Wednesday, March 26, 2008


KJV 1611: Perfect!
A Conviction, Not a Preference

(Part One - Chapters 1-9)

By Dr. Roy L. Branson, Jr.
PO Box 757, Bristol, TN 37621 (423) 878-8542

Placed on the Internet by permission of author

Dedicated to the late Dr. David Otis Fuller
One of the noblest defenders of the Word of God in the twentieth century.

Table of Contents (for all chapters)
1. Relief From Greek Speak and Manuscript Babble
2. How the Author Became a KJV Advocate
3. No Manuscript or Greek Skills Needed
4. Greek, Other Versions Undermine Faith
5. Ego Is the Felon that Fuels Renderings
6. Rummagers Violate Convictions of Others
7. Time to Put Up the Barbed Wire!
8. Rooting for Roots, and Euthanasia
9. What is a Ruckmanite?
10. The Opposition: The Rummagers Speak
11. Easy Reading on Manuscripts and Autographs, If You Care
12. Choose Just One: An Infallible Pope; An Infallible Rummager; Or, An Infallible Bible
13. Jehoiakim: An Early Rending Rummager
14. Christians Cavalier About the Bible
15. Can Churches Be Turned Back To the Bible - The Real Bible -The King James?
16. Summary and Conclusion
Other books about KJV issue
Other books by Dr. Roy Branson with ordering information

Chapter 1


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.
Here is relief!
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.
Forget the Manuscripts and the Original Languages!
You do not need them, and neither does anyone else! Much, much too much is made of so-called "manuscript evidence." It is true that advocates of the KJV can present 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.
"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.
Illustration 1:
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!"
Illustration 2:
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.
Illustration 3:
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."
Illustration 4:
Well, how about that sweet little darling of the 1980's, and '90's, the chocolate drop of so many conservatives and fundamentalists - none other than the NIV, The New International Version?
Psalm 12:6-7: This is a blessed promise from the mouth of God to preserve every single, individual word of Scripture forever. The KJV 1611 translates it perfectly, The words of 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.
KJV 1611, or KJV, or The Authorized Version
All terms referring to the same Bible, the King James Bible. The 1611 refers simply to the 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.
Just who are the Rummagers?
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.
Rendering the original languages
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.
Root words
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.
Received Text, or TR, Or Textus Receptus
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.
Alexandrian Texts
Do not fear; we are not going to get bogged down in this, but you need at least a passing knowledge of these terms so you will understand the references made to them later, as well 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.
Westcott and Hort
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".
Ms and Mss
Abbreviations for the singular manuscript, and plural manuscripts.
Liberals and Modernists
You see and hear those terms often, but you might not be sure of just what they mean. 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.

Chapter 2


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.
"Dear Brother,
"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 one another, 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 relied upon 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....
Unreasonable, foolish assurances
"It is true that I heard the repeated assurances that, 'Although no translation is completely reliable, we can be confident that we do have God's word complete and preserved - that 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?
Blind faith rejected for Faith based on performance
" 'Have faith that such is not so,' some would say.
"However, God never asks for blind faith. He challenged us to prove His word by, for example, prophecy, Isaiah 41:21-24. Faith is based on unfailing past performance. To me, you see, 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?
Discovered that all liberals hate KJV 1611
"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.
God's timing of the KJV
"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.
KING JAMES English: the pinnacle of the language
"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.

Chapter 3


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.
So, let no one intimidate you with "original languages"
As you listen to the learned and supposedly learned pontificate about manuscripts, "autographs," and original languages, give it little heed. It has little more meaning than 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 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)
Greek and Hebrew texts are just other versions
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.
What do we mean by saying your text has inferior Greek?
Just that. Most Greek texts are based upon or are exact replica's of the ultra-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.
For 1800 years, Rummager manuscripts were trashed by Bible believers.
You may have heard it said that the KJV translators did not have access to those manuscripts. (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.

Chapter 4


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.
Questioning has led to rejection and ridicule of the Bible
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.
"Original Greek" mentality has also led to tampering with cardinal doctrines
It is difficult to see why so many of our fundamental, conservative, and evangelical 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 difference is only in scale, not in principle.
The other versions go to "the original languages" to redo the whole Bible. Some well meaning, sincere men and women unwittingly go to "the original languages" to redo a word or a verse.
Steal a little, steal a lot
One may protest that the thug robbed a bank of millions, while another only stole a few 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.
YES! You should use an English dictionary to define Bible words!
Except in a few instances, such as described a few paragraphs below, you had best use 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.
Whose "Rendering" will you believe?
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.
Exceptions: Transliterated words, names
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!
Chapter 5
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.
How can you tell when people are addicted?
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 can one explain it?
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.
Chapter 6
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?
Why do they sneeringly condemn KJV people for standing by their heartfelt, honest convictions?
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!
Chapter 7
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.
How can we do that?
We think the answers are self evident, but let us number several ways.
1. In our churches, pastors should politely insist that any speaker use only the KJV 1611, 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.
Chapter 8
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.
EUTHANASIA: Kill those decrepit old words!
"There are just so awfully many old, 'archaic' words in the KJV," our Rummaging friends say, "and nobody knows what they mean anymore."
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.
Chapter 9
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.
If you have no answer, ridicule the questioner
It is an old ploy - if one cannot answer the arguments of the opposition, try to discredit 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.
A Word about Dr. Peter Ruckman
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.
MONEY! LOTS OF IT! That Is Why There Are Other Versions!
Let there be no mistake, though one may question Dr. Ruckman's way of saying some things, he is absolutely correct in asserting that the primary reason for the proliferation of 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.

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.
Bob Jones has declared the King James and the Received Text to be inferior;
That the scribes copying the Received Text were more careless than those copying the Alexandrian Texts;
That Westcott and Hort were more accurate in their work than was Erasmus;
That their concern is finding the meaning closest to that of "the originals;"
And, that they have "adopted" the inferior translation from which to preach, memorize, etc.;
And that, that inferior translation is "perfectly adequate and accurate;"
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,
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

Dr. Branson's sermon tapes also available.
Order from:
Landmark Publications
P.O. Box 757
Bristol, Tennessee 37621
(423) 878-8542

No comments: