New Covenant Ministries
The quarterly Baptist Biblical Heritage
(since 1990), referenced many times below, is now called
THE PILGRIM All 25 previous issues
are available @ $ 2 per
issue.
Robert Dick
Wilson, the
great Princeton Seminary Old Testament Scholar who died in 1930, was
well-practiced in exposing and refuting error in matters of
Biblical studies. In one of his writings, he insisted on the importance of
tracing every error back to its original source. His research had convinced
him that almost invariably any commonly-held but false view
could be traced back to a single writer, and that this error had become
widespread, not because other writers had independently investigated the
same evidence and arrived at the same conclusions, but merely because other
writers were lazy and simply parroted the conclusions of the first writer.
In short, the false conclusions were naively adopted and the evidence
ignored.
BENJAMIN
WILKINSON
In the realm
of "King James
Version-Onlyism",
just such a genealogy of error can be easily traced. All writers who
embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately
from Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college
president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson
(died 1968), through one of two or three of his spiritual
descendants. In 1930, Mr. Wilkinson wrote Our Authorized
Bible Vindicated, a book of several hundred
pages which attracted almost no attention in its day (no doubt chiefly
because it was awash in a vast ocean of
error).
In that book,
Wilkinson attacked the "Westcott-Hort Greek text", in large
measure by attacking Westcott and Hort personally (the common but
fallacious ad hominem method; I exposed and refuted his line
of argument in "Erasmus and His Theology",
in The Biblical Evangelist, vol. 19, no.
20, October 15, 1985, pgs. 3-4) [available
thru Pilgrim
Publications
$
2 postpaid].
He also expressed strong opposition to
the English Revised Version New Testament (1881), in particular objecting
to it because it robbed Adventism of two favorite
proof-texts, one allegedly teaching Gentile
Sabbath-keeping (Acts 13:42), the other misused by the Adventists
to teach soul sleep (Hebrews 9:27). [some of Wilkinson's grosser
errors I documented in "Wilkinson's Incredible
Errors", Baptist Biblical
Heritage, vol. 1, no. 3, Fall,
1990]
[available from Pilgrim, will be added
to the wwweb].
Wilkinson was the
first to
misapply
Psalm 12:6-7
specifically
to the
KJV
as though the passage were a promise to preserve the words of
verse six [when in fact the promise is the preservation of the persecuted
saints of verse five, as I demonstrated in my essay, "A Careful Investigation
of Psalm 12: 6-7", The Biblical
Evangelist, vol. 17, no. 21, October 14, 1983, later
issued in booklet form as "Why Psalm 12:
6-7 is not a Promise of the Divine Preservation of
Scripture"] [available from Pilgrim, will be added
to the wwweb].
Wilkinson
also manufactured the erroneous idea that the medieval Waldensian Bible was
based on the Old Latin version and not the Vulgate, and that the Old Latin
version was Byzantine in its text-type [all of which
is demonstrably false, as I showed in
"The Truth about the Waldensian Bible and the Old
Latin Version", Baptist Biblical
Heritage, vol. 2, no. 2, Summer, 1991]
[available from Pilgrim,
will be added to the
wwweb]. Thus
Wilkinson,
the
first
generation...
J. J.
RAY
Wilkinson's
book lay unused and unknown (and how good it would have been had his errors
died with him!), until 1955 when J. J.
Ray (died early 1980s), who is self-described as
"business manager, missionary, Bible teacher", published the little volume
God Wrote Only One Bible. In
his book, Ray heavily plagiarized,
without note or acknowledgement, Wilkinson's book, repeating and propagating
wholesale Wilkinson's errors and mis-statements
[the
Fact
of Ray's plagiarism and
dependence is documented in Gary Hudson's article
"The Real 'Eye Opener'
", Baptist Biblical Heritage,
vol. 2, no. 1, Spring, 1991] [available from
Pilgrim, will be added to the wwweb].
Ray's
book has gone through numerous printings, with total copies numbering perhaps
in the tens of thousands. I first saw a copy myself in 1971 as a
first-year student at Baptist Bible College, Springfield, Missouri,
where I was also introduced
by students from Ohio
to Ruckman's Bible
Babel and Fuller's Which
Bible? I find it of particular interest that Ray acknowledges
that there are some erroneous translations in the KJV which do demand revision
(pgs. 30-31, 102), a position today's
KJV-Only mainstream would consider rank
heresy. With Ray,
the second generation...
DAVID
OTIS
FULLER
The
other chief disseminator of Wilkinson's misinformation was the late
David Otis Fuller, a Regular Baptist pastor.
Fuller must be counted as part of the third
generation, since, according to Fuller's own words in the dedication
of Counterfeit or Genuine (1975),
Ray's book God Wrote Only One
Bible "moved me to begin this fascinating study". Ray
and his book were also repeatedly noted in Which
Bible? (pgs. 2-4). I imagine the
scenario went something like this: Fuller reads Ray; Fuller writes Ray for
more information; Ray directs Fuller to Wilkinson; Fuller reads Wilkinson,
is lead astray, then reprints Wilkinson in
Which
Bible?
In 1970
Fuller issued Which
Bible?, which was in its 5th
edition by 1975 and contained 350 pages. Of these pages,
ALMOST HALF
were
taken from Wilkinson's Our Authorized
Bible Vindicated, with some editing, first to conceal from
view Wilkinson's cult affiliation, and second, to correct some of the worst
of his errors.
According
to D. A.
Waite, long associated with Fuller in
KJV-Only matters, Fuller knew full-well that
Wilkinson was an Adventist and deliberately concealed that fact from the
reader, and even from the publisher [noted
at end of this section], because the Baptist brethren "wouldn't
understand". Fuller's haphazard "back and fill" operation aimed at editing
out some of Wilkinson's grosser errors failed miserably to make a silk purse
out of a literary sow's ear, with most errors left untouched [see
the expose "The Great 'Which Bible?'
Fraud", by myself and Gary
Hudson, Baptist Biblical
Heritage, vol. 1, no. 2, Summer, 1990]
[available from Pilgrim, will be added to the
wwweb].
As reproduced in
Which Bible?, Wilkinson's material
is still plagued by blatant misstatements of the facts, distortions,
misrepresentations and half-truths; what else would you expect
to find in a devoted cultist's writings? [as noted above, see my
article "Wilkinson's Incredible
Errors", Baptist Biblical
Heritage, vol. 1, no. 3, Fall,
1990].
It is
this same David Otis Fuller who knowingly misrepresented the views of Spurgeon
regarding the Textus Receptus greek text, KJV, and English Revised Version
[I exposed Fuller's deception with extensive
quotation and documentation from Spurgeon's own writings in
"Spurgeon & Bible Translations:
the Abuse Continues", Baptist Biblical
Heritage, vol. 1, no. 1, Spring, 1990, published later
in booklet form as An Answer to David Otis
Fuller by Pilgrim
Publications].
And
it is this same David Otis Fuller who grossly misrepresented the views of
Robert Dick Wilson concerning the English Bible.
Fuller claimed that the views of Wilson and himself in this regard were exactly
the same, that is, that Wilson, too, found no errors in the English translation
and none in the underlying texts in Hebrew and Greek. Anyone familiar with
Wilson's writings at all knows that Wilson believed that only the
original text was inspired, that often the translation must be
corrected on the basis of the original, and that, though current Hebrew
copies of the Old Testament are generally reliable, sometimes the ancient
versions (Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, etc.) preserve the true original reading
in places where the Hebrew has been corrupted in the copying process
[see Wilson's remarks in Studies
in the Book of Daniel, vol. I, pgs. 84-85,
and A Scientific Investigation of the Old
Testament, pg.
61].
Fuller
also dragged Anglican priest John William
Burgon in as "witness" for his own point of view, even founding
a "society" named in Burgon's honor, though the society [currently
led by D. A. Waite] propagated views the
late Dean Burgon would have rejected.
Contrary to David Otis Fuller, not only
did Burgon not believe the textus receptus was unalterably
"perfect" and the KJV unchangeably correct, he was
convinced that the textus receptus needed
extensive revision (proposing
more than 120 changes in Matthew's Gospel alone), and stated in print
that in some places the English Revised New Testament of 1881 was a decided
improvement over KJV obscurities and inaccuracies [see the direct
quotations from Burgon's famous book The
Revision Revised, in
Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol.
4, no. 2, pgs. 4, 11, 16] and Gary Hudson's article
"Why Dean Burgon Would Not Join the 'Dean
Burgon Society'" [available from Pilgrim, will be
added to the wwweb]. [also see
"Corrupt Manuscripts ?" at the end
of this article].
Fuller, in summary, was ready and
willing to conceal the truth about Wilkinson,
and deliberately distort the opinions of
Spurgeon and Wilson, men he claimed to admire, and to invoke the name of
John William Burgon, to deceive his readers and to bolster his own views,
even though his (Fuller's) views were very much at odds with the beliefs
of these men. Fuller's blatant dishonesty
and disregard for the
truth does not fill one with
confidence in examining
anything he wrote or edited
on the Bible translation
"controversy",
and
yet
Fuller
is
a
"founding
father"
&
"leading
light"
of
the
KJV-Only
"movement"
!
The
book Fuller edited, Which Bible?,
is a hodge-podge of writings, many by authors such as
Robert Dick Wilson,
Zane Hodges and others, who distinctly
reject the Textus
Receptus-Only/KJV-Only point of view
[and at least one of the writers who gave Fuller permission to include
something he had written, complained about the way Fuller had altered the
writer's point of view in the editing process], and actually gives
some information which refutes some of the extremes of this movement. In
spite of its inherent defects, inherently contradictory points of view, and
frequent errors, Which Bible?
in numerous printings & at least five editions, has had a very extensive
influence in shaping much of the current debate and disseminating much of
the misinformation that characterizes KJV-Onlyism today. Without
any doubt at all, I am convinced that the vast majority of this highly
destructive controversy is a direct result of Fuller's deceptive and inflammatory
book, Which Bible?, and that
he must bear the odium of stirring up strife among brethren (Proverbs 6:19).
[Fuller died in 1988]
Note
by
Bob L. Ross
after repeated requests by Fuller & his friends,
Robert Kregel of
Kregel Publications printed Fuller's
three "KJV-Only" books [not using the Kregel Pub. name].
He personally told me that Fuller "begged me to publish
his books" but did not inform Kregel they contained
the writings of an Adventist. Kregel has now (1980s) let
them go out of print.
PETER
S.
RUCKMAN
Self-described
"Restorer"
of the
'Missing
Link' of
KJV
'Final
Authority'
http://www.biblebelievers.com/BBP1.html
Peter
S.
Ruckman
on
the
KJV
"I've
NEVER
said that the
KING JAMES
BIBLE was
Inspired,
although I've broadly intimated
it
sometimes."
[his booklet "Why I Believe the King
James Version Is the Word of God" pg. 6] |
"Not one time did
GOD guarantee
that ONE of the
translations
was
inspired."
[Bible Believer's
Bulletin Nov. 91, pg.
10] |
"Now,
at
no
time have I
stated flatly that the
A. V. 1611
was the
'verbally
inspired Word
of
GOD.'
"Verbal
inspiration
has to do with
2
TIMOTHY 3:16
and deals with
the
ORIGINAL
AUTOGRAPHS,
as we all
KNOW."
[Letter
to Robert Sumner,
1971] |
Also in
the third generation, without question the most
arrogant and abusive of the KJV-Only partisans is
Peter S. Ruckman, who passes for
a Baptist preacher and whose rantings have been thrust upon the public in
a monthly publication, Bible Believers'
Bulletin, but especially in a series of uniformly bound and
uniformly bad books that are claimed to be commentaries on various Bible
books, topical books on Bible-related subjects, and books related
to the Bible text and translation issue. All of his writings are
characterized by the most vehement vilification and denunciation of
everyone and anyone, lumping together great defenders of the faith such as
B. B. Warfield, A.
T. Robertson, & C. H.
Spurgeon (when he's not falsely claiming Spurgeon's support for
his own views), with the likes of Wellhausen,
Adolf Hitler, and Harry
Fosdick.
Far worse is
the
torrent of errors that flood each work
and virtually each page
of
Ruckman's every published
work. He
single-handedly has injected more
misinformation
into the controversy than all other writers
combined.
Note
by
Bob L. Ross
While Ruckman brays a lot about
"Final Authority", his
"hermeneutical" approach to the King James Bible is so nonsensible
that he is nowhere close to what we understand to be the doctrinal, practical,
and prophetical teachings of Scripture. He has various
"plans of salvation", various
"gospels", a
10-foot tall Antichrist who arrives on a UFO,
a "mark of the beast" applied by "two huge black
lips", baptism for salvation on Pentecost, and other such
nonsense. His
"smoke" about "Final
Authority" is just so much " hokey
" to beguile the gullible. He twists and distorts the KJV to make
it "say" what it does not say, and
doesn't permit it to teach what it plainly says.
It was Ruckman who first propagated the
erroneous idea that the KJV has no copyright [I exposed and refuted
this error with extensive documentation in
"The KJV IS
a Copyrighted Translation !" first
published in The Biblical
Evangelist, vol. 17, no. 11, May 27, 1983, and reissued
in a revised and expanded form in Baptist
Biblical Heritage, vol. 4, no. 3, October,
1993].
It was Ruckman who manufactured out of
whole cloth the false claim that no Protestant scholar has ever personally
examined the Vaticanus manuscript [see for my refutation
"Ruckmanism: A Refuge of
Lies," Baptist Biblical
Heritage, vol. 4, no. 4, January, 1994]
[available from Pilgrim, will be added to the
wwweb].
It was Ruckman who created out of thin
air the absurd notion that there was no Greek translation of the Old Testament
until one was produced by Origen in the third century A. D. [proven
false in my article "The
Septuagint: Riplinger's Blunders, Believe It or
Not", Baptist Biblical
Heritage, vol. 5, no. 2, Third quarter, 1994]
[available from Pilgrim, will be added to the
wwweb].
And
how was Ruckman drawn into the fray? What
book influenced him? Ruckman's first-born book on the subject
(unfortunately not "still-born"),
The Bible Babel (1964) betrays
unmistakable signs of heavy dependence on J.
J. Ray. Ruckman's chart of "corrupt"
texts and versions facing pg. 28 is an abbreviation of Ray, pgs.
56-70; Ruckman's "tree" of "good" versions facing pg. 73 is
a virtual reproduction, with very minor alterations, of Ray's chart on pg.
109; on pg. viii of the footnote references, Ruckman specifically mentions
Ray's book, though giving the title as "God Only Wrote One
Book", which is typical
of his level of accuracy! Just
as Wilkinson
misapplied Psalm
12:6-7 to the KJV, as did Ray, well...
so did
Ruckman!
Furthermore, in Ruckman's
so-called
The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript
Evidence (1970), Ruckman specifically commends
Ray (along with Edward F. Hills) as one
of a very few reliable writers on text and translation issues
(preface, pg. I).
EDWARD
F. HILLS
&
OTHERS
A word
needs to be said here about Edward F. Hills,
who wrote two books that in part address the text and translation controversy,
Believing Bible Study (1967)
and, The King James Version Defended
(1956, 1973); and who wrote a chapter on Burgon in Fuller's
Which Bible? The theme of Hills'
work is the defense of, not just the Byzantine text-type in
general as the true original form of the text of the New Testament, but the
defense of the specific textus receptus form of the Byzantine text, including
the unique (i.e., unsupported) readings in the textus receptus introduced
by Erasmus (as the textus receptus and the majority text as published by
Hodges and Farstad differ in 1,838 specifics).
Hills,
who did not advocate the inerrancy of the King James Version nor the
Origenian origin of the Septuagint, is neither a founding father nor
a star of the first magnitude of the KJV-Only movement, but
may be viewed as a secondary tributary, whose works are commonly cited
wherever his words can be made to support a writer's point. On the
whole, Hills' writings are much better-informed and more accurate
than nearly all of the KJV-Only literature, though he writes
as one blinded to evidence by his presuppositions. [An extended
analysis of Hills and his point of view was made by Dr.
James A. Price "The King James Only
View of Edward F. Hills," Baptist Biblical
Heritage, vol. 1, no. 4, Winter 1990-91]
[available from Pilgrim, will be added to the
wwweb].
From
Ruckman,
have
sprung, like the serpent heads from Hydra, a teeming uncongealed mass of
incredibly
misinformed
writers, editors, preachers
and
evangelists,
imagining
that they
are
"defending the true
faith"
when
in
fact,
their
ignorance
of
the
TRUTH
is almost
immeasurable.
As John Broadus was wont to say, it is
amazing how much ignorance some men have been able to accumulate. In truth,
there are natural limits to everything, except human
stupidity.
Among
those heavily influenced by Fuller can be named
D. A. Waite, who now does a
great deal of his own misleading,
& E. L. Bynum.
Also, Jack Chick,
[CHICK
PUBLICATIONS] whose comic books have espoused
KJV-Onlyism, has acknowledged in letters that he is entirely
dependent on Fuller and
Ruckman for his research.
[also see the footnotes in various Chick
KJV-Only comics & books] I am
reminded immediately of an ancient Jewish proverb: "If you wish to strangle,
be hanged on a good tree," that is, if you must rely on an authority, you
do well to make sure it is a reliable one.
GAIL
RIPLINGER
Now,
women are getting in on the
KJV-Onlyism act, promoting and
profiting from the gullible multitude seduced by the
sleight-of-hand tactics generally employed. The
latest piece of perverse propaganda is a huge pile
of wasted paper called NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS
written by Ms.
G.
