A Response to William Schnoebelen's Conversion to KJV Onlyