KJV 1611: Perfect!

A Conviction, Not a Preference

(Part Two - Chapters 10-16)

By Dr. Roy L. Branson, Jr.

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

Placed on the Internet by permission of author

For Part One, click here....

Table of Contents for Chapters 10-16

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

Chapter 10

THE OPPOSITION: Arguments and attitudes of The Rummagers

In order to give a fair hearing, we shall call attention to Rummager documents that are available to any who want to examine them. Furthermore, we want to use their own words to illustrate some of the things we have said, such as the puzzling insistence by many of them that they really love the KJV; some even say they love it most of all. This is not possible, and by looking at their own words, one can see that it is not.

In doing this, we hope to illuminate ways in which their arguments undermine believers' faith and confidence in the Bible. At issue, of course, is whether or not one can be absolutely certain that they have a one hundred percent trustworthy Bible, and if not, whether they have the resources or the capability of discovering with such certainty what the Bible truly says one hundred percent of the time.

We have said that if one does not accept the KJV as such an authority, as the very, complete Word of God, he cannot have such confidence. By examining the two anti KJV positions below, the reader will be able to better understand why this is so, and how confusing and self contradictory the Rummager position is.

The reader is requested to remember that nothing in the following comments is meant to be of a personal nature. Those whose positions we will examine have written and said much about this issue, making it both fair and reasonable to examine their published and public views, just as they have a right to examine and comment upon this author's published, public views. A right, may we add, that some have exercised quite freely, although not always accurately.

Further, the reader might remark that KJV people portray Rummagers in much the same way the following Rummagers portray them; that, indeed, this author has pictured the Rummager community in a less than congratulatory light.

The difference is that KJV people frankly reject in totality all Bibles except the KJV, openly and honestly declaring they believe such versions to be corrupt forgeries. Rummagers, however, usually claim to love the KJV, all the while questioning its accuracy and presenting other versions as superior, and all the while ridiculing KJV people. So, one saddles the same pony every day, while the other is often seen trying to ride the herd. The reader will see that in their own words in the following paragraphs.

Also, we have chosen the positions of three non denominational spokesmen. Two are best known within the ranks of independent, fundamentalist and conservative churches. The third is more widely known and loved by a large and diverse cross section of genuine Bible believers, both denominational and nondenominational.

Naturally, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, GARBC and others have their own well known spokesmen. Their arguments in support of their Rummager views would be little different from those that will be presented here; on this issue, if no other, neither would the arguments of far left liberals nor the Ivy League divinity schools. Therefore, whether or not one has ever even heard of the names, the issue remains unchanged and the arguments of the Rummagers virtually identical.


Several years prior to this writing, Bob Jones University of Greenville, South Carolina, sponsored a discussion of manuscripts and translations at the university, during which all King James supporters were placed in two classes: The first consists of those who are mean, discord sowing liars; the second is good, sincere men who are insecure and ignorant, and, "Carry the KJV around as a kind of security blanket to chew on the corner of."

BJU will deny that the university is an enemy of the KJV, and their intentions may be the best, but they have issued a most remarkable position paper on the KJV and the manuscript lines, and that paper cannot be accepted as friendly to the KJV or the Received Text. Further, the discussion of the manuscripts and versions that took place in the chapel at BJU, and from which the quote above came, reinforces the impression that the university holds the KJV in questionable regard, and all KJV advocates in dubious esteem.

At the author's request, Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. was kind enough to send him a paper entitled, "POSITION OF THE BIBLE DEPARTMENT OF BOB JONES UNIVERSITY ON THE SCRIPTURE." It is reflective of those who claim to revere the KJV while viewing it as inferior to Westcott-Hort translations.

It will be readily apparent to the reader that this position paper is not offensively caustic in its wording. However, one must ask if it is contradictory and confusing. Contradiction and confusion are bedfellows of division and ultimately cause division.

Divisive or not, however, this position paper demands examination and analysis by all Bible believers.

We shall now examine the comments from both the oral discussion and the position paper.

First, the Position Paper

The paper made some statements that must be stunning to many long supporters of the university. It included a covering letter by Dr. Bob Jones III that is most remarkable. We shall quote from that document, reminding the reader that any special emphasis is ours.

After stating the belief "In the verbal inspiration and absolute inerrancy of the Bible," the paper went on to say, "This inspiration refers to the original manuscripts."

"When we teach the content of the Bible," the paper went on a few lines later, "We naturally study a passage in the Greek Testament. To aid the students in understanding that passage, we will take to class the King James Bible, which often gives an exact rendering of the Greek. Sometimes we will consult some other conservative translation, such as the American Standard Version of 1901 or the New American Standard Bible (not the liberal RSV), which at times gives the most accurate rendering of the Greek....There are a few passages in which the delicate shades of meaning in the Greek are missed by all English translations, in which cases we must explain from the Greek text itself those fine shades of meaning....

"...Today there are two Greek texts available. One is the Received Text, edited by a Roman Catholic scholar, Erasmus, in the sixteenth century and based on manuscripts of the late Middle Ages. It is often called the 'Byzantine' or 'majority text.' The other is the Greek Testament, edited by Westcott and Hort in the nineteenth century and based upon manuscripts of the fourth century, usually called the 'Alexandrian text.' The King James version was based upon the Received Text, the American Standard Version was based upon the text of Westcott and Hort."

So far, although it is somewhat misleading to dismiss Erasmus simply as a Roman Catholic - he was, in fact, one of the early reformers - there is little remarkable about what has been said. However, the next statements are astounding to many of the old time supporters and graduates of Bob Jones.

"We do not believe that either of these texts is 'liberal' or 'conservative.' Not only Erasmus, but also Westcott and Hort were seeking to present a close copy of the original text. We are interested in which one is closer to the original text of the New Testament.

"Because (1) the Alexandrian manuscripts are much older and closer to the time the originals were written, (2) a careful comparison of these manuscripts with those of the Middle Ages has convinced us that a more accurate and careful job of copying was done by the Alexandrian scribes, and (3) Erasmus had to work in haste and with limited resources, it is our conviction that these Alexandrian manuscripts, which were not known to Erasmus, are as a rule, the more accurate manuscripts to follow. Therefore, along with the great majority of conservative scholars, we believe that the text based upon these Alexandrian manuscripts is, as a whole, superior to the text based upon manuscripts of the Middle Ages."

This document concluded by saying that the differences in the lines of manuscripts were of little import, and ends by saying, "Christians should be free to choose and use either of these texts and still work together in harmony to teach and preach the Word of God to those who are without it."

It is confounding enough that an institution that prides itself on constantly fighting for the faith and old time fundamentalism would not find the work of Westcott and Hort liberal, but the aforementioned covering letter by Bob Jones III is, as one of Bob Jones' influential supporters said, "A paradox! It doesn't make sense." Let us quote the entire letter.

The covering letter

"As president of Bob Jones University, I endorse the constructive desire of our Bible faculty to acquaint our students with the truest English meaning of the original languages of the Bible.

"Lest there be any confusion in the reader's mind, however, let me say that the King James version, which is a venerable and respected translation among Fundamental, Bible-believing people, is the only version from which we preach, memorize, or conduct devotionals here at Bob Jones University. With the proliferation of unsuitable translations and paraphrases, we do not wish to add to the confusion already existing over translations. The King James version is perfectly adequate and accurate. Reading or preaching from it identifies one with the Fundamentalist position. We do not want any question in anyone's mind where Bob Jones University stands and, for that reason, have 'adopted' the King James version as the version that this fortress of the Faith wants to be identified with."

Bob Jones III

Bob Jones University

The author did not want to fully trust his own reaction to this statement and the covering letter, so he asked several friends and advisors to read it and comment.

In every instance the letter was judged to be contradictory to the position paper.

Unanimously, it was felt that Bob Jones University is trying to hold both sides of the camp. Therefore, it has adopted the more popular view endorsing the work of Westcott and Hort and the Alexandrians. A huge amount of the university's support, however, comes from preachers who abhor Westcott and Hort and trust nothing other than the King James 1611. Thus, the covering letter declaring that the university has "adopted the King James version as the version that this fortress of the Faith wants to be identified with."

Dr. Jones III wants to be sure that no reader of his letter was confused by the university's official position. However, how can there not be confusion?

Let the reader consider a few thoughts.

  1. Bob Jones has declared the King James and the Received Text to be inferior;
  2. That the scribes copying the Received Text were more careless than those copying the Alexandrian Texts;
  3. That Westcott and Hort were more accurate in their work than was Erasmus;
  4. That their concern is finding the meaning closest to that of "the originals;"
  5. And, that they have "adopted" the inferior translation from which to preach, memorize, etc.;
  6. And that, that inferior translation is "perfectly adequate and accurate;"
  7. And that should clear up "any question in anyone's mind where Bob Jones University stands!"


Although Dr. Bob Jones III has tried to remove all questions from anyone's mind, perhaps charity will allow a few, anyway.

Is God's Word holy?

Is it to be toyed with?

Are there unimportant words in the Bible?

Should one dare preach, or teach, or memorize, A word, verse, chapter, book, from what he believes is a wrong translation?

Or a misleading translation?

Or an inexact translation?

Why is it right to be nearly accurate, when one can be more nearly accurate?

How does it identify "with the Fundamentalist position" to preach from a translation considered less the Word of God than other translations?

Well, questions could go on in endless circles. One must be saddened that Bob Jones University has invited Westcott and Hort into the fundamentalist camp, but incredulous that they would adopt and preach from what they consider an inferior, less exact Bible. One should always preach and teach God's blessed Word as exactly as possible.

Although one may not agree that the Alexandrian texts are in the least worthy, or that Westcott and Hort were either honest or conservative, he likely would have far more esteem for those who insisted upon teaching from texts they were convinced were most accurate - regardless of the consequences - than for those who appear so careless of the holiness of the Bible as to use what they were convinced to be an inferior translation in order to identify with fundamentalists or anyone else.

Second, the Discussion of Translations and Manuscripts

The author has a tape of this discussion, but is uncertain of the exact date. Several speakers presented the BJU position to the university students, and attempted to refute some of the arguments and charges of Ruckman and other KJV only advocates. That is not unexpected nor improper if one honestly believes the KJV is not trustworthy, but the reader may judge if the discussion exceeded propriety and amiability.

Besides reiterating and reinforcing the above Position Paper, a number of interesting statements were made. Following are some thoughts pertinent to this chapter. Let us number them for ease in following subject changes.

1. It was stated that Revelation 22:18-19, meant that it was God's will for errors to creep into manuscripts, so that we could, "Take the small step of faith," and believe the overwhelming evidence of the body of manuscripts.

Here is that passage. What thinks the reader?

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

The author must confess that the BJU interpretation confounds him. Does the reader see such a meaning in those awful warnings?

2. It was said that the layman need not understand every shade of meaning, but that he can go to his pastor, or use a Greek help to find out what is unclear to him.

Is this a variation on a fractional scale of what the Catholics teach; That one must rely upon the church for interpretation of Scriptures? In one case, the laymen must trust the priests for all; in another, the pastor or Westcott and Hort for parts. (The Greek helps will almost always be based on Westcott's and Hort's work.)

3. It was said that textual differences should cause one to appeal to the Spirit to supply to him the correct words.

If this is so, then the very fear that many have expressed has become practice - the claim that the Word of God, at least in a few instances, is reduced to the opinion of each individual. If now in a few places, one can be assured that tomorrow that will be claimed true of the entire Bible. After all, each petitioner will be likely to say the Spirit gave him the exact words.

4. Further, that same speaker said that a demand for a perfect translation was egotistical and showed a lack of humiliation.

Perhaps the reader can understand the reasoning of that statement? Why is it egotistical and proud to believe that God was honest enough and capable enough to do what He said He would do - preserve His Word, every word of His Word, untainted forever?

Could it be that the pride and egotism is in thinking of one's self as being needed to help do what God could not quite do alone?

5. Another speaker said that there were many good, sincere men who were KJV only advocates. They, "Carry the King James around like a security blanket to chew on the corner of." Others were said to be "dishonest," "stupid," they "discredit" the Bible, and are "used of the Devil."

Therefore, it appears that BJU endorses, through its speakers the stereotype of KJV supporters as either childishly ignorant, or wicked and dishonest.

6. During the answering of written questions, one of the speakers implied none of the books supporting the KJV, including those of Dr. David Otis Fuller, were worth reading, and recommended as good reading F.J.A. Hort's New Testament in the Original Greek, an out of print volume in which Hort explains his and Westcott's work.

7. Perhaps the most startling position taken in that discussion was that those who defend the KJV have departed from the principles of fundamentalism, while those who take BJU's position are the ones who have always stood firm on those principles.

"Why is that most startling?", you might ask.

Can the reader tell us of a single leader who supports the KJV and denies the blood, salvation by grace, the resurrection, etc.? If there is such a person we have not heard of him. Every one, without exception, that comes to mind who has departed from the great principles of the faith is a proud enemy of the KJV, and a proud supporter of Westcott and Hort.

Put it another way: Do you know of a liberal who loves the KJV?

On the other hand, do you know of a strong KJV man who denies the great doctrines?

If it is argued that the great, essential doctrines are not "principles of fundamentalism," we would like to know what they are.

Bob Jones position in this respect seems untenable, and one cannot imagine the university letting such a statement stand unchallenged. However, as far is we know, they have.


Bob Jones' position seems contradicting, confusing, and ultimately divisive.

Further, it is a position that is identical to the most openly liberal institutions on earth that go by the name "Christian." The position paper published by BJU, and the chapel comments about KJV advocates would be accepted without a passing comment or raised brow at the Harvard Divinity School and other Divinity Schools of the most liberal, Christ hating institutions in America.

It is, however, reflective of those who profess veneration for the KJV - and we do not question that love to be genuine nor the motives well intended - while rejecting it as God's Word, or at least as the superior English translation, and label those who defend the KJV as at best simpletons, and at worst dishonest, willfully stupid and used of the Devil. One must remember, however, that the same character descriptions are used by the other side.


Robert Sumner, former editor of the now defunct Biblical Evangelist, is often attacked by the more militant KJV advocates. They accuse him of hating the KJV and all who love it. Robert Sumner has denied that he is an enemy of the KJV, and that he considers all who revere the KJV as rednecked, ignorant "Ruckmanites." It is not the intention here to question his veracity. We are willing to accept his word as to his real feelings. However, his enemies use his writings and public statements to support their claims that he holds in low esteem the KJV and all those who support it, unless their support is qualified with grave reservations of various kinds. One of his publications will suffice as an example.

In his 1979 booklet, Bible Translations, published when he was a contributing editor to the Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and which he defended as late as 1992, he said on the last page, "We have no objection if some refuse to use or honor any translation but the King James Version. We wish them Godspeed and count them our friends. We, too, love it and seek to defend it from its critics. But we think any who make exclusive use of that translation a test of fellowship are wrong...."

However, some see this booklet as a full-fledged attempt to convince readers that the KJV is unreliable. True, he says at the beginning of his final summary on page 29, "You may depend upon your King James Version! It is reliable, trustworthy, accurate, proven." However, throughout the booklet he refers to "errors" in the KJV and suggests numerous translations, often through the words of a quoted "authority," as equal to or superior to the KJV. Among them are the Revised English Version, the Revised American Version, The Canterbury Revision, each called superior or far superior to the KJV in various places. Others recommended included the then in preparation New International Version, the New American Standard Version, etc.

For one who declares, as stated above, that one may depend on the "reliable, trustworthy, accurate, proven," KJV, it seems odd that he would use quotes such as, "The King James was not only 'faulty,' but in many places...there were times when they 'must correct it' for truth's sake...." (p. 16) Again, "So though for many reasons the Authorized Version (KJV) is the better for the general reading of the average Christian, nevertheless, everyone who wishes to find the exact words of God should have and study the Revised Version." (p. 15, emphasis ours).

One would be hard pressed to find words more plainly condemning the KJV as unreliable, untrustworthy, inaccurate, unproven - a poor work of little harm to the ignorant, but deadly to anyone who wants to know what God has to say!

As far as Sumner's claim to be friends of those who refuse to honor any translation but the KJV, he seems to contradict himself, or at least to have ambiguous sentiments, when he calls those friends "radical," (p 4) "silly," (p 9) "not reputable...irresponsible," (p 26) and infers they are dishonest and stupid, (p 13). It would most certainly be wise to question the friendship of one who, through the words of another, calls his friends, "Fogies in Biblical knowledge...and their funerals are nigh at hand," (p 13).

Sumner asserts that all versions by competent evangelical scholars are trustworthy, while claiming to reject those, such as the Revised Standard Version, discharged by liberals. Such an assertion is puzzling when he admits that Westcott and Hort were liberals, but claims their work reliable and quotes those liberals as authorities. "Westcott and Hort, who were liberal in theology but were honest in seeking to restore the original text...." (p. 6, emphasis ours)

Robert Sumner, then, joins a host of others in sanitizing the Drs. Westcott and Hort, while at the same time professing love for the KJV. He also is quite caustic in his comments about KJV advocates, painting them with the brush of radicalism, ignorance, and irresponsibility.


The late Dr. J. Vernon McGee, of Pasadena, California, was a radio teacher and preacher beloved by two generations of Bible revering Christians. His recorded programs are still being heard daily all over America and in many countries around the world. Dr. McGee was instrumental in the salvation of this author's dear mother-in-law, now at home in Heaven; thus, he and his wife, Ann have a special love and appreciation for Dr. McGee.

Dr. McGee is among the most loving and benign in the Rummager family. We have chosen him as a representative for that very reason, and because he is known to a much wider field of Bible Christians, while the reputations of the two above representatives are confined largely within the several independent, fundamentalist camps.

Although Dr. McGee would be the least militant of Rummagers, his very kindness is apt to lull the unsuspecting and unlearned into the morass of false translations, and undermine his listener's faith in a trustworthy Bible.

In his book, Revelation Volume I, on page 36 he notes that in a previous book on Revelation he used his own, "Literal translation of each verse...and in this book I will use some of it also...I would not defend it if anyone made an attack upon it. It is merely an attempt to lift out of the Greek what John is actually trying to say, and to try to couch it in a language that may be a little more literal and understandable to us in our day." (Emphases ours)

However, for all his kindness and good intentions, Dr. McGee makes nothing more understandable or literal. In most places his translations say the same thing the Bible (KJV) says, except they say it less eloquently; in other places they change the meaning to something quite different from "what John is actually saying."

For example, on page 129 of Volume II of that three volume set, he "renders" his own version of Revelation 10:11 as, And they say to me, It is necessary for you to prophesy again against peoples and nations and tongues and kings.

However, the Bible (KJV) actually says, And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

Obviously, the words before and against have two very different meanings. Before clearly means John is to address many peoples, etc. Against means he will preach as an adversary of them, but not necessarily before them. To help us understand the difference, you might speak against anything or anyone, with or without an audience, with or without them even knowing. No doubt, you have often spoken against some politician or the other, but they do not know you even exist. On the other hand, if you preach or speak to a large congregation, you are speaking "before" many people.

What is more, the verse seems to refer to a future ministry of John extending beyond his penning the words to Revelation, and after his release from exile on Patmos.

Further, by leaving out the word many, the scope of John's future prophesying is not defined; that is, he might preach to two or three people of different languages and nationalities, plus a king or two. Many, on the other hand, defines a vast future ministry.

Dr. McGee's translation is a common error of most Rummager Bibles, and of most Rummagers' private renderings. It quite conveniently dodges the puzzling promise of John's future ministry, which, as far as we know, has yet to be fulfilled. No doubt some Alexandrian scribe long ago decided that, since John was dead and that promise had not been fulfilled, God somehow misspoke, or John transcribed wrong, or some other scribe had copied "the original autograph" wrong; therefore, he changed it so as to limit the meaning to the penning of the remainder of the Book of Revelation.

Dr. McGee's renderings throughout the volumes often change the number, tense or meaning of words, sometimes changing subtle shades of meanings, sometimes changing the meanings altogether and outright.


In the very beginning of the quoted volumes, Dr. McGee fires a dart into the faith and confidence of his admirers by openly claiming that their KJV Bible, and, for that matter, all other versions, must be made "a little more literal and understandable;" which immediately tells them that their Bible is often not translated accurately nor skillfully. Then, he goes on to either retranslate verse after verse, chapter after chapter; in every instance saying the same thing in an inferior way to the KJV, or changing the actual meaning of the Word of God.

Few men or women, Rummager or KJV advocate, present their views in a kinder, more loving way. However, the philosophy and the mechanics of the kindest are identical to those of the most vicious; and the wreckage of the faith of their followers is as devastating.

As much as we love Dr. McGee and rejoice at the much good he has done, and the souls he has won to Christ, including our own beloved friend, we must say that in this area the only difference is that such men as Dr. McGee produce kindly, loving defamers of the Bible, while others produce mean spirited defamers of God's Word.

Error presented with gentle love and genuine kindness, especially when coupled with fame and prestige, can be more dangerous than sharp tongued meanness; far more dangerous, because it is so gently persuasive.


Although some will not accept any disagreement nor criticism as anything but a declaration of war, the author wants to again emphasize that there is nothing personal intended by examining the above positions. He is not an enemy of Bob Jones, Jr. and Bob Jones III, and Robert Sumner, and he remembers J. Vernon McGee with warmth and fondness. One cannot, of course, prohibit anyone from being an enemy, but he does not have to be an enemy of his enemies.

The Joneses, Sumner and other Christian Rummagers are brothers and sisters in the blood. Brothers and sisters may disagree, but they are still family.

All the same, however, when a brother or sister threatens to harm the family body, he or she needs to be restrained, and the family warned appropriately and unsuspecting or less able family members protected.


Though they usually paint KJV people as fools, Rummagers entrap themselves with their own contradictory words.

Table of Contents

Chapter 11


As noted in the beginning, you really need not know anything about manuscripts to be convinced the KJV 1611 is the only Bible in English. For those who would like at least an outline awareness of what is being discussed by so many, here follows a brief look at manuscripts, repeating and adding to some of the things already said in earlier chapters.


Also known as the MAJORITY TEXT and the BYZANTINE TEXT, we have already alluded to it and need not say much more. Quite simply, it is composed of the family of manuscripts accepted by faithful believers from the earliest days. It is the text of our martyred and persecuted fathers in the faith; the text of the murdered Tyndale, and the text used exclusively by the KJV 1611 translators. This text was rejected and despised by early liberals and infidels, and by the Roman Catholic church. All cults who deny the Godship of Christ reject it.

One reason heretics and cultists rejected and reject it is because it so clearly refutes their heretical doctrines. The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Armstrong movement, and the Mormons, for example, could not deny that Christ is eternally God, blas.H1E# EASY READING ABOUT MANUSCRIPTS

phemously claim that He sinned in His beginning, and claim that there is no eternal punishment in a real hell if they used the real Bible. Therefore, from the days of the Apostles onward, such heretics and infidels set out to create their own texts by rewriting the Received Text, changing it into something entirely different, but yet appearing enough like the true Word of God to deceive the simple.


Those man made "Bibles" are commonly known today as the Alexandrian manuscripts, and the Westcott and Hort "Bibles."

You know them as the NIV, ASV, RSV, TEV, King James II, The Living Bible, The New Scofield Reference Bible, The Feminist Bible, The Berkeley Bible, The Phillips Translation, and the various Feminist Bibles, which refer to God and Christ in the neuter gender, or as father/mother God. New ones keep oozing off the presses, so that there are over one hundred, maybe two hundred as we near the year 2000.

We have no inclination nor need to analyze the Alexandrian manuscripts. Their name comes from the ancient school of generally careless and liberal scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. Suffice it to say it appears these manuscripts were deliberately corrupted and changed by ancient liberals. All versions other than the KJV 1611 come through the works of the liberal nineteenth century theologians Westcott and Hort, and their works are based exclusively upon the Alexandrian manuscripts. We shall limit our brief comments to those gentlemen, then, referring the reader to the recommended reading at the end of this book for documentation concerning both Westcott and Hort and the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Let us repeat it to be sure of understanding: The Alexandrian manuscripts were liberal corruptions of Scripture, and Westcott and Hort were liberals. All translations other than the KJV 1611, and almost all Greek texts of every kind are exclusively based on Westcott's and Hort's works.

Thus, if one does not rely upon the KJV Texts, he must rely upon exponentially liberal works.

What do we mean, "exponentially?" For example, if you were to draw a number from among ten numbers, you would have one chance in ten of getting the number you wanted, say the number four. If you drew again from a set of ten numbers, your chances of getting the number four both times would be exponential - that is, it would be 10 X 10, or one in one hundred. So it is that maybe one of two early liberals might have given an accurate translation of a certain passage. The chances of the next giving an accurate "rendering" would be the same, and so on. By the time you get to, say, the tenth liberal, the chances of a correct translation would be 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 X 2. That means the chances by then would have dwindled to one in one thousand twenty-four.

These numbers are not meant to be exact, by the way, but just examples to show how little chance liberal translations of Scripture have of being correct in disputed instances. The actual chances are non existent that other translations than the KJV 1611 could be without numerous corruptions.

Further, those who accept as reliable any English translation other than the KJV must sing the praises of the rank, left-wing extremist liberals, Westcott and Hort, who, if alive today, would doubtless belong to the World and National Council of Churches, and would feel freed by the scorn, skepticism and fancied sophistication of modernity to openly deny the Bible as being either Divine or accurate in all its parts.

Consider carefully that it is the solitary work of the extreme leftists Westcott and Hort that is relied upon by all those who have given us other English translations, from their so-called Revised Version of 1885 to the latest. It is their work that fundamental and evangelical scholars, equally with liberals, rely upon in their translations. Thus, those who trust other translations absolutely must find a way to detoxify the good doctors, Westcott and Hort.

The intentions of those who rely on them may be pure, but it is here maintained that Bible believers should reject Westcott and Hort. Their connivances have been documented well enough that there is no need to elaborate upon their careers here, even their gaining total control of the committee that sponsored the Revised English Version, so that the product was not the work of the committee at all, but the work of the liberals Westcott and Hort.

Do you, our reader, really want to trust such men as Westcott and Hort. Is that the kind of "Bible" you want? We think not.


Fundamentalists and conservatives warble the praises of the NIV or some other supposedly "good" translation, while reviling the "bad" ones, such as the RSV and the emerging Feminist Bibles. However, one is as sorry as the other!Some evangelicals accept many translations, but not others. Liberals accept anything but the KJV.

YES! Fundamentalists' darlings are as bad as liberals' darlings.

That's right! The ASV, New King James (NKJV), and the NIV are every bit as bad as the Feminist Bibles and Good News For Modern Man!

Now, we all know that toupees are twirling in "Bastions" and "Fortresses" of the Faith in many places as resident Rummagers read these words. Let us explain.

True, some Rummager Bibles go farther than others, and contain more errors than others. However, they have had liberty to do so only because the way has been paved by the likes of the ASV and other conservative darlings. Which is worse? The one who opened the door and paved the way for error, or the one who takes the error up and carries it to a more vile destination? Obviously, fairness forces us to admit the guilt is no less for one than the other.

Conservative and fundamentalist darlings are worse

Actually, the guilt of fundamentalists and conservatives who promote the NIV, ASV, NKJV, etc. is worse than the guilt of the liberals and outright infidels who promote the Feminist Bible, RSV, etc.

Why? Because they believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and Liberals do not. Feminists and the religious left do not really care about the Bible at all, except as they can use it as a tool to promote their social and political programs.

Further, their supporters do not have any convictions about the holiness and untouchable sanctity of the Bible, so they are not much helped nor harmed by the rankest translations.

However, the man in the fundamentalist, conservative, and evangelical pew reveres the Bible. He is harmed, and his faith is mutilated by the perversions, such as the NIV, his trusted pastors place before him.