[Gail]
A. Riplinger.
This woman said that God was the book's
"author"
[!] and she was His "secretary"
[!], hence "G"
(God), "A"
(and)...
Riplinger. She alleges a
"Satanic inspired
conspiracy"[!] on the part of
"modern Bible versions" which is sponsored
by the "New Age
Movement."[!]
[see link above
for one of our
reviews more articles to
come.]
Along
with other boasts, these claims were just "too
much" for even some fellow KJV-Onlyites to swallow,
and Gail Riplinger's work has been dubbed "an undependable
book" by David W. Cloud, editor
of O TIMOTHY Magazine
(Vol. II, #8, 1994)
[re-named "O
MADMAN" by Ms.
Riplinger]. Cloud remarks that the claim by Riplinger
that God was the "author" is something that "even the most radical charismatic
prophets hesitate to use such intemperate
language".
Yet
the book has received the
unqualified endorsement of
KJV-Onlyites such as Chick,
Ruckman, Jack Hyles,
Texe Marrs, J. R. Chambers,
D. A. Waite, Walter Beebe
& others who are "peddling" it. There
are a lot of KJV-Onlyites on the mailing lists of these
men, hence a lot of money to be made by selling this book to the
gullible!
SUMMARY
From Wilkinson in the first generation,
through Ray in the second, and Fuller and Ruckman in the third, the entire
KJV-Only
movement has arisen, and every
present-day KJV-Onlyite is, in varying ways,
a direct spiritual descendant of these ill-informed men. And
as the movement has progressed from one generation to the next, with each
new generation arising from intellectually-incestuous
in-breeding,
the
views have become
more
radicalized
and
extreme.
First,
the KJV was viewed as "better" than other English versions, though not above
some revision and correction (thus Ray); then, the view was taken that the
KJV was "error-free" (but not without insoluble problems; thus
Fuller); then, the KJV came to be accepted as "perfect," and infallible,
unalterably exact, "superior" even to the Greek and Hebrew texts from which
it was made, and in fact contained "new revelations" not found in the Greek
and Hebrew (thus Ruckman); and now it is alleged by some that a person "cannot
be saved" unless through the English KJV (thus Hyles and others), and all
foreign Bibles should be revised to conform to the KJV [a view pushed
by some idiot Americans visiting in Romania, by an ignorant American missionary
in Japan, and by a church in Arizona which insists that the 1960
Reina-Valera Spanish translation, which has brought the conversions
of millions, is not the Word of God], a view so
absurd that only an American could believe
it.
The
movement has become a vulgar caricature of itself, rushing at
break-neck speed to ever more extreme views, and as they grope
about in the intellectual smog of
"KJV-Onlyism", having lost all perspective and ability
to discern truth from error, they become easy prey for every false doctrine.
One leading KJV-Only advocate in the upper Midwest was recently
ostracized from his circle of associates because he has begun espousing British
Israelism, the view that the English-speaking peoples
are Israel (the view of Herbert W. and Garner Ted Armstrong; this
view arises naturally from KJV-Onlyism, for after all, the
English-speaking people must be special, since to them alone
God gave an infallible, inspired, perfectly preserved translation, ...with
6 different
revisions...
right?).
Every KJV-Only advocate is a lineal descendant of Wilkinson,
Ray, Fuller and Ruckman, and all are the victims (unwitting, I hope) of the
multitude of gross distortions, errors, corruptions, misunderstandings,
misrepresentations, and, in some cases, out-right lies of these
men. These men are collectively a bruised reed of a staff, upon which if
a man leans, it will pierce his hand. They are unreliable in the extreme
and are deserving of no confidence as to the truthfulness of anything they
affirm. I have no doubt that some will blissfully continue in their ignorance,
willfully ignorant of the truth, not seeing because they
DO NOT want to
see.
"So
then Wilkinson, when he had conceived, brought
forth Ray, and Ray, when he was
full-grown, brought forth Fuller,
Ruckman, Chick,
Riplinger, Hyles,
Bynum,
Gipp,
Waite, Marrs ...unfortunately,
others."
written by Doug Kutilek former co-editor
of Baptist Biblical
Heritage
published in Baptist Biblical Heritage, now called
THE PILGRIM
Magazine
(Issue #18, Vol 5, No. 4, Spring 1995)
Contact us for a
FREE CATALOG
and Sample
SPURGEON SERMONS
E-Mail:
Pilgrimpub@aol.com
(1st)
E-Mail:
Pilgrimp@swbell.net (2nd)
| Join our
company:
"The Lord gave the
WORD: great was the COMPANY of those that PUBLISHED
it."
[Psalm
68:11]
Please, Copy
this article, pass it on, and mail to others. Permission granted
by Bob L.
Ross
No Copyright |
"CORRUPT"
MANUSCRIPTS
?
Many times I hear
KJV-Onlyites
mention manuscripts other than the textus
receptus as "corrupt". Well, since there are no
"originals" or exact
copies of them in existence, & since no
two existing manuscripts are exactly alike,
IF one uses the term "corrupt" to include
any manuscript which is NOT exactly as the "originals"
then you have to say that
ALL of them are
"corrupt!"
There is no single
manuscript in
existence
which can be placed
side-by-side with ANY translation
to
exactly
parallel it.
Beza
put together a text in the 16th century that most
KJV-Onlyites
hold up as being "essentially" the original New Testament. Yet the KJV does
NOT exactly parallel that text. The
Trinitarian Bible Society publishes a
"TR" which was put together by F.
H. A. Scrivener to "match" the current KJV, but
that was not available in "one" until the last century. The "Majority Text"
does not match the KJV, either.
According to most
KJV-Only
"scholars", they admit there is only a small percentage of difference between
the "TR" family of manuscripts and the other "family". They also admit that
there is not a single important or major difference between them in their
vital teachings. No doctrine is "corrupted" by either "family" of manuscripts.
Even in the translations,
KJV-Onlys
admit that the all-important truth of Salvation is in them
so that a person could be saved. God
HAS preserved His
Word in both "families" of manuscripts, despite any "omissions"
or "additions" that copyists have made in those manuscripts.
A good book on this subject is
Norman Pickering's
The Identity of the New Testament Text
[Thomas Nelson, 1977,
1980]. To my knowledge,
Pickering does NOT affirm that any particular manuscript or "family"
of manuscripts is exactly reproduced by a translation, not even the
KJV Bible. He was one of the Consulting Editors on the "Majority Text", and
it omits, for example, the disputed words of 1 John
5:7used in the KJV but controversial as to
its textual reliability.
[ A History of
the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 - see Michael Maynard's book for
a study on this scripture. Also, one of the most thorough articles I have
read in regard to the controversy about this passage was published in
"Olde Paths and Ancient Landmarks" magazine
of October 1993. If you would like a copy, write to Editor Glen Conjurske,
3540 Hwy 47 N, Rhinelander WI 54501 enclosed
$ 1.00 to cover cost]
In a letter published in our
magazine first's issue (1990), Mr. Pickering said:
"The nature of language
does not permit a
'perfect' translation
the semantic area
of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap.
A
'perfect' translation of
John 3:16 from
Greek
into English
is
impossible,
for we have
no
perfect equivalent for
"agapao"
[translated
"loved" in Jn.
3:16]." He says that
IF the KJV is the
only "infallible" Bible, "then no
one who lived before that date had access to it
& with the
6 subsequent
revisions of the original 1611
KJV, containing hundreds of word
changes, this would
mean God's "infallible translation" is... NOT
infallible! those
"infallibly translated words" have CHANGED. This
is just another
KJV-Only
theory I refer to as PURE
HOKEY! No one even uses
a "1611
KJV"
today!
Do you know a single
cult which originally developed from the use of a version other
than the KJV? Even the "Jehovah Witnesses" originally used the KJV. The
only "cult" I know that has developed in relation to a translation is...
the
"KJV-Only" cult
itself!
"KJV-Onlyism"
is simply a
"hobby-horse"
promoted to sell books, videos, magazines, pamphlets, trinkets, and
all types of other merchandise to people who are misled to think such stuff
is vital to the "defense of the faith".
While we
oppose
the type of
"KJV-Onlyism"
which is of the cultic variety mentioned above and elsewhere in our articles,
I want to make it clear that we are not doing either of the
following: 1) "repudiating"
the KJV, and 2) "promoting" other
versions. What we are DOING is defending
the very same "rights" assumed by the KJV Translators when they made their
translation. We have as much "right" as they did to study Greek and Hebrew
texts and manuscripts, past and present Bible translations, lexicons, etc
and expound what appears to us to be Scripture and its teaching.
The 57 translators who worked on
the KJV are not the "Final Authority", as inferred by Gail Riplinger
in her "Nite Line" video wherein she repudiates
the study of the same and similar sources as used by the translators. We
repudiate making authoritarian "elitists" out of the KJV translators
(which they themselves did NOT do), just as we repudiate the Romanist "
This Page was Created on 27 November 1998