PO Box 757, Bristol, TN 37621 (423) 878-8542
Placed on the Internet by permission of author
Dedicated to the late Dr. David Otis Fuller
One of the noblest defenders of the Word of God in the twentieth century.
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
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
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 reading endless explanations of why such and such a word in the "original language" had a "root" the meaning of which is.......or hearing that some word or verse is "unfortunately translated" in the King James as.... And, you really are not interested in Alephs, uncials and codices, whatever they are.
What you really would like to know is if there is a Bible, somewhere, that you can read in your language, that you can trust in every case, and is all between one set of covers.
In these pages you will find simple, common sense, easy to understand and impossible to refute reasons proving that the King James 1611 is the ONLY Word of God in English; THE Bible that you can read in your language, trust in every word, and have it all between one set of covers. You need examine no manuscript, nor know a single word of Greek or Hebrew, own a Greek lexicon, dictionary nor any other such thing. In fact, you probably are better off by far if you do not.
Oh, how pleasant it would be if no preacher, teacher or professor had such fancied "helps." If we could somehow blank their collective minds of all the Greek they had ever learned, and hide all their Greek and Hebrew texts, lexicons and the like, we would do the faith of Christ better 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.
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 overwhelming manuscript support for the KJV, but there are better ways to determine today just what and where the Word of God is. This will shock many of our scholars, and surely will bring some derision upon the author, but there are more certain ways to judge the translations - ways that 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," version scavengers 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 delivered by our fathers. Let us note just a very few differences, and then we shall proceed as scheduled.
Jesus in a drunken knife fight? (See above) What a blasphemous thing. But that is exactly what one of the most popular translations in history says of Him. Zechariah 13:6 clearly is a prophecy of the betrayal and sacrifice of Jesus, referring to the nail scars in his hands. The Bible, 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 the house of my friends.
The Living Bible translates it "Then what are these scars on your chest and your back? he will say, I got into a brawl at the home of a friend!"
Isaiah 7:14: The KJV properly translates the prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ as A virgin shall conceive....
The RSV changes virgin to "young woman," thus, attacking the Divine birth of our Lord.
Luke 1:27: The KJV identifies Mary as a virgin, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was 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."
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 the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep 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 forever."
In a stroke, the NIV removes the promise of perfect, Divine preservation of the words of the Word 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 the KJV 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 already stated. However, it was felt that at least a few needed to be given to answer the claim by the Rummagers (see below for the definition of that title) that there are no important differences between the various versions.
Now, don't get nervous. We are not going to start throwing Alephs and uncials and the like around, but before continuing, we do realize that in order to deal in even the simplest way with the claims and illusions of the Rummagers, (We'll explain that term soon), we must at least glance at some of the more common terms used in this debate about where the Bible may be found. Therefore, since many readers will not be familiar with some of the terms used, let us give some brief definitions. We may not use all of the following in this book, but the reader most likely has seen and heard them used often, so we will note them for that reason.
All terms referring to the same Bible, the King James Bible. The 1611 refers simply to the year the final revisions were made by the translating commission. Since then only typographical errors have been corrected, and a handful of insignificant editing adjustments made - editing adjustments, not adjustments by retranslating. It is often called "The Authorized" version or Bible 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 Bible with "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 date to their forgeries.
These are abbreviations for corrupt and false translations of the Bible. You need not worry about initials or names not mentioned here, or the meaning of which you are uncertain. They all 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 more quickly.
RV stands for Revised Version, the work of infidels Westcott and Hort, published in 1885 in England. Sometimes called the Revised English Version. All following translations are daughters of this harlot.
ASV is American Standard Version, published by an American committee in 1901, and based on the RV. Long the darling of many fundamentalists, conservatives, and evangelicals, it is just another blob in the river of corruption.
RSV is the Revised Standard Version, published in 1952 and immediately attacked by most conservatives, especially independent Baptists and fundamentalists. Strange that they should object, 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 NIV is among the worst, probably worse than the RSV.
KJV II, NKJV are King James II and New King James, among the supposed KJV upgrades, all which scurrilously mislead buyers into thinking they do no more than change certain old, no longer used words into modern words.
Buyers? That sets one thinking.
NEW SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE, same as the above, but added the sin of stealing the name of a dead man, Dr. C. I. Scofield. Though claiming to be both, it is neither a King James nor a Scofield Bible. Most Bible bookstores present it without comment to unsuspecting buyers looking for a Scofield Bible.
Buyers! Ah, yes! That word, again. Is that the key that opened the door to the avalanche of different 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 more prominent. Just remember, they all are found floating in the same river; a river filled with all kinds of bloated carcasses and unpleasant, putrid things. Some things, one just does not want to stick his hand into.
A term referring to those who do not accept the KJV as the only Bible in English, but use other versions and refer to Greek and Hebrew helps, and often give what they pass as their own translations of a word, verse or passage.
It is obvious that it would be awkward to constantly refer to them as "those who do not accept the KJV as....", so, we call them Rummagers, with no offense intended, because it describes their 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 what God really says.
Then, they hold "rummage sales" wherein they offer all sorts of scruffy, scraggly, tacky, left over, 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 all over their theological yards and driveways, and clogging their ecclesiastical garages, assuring you 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 manuscripts, roots and renderings were dumped in trash cans and disposed of in garbage heaps where they belonged. Sadly, Rummagers have climbed and burrowed into those reeking deposits of waste and pulled out what they could salvage, and have presented it to the world as "the better manuscripts," and "better translations," etc.
Most Rummagers are rank modernists, liberals and outright infidels. You find them in Ivy League "Divinity schools," among the "Jesus Fellows," who have denied over eighty percent of the words of Jesus as being authentic.
(Jesus Fellows? Have you noticed how so many unsavory groups take on names that are designed to make you think they are friends of those people and ideas which they are attacking? For example, People for the American Way are determined to destroy the American way.)
Jehovah's Witness and Mormon "scholars" are prominent Rummagers, as are Roman Catholic theologians.
Astoundingly, a growing number of those who call themselves fundamentalists and Bible conservatives 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 somewhat mildewed 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 in terms familiar to them. The Ivy League, Jesus Fellows and the like are not likely to read this book. 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 is convinced that Christians must see the dangers, damages, and weaknesses; and because he believes 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 a master plan to destroy the Bible.
However, nothing is meant to be personal. He is dealing with the total issue, and the total community of what he calls Rummagers. You, though part of that community, he views as a disagreeing friend.
If, in spite of this, you are offended, he welcomes you to call him, backwoods, ignorant, a Southern 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 be offended by your caricature of him, if you will agree not to be offended by his sometimes unflattering 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.
This is a term referring to a Rummager - sometimes even a misguided KJV 1611 man - trying to translate a word or phrase or passage directly from Greek or Hebrew, rather than trusting what the Bible - the KJV 1611 - says.
There are many problems with doing that. Among those problems is that the Greek or Hebrew text they are using is almost always very corrupt and filled with errors because it is based on the Alexandrian school of texts, and the works of the infidels, Westcott and Hort, both described below. One cannot make good apple butter with rotten apples. Another problem is that the "renderer" is vastly underqualified compared to the team of mighty scholars who translated the KJV. When one "renders the original language," he is like the village dolt instructing 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, a draft dodger telling the Marines how to fight. (Actually, here in 1996, we do have a draft dodger telling the Marines how to fight - he's in the White House.)
Since that abbreviation was just used, let us define it also, since it may be used again. It simply means, "and forward." So, Proverbs 31:10 ff means beginning at verse 10 and reading on until there is a change of subject.
We shall say more about them later in the book. For now, it is enough to explain that a root word is the base word from which a word in use comes. Often, the word in question has little or no common meaning with the root. Thus, using root words to alter the English meaning of a word in the KJV Bible is futile, foolish and invariably corrupts the questioned text.
The line of ancient manuscripts and documents from which the King James Version was translated. The overwhelming majority of existing manuscript evidence is from this line. This is the line of manuscripts that Christians loyal to the Bible have accepted and preserved from the earliest days. It is also known as the Majority Text.
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 as when you hear others speak of them.
Alexandrian texts are surviving manuscripts or copies primarily descending from certain early scholars of Alexandria, Egypt, and their disciples who followed after them, and those of their general persuasions. Two such manuscripts are used almost exclusively for all translations other than the KJV; they are "Sinaiticus" and "Vaticanus," named for where they were discovered in the last century. Those who used the "Received Text" down through the centuries had access to Alexandrian texts such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but rejected them as corrupt, and trashed them. That is why so few are in existence today.
Two radical, extreme left wing "scholars" who embraced the two Alexandrian texts above in the last 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. They were 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 of this 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 question the translation of any passage, the editor of that Bible is referring to Westcott's and Hort's work and the Alexandrian texts. Sometimes a marginal note will say something such as, "The better mss read....," or, "Omitted in the better mss...."
In the original Scofield Bible, on page 1069, note 1 at the bottom of the page says, "The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vatican...."
Based on the Alexandrian texts and the work of Westcott and Hort, some versions delete the virgin birth of Christ. For example, in the Revised Standard Version, Isaiah 7:14 "virgin" is changed to read "A young woman shall conceive".
Abbreviations for the singular manuscript, and plural manuscripts.
You see and hear those terms often, but you might not be sure of just what they mean. They are general terms for those who claim to be Christians but do not believe the Bible to be much more than a book written by clever men. They generally do not believe in the virgin birth, the Resurrection, and other great essentials of the faith.
Not all Rummagers are liberals, but all liberals are Rummagers!
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 of God's Word. Rummaging is ego most bizarre!
Hopeful that all will now have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the terms commonly used in this divisive issue, let us give a one line summary of this chapter, and continue on to the next.
We have defined the terms, but all you really need to prove the KJV is common sense faith in God's promises, and a controlled ego.
Table of Contents
Let us continue this discussion with portions of a letter the author wrote when asked to relate how and why he came to accept the KJV 1611 as the only reliable Bible in the English language.
"I do not know Peter Ruckman, nor had I ever heard of him until I saw a recent article about him...My stand on the KJV was arrived at entirely independent of anyone's influence. My first pastor used only the KJV, but I was only under him for four months before moving to another state. 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, and used the 'original languages' many times in every message. In college the KJV was ridiculed and my pastor there used the 'original languages' freely. For a time, as you can understand, I referred to the original languages, since that seemed to be what everybody did. However, it just 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 the obvious questions:.H1E# THE AUTHOR'S TESTIMONY
"Since good men corrected the KJV, ASV, etc.;and their corrections often disagreed with oneanother,and with the different translations;how could one be sure what the Bible really says?"
Since the Bible clearly and repeatedly guarantees,not just perfection in the originals,but perfection 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 after person who reminded me that no one really knew what the Bible originally said, since the original manuscripts were lost. There were friends and church members who would never discuss 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 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....
"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 no significant loss has occurred, etc.'
"However, I am a reasoning, reasonable man, and no logical line of reasoning can lead to such conclusions. Such statements are convenient ways to dismiss questions that cannot be comfortably 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 the future that is as convincing in removing the third chapter of John as the so-called 'better manuscripts' are in removing so many other portions of Scripture?
" '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, the continual 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 the true 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 a person lie before you suspect everything he says? Likewise, how many 'lies' (errors in translations or manuscripts) must one find in a translation or manuscript before he suspects the veracity of every portion of it?
"Further, I began to notice that every liberal and Bible skeptic scorned the KJV and promoted other versions. I have never known or heard of a liberal who was fond of the KJV. On the other hand, I have never known anyone to be harmed or have their faith shaken by the KJV. To my knowledge, no one has ever turned from a sound doctrine to a false one because of the influence of the KJV.
"Multitudes, however, have questioned the virgin birth due to the influence of other versions.
"As a young preacher I began to realize that the KJV had been used of God exclusive of all other sources for over three hundred years, during the time of the greatest populating of the planet, and coinciding with the emergence of the English language as the international language. From the KJV the Bible had been translated into a multitude of other languages, thus making it the Bible God had used to reach the world. Under it the great mission programs were born.
"Finally, as my education continued, I came to realize that the English language reached its highest 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 only one logical place it could be found.
"Later, of course, I began to read manuscript evidence justifying my conclusions - evidence that was denied me in college, as it is yet today denied the great majority of students in our Christian schools. I am grateful for Dr. David Otis Fuller, Edward Hill and others whose books give 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 curtailing lengthy discourse.
Faith in the KJV is based on its unfailing performance for 400 years.
Table of Contents
As you read the above letter, perhaps you noticed that manuscript evidence and like arguments had nothing to do with the author's conclusion that the 1611 King James is the only Bible 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 the very word of God, then we either do not have it, or it is hopelessly lost or obscure.
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 long and turgid discourses and debate as to whether a perfect circle is round. It is settled that it is round, and so it is settled that the KJV 1611 is the Word of God in English, and the only Word of 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 something even better - the long performance and history of the KJV. That God brought it forth when 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 not possibly approve the various, confusing versions, translations, and "renderings." He promised to protect and preserve every single word and detail exactly as He gave it in the first manuscripts 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 a Greek 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 title they go by, would have you think that your Bible is a mystery unless you can read Greek and Hebrew, or you go to them for help. Though they mean well, they place themselves in league with the Catholic church, which teaches the same thing to its people. If you cannot read and understand it for yourself, without knowing Greek and Hebrew, or referring to a lexicon or Greek 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 is a Rummager in this matter, and one is as good (bad?) as another. (Remember what a Rummager is? He or she is anyone who does not accept the KJV as the only Word of God in the English language. Go back to chapter one for a more complete definition)
You may be wondering, "But, when I look at my Greek text, and see the translation right underneath 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 or Hebrew texts. But there is not. Just because the Greek is on the page does not make any difference. It is just another translation - another version of Scripture. The King James translators looked at purer Greek texts than what you have, and translated it just right. The Rummager or Rummager committee that translated what you see underneath the sadly inferior Greek in your text just tried to struggle through on their own and gave you their opinion - a private translation, or interpretation.
Just that. Most Greek texts are based upon or are exact replica's of the ultra-modernists Westcott and Hort, who started all this "updated translation" business over a hundred years ago. We shall say a little more about them later.
They deliberately choose the most polluted and corrupted manuscripts in existence upon which to base their work and carry out their goal of undermining the Bible and the faith of the people.
You may have heard it said that the KJV translators did not have access to those manuscripts. (Often erroneously called "better mss" in the margin of your Bible). The fact is that the KJV translators and their forerunners for centuries before rejected, trashed and probably burned similar manuscripts because they were so obviously corrupt. One of those supposedly "better mss" was actually found in an ancient equivalent of a garbage can on Mt. Sinai. Westcott and Hort examined the garbage and proclaimed it pristine, and baptized the worms as holy. The other of the two manuscripts, which all versions but the KJV 1611 are based upon, was found in 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 are legions, but there are not - just those two corrupted rags and a handful of tatters here and there 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 we say it is an inferior Greek. But, even if you have a copy of a compilation of the honest Greek texts, called the Textus Receptus, neither you nor anyone else can improve upon the KJV translation of those honest Greek texts.
The KJV translation of the original Greek and Hebrew is better than anyone else's translation.
Table of Contents
Very early, the author found that people questioned what the Bible really said. This was not only true among preachers, but among church members. For example, he recalls one church home in which any reference to the Bible demanded Greek or Hebrew texts and lexicons be brought out to "Find out the real meaning."
Even more tragically, it was a hindrance in witnessing, especially outside the South. In home after home on the west coast the lost took refuge in the fallacy, "No one knows what the Bible really says." Some referred to the recently discovered, at that time, Dead Sea Scrolls, having heard 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.
They do and they did. Most of those who doubted the accuracy of our Bible did so because they had heard preachers using such terms as, "In the original language, it says...."; or, "This word 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."
Every time a preacher or teacher says such things, they are firing a fiery dart into the heart of their hearer's faith. How on earth can someone maintain faith in the Word of God if they are constantly hearing that their Bible, whatever the version, has a passage poorly translated, or has 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 that none of them are trustworthy throughout.
Well, no, not everyone, and not none - there are many who gratefully realize and boldly proclaim that there is one version that is perfectly accurate in every instance - the blessed King James 1611.
With catastrophic national and personal results, the questioning of the accuracy of certain passages of Scripture in the 1960's and '70's had turned to outright rejection and ridicule of the Bible by the 1980's. Preachers who claimed to love the Bible, and many did, sowed the seed that has grown into national unbelief of and hatred for the Word of God.
It is difficult to see why so many of our fundamental, conservative, and evangelical brethren who claim to love the Bible, refuse to examine the fruits of their incessant referrals to the original 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 and unbelievers to doubt what Scripture really says, and the open, unrelenting scorn of the Bible that has pervaded our society since the 1980's.
Further, within the Christian camp, they are as responsible for the questioning of cardinal doctrines by those who do not know better, as well as are Satan's infiltrators, who have their own 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 versions which 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 Isaiah 7:14, and the preacher has said this and that word or passage is wrongly translated, or refers to 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 carnage and insult against every essential of Scripture.
Whether they think of themselves as conservatives, fundamentalists, or just old time Bible believers, numerous men who would reject with heat any suggestion that they were anything but ardent KJV only men, take part in undermining the Bible they really love and rightly revere as the only Word of God in the English language. How? By doing as the pastor in the following example.
We do not remember his exact words, but we read an interview with a well known fundamentalist pastor who is supposedly a King James advocate; a man who has rightfully declared that if the KJV is not the only Word of God, and the whole Word of God, we have no Bible. However, he often refers to Greek himself, and in the interview said that he never prepared 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 those who 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 declares his confidence in the KJV, he is planting a seed of doubt - clipping a support from under the faith of his hearers.
A thoughtful person cannot but think, "If the KJV is the Word of God, as he says, why does he try to improve what it says by referring to "the original languages? After all, is that not what has been done with the RSV, NIV, NASB, TEV, and all the others?"
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 dollars from the corner market. The fact is, both are equally thieves. So it is with well meaning preachers, teachers and others who no doubt are sincere in their love for the KJV; they do love it 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.
One correspondent, a good man, wrote the author that he would not be so absurd as to use an English dictionary to define a Greek word. Ah! But he and others like him cannot seem to understand that the Greek word has already been defined by those God guided nobles of scholarship that gave us the KJV 1611. Under the Divine, faultless direction of the Holy Spirit they 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 the Bible, as noted above. He has presumed that his understanding is better than that body of God guided scholars, and that the Holy Spirit will guide him better than He guided them.
Except in a few instances, such as described a few paragraphs below, you had best use only an English dictionary, since you have been given the best possible English word or words already in your KJV 1611 Bible; therefore, you can only produce a poorer, at best, or completely wrong, at worst, meaning by trying to do for yourself what God had done for you nearly 400 years ago.
As noted above, examining the Greek or Hebrew to define a word in the Bible is nothing more than 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 the author about a fellow speaker's rendering of Matthew 28:18-20. That speaker, a Calvinist, put on a Barnum and Bailey spectacle - quite marvelous to behold - of "rendering the original Greek" to prove that the verses had nothing to do with witnessing, or seeking to win souls to Christ. 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.
"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 you accept 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 our knowledge, he never again asked such a question.
Transliterated words are the only words in the Bible where one might find some help by referring to a Greek or Hebrew reference, such as in Strong's Concordance. (Do not bother with anything else, such as Greek texts, dictionaries or the like.) Transliterated words are words 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 to create 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 sometimes helpful to examine definitions in the Greek or Hebrew for such words. However, even such words have been so long a part of our language that a good, complete English dictionary will often give a complete and accurate definition.
Another example is in the names of people and places in the Bible. Those names and places are usually transliterated. Most of the time such names have a definite meaning. Jesus means Savior, and Jordan means flowing down, or descending, for example.
Such words are the only ones where one might be helped by seeking the Hebrew or Greek definitions. If you want to examine such a word, use a Strong's Concordance or the like, and forget the Greek texts, lexicons, etc.
Like a delinquent carving on the Mona Lisa, those who use Greek and Hebrew aids are theological delinquents who only scar, never improve, their own or their hearers' understanding of the Bible, but mar the Scriptures with unsightly and obscene corruptions.
Rummaging undermines and mars faith!
Table of Contents
Standing before a church or class and declaring, "Now, in the original language....," is very sating 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's greatest corps of scholars did not have; that he -HE - can produce a revelation not found on the page of your Bible; that HE has access to secrets that the common man cannot know; that HE 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, to truly understand the whole Bible.
Some things seem to get into a person's system in a way that makes them addicted. Drugs cause a physical dependency and people foolish enough to use them desire them so badly they will do almost anything to get them.
There are addictions of vanity. Many women and men are addicted to anything that has to do with glamorizing themselves, whether it be Hollywood type clothing, hairstyles, makeup, or the like.
There are addictions of group identity. Such people will refuse to dress, talk, or act in ways different than their group. Thus, we had the hippies, and have the gangs, outlandish dress by teenagers and adults alike. The reader knows what we mean.
Some are addicted to the occult, religious cults, Satanism, Eastern mysticism, etc.
They will not give up their addiction, no matter what the consequences, the opposition to it, the costs 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 who had dress and grooming codes will agree that one of the most difficult things was getting the boys 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, the problem was to get them to wear dresses, if that was the school code. They were addicted to a dress 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 "the original languages." It is an addiction that feeds the vanity and proud human intellect and makes them dependent on the "rush" they get when using them. Further, it is an addiction that they fancy makes them "intellectually mature" and more acceptable to their non Christian and anti Christian peers. Just as cocaine feeds the nervous system and makes it dependent, so the use of myriad translations, Greek and Hebrew, and giving "better translations," or "my translation 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 peers gives perhaps the most delicious psychedelic charge of all.
How else, indeed? After all, most Rummagers are quick to tell you they "Love the KJV, and memorize from it," etc., but they continue to use other versions and frantically continue to practice 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 deep convictions that the other versions are corrupt and that the KJV is the only Word of God, why do 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 to his 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 news media to fraud.
Questioning the accuracy of the KJV and using Greek and Hebrew is a cult-like, intellectual addiction that feeds the ego.
Table of Contents
As has often been said, one cannot compromise his spiritual, moral convictions, but he can and 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 one gives up a conviction to please others, he has surrendered his character, compromised what he 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 of another Christian!
Since most conservative and fundamentalist Rummagers are so quick to tell us how wonderful the KJV is, it is obvious they have no convictions that it is evil. Then, why do they absolutely insist on using versions other honest brethren are convinced are evil?
Not one person we have ever heard of who uses other versions or personal translations is convicted that any other version is the inviolable Word of God. They have no convictions about any version.
Again, why do they simply not yield their preference and exclusively use the KJV, which they proclaim to be wonderful, beautiful, and other complimentary terms, while assuring all that using the KJV will not lead anyone astray?
They are addicted! They NEED the ego surge that using other versions and their own translations give them. They CANNOT WITHDRAW without emotional and intellectual withdrawal symptoms akin to the needle users physical symptoms.
The reader must understand - KJV 1611 people are so because it is a deep conviction, the violation 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!
Table of Contents
In Southern California, and perhaps elsewhere, gang members and other delinquents scrawl their ugly graffiti on walls, buildings, sidewalks, signs, culverts, and everywhere there is a surface. They even climb onto the overhanging green signs above the crowded freeways and cover them with their obscenities, vulgarities and gang symbols. It is so bad that rolls of barbed wire 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 deluded purveyors of Greek graffiti have climbed and scuttled all over every page of Holy Writ, so that there is no place one may go from Genesis to Revelation where their theological gang symbols and 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. The damage 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 stop it. One may drop poison in your cup, thinking it is only a helpful sedative, but the poison knows .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 of our 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; to deny them leadership positions in our denominations and fellowships.
We are not talking about denying them fellowship or even not permitting them to preach, if they will 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 are doing, and the awful damage that is being done. But, they need to be persuaded, where possible, and treated as brothers.
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.
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, and never - not even once - refer to "original languages," or "original manuscripts," or "original autographs," 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 to preach once a month in his pulpit; in exchange, he would teach chapel in the school several times each month. That was agreeable, but we asked him to use only the KJV 1611, and refrain from any reference to Hebrew or Greek. He became somewhat agitated at that and replied 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 to slow 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 Christian schools 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 occasional referral to Greek or Hebrew might be overlooked, but when it is so regular that not doing it is an exception, one should seek another church.
Most especially, if a pastor regularly refers to the KJV as being wrongly translated, Bible believers should look elsewhere.
Note: Before abandoning such a church, like minded members should seek an audience with the pastor, and kindly, gently, lovingly try to persuade him to correct his ways. If he will not listen, move on.
4. Pastors and churches should obstinately refuse to use literature that is not strictly - in every instance, without a single failure - KJV 1611.
5. Pulpit committees should not even consider for a fraction of an eye blink a candidate that is not enthusiastically, militantly KJV 1611.
On that subject, shortly before these paragraphs were written the author was talking to a good man whose pastor used the scurrilous NIV. He explained thus, "When we asked him, he said he had no problem using the KJV, but after we called him, the NIV is all he used."
With few exceptions, never trust a preacher, teacher or professor to not Rummage, who is less than zealously enthusiastic about the KJV!
The exception is the man who is truly trying to find the truth about it. After all, most of our religious college educated people have been fed other versions as a daily course, garnished with heaping amounts of personal "renderings of the original languages," and no one told them there 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 are knowledgeable 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 that there are others who believe there is, having been warned by their teachers to beware of "KJV nuts."
This author has known quite a few such good, honest men and women. They need to be instructed with love and patience, and, if they truly wish to think, if they really care, and if they are not too proud to examine their own views, they will come to the KJV position. Such people will 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 without hedging that he is not a KJV man, he is, or he just does not know. The one who is not honest will tell you how he loves the KJV, but will not openly and adamantly guarantee he will not use the others.
A man who truly is a KJV man, when you ask him, will get a light in his eye and a snap in his spine, look you in the eye and, without any squirming, shuffling of feet, or diplomatic words tell you 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 he will 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 and Hebrew you into heathenism.
Especially avoid him if he says something such as, "I have no problem using the KJV," as did the above pastor. You want a man who says, "I use only the KJV 1611! I won't pastor a church that insists I use anything else!"
While loving and fellowshipping as brothers with Rummagers, we must insist they use only the KJV when in our schools and churches.
Table of Contents
Hardened Rummagers, and many casual ones, tell us that we need to scavenge the Greek and 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 root out 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; that these 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 be useful.
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, "root words," and "archaic words."
(Remember, dear Rummager, no personal offense is meant. However, if you feel offended, we understand and will not be put-off, provoked, or hurt if you would like to pause here for a moment to call us rednecked, ignorant, etc. Remember, this author is not your enemy on a personal level.)
A root word in this context is the Greek or Hebrew base word from which the word in question originated. By finding out all the shades of meaning of this root word, Rummagers, and even some 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 the meanings of words descending from it. The meaning of the word in question is often completely different from the root. If the meaning is not different, then there is no point in referring to the root at all, since that would be redundant, or saying the same thing a second time.
For example, consider the English word villain; it means a scoundrel, a person who does bad things. 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 "a country 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 future English speaking "scholar" justifying a multiple murderer, such as Charles Manson, because they 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 murderer has been mistranslated and misunderstood. The root of "villain" is the Latin "villa," from which came 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 conclude that Manson was a well liked, friendly, harmless farm boy who lived in a small rural community.".H1E# WILD ROOTS AND EUTHANASIA
All too often, Rummagers, and sometimes even KJV advocates, wrestle roots to support their positions when the literal words on the Bible page do not. Such aerobics either result in outright error, or a flighty, somewhat comical "rendering" that says exactly the same thing that is on the page of your KJV 1611.
Thus, we can say with assurance that those who dig for roots invariably dig up wild onions that spoil the milk and taint the meat.
"There are just so awfully many old, 'archaic' words in the KJV," our Rummaging friends say, "and nobody knows what they mean anymore."
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 KJV English was the language at its most eloquent and beautiful, conveying the most fine and exquisite shades of meaning. What's more, it gives the Bible an aura of majesty that modern English can never give.
Those archaic words, further, are so easily understood that most readers do not even have to pause 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 fourteen course 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 modern English has shriveled from, we recommend Dr. Laurence Vance's book, Archaic Words and the 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 old words.
Root words are of no value to understanding, because the KJV translation is already the best possible; and "archaic" words give finer meanings, and are not at all hard to learn and understand.
Table of Contents
The Rummagers often claim that no one ever thought the KJV to be the final Word of God in English until Dr. Peter Ruckman, of Pensacola, Florida, came along. That, of course, is absurd to the point of comedy, since legions have believed that almost from the day the KJV was first printed, over 300 years before Dr. Ruckman was born.
However, Dr. Ruckman has been a central figure in the issue here in America for the better part of the last half of the twentieth century. Thus, in the following chapter, we shall say a word about him and others deeply involved in the dispute.
What is significant, and the reason this is being mentioned here is that the enemies, posing usually as friends, of the KJV have tried to dismiss and ridicule the KJV people as a modern movement, almost a cult, who have blindly followed the teachings of one man, Dr. Peter Ruckman, whom they are fond of wrongly portraying as a mad man.
It is an old ploy - if one cannot answer the arguments of the opposition, try to discredit them with ridicule, insults, and innuendo, or portray them as blind, thick headed, and ignorant followers of a wild man; as Johnnies-come-lately with no support from reason nor background from history.
This, by the way, is meant as no criticism of Dr. Ruckman. For whatever reasons, however, he is 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.
Dr. Peter Ruckman, of Pensacola, Florida, is one of the most hated men in the Bible believing camp. That is unfortunate, as many believe him to be of our most brilliant minds. The hatred stems almost exclusively from his stand for the King James 1611 Bible, and the caustic comments he often makes about those who disagree with that stand. A few examples of his statements 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 because they 'prefer' it ($$$), not because they believe it." His list of "apostates," as found in his various writings, include Dr. Lee Roberson, Dr. Curtis Hutson, Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. and Dr. Bob Jones III, 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 as fundamentalists.
He asserts that financial enrichment is the primary motivation for those who give birth to and support all translations other than the KJV 1611. His closing statement in the above booklet calls anyone who does not accept the KJV, "A Bible-rejecting apostate", and says, "If any sucker mistakes you for a Bible believer, fleece him: anyone that stupid doesn't deserve to keep bus fare."
Strong language, indeed. Unquestionably divisive. What is questionable is if such language is a necessary or proper tool to educate and persuade those who are in even the most obvious error, as the Rummagers certainly are.
However, fairness requires us to note that the language of leading Rummagers when referring to 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.
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 Bible versions 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 quite wealthy and receives the laurels of "scholarship." Publishers make millions in profits off these versions, and that is the solitary reason they continually print them and ceaselessly promote them, and that's why most "Bible" bookstores sell and promote them. We will say more about such stores a few paragraphs below.
The English of Revision Westcott-Hort, the ASV, RSV, TEV, The Living Bible, NIV, and all the rest 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 and have 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. (Wonder why "Bible" is in quotes?)
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 not violate 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 Bible bookstores are unworthy of the title, Bible, and are proofs of Dr. Ruckman's claim that money is the engine that drives Bible translations. Most "Bible" book store operators show evidence of have little interest in honoring God, and caring only for the bottom line of their ledgers; they will sell anything that brings in money. It is appalling to see bookstore after bookstore with owners who otherwise seem to be caring Christians, carelessly put out for sale everything that wanders down the pike of Biblical and theological corruption. Many seem to have genuine convictions elsewhere, but when it comes to their business - selling religious material - they are 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 car dealer will be better than the corruption and excess packed "Bibles" you find at such bookstores.
(By the way, most used car dealers are good, decent people. The reader understands we do not mean to brand all with the old caricature.)
Satan, Old Crack, cares not for money - he just hates God, Christ and the Bible. He has used the lust for money and fame to birth every English translation - every one of them - in his quest to destroy the effectiveness of the Bible. How he must chuckle, cackle and roar with laughter as 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. Let us listen to and thoughtfully examine the words of the Rummagers.
Table of Contents
Part 2 of KJV 1611: Perfect!
There is a growing number of books in defense of the one Bible, the King James Version of 1611. We thank God for the good men who have taken up the gauntlet. Following are a few books and sources for those who wish to read 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, MI 49501. 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, IA 50310. 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
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 complete list of books, flyers and other items defending the KJV. Also, you should find many helpful books through the following:
Which Bible Society
2233 Michigan St. NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Table of Contents
Part 2 of KJV 1611: Perfect!
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. Input from 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 defenders of the Faith. Says what no one has dared say before.
A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT (2 vols) $20.00
A CHAMPION for that great army of divorced Christians. You are NOT tainted, second class: NOT disqualified from the pastorate, missions, or any other service.
Dr. Branson's sermon tapes also available.
P.O. Box 757
Bristol, Tennessee 37621
Table of Contents
Part 2 of KJV 1611: Perfect!
Back to the Bible Believers' Home Page