The liberal follower has no faith to harm; the other has a faith that can be and is grievously harmed. Therefore, the darlings of fundamentalism and conservatism are worse than those of the rankest liberals and Christ hating heretics.

The liberals' darlings show a bit more thigh than those of the fundamentalists and conservatives, but the darlings of both are equally harlots

The only difference is that the liberals' followers have long frequented the spiritual houses of ill repute - the conservatives and fundamentalists are unsuspecting innocents being led there by their Rummaging leaders.

Is all of this a Scriptural principle? It certainly is.

Luke 12:47-48, And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required....

You knew that, didn't you? It is a familiar passage. The passage states a principle that is clear and exceedingly fair.

Well, how about those "original autographs?" Something was said about them earlier, but here is a good place to remind ourselves of what they do and do not mean to us, and to say a bit more.


Rummagers say they believe the Scripture was inspired and without error "In the original autographs."

How nice.

What good does that do anyone? The original autographs are worthless today. (Remember, "original autographs" means original manuscripts, which means the very first ones upon which men wrote the words as God gave them.)

Weevils in the Bread of life?

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jesus likened the Bible and Himself to spiritual bread which gives life and sustains the spirit. We can understand that description, so let us use His metaphor to help understand what Rummagers do.

It is not uncommon yet today for a housewife to find weevils in her flower. Left long enough, sometimes insects find a way in to lay their eggs, and the eggs become weevils. Leave an apple lying uneaten and, anon, it turns mushy and then rotten. Animal carcasses soon have worms devouring them. Years ago, the author stored several cases of books in an old building. When he began opening them, he found that some kind of worm or insect, perhaps termites had eaten into the boxes and were devouring the bindings where the pages were glued to it. He would not sell books so eaten and damaged, so had to dispose of them.

To say the original manuscripts were perfect means nothing, when what we have today is filled with weevils, worms, and has turned mushy or rotten in spots. Unless desperate, the housewife will not use wormy flour to bake bread. Yet, we are told we must rely on a wormy Bible for the Bread of life.

The Bible weevils, of course, are mistranslated words, and words or whole passages added or left out. Many Rummagers claim, for example, that the last 12 verses of Mark do not belong, but were added later. Every time someone says, "Now, a better translation is....," or "In the original Greek....," or, "It is unfortunate that the KJV translates this word as so, because what it should be is....," he is telling his audience that he has found weevils in the Bread of life.

And he smiles and pats you on the head

"But, that is okay," he tells us, "We can be sure nothing important is lost."

Well, well! If that is so, then why does he keep rummaging here and there to find the right word, or verse, or half chapter. Why is it so "unfortunate" that passages are translated as they are, not only, according to him, in the KJV, but in others as well? If it is not important, why is it so "unfortunate?"

"Ah! But I have found the correct meaning, don't you see?", he will assure us.

Then, why do rummagers so often disagree on the "better rendering?" Why will five or ten Rummagers give different meanings to the same word or passage? How can each of them have found the correct meaning, when all disagree? Yet, they each assure us they have corrected the "unfortunate" translation of the KJV, or even improved upon one of their lollipop versions, be it RSV, ASV, NIV, NKJV, etc.

Who are we to believe? Which "renderer" has rightly rendered? Who is the fortunate one who has corrected the "unfortunate" error of the KJV, so that we unfortunate students can be the fortunate receivers of the truly correct?

And, by the way, if, as Mr. Rummager says, the "original autographs" have been lost, and the Scriptures were inspired and perfect only in those originals, how can he possibly know what the "original language" says, anyhow?

Someone has certainly lost something.

"Well," Mr. Rummager beams, "Do not worry about it."


"Everything is fine. You can rely on your Bible," Mr. Rummager assures us, with a benign smile and condescending nod. "Don't worry about it"

Please, Worry!

That is what this author advises his students and congregation - worry! If the Rummagers are right, we should all bite our nails, be anxious, lament in travail, perspire in perplexity, creep in the shadows, toss sleepless in the night, and worry!

Worry a lot!


So, if you are KJV ONLY, you really have nothing to worry about!

One need have no fears, after all. Walk in the light, sleep easy; God long ago promised to forever preserve every single word of the Bible. After all, how could a fair and just God command us to live by every single word of His, if some of those words had been lost, or we knew not where to find them, or if one had to choose whose guess was most likely the best guess - if every person could freely "render the original language" according to his own ability or whim?

Listen to the Rummagers very much, and one cannot but be impressed that many words and passages are "rendered" quite differently from Rummager to Rummager. Maybe one of them has God's correct words in one place, and another in another place, but who is to know which Rummager to believe in each place?

No, no! Too many weevils in those biscuits. Rummagers do not serve the Bread of life - they offer the bread of bellyaches.

Why would anyone choose to believe that God would be so neglectful as to command us to do something, and then lose or confuse the instructions, or parts of them? Consider some of His guarantees of Divine and eternal preservation of the Bible.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. I Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Psalms 12:6-7 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 from this generation for ever.

What part of preserve for ever do Rummagers not understand?


If one does not trust only the KJV 1611, he must trust liberal texts that are descended from liberal texts, that are descended from liberal texts....and deny God's promise of perfect preservation.

Table of Contents

Chapter 12




We have admitted concern as to how one is to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God if some have been lost, or we do not know for sure just what they are.

Let us bask in the benevolence of another benign Rummager smile as he explains, "But the words are no doubt preserved, but we must know Greek and Hebrew, and study many sources to find them."

Oh. So, only Greek and Hebrew scholars with access to manuscripts, lexicons and the like can know for sure everything God told us? Then, why does God hold the rest of us responsible to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God? Why did He not make it plain that only such scholars have that responsibility? Not that any of them could - not one of them - for they all disagree with one another at various places. Unless the Pope truly is infallible when he speaks "Ex Cathedra," there is no one Rummager who is designated as the absolute, inerrant, final authority.


Must we draw a deep breath, and with trembling heart designate an infallible Rummager? Or, should we just do what Catholics do and accept the decrees and interpretations of the Pope? One choice would be hardly preferable to the other.

No! There MUST be a final authority; somewhere that one can have absolute confidence he will find every word of God perfectly preserved, so he can have an opportunity to live by those words as God said he should.

That one place, that final authority, that complete text with all of God's individual words is the KJV 1611.

If it is not there, where is it?

The answer is, no one knows. No Rummager suggests any other translation as being that complete container of all God's words. There is no single Greek or Hebrew text that anyone we know of claims to be it. No person has the slightest idea of where or what to suggest as being such a container - such a text - except those who accept the KJV 1611. Indeed, as already noted, all others heatedly insist there is no such final, complete container of all God's words.


If the KJV 1611 is not the complete Word of God, it would seem one or the other, or both, must be true.

Just look at His promises and commands. On the one hand he has promised to preserve the Bible in totality, every word; on the other He has commanded us to live by every word of it.

If He has not preserved it so that we can readily read and understand it, then we cannot but be puzzled by what seems to be both failure and injustice. We cannot live by what we do not have or cannot be sure is accurate.

But, God cannot fail, and He cannot be unfair! He promised us He would preserve every word forever, and commanded us to live by every word of His. Therefore, it is impossible but that there be a Bible that the common, uneducated man as well as the scholar can find those words - all of them - and KNOW it is the complete Word of God; that he need have no dread that something is missing, added, "unfortunately translated," or misleading. He need not root for root words, try to decipher lexicons, chase variations or any such things.

That complete Word of God is the KJV 1611 Bible. There is no other possibility, and, to our knowledge, no one has suggested another possibility between a single set of covers.


Take your choice - you must trust in an infallible Pope, an infallible Rummager ( we know not who to suggest), or the KING JAMES 1611.

Table of Contents

Chapter 13


The King Who Would Rend What Could Not Be Rendered

Anyone who doubts that God will not preserve every word of the Bible should read Jeremiah 36. There, around 606 b.c., a wicked king sought to destroy that which could not be changed. He found that he could not destroy so much as one word.

The reader is asked to read the chapter for himself as we will offer just a few comments about it here.

God told Jeremiah in verses 2-3, Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day. It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.

Notice that God told Jeremiah to write all the words He had spoken to him. Each word was vitally important, you see. If you will read verses 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, you will see that thirteen times all the words, or the words are used.

When concerned, Godly men informed the king about the roll with God's words, he had Jehudi read it to him, and he did not like what he heard. It was in the winter, and Jehoiakim the king was sitting before his fireplace as the roll was read. From the first page he objected to what it said, and became more angry with each line.

His problem was that the words of God condemned his sin and decreed judgment if he would not repent, so he raged, according to verse 29, Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast?

Finally, he reacted in a paroxysm of what seems to have been an almost insane rage.

Jeremiah 36:23, And it came to pass, [that] when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast [it] into the fire that [was] on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that [was] on the hearth.

Rather than repent, he grabbed the roll and slashed at it madly with his penknife and threw it into the fire. However, that did not get rid of God's words nor change his decrees. Not a single word was to be lost, as we see in the following verses.

Jeremiah 36:27-28, Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

Further, since Jehoiakim refused to listen and repent, but instead tried to destroy the words of God, Jeremiah 36:30-31, Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the evil that I have pronounced against them; but they hearkened not.

What an awful price King Jehoiakim and his wicked "cabinet" paid for their rejection and light treatment of God's words.

The end of the drama was thus, Jeremiah 36:32, Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.

The "original autograph" was lost, but not a word was lost; Not a word is losable!

Jeremiah and Baruch did not just rewrite from memory what God had said, as best as they could. God made sure that each and every individual word was reproduced exactly as in the "original autograph." The "original manuscript" or autograph, was of no value to Jeremiah and the nation - it had been forever lost, burned by fire.

God is not dependent upon such originals because the real Original is in His mind and recorded in Heaven. He saw to it that the exact words were reproduced for Jeremiah and the nation then, just as He has done for us today!

Table of Contents

Chapter 14


Any new version that comes along is accepted with total casualness and carelessness by most preachers, teachers and their congregations and students; especially if it is recommended by their denomination, fellowship, or the leader of their particular camp. Why?

They will study a menu carefully before finally making a selection, and then ask for the meat to be cooked just so, and the coffee to be with or without cream, or the cola to be regular or diet. But they will open their minds for any thing that comes along that is fed to them by any in the paragraph above. They are very selective about what goes in their bellies, but uncaring and unconcerned about selecting a Bible to feed their soul and spirit. Why?

They will inspect their plate and, if they find a hair or a fly, they send it back; but they accept so called Bibles with hair, flies, weevils and worms crawling on every page, and care not at all. Why?

They will search long, discuss endlessly, and examine meticulously before buying a new car; but they will not bother to search, discuss, nor examine the latest Bible version, or Rummager rendering - they just take it without a thought. Why?

How could one dare carelessly lay aside the Word of God used and blessed for nearly four hundred years and replace it with the latest publisher's dollar-maker?

Why are there not more questions asked?

Why is there not long, close, careful inspection before acceptance?

THE PROBLEM: Too little love, too little reverence

One is careful about his selection of food or car because it is important to him or her. They want food that is good and clean, and a car that will give the best comfort, appearance, and service for their money. They love their food and like to show off and brag about their car.

How sad that they do not love the Bible as much as their hamburgers and Hondas, their fish and Fords, their barbecues and Buicks. That is truly "unfortunate."

The problem is quite simple and undeniable, Rummagers simply have an undernourished love and reverence for the Bible. Perhaps they just have not thought to pause and carefully ponder just what it really is.


We are talking about The Word of God! How dare one so carelessly pick up anything that ambles by, claiming to be God's word, and toss aside the Bible He has proven and exclusively used for four hundred years, and the line of manuscripts .H1E# CAVALIER, CARELESS CHRISTIANS

He exclusively used and proved from the beginning?

It staggers the mind.


How dare we be so slovenly with The Word of God?

Table of Contents

Chapter 15


We are not likely to have any influence among liberals. They have little reverence or none for the Bible; most are unsaved, believe little and care less.

Among true believers, the damage has rotted so deeply that it is doubtful if we can turn the majority back to the real Bible. The fear of losing face among their peers, and the rupture of long held vanities will deter most from ever so much as examining very closely the KJV evidence, or thinking rationally about it.

However, we can rejoice that a number can be turned back to the real Bible, and many already have. The hardened, arrogant Rummager will not listen - he really does not care any more than the modernist. But, there are a large number of good men who are not certain and are willing to listen; another large group really love the Bible, but they have been trained to carelessly rummage among versions, "original languages," and the like, and do not really know better. How can a child know stealing watermelons is wrong if he has always been taught it is the clever thing to do, and his father, mother, grandparents and every authority he has grown up around steals watermelons?

Such men and women must be persuaded, and hopefully the reader can use this book to help persuade some of them. Remember, most of them have never heard the KJV side - they have only heard about "KJV nuts," and how they are all ignorant, uneducated, backwoods' rednecks. Once they see the other side, many will turn back to the Bible - the one Bible, the KJV.

But, they cannot be browbeaten into accepting the truth. That brings us to a problem that seems to be growing more prominent in some segments of the KJV 1611 ranks.


Some KJV advocates have been as wrong and unnecessarily divisive in their attitudes, actions and words as those they consider adversaries. Let us look at some of the indiscriminate and bitter invectives hurled by both sides, and then we shall discuss what we think is the better way to persuade honest men to consider turning back to the real Bible, the KJV 1611.

John Rice was not an apostate, as some KJV people have accused him of being because he did not always adhere strictly to the KJV. Neither are the Bob Joneses, Robert Sumner, and certainly not Dr. J. Vernon McGee. Nor are most of the other Bible believers that use other translations than the King James. Now, we wish they would not use other versions. We wish they would condemn them as untrustworthy and that some of them would not be so malicious in their vilification of KJV people. However, their different understanding does not make them apostate nor dishonest. Most of them are sincere, and they do love the Bible. We are not sure, though, that they love it quite enough.

Neither are those who believe the KJV to be the inspired Word of God ignorant, rednecked, disreputable, irresponsible, dishonest, stupid, etc. Nor are they "Fogies in Biblical knowledge," or "blanket chewing innocents." Some may be any or all those things, but their advocacy of the KJV does not make them so. The author has never met Peter Ruckman nor heard him speak, but from what we have read and heard it is questionable if the Bible believing camp of the last half of the twentieth century has had a man who is more of a bona fide scholar in Biblical languages and manuscripts. Whatever one thinks of him, he is not ignorant, and we doubt that he is at heart any of the other unpleasant things he is so often called.

While the likes of John Rice are being posthumously vilified by the KJV camp, books are now being written slandering the late Dr. David Otis Fuller, perhaps the noblest defender of the KJV. The author has had Dr. Rice in his church and fellowshipped with him. Though never meeting Dr. Fuller in person, he corresponded with him in the later years of Dr. Fuller's life and spoke with him by phone. The memories of both men will always be cherished, though their viewpoints on the KJV were different in some ways.

We have many friends who infrequently refer to the original languages, although we cannot think of one who does not use the KJV in the pulpit. Their views differ. Through friendly discussion a few have been "persuaded" to change their views. As stated earlier, we respectfully require these dear friends to use only the KJV when speaking in any forum over which we have control, but they remain dear friends.

Who has ever known anyone to be "insulted" to a point of view?

One pastor, under the tutelage of the author, frequently asked what he considered hard questions about the KJV versus other versions. His questions were always answered as carefully and completely as the instructor knew how, often ending with, "Do you understand?", or "What do you think?" The pastor was often encouraged to express his disagreements and pose other questions. Eventually, the pastor, a brilliant man, came to genuinely accept the KJV only view. He was won by reasonable persuasion and respectful discussion. There have been others.


One must realize there is a difference in preaching, teaching, and speaking generally, and in speaking personally to an individual. As the author has tried to do in this book, the preacher or writer may well say some things that are blunt and pointed because he is addressing an issue, not an individual; he is speaking to many rather than to one; his message is general rather than personal. True, his message will convict the hearts of individuals, but the individual knows he is not being personally berated.

As we have written in other books, one may publicly condemn wickedness hot and heavy. When he is speaking with the individual sinner, though, he must show compassion, kindness and patience. All too often we want to speak to the sinner in the same manner with which we preach against his sin from the pulpit. Of course, it is understood that there are some who must be strongly rebuked both publicly and privately because of the nature and scope of their deeds, but the reader understands the meaning.


The day may come when it will be necessary to make a decisive division between those who use only the KJV and those who do not. Even when that day does come, channels should be left open for respectful discussion, rather than name calling and vilification.

Gentlemanly debate and amiable discussion is the best way to disagree. Each side would agree that they would rather persuade someone to their point of view. That being so, each side should realize that insults are not persuasive.

The old saying is ever true, never tiresome - "Good men disagree." Good, honest, separated, uncompromising, kind, compassionate, Bible revering, Christ exalting, God loving men honestly disagree. We must give some room to one another. Talk, discuss, listen. When you listen, hear! Who knows? You might find the other man or woman has a better argument than you.

Ah, yes! Perhaps that is the bone in the throat - the other fellow might have a better argument than we. Do you know, Good Reader, that name calling and ridicule is often a cover for lack of knowledge? It is a defense against the possibility of being wrong? Instead of resorting to such things, we should ask ourselves two questions:

1. What is more important to me - the truth, or winning arguments?

The answer, all will agree, should be, "The truth!" But all too often it is not. There is a fear of being proven wrong, or of seeming to be less knowledgeable or less spiritual than the other side. That is why so many preachers will not discuss differences with an open Bible.

Why should we fear the Bible? Why should we fear facts? Why should we fear the arguments of the opposition? If we can be proven wrong, should we not be grateful?

Yes, if we really want truth to prevail.

2. Am I angry because the opposition is evil, or because I have not studied enough to acquire the knowledge to present my side with honor?

Preparation gives confidence and serenity. We are not referring to public debates and confrontations, necessarily. Many dread such because their personalities and nervous systems are not geared that way, or because of their lack of experience in such forums. Even in such circumstances, however, knowledge and preparation usually overcome fear.

On both sides of the KJV issue there are a great many who want to win arguments or gain influence rather than see truth prevail, and who resort to insults and cliches because they have not acquired enough knowledge to convincingly present their side.

Others seek to play both sides of the issue in order to maintain or gain influence and standing from both sides.

As in so many areas, many Bible believers, including some of our preachers, can only repeat what they have heard others say. They loudly and angrily proclaim, "It is so!" They cannot tell why and how.


Many years ago, our Christian institutions found it was more "acceptable" to embrace the works of Westcott and Hort. Those who would not follow along were considered "unscholarly." More and more preachers were trained in the Alexandrian manuscripts and Westcott and Hort, so that, finally, the evidence supporting the Textus Receptus and KJV was not taught at all, except to dismiss that evidence as a product of ignorance. The result has been that, today, almost all Christian colleges and seminaries reject the KJV.

The next step was to begin to ridicule all those who refused to completely abandon the KJV. Thus, several generations of students have heard their Bible professors snicker at, ridicule, and even blaspheme the KJV Bible. All those who held fast to it were branded with a single brand - ignorant, backwoods' Southern rednecks. Some were laughingly called sincere clowns, while others were called mean-spirited troublemakers.

Whenever attempts were made to discuss the differences of opinion intelligently and courteously, the KJV advocate usually met rolled up eyes, condescending lectures, or contemptuous rebukes. Meanwhile, their questions were never answered.

To this day, their questions have not been answered.

Finally, alarmed at what they saw as an undermining of people's faith in the Bible, or angered at repeated ridicule, many began to hit back.

Strangely, those who for so long felt free to use any invective to blacken those who would not abandon the KJV, found it inconceivable and scandalous that they should be painted with their own brush, dipped in their very own bucket.

Still, we must remember that retaliation in kind may sometimes be proper, it is usually wrong among Christians. Many, many Rummagers are sincere men who are open to the truth, but have never really heard it. They do not fully understand how killing the Rummager position is to the Christian religion, nor that the father of Rummaging is none other than Lucifer, himself.

Such good men must be gently persuaded with long patience.

Even the militant, malicious Rummagers need not be countered in kind. Soft answers to vile or angry harangues are more likely to persuade the persuadable than returning insult for insult.

After all, that is our goal, is it not? We want to win the winnable to the Bible - the one real Bible, the KJV 1611. Persuasion - kindly, reasonable persuasion is the more productive way.


Talk to those who care. Remember, you do not need to know any other languages. Do not be intimidated by supposed scholarship or Greek expertise. Just go back and think about the common sense reasoning discussed in this book, and then speak up for the only Bible in the English language, the KJV 1611.

When you do, do it with a spirit of Christian charity and courtesy. If you have thought it through, you will not be tempted to use insults, give way to anger, or flee for fear of being shown ignorant. If you are talking with someone who wants to belittle or insult, just leave him alone, and find someone who is civilized.


Those that can be won over to the Bible - the KJV is the only real Bible, remember - will be won by kindly persuasion, which is in keeping with Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

Table of Contents

Chapter 16


Why gaddest thou about so much to change thy way? Jeremiah 2:36

Let us close with some observations that will leave some food for further thought, and which will summarize the intent of the preceding chapters.


If you are not yet certain that you should use only the KJV 1611 and should NEVER attend a church that uses other versions, give some thought to the following observations.

No liberal or modernist loves the KJV 1611; Every liberal and modernist hates it; No school ever went liberal while holding only to the KJV;

No liberal institution uses the KJV; Every liberal preacher uses other translations; No preacher is a liberal or modernist who uses only the KJV;

Every minister, teacher or professor who denies the Resurrection, the blood and other of the great doctrines despises the KJV;

With few exceptions, those who use only the KJV believe in the Resurrection, the blood atonement, and the perfection of Scripture.

One would think that would tell even the most dedicated Rummager something.

Although we use the terms "all" and "every" above, we admit that there might be someone here or there who is an exception. Possibly, for example, there might be someone, somewhere, who denies the Resurrection, the blood, etc., and still claims to love the KJV. Possibly, there may be someone, somewhere, who holds only to the KJV and who does not believe those things. Possibly, we say, but we have never heard of such people. If they have ever lived, they are extremely rare.

Why gaddest thou about so much to change thy way?

That is the question asked of the people in the text from Jeremiah 2:36, and with which we opened this chapter. The olden people had "rendered" the Scriptures "for modern man," and had turned to heathen alliances and heathen practices; all the while attesting their piousness.

Sounds familiar in the context of our discussion, doesn't it?

God demanded they explain what was wrong with what they had. We ask the same question of the Rummagers.

Why are they so determined to change, not only their Bibles, but everyone else's! What is wrong with what we have used for 400 years?

Why do they gad about so to change their ways, and why do they ridicule those who will not gad about with them?


Jesus told us we could know men by their fruits. He told us His works identified Him as Divine.

The fruits and works of all translations other than the KJV identify them as evil.


The road to Christ hating, Bible rejection has very clear markers. The reader may add to the markers below, but generally, here is the progress of churches, colleges, seminaries and other institutions that change from strong Bible beliefs to outright unbelief. Sometimes, the change takes place gradually over generations; but whether the journey is long or short, once the first step is taken, the end is sure.

First, rejection of Divine, perfect preservation of the Bible.

Second, rejection of the King James 1611.

Third, rejection of the verbal inspiration - that is, that every word of Scripture is given directly by God.

Fourth, rejection of the literal interpretation of Scripture.

Fifth, rejection of inerrancy - that is, that the Bible has no possibility of error.

Sixth, rejection of anything in it one does not like.

Seventh, ignore it altogether, as so many churches and schools do today, the latter years of the twentieth century.

Mark it down, highlight it and underline it: Those supposedly fundamental and conservative churches, colleges and seminaries, and other "Bastions of Fundamentalism" that do not now militantly hold to a KJV 1611 only position will eventually share the same theological platform as the Ivy League schools.


The author does not believe anyone has ever improved upon the wording of the KJV in any instance, nor that it can be improved upon. He does believe the hand of God brought forth that mighty, magnificent, marvelous, monolith of majesty. Neutrality is not claimed in this manuscript and translation battle. He believes all other translations are ragtag, scraggly, infested, penny snatching impostors, brought forth by men who, though often well meaning, were largely dulled to the fearful and terrible holiness of God and His Word. Many, such as Westcott and Hort, were not well meaning at all, but outright liberals, probably infidels, and perhaps committed the unpardonable sin warned against in Revelation 22:18-19. The damage done by Westcott and Hort certainly has equaled or exceeded that done by Darwin and his followers. At least Darwin, we are told, repented on his death bed and wept over the Bible he had attacked. We have heard of no such repentance by Westcott and Hort, nor by any of the leaders of the Alexandrian school.

Bedfellows with flea merchants

In the Europe of some centuries ago, traveling merchants were not permitted to set up their wares in towns nor accepted in the inns. It was feared they carried plague spreading fleas. Their prices were good, though, so they displayed their wares in out of the way places. These markets came to be known as "flea markets." During the past one hundred plus years, flea ridden theological merchants have peddled their plague scourged Westcott-Hort, Alexandrian merchandise. As we turn the century into the year 2000, not only have the liberal churches and schools allowed them the exclusive franchises in their midst, but evangelical, conservative, and fundamentalist churches and colleges have made them bedfellows.

The plague they bring is the plague of doubt, skepticism, faithlessness, and, ultimately, denial of the faith. The KJV 1611 alone is free of contamination and the scourges that have beset us. Let us have no more to do with any other versions.

Such astounding, bizarre EGO!

It requires an ego that is not only incredibly mammoth, but also strangely bizarre for one to think HE has superior abilities to the combined powers of the greatest group of scholars in history; a reckless, defiant ego that dares to so bawdily handle the Word of God with personal translations.


Use it with absolute confidence. It cannot fail you. What you see on its pages, every verse, every line, ever word, is translated the best it can possibly be. No one will ever give you a better wording, rendering, or translation - not one time! A Greek or Hebrew dictionary will not define the words as well as a good English one. No Greek or Hebrew text will be as pure as the English words in your KJV.

You may not understand some of the beautiful, powerful old words used, but you soon will, if you will put the other translations aside and study it. Those old words will become more precious to you than you think possible.

If you still are not settled in your mind that the KJV is the only Bible in the English language, the author asks you to ponder the things said in this book, and inquire of other books, such as those listed at the close of this book, that go into more detail about manuscript evidence and the background of the proponents of the two lines of manuscripts.

While you ponder, prayerfully ask God to work in your heart and give you understanding.

And, pause and ask yourself again, What harm has the KJV ever done? How many liberals are staunch KJV supporters? Even if the Rummagers are right, Why change?

On a long journey, one would choose the most trouble free, trustworthy vehicle available, would he not? On your journey through life, the Bible is the vehicle that points you to eternity. The KJV 1611 has never broken down - NOT ONCE! Why gamble with another? You may yet think other versions might be safe, but -

You KNOW the KING JAMES 1611 is safe!

Psalms 12:6-7 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 from this generation FOR EVER.

I Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth FOR EVER And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Psalms 119:89 FOR EVER, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

One day, when the earth and the starry heavens are gone, and the Great White Throne is rolled out into the blackness of space; and the mighty Ancient of Days mounts it and calls for THE BOOK - that BOOK may be in a Heavenly language or an earthen one, but it will be identical in content to the blessed old KING JAMES 1611. At that time, we suspect the saints and angels gathered about the towering throne will roar in unison, The Word of the LORD endureth for ever!

And, the roar will leap across the light years of space, shake the jasper walls and rattle the great gates of the Throne City of God, and be taken up by the sentries manning the battlements, and flung back across time and space, For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven; and echoing and reechoing in rising crescendo,


Table of Content

Return to Part One 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 Content

Return to Part One of KJV 1611: Perfect!

Other books by Dr. Roy Branson, Jr.

All books hardback except as noted


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.


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.


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.

Order from:

Landmark Publications

P.O. Box 757

Bristol, Tennessee 37621

(423) 878-8542

Table of Content

Return to Part One of KJV 1611: Perfect!

Back to the Bible Believers' Home Page