text had seen several revisions, Robert Estienne, commonly referred to

as Stephanus, published successive editions of a Greek text. His first two editions

were compounds of Erasmus' text and the Complutensian text. However, the thirdedition (1550) was based primarily on the fourth and fifth editions of Erasmus' text.

This 1550 edition gained wide acceptance in England, and for many is synonymous

with the Received Text.

However, it was not until 1624 that the phrase, Received Text, or in the Latin, Textus

Receptus, was actually coined, and then it was from the preface to the third edition of

a Greek text published by Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir. The words were, as

described by Bruce Metzger, part of "a more or less casual phrase advertising the

edition (what modern publishers might call a 'blurb')." The phrase boasted in Latin

that the text presented was "the text which is now received by all." Thus came thephrase Textus Receptus, or Received Text.

The text published by the Elzevir brothers was mainly taken from a text published by

Theodore de Beza in 1565. Beza's text showed its heritage from that of Stephanus,

and ultimately from that of Erasmus. It is this basic text, common to Erasmus,

Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers, which lies behind all the protestant


24/76

translations into English that were made from the Greek language prior to the

nineteenth century, including the King James Version. According to The New Schaff-

Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, "The textus receptus...resolves itself

essentially into that of the last edition of Erasmus."

As we stated before, no translation is due the reverence which many have toward theKing James Version. Moreover, while the King James Version represents a scholarly

translation from the Greek, because of the Greek text which lies behind it, it is

perhaps even somewhat less deserving of such high esteem than some other

translations. Bruce Metzger writes,

So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some

cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege. Yet its

textual basis is essentially a handful of late and haphazardly collected minuscule

manuscripts, and in a dozen passages its reading is supported by no known Greek

witness. (The Text of the New Testament, p. 106)

The vast majority of textual variations between the Textus Receptus and later texts

(which are based to a large extent on older manuscripts that have been discovered or

made available only in the last 150 years) are of no significance whatever. Often,

variants are such that they are not at all distinguishable after being translated into

English. At other times the variants merely represent the attempt of some scribe to

supplement one synoptist's account with a detail legitimately provided in the account

of another synoptist. However, occasionally the variations are more serious.

Although much credit is due to Erasmus for having made a Greek text available at all,

the text which he presented was not of good quality. The half dozen manuscripts used

by Erasmus were all of late origin. Most, if not all, were from the fifteenth century,

while two may have been made as early as the twelfth century. He had only one

manuscript which contained the book of Revelation, and it was missing the final leaf,

which had contained the last six verses of Revelation. For these verses, Erasmus

turned to the Vulgate, a Latin translation of the scriptures. Erasmus translated the

Latin back to Greek. Thus, for those verses, it was a contrived Geek text which

eventually came to be translated into English in the King James Version. Trying to

discover the original Greek text by looking at a Latin translation is a little like tryingto discover the exact ingredients used in making a German chocolate cake by tasting

it. While your guess may be close, you will not be exactly right. Thus some words

which have never been found in any Greek manuscript were incorporated into

Erasmus' text, and in turn, into the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. For

example, at Revelation 22:19, the phrase, "book of life" in the King James Version

should be "tree of life" according to all known Greek manuscripts.


25/76

In other passages also, Erasmus took into his text words and phrases found in the

Latin Vulgate, but supported by virtually no Greek manuscripts. Thus in Acts 9:5-6,

the King James Version inherits from the Vulgate by way of Erasmus the following

words:

...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...

We should note that these words do legitimately belong in Paul's account of his

conversion as recorded by Luke in Acts 26 (verses 14-15), and therefore no factual

error has been introduced in this instance.

A Spurious Passage Included Under Protest

An appalling case of a spurious passage coming from the Latin Vulgate down to the

King James Version by way of Erasmus is described by Bruce Metzger:

Among the criticisms levelled at Erasmus one of the most serious appeared to be...that

his text lacked part of the final chapter of I John, namely the Trinitarian statement

concerning 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And

there are three that bear witness in earth' (I John v. 7-8, King James version). Erasmus

replied that he had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, though he

had in the meanwhile examined several others besides those on which he relied when

first preparing his text. In an unguarded moment Erasmus promised that he would

insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greekmanuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was

found - or made to order! As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been

written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the

disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus stood by his promise and inserted the

passage in his third edition (1522), but he indicates in a lengthy footnote his

suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him.

(The Text of the New Testament, 1st-2nd Edition, Oxford, p 101) Marginal note in

3rd edition: See also p. 291 n.2

Footnote to the above comment by Metzger in the same book in a later

edition:"What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the CommaJohanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent

suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be

corrected in the light of the research of H. J. De Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies

who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion; see his

"Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum,' Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, lvi


26/76

(1980), pp. 381-9 (The Text of the New Testament, 3rd Edition, Oxford, p 291 fn 2.

Footnote Retraction)

In the time since Erasmus, among all the Greek manuscripts that have been examined,

only three more, all of late date, have been found which include the passage, and it

apparently comes to these from the Vulgate, not from earlier Greek exemplars. Thesethree include one sixteenth century manuscript, one manuscript which is said to be

from either the fourteenth or sixteenth century, and one twelfth century manuscript

which has the passage added in the margin by a seventeenth century hand. In spite of

the obvious lack of authenticity this passage, which probably originated as an attempt

to augment the case for trinitarianism, is today included in the King James Version as

if it were part of the inspired word.

Clearly, some of the passages included in the Textus Receptus, and consequently in

the King James Version, are woefully lacking in credentials. But as the Textus

Receptus became stereotyped, even later editors who were more abundantly supplied

with manuscripts, including some from the fourth or fifth century, dared not stray too

far from the text of the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus. This was the case until the

nineteenth century.

In all our discussion we have not touched upon allegations of much more fundamental

shortcomings of the text behind the King James Version. These have to do, not so

much with the inclusion of passages supported by virtually no Greek manuscripts, but

rather with readings found throughout the Textus Receptus which are supported by

many late manuscripts, but which are not found in most of the earliest manuscripts.

The King James Version in Perspective

While there are perhaps no more than a dozen passages where the Received Text has

an interpolation supported by no known Greek manuscript, there is a vastly greater

number of passages where the Received Text has variant readings that are supported

by Greek manuscripts. Often the manuscripts supporting such readings are in the

majority. However, these manuscripts are generally of much later date than those

which are deemed by most scholars to have the authentic reading.

These variations are almost always insignificant with respect to the practical meaning

of God's word. Typical is the case of Mt. 13:9, where the King James Version has,

"Who hath ears to hear, let him hear," while most modern translations (including the

American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, and the New American

Standard Bible) omit the words, "to hear". Most manuscripts include the words.

However, the oldest manuscripts, and those considered most reliable by most scholars,


27/76

omit the words. With reference to the meaning of the text, the variation is

insignificant, especially because the words are included in the parallel accounts (Mk.

4:9, Lk. 8:8). Most scholars believe the variation is the result of scribes adding words

to Matthew's account from the accounts of Mark and Luke. Such additions to the text

seem to be characteristic of the manuscripts on which the Received Text, and

therefore the King James Version, is based.

Some may wonder why we have spent so much time discussing variant readings if, in

fact, they are as inconsequential as we have asserted. The very point we wish to make

is that while the King James Version is a good and reliable translation of the inspired

word, it is not itself inspired. It is not due any greater reverence than any other good

translation, and it is certainly not due the reverence which it receives among some

who believe it alone ought to be used and all others are "innovations". (The King

James Version itself was considered a vile innovation by many when it first came

out.) The fact is, the King James Version is a good translation, and far better than the

paraphrases which are so popular today (e.g. The Living Bible, and The Book, which

is a new edition of The Living Bible), but it is not perfect.

Today, some scholars are again asserting that although the manuscripts behind the

Received Text are generally of very late date, they should be followed in passages

where a variant occurs, even though the oldest manuscripts stand against the reading.

Simplistically put, these scholars believe we should follow the reading of the majority

of manuscripts instead of the reading of the oldest manuscripts.

In the midst of this debate, the New King James Bible has been published in an

attempt to capitalize on the King James Version market. The New King James Bible

updates the language of the King James Version, but again follows the Received Text.

Hence the New King James Bible includes many readings which are found in a

majority of manuscripts but not in the oldest manuscripts. Whether or not this can be

justified, the inclusion of passages which have no support among the extant Greek

manuscripts certainly cannot be justified. However, the translators of the New Kings

James Bible inexplicably duplicated this blunder earlier made by the translators of the

King James Version (e.g. see Acts 9:5-6, 1 John 5:7-8, and "book" in Rev. 22:19).

One should not adhere to any translation to the exclusion of all others, and this iscertainly true of the King James Version and the New King James Bible. One who

uses either of these should also have a copy of one of the newer translations which are

not based upon the Received Text. Especially recommended are the American

Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible.


28/76

*ote (his article first appeared in !+& in "(he (hayer Street essenger." -t is

based, in part, on Bruce etger/s ('0 (01( 3 ('0 *04 (0S(50*(, ford

7niversity 8ress, 2nd ed.,

9eff Smelser

"KING JAMES-ONLYISM" and the "Egyptian Corruption" Argument

by Gary R. Hudson

A friend recently asked me about one of the common objections raised by the KJV-

Only movement to the use of "any manuscripts that come from Egypt." One particular

preacher he sat under was very fond of launching into a tirade against "those evilmodern bibles" because "they're based on manuscripts out of Egypt" and "the Bible

says Egypt is a type of the WORLD!" This is obviously typical of Peter Ruckman,

Chick Publications, Gail Riplinger, J. J. Ray, and other KJV "defenders" who

recklessly throw every device they can concoct against the early manuscripts of the

Greek New Testament. They reason as thus: "The Bible says Egypt is a type of the

world; the world is associated with sin; therefore, it must logically follow that

Alexandrian manuscripts are evil." This is certainly a "case study" in one of the best

examples of "guilt by association" ever imagined.

Actually, the Bible making "Egypt a type of the world" (which, by the way, is not

explicitly stated in the Bible, only implied), does not mean it teaches that all other

regions of the planet are untainted by sin. In fact, it implies the very opposite! If the

Bible teaches that "Egypt is a type of the WORLD," then it DOES "logically follow"

that "the whole WORLD is typified by Egypt" - which, in the case of KJV-Onlys,

would make no region of the entire planet safe for preserving Bible manuscripts! (read

1 John 5:19).

Bob Ross comments: We should also remember the wonderful Providence of the Lord

in regard to Moses, Joseph and the Israelites in Egypt, as well as how the infant Jesus

was taken to Egypt as a means of escaping death in Israel during the time of Herod's

campaign of infanticide. The Lord is Sovereign in Egypt as well as in Antioch,

Jerusalem, and Rome! He works His wonders all over! In fact, if you had to have the

"right place" in which the Lord could do His work, it would have to be a "wrong

place," as the whole world is defiled by sin.


29/76

o "The Translators Were Uninspired Men, And Consequently Liable To

Mistakes; The Translation Is 'Inspired', So Far As It Exactly Gives The

Original. . . . So Far, No More" (John Girardeau)

o "Variety Of Translations Is Profitable For Finding Out Of The Sense Of

The Scriptures." (The Translators Of The King James Version To The

Readers)

o "There Is Even Now, With Some Ignorant Persons, An Assumption Of

The Infallibility And Equality With The Original, Of Some Particular

Translation--As To The Vulgate, Or King James, Or Luther's" (Basil

Manley)

The TRUE Genealogy & Genesis of "KJV - Onlyism"The Bloodline of History

by DOUG KUTILEK

BENJAMIN WILKINSON

In the realm of "King James Version-Onlyism", just such a genealogy of error

can be easily traced. All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have

derived their views ultimately from Seventh-day Adventist missionary,

theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (died 1968),

through one of two or three of his spiritual descendants. In 1930, Mr.

Wilkinson wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, a book of several hundred

pages which attracted almost no attention in its day (no doubt chiefly because it

was awash in a vast ocean of error).

In that book, Wilkinson attacked the "Westcott-Hort Greek text," in large

measure by attacking Westcott and Hort personally (the common but fallacious

ad hominem method; I exposed and refuted his line of argument in "Erasmusand His Theology," The Biblical Evangelist, vol. 19, no. 20, October 15, 1985,

pgs. 3-4)

He also expressed strong opposition to the English Revised Version New

Testament (1881), in particular objecting to it because it robbed Adventism of

two favorite proof-texts, one allegedly teaching Gentile Sabbath-keeping (Acts

13:42), the other misused by the Adventists to teach soul sleep (Hebrews 9:27).


30/76

[some of Wilkinson's grosser errors I documented in "Wilkinson's Incredible

Errors," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 1, no. 3, Fall, 1990 ]

Wilkinson was the first to misapply Psalm 12: 6-7 specifically to the KJV as

though the passage were a promise to preserve the words of verse six [when in

fact the promise is the preservation of the persecuted saints of verse five, as Idemonstrated in my essay, "A Careful Investigation of Psalm 12: 6-7," The

Biblical Evangelist, vol. 17, no. 21, October 14, 1983, later issued in booklet

form as "Why Psalm 12: 6-7 is not a Promise of the Divine Preservation of

Scripture"]

Wilkinson also manufactured the erroneous idea that the medieval Waldensian

Bible was based on the Old Latin version and not the Vulgate, and that the Old

Latin version was Byzantine in its text-type [ all of which is demonstrably

false, as I showed in "The Truth about the Waldensian Bible and the Old Latin

Version," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 2, no. 2, Summer, 1991 ] ThusWilkinson , the first generation . . .

J. J. RAY

Wilkinson's book lay unused and unknown (and how good it would have been

had his errors died with him!), until 1955 when J. J. Ray (died early 1980s),

who is self-described as "business manager, missionary, Bible teacher,"

published a little volume, God Wrote Only One Bible. In his book, Ray heavily

plagiarized, without note or acknowledgement, Wilkinson's book, repeating and

propagating wholesale Wilkinson's errors and misstatements [ the Fact of Ray'splagiarism and dependence is documented in Gary Hudson's article, "The Real

'Eye Opener'," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 2, no. 1, Spring, 1991 ]

Ray's book has gone through numerous printings, with total copies numbering

perhaps in the tens of thousands. I first saw a copy myself in 1971 as a first-

year student at Baptist Bible College, Springfield, Missouri, where I was also

introduced - by students from Ohio - to Ruckman's Bible Babel and Fuller's

Which Bible? I find it of particular interest that Ray acknowledges that there

are some erroneous translations in the KJV which do demand revision (pgs. 30-

31, 102 ), a position today's KJV-Only mainstream would consider rank heresy.

With Ray, the second generation . . .

DAVID OTIS FULLER

The other chief disseminator of Wilkinson's misinformation was the late David

Otis Fuller, a Regular Baptist pastor. Fuller must be counted as part of the third

generation, since, according to Fuller's own words in the dedication of


31/76

Counterfeit or Genuine (1975), Ray's book God Wrote Only One Bible "moved

me to begin this fascinating study." Ray and his book were also repeatedly

noted in Which Bible? (pgs. 2-4). I imagine the scenario went something like

this: Fuller reads Ray; Fuller writes Ray for more information; Ray directs

Fuller to Wilkinson; Fuller reads Wilkinson, is lead astray, then reprints

Wilkinson in Which Bible?

In 1970 Fuller issued Which Bible?, which was in its 5th edition by 1975 and

contained 350 pages. Of these pages, ALMOST HALF were taken from

Wilkinson's Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, with some editing, first to

conceal from view Wilkinson's cult affiliation, and second, to correct some of

the worst of his errors.

According to D. A. Waite, long associated with Fuller in KJV-Only matters,

Fuller knew full-well that Wilkinson was an Adventist and deliberately

concealed that fact from the reader, and even from the publisher [ noted at end

of this section ], because the Baptist brethren "wouldn't understand." Fuller'shaphazard "back and fill" operation aimed at editing out some of Wilkinson's

grosser errors failed miserably to make a silk purse out of a literary sow's ear,

with most errors left untouched [ see the expose, "The Great 'Which Bible?'

Fraud," by myself and Gary Hudson, Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 1, no. 2,

Summer, 1990 ]

As reproduced in Which Bible?, Wilkinson's material is still plagued by blatant

misstatements of the facts, distortions, misrepresentations and half-truths; what

else would you expect to find in a devoted cultist's writings? [ as noted above,

see my article "Wilkinson's Incredible Errors," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 1,no. 3, Fall, 1990 ].

It is this same David Otis Fuller who knowingly misrepresented the views of

Spurgeon regarding the Textus Receptus greek text, KJV, and English Revised

Version [ I exposed Fuller's deception with extensive quotation and

documentation from Spurgeon's own writings in, "Spurgeon & Bible

Translations: the Abuse Continues," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 1, no. 1,

Spring, 1990, published later in booklet form as An Answer to David Otis

Fuller by Pilgrim Publications].

And it is this same David Otis Fuller who grossly misrepresented the views of

Robert Dick Wilson concerning the English Bible. Fuller claimed that the

views of Wilson and himself in this regard were exactly the same, that is, that

Wilson, too, found no errors in the English translation and none in the

underlying texts in Hebrew and Greek. Anyone familiar with Wilson's writings

at all knows that Wilson believed that only the original text was inspired, that

often the translation must be corrected on the basis of the original, and that,


32/76

though current Hebrew copies of the Old Testament are generally reliable,

sometimes the ancient versions (Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, etc.) preserve the

true original reading in places where the Hebrew has been corrupted in the

copying process [ see Wilson's remarks in Studies in the Book of Daniel, vol. I,

pgs. 84-85, and A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, pg. 61].

Fuller also dragged Anglican priest John William Burgon in as "witness" for

his own point of view, even founding a "society" named in Burgon's honor,

though the society [ currently led by D. A. Waite] propagated views the late

Dean Burgon would have rejected. Contrary to David Otis Fuller, not only did

Burgon not believe the textus receptus was unalterably "perfect" and the KJV

unchangeably correct, he was convinced that the textus receptus needed

extensive revision (proposing more than 120 changes in Matthew's Gospel

alone), and stated in print that in some places the English Revised New

Testament of 1881 was a decided improvement over KJV obscurities and

inaccuracies [ see the direct quotations from Burgon's famous book TheRevision Revised, in Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 4, no. 2, pgs. 4, 11, 16 ] and

Gary Hudson's article, "Why Dean Burgon Would Not Join the 'Dean Burgon

Society',"

Fuller, in summary, was ready and willing to conceal the truth about

Wilkinson, and deliberately distort the opinions of Spurgeon and Wilson, men

he claimed to admire, and to invoke the name of John William Burgon, to

deceive his readers and to bolster his own views, even though his (Fuller's)

views were very much at odds with the beliefs of these men. Fuller's blatant

dishonesty and disregard for the truth does not fill one with confidence inexamining anything he wrote or edited on the Bible translation "controversy,"

and yet Fuller is a " founding father " & " leading light " of the KJV- Only "

movement " !

The book Fuller edited, Which Bible?, is a hodge-podge of writings, many by

authors such as Robert Dick Wilson, Zane Hodges and others, who distinctly

reject the Textus Receptus-Only/KJV-Only point of view [ and at least one of

the writers who gave Fuller permission to include something he had written,

complained about the way Fuller had altered the writer's point of view in the

editing process ], and actually gives some information which refutes some ofthe extremes of this movement. In spite of its inherent defects, inherently

contradictory points of view, and frequent errors, Which Bible? in numerous

printings & at least five editions, has had a very extensive influence in shaping

much of the current debate and disseminating much of the misinformation that

characterizes KJV-Onlyism today. Without any doubt at all, I am convinced

that the vast majority of this highly destructive controversy is a direct result of


33/76

Fuller's deceptive and inflammatory book, Which Bible?, and that he must bear

the odium of stirring up strife among brethren (Proverbs 6:19). [Fuller died in

1988]

Note [ by Bob L. Ross ] : After repeated requests by Fuller and his friends,

Robert Kregel of Kregel Publications printed Fuller's three "KJV-Only" books[not using the Kregel Pub. name]. He personally told me that Fuller "begged

me to publish his books" but did not inform Kregel they contained the writings

of an Adventist.

PETER S. RUCKMAN

Self-described " Restorer " of the ' Missing Link ' of KJV '

Final Authority '

Peter S . Ruckman on the KJV -

1. "I've NEVER said that the KING

was Inspired, although I've broa

sometimes ." [his booklet, "WhyJames Version Is the Word of G

2. "Not one time did G OD guaranthe translations was inspired ." [

Bulletin, Nov. 91, pg. 10]

3. "Now, at no time have I stated f

1611 was the ' verbally inspired Verbal inspiration has to do with

and deals with the O RIGINAL

as we all KNOW ." [Letter to R

1971]

Also in the third generation, without question the most arrogant and abusive of

the KJV-Only partisans is Peter S. Ruckman, who passes for a Baptist preacher

and whose ranting have been thrust upon the public in a monthly publication,

Bible Believers' Bulletin, but especially in a series of uniformly bound and

uniformly bad books that are claimed to be commentaries on various Bible

books, topical books on Bible-related subjects, and books related to the Bible

text and translation issue. All of his writings are characterized by the most

vehement vilification and denunciation of everyone and anyone, lumping

together great defenders of the faith such as B. B. Warfield, A. T. Robertson, &C. H. Spurgeon (when he's not falsely claiming Spurgeon's support for his own

views), with the likes of Wellhausen, Adolf Hitler, and Harry Fosdick.

Far worse is the torrent of errors that flood each work and virtually each page

of Ruckman's every published work. He single-handedly has injected more

misinformation into the controversy than all other writers combined.


34/76

Note [ by Bob L. Ross ] : While Ruckman brays a lot about "Final Authority,"

his "hermeneutical" approach to the King James Bible is so nonsensical that he

is nowhere close to what we understand to be the doctrinal, practical, and

prophetic teachings of Scripture. He has various "plans of salvation," various

"gospels," a 10-foot tall Antichrist who arrives on a UFO, a "mark of the beast"

applied by "two huge black lips," baptism for salvation on Pentecost, and other

such nonsense. His "smoke" about "Final Authority" is just so much "hokey" to

beguile the gullible. He twists and distorts the KJV to make it "say" what it

does not say, and doesn't permit it to teach what it plainly says.

It was Ruckman who first propagated the erroneous idea that the KJV has no

copyright [ I exposed and refuted this error with extensive documentation in

"The KJV IS a Copyrighted Translation !" first published in The Biblical

Evangelist, vol. 17, no. 11, May 27, 1983, and reissued in a revised and

expanded form in Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 4, no. 3, October, 1993 ].

It was Ruckman who manufactured out of whole cloth the false claim that no

Protestant scholar has ever personally examined the Vaticanus manuscript [ see

for my refutation, "Ruckmanism: A Refuge of Lies," Baptist Biblical Heritage,

vol. 4, no. 4, January, 1994 ]

It was Ruckman who created out of thin air the absurd notion that there was no

Greek translation of the Old Testament until one was produced by Origen in the

third century A. D. [ proven false in my article "The Septuagint: Riplinger's

Blunders, Believe It or Not," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 5, no. 2, Third

quarter, 1994 ]

And how was Ruckman drawn into the fray? What book influenced him?

Ruckman's first-born book on the subject (unfortunately not "still-born"), The

Bible Babel (1964) betrays unmistakable signs of heavy dependence on J. J.

Ray. Ruckman's chart of "corrupt" texts and versions facing pg. 28 is an

abbreviation of Ray, pgs. 56-70; Ruckman's "tree" of "good" versions facing

pg. 73 is a virtual reproduction, with very minor alterations, of Ray's chart on

pg. 109; on pg. viii of the footnote references, Ruckman specifically mentions

Ray's book, though giving the title as "God Only Wrote One Book," which is

typical of his level of accuracy! Just as Wilkinson misapplied Psalm 12: 6-7 tothe KJV, as did Ray, well . . .so did Ruckman! Furthermore, in Ruckman's so-

called The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence ( 1970 ), Ruckman

specifically commends Ray (along with Edward F. Hills) as one of a very few

reliable writers on text and translation issues ( preface, pg. I ).

EDWARD F . H ILLS & OTHERS


35/76

A word needs to be said here about Edward F. Hills, who wrote two books that

in part address the text and translation controversy, Believing Bible Study

(1967) and The King James Version Defended (1956, 1973), and who wrote a

chapter on Burgon in Fuller's Which Bible? The theme of Hills' work is the

defense of, not just the Byzantine text-type in general as the true original form

of the text of the New Testament, but the defense of the specific textus receptus

form of the Byzantine text, including the unique (i.e., unsupported) readings in

the textus receptus introduced by Erasmus (as the textus receptus and the

majority text as published by Hodges and Farstad differ in 1,838 specifics).

Hills, who did not advocate the inerrancy of the King James Version nor the

Origenian origin of the Septuagint, is neither a founding father nor a star of the

first magnitude of the KJV-Only movement, but may be viewed as a secondary

tributary, whose works are commonly cited wherever his words can be made to

support a writer's point. On the whole, Hills' writings are much better-informed

and more accurate than nearly all of the KJV-Only literature, though he writesas one blinded to evidence by his presuppositions. [ An extended analysis of

Hills and his point of view was made by Dr. James A. Price, "King James Only

View of Edward F. Hills," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 1, no. 4, Winter 1990-

91]

From Ruckman, have sprung, like the serpent heads from Hydra, a teeming

uncongealed mass of incredibly misinformed writers, editors, preachers and

evangelists, imagining that they are " defending the true faith " when in fact,

their ignorance of the truth is almost immeasurable. As John Broadus was wont

to say, it is amazing how much ignorance some men have been able to

accumulate. In truth, there are natural limits to everything, except human

stupidity.

Among those heavily influenced by Fuller can be named D. A. Waite, who now

does a great deal of his own misleading, & E. L. Bynum. Also, Jack Chick,

[ CHICK PUBLICATIONS ] whose comic books have espoused KJV-

Onlyism, has acknowledged in letters that he is entirely dependent on Fuller

and Ruckman for his research. [ also see the footnotes in various Chick KJV -

Only comics & books ] I am reminded immediately of an ancient Jewish

proverb: "If you wish to strangle, be hanged on a good tree," that is, if you must

rely on an authority, you do well to make sure it is a reliable one.

GAIL RIPLINGER

Now, women are getting in on the KJV-Onlyism act, promoting and profiting

from the gullible multitude seduced by the sleight-of-hand tactics generally

employed. The latest piece of perverse propaganda is a huge pile of wasted


36/76

paper called NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS written by Ms. G. [Gail] A.

Riplinger. This woman said that God was the "author" [!] and she was His

"secretary" [!], hence "G" (God), "A" (and). . . Riplinger. She alleges a "Satanic

inspired conspiracy"[!] on the part of "modern Bible versions" which is

sponsored by the "New Age Movement."[!] [see link above for one of our

reviews - more articles to come.]

Along with other boasts, these claims were just "too much" for even some

fellow KJV-Onlyites to swallow, and Gail Riplinger's work has been dubbed

"an undependable book" by David W. Cloud, editor of O TIMOTHY Magazine

( Vol. II, #8, 1994 ) [ re-named "O MADMAN" by Ms. Riplinger ]. Cloud

remarks that the claim by Riplinger that God was the "author" is something that

"even the most radical charismatic prophets hesitate to use such intemperate

language." Yet the book has received the unqualified endorsement of KJV-

Onlyites such as Chick, Ruckman, Jack Hyles, Texe Marrs, J. R. Chambers, D.

A. Waite, Walter Beebe & others who are "peddling" it. There are a lot of KJV- Onlyites on the mailing lists of these men, hence a lot of money to be made by

selling this book to the gullible!

SUMMARY

From Wilkinson in the first generation, through Ray in the second, and Fuller

and Ruckman in the third, the entire KJV-Only movement has arisen, and every

present-day KJV-Onlyite is, in varying ways, a direct spiritual descendant of

these ill-informed men. And as the movement has progressed from one

generation to the next, with each new generation arising from intellectually-incestuous in-breeding, the views have become more radicalized and extreme.

First, the KJV was viewed as "better" than other English versions, though not

above some revision and correction (thus Ray); then, the view was taken that

the KJV was "error-free" (but not without insoluble problems; thus Fuller);

then, the KJV came to be accepted as "perfect," and infallible, unalterably

exact, "superior" even to the Greek and Hebrew texts from which it was made,

and in fact contained "new revelations" not found in the Greek and Hebrew

(thus Ruckman); and now it is alleged by some that a person "cannot be saved"

unless through the English KJV (thus Hyles and others), and all foreign Bibles

should be revised to conform to the KJV [ a view pushed by some idiotAmericans visiting in Romania, by an ignorant American missionary in Japan,

and by a church in Arizona which insists that the 1960 Reina-Valera Spanish

translation, which has brought the conversions of millions, is not the Word of

God ], a view so absurd that only an American could believe it.


37/76

The movement has become a vulgar caricature of itself, rushing at break-neck

speed to ever more extreme views, and as they grope about in the intellectual

smog of "KJV-Onlyism", having lost all perspective and ability to discern truth

from error, they become easy prey for every false doctrine. One leading KJV-

Only advocate in the upper Midwest was recently ostracized from his circle of

associates because he has begun espousing British Israelism, the view that the

English-speaking peoples are Israel (the view of Herbert W. and Garner Ted

Armstrong; this view arises naturally from KJV-Onlyism, for after all, the

English-speaking people must be special, since to them alone God gave an

infallible, inspired, perfectly preserved translation, . . .with 6 different revisions

. . .right?).

Every KJV-Only advocate is a lineal descendant of Wilkinson, Ray, Fuller and

Ruckman, and all are the victims (unwitting, I hope) of the multitude of gross

distortions, errors, corruption's, misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and, in

some cases, out-right lies of these men. These men are collectively a bruisedreed of a staff, upon which if a man leans, it will pierce his hand. They are

unreliable in the extreme and are deserving of no confidence as to the

truthfulness of anything they affirm. I have no doubt that some will blissfully

continue in their ignorance, willfully ignorant of the truth, not seeing because

they DO NOT want to see.

"So then Wilkinson, when he had conceived, brought forth Ray, and Ray, when

he was full-grown, brought forth Fuller, Ruckman, Chick, Riplinger, Hyles,

Bynum, Gipp, Waite, Marrs ...unfortunately, others."

Archaic language of the KJV

Example of why archaic language of the KJV is a barrier to knowing about Jesus. All

the archaic words in this paragraph are found in the KJV:

"Sith the noise of the bruit of this school hath reached to thee-ward, we trust that ourconcourse liketh you well-particularly those who blaze abroad that there is error here.

Whoso setteth thee against us-whoso saith we offend all-speaketh leasing. We be not

affrighted, but withal, we are straightened in our bowels. We knoweth well that what

thou wilst hear straightway wilt fast close up thy thoughts. With som we be abjects,

some have defied us; but there has been no daysman betwixt us. They subvert the

simple!" (References where these words are found: Ez 35:6, Jer 10:22, 1Sam 19:4,


38/76

Prov 1:21, Esther 8:8, Mk 1:45, Prov 25:14, Jas 3:2, Ps 4:2, Lk 24:37, Acts 25:27,

1Tim 5:13, 2Cor 6:12, Mt 4:20, Ge 20:18, Ps 35:15, Num 23:8, Job 9:33, Ge 31:37,

Lam 3:36, Prov 14:15 [Questions You've Asked About Bible Translations, by Dr.

Jack Lewis])

Below are 484 examples of how the KJV uses outdated language. This is the primaryreason why there is a need for modern translations. One should not need to use a

dictionary to understand the Bible. Rather, it should convey the message of God as

understandable as a city newspaper!

419 Archaic terms!

Why must one use an Early Modern English dictionary just

to understand God's message to man?

!. 5b:ect 8salm %&!&. 2. 5damant 0e). %# ;ech. . 5lamoth ! $hron. !&2=.

&. 5lmug ! ?ings !=!!@!2. 6. 5loes 8rov.


39/76

%%. Blain 0o. ,!=. %>. Bloody 3lu 5cts 2++.

%&. Bolled 0o. %!. %6. Bondman Cen. >>%%

%=. Brigandine 9er. >6>.

>!. Broidered 0e). !6!=# 0o. 2+>. >2. Bruit 9er. !=22# *ahum %!

>%. Buc)ler 2 Sam. 22%!# Song >>. >>. Burning 5gue Aev. 26!6.

>&. Byword 2 $hron. >!>. >6. $ab 2 ?ings 62&.

>


40/76

+&. $oney Aev. !!&. +6. $onfection 0o. %=%&.

+# eut. %%!%. 6. $oulter ! Sam. !%2=,2!.

=.

. $reeping (hing Cen. !26. !==. $risping 8in -sa. %22.

!=!. $roo)bac)t Aev. 2!2=. !=2. $ruse ! Sam. 26!!# ! ?ings !>%.

!=%. $ubit eut. %!!# att. 62. $umi ar) &>!.

!=&. $ummin -sa. 2+2&,2

!=. ragon 8salm !%## -sa. 2 !!2. 0merods eut. 2+2!% !!>. 0ndue Cen. %=2=# 2 $hron. 2!2.

!!&. 0ngine 0e). 26# 2 $hron. 2=!&. !!6. 0nsample 8hil. %!# att. !!+. !22. 0uroclydon 5cts 2.

!2%. 0actor -sa. 6=!. 0orcist 5cts !!%.

!2&. 0treme Burning eut. 2+22. !26. 0yeservice $ol. %22# 0ph. 66.

!2


41/76

!%. !>>. 3leshhoo) 0o. 2&. 3leshpot 0o. !6%. !>6. 3lote D3loatsE 2 $hron. 2!6.

!>. 3oreship 5cts 2. !. 'asty 3ruit -sa. 2+>.

!+&. 'avoc) 5cts +%. !+6. 'eath 9er. !


42/76

!+. 'elve eut. !&. !=. 'iggaion 8salm !6.

!!. 'indmost *um. 2%!. !2. 'iss 9er. !+.

!%. 'oar 3rost 0o. !6!># 8salm !>. 'oar -sa. >6>.

!&. 'oary 9ob >!%2. !6. 'oise 5cts 2=.

!.

2=!. 'ungerbitten 9ob !+!2. 2=2. 'usbandry ! $or. %.

2=%. -ll Savour 9oel 22=. 2=>. -mplead 5cts !%+.

2=&. -nclosing 0o. 2+2=. 2=6. -nfolding 0e). !>.

2=.

2!# 5mos >!. 2!+. ?ite Aev. !!!># eut. !>!%.

2!. ?neadingtrough 0o. +% !2%>. 22=. ?nop 0o. 2&%!, %>, %6.# ! ?ings 6!+

22!. Aade Cen. >. Aatchet -sa. &2%.

222# &6. 22+. Aegion ar) &, ! Au)e +%=.

22. Aeviathan 8salm !># -sa. 2!!. 2%=. Aibertines 5cts 6.

2%!. Aien Cen. 26!=# 8salm 6+!%. 2%2. Aign 5loes *um. 2>6.

2%%. Aily 4or) ! ?ings . Aintel 0o. !222,2%# 5mos !.

2%&. Aog Aev. !>!=, 2!. 2%6. Aowring att. !6%.

2%2># !=. ail ! Sam. !


43/76

2>!. alefactor Au)e 2%%2,%%# 9ohn !+%=. 2>2. allow 9ob %=>.

2>%. ammon att. 62># Au)e !6!!,!%. 2>>. anch 0e). >&!2.

2>&. andra)e Cen. %=!>@!6. 2>6. aranatha ! $or. !622.

2>+. atri 0o. !%!2,!%>!# *um. !+

2>. aul 8rov. 2&!+. 2&=. aw eut. !+%.

2&!. eat ffering ! $hron. 2!2%. 2&2. ete 0o. !6!+# -sa. >=!2.

2&%. eteyard Aev. !%&. 2&>. ichtam 8salm !6,&6@6= Din titleE.

2&&. ilcom ! ?ings !!&, %%# 2 ?ings 2%!%. 2&6. incing -sa. %!6.

2 0e). %=&. 2&+. inish 8salm !=2# Au)e !2&. 26=. itre ;ech. %&.

26!. ortar *um. !!+# 8rov. 2# *ahum %!>#

26%. ote att. # Au)e 6>!,>2. 26>. oving (hings Cen. !2=.

26&. uffler -sa. %!. 266. unition -sa. 2. 2. *ergal 2 ?ings !!2>. 2 - $or. >!%.

2+&. il (ree -sa. >!!. 2+6. mega Rev. !+, !!.

2+.

2+. ny 0o. 2+2=# %!%# 0e). 2+!%. 2=. racle ! 8et. >!!.

2!. rion 9ob # %+%!# 5mos &+. 22. sprey Aev. !!!%.


44/76

2%. ssifrage Aev. !!!%# eut. !>!2. 2>. utwent ar) 6%%.

2&. vercharge 2 $or. 2 Au)e 2!%>. 26. verlive 9osh. 2>%!.

2.

%=!. 8annag 0e). 2.

%=&. 8ence ar) !> att. !+2+. %=6. 8enury 8rov. !>2%# Au)e 2!>.

%=%# Rom. &. 8leasant 8lants -sa. !!# +!=.

%2%. 8ransing 9udg. &22# *ahum %2. %2>. 8ressfat 'ag. 2!6.

%2&. 8ric) *um. %%& 5cts 26!>. %26. 8rivily ! Sam. 2>># Cal. 2>.

%2


45/76

%>&. Ravin Cen. >26. Recorder 2 Sam. +!6# 2 $hron. %>+.

%>!&. %>+. Reins 8salm !6. Remphan 5cts %. %&=. Rereward *um. !=2 ! Sam. 22.

%&!. Ribband *um. !&%+. %&2. Rie 0o. %2# -sa. 2+2&.

%&%. Ringstra)ed Cen. %=%&,%,>=. %&>. Roe -sa. !%!>.

%&&. Ruddy ! Sam. !6!2. %&6. Rude 2 $or. !!6.

%&!>. %6=. Satyr -sa. !%2!# %>!>.

%6!. Savour Aev. 26%!# att. !62%. %62. Scabbard 9er. >. %6>. Scrabble ! Sam. 2!!%.

%6&. Screech wl -sa. %>!>. %66. Scum 0e). 2>6,!!,!2.

%6%+# 9ob >!2=. %6+. Selvedge 0o. 26># %6!!.

%6. Servitor 2 ?ings >>%. %

%# 0e). 2%%>.

%


46/76

%==. (arget ! ?ings !=!6# 2 $hron ! !>

>=!. (ender eyed Cen. 2!< >=2. (hence 5cts 2+!%

>=%. (row Au)e !=>. 7nction ! 9ohn 22=

>=&. 7nicorn *um. 2%22# eut %%!=6. Gictual 0o. !2%

>==+. Goid place ! ?ings 22!=

>=. 4a 2 Sam. %!# Rev. !+% >!=. 4en Aev. 2222

>!!. 4heaten 0o. 22 >!2. 4help 2 Sam. !!%. 4imple -sa. %22 >!>. 4inefat -sa. 6%2# ar) !2!

>!&. 4ist 9osh. +!># ar) 6 >!6. 4it Cen. 2>2!# 0. 2># 2 ?ings !=2

>!!. 4reathen 0o. 2+!># %! 2 ?ings 2&2

Documents

Refute the View That the King James Version (KJV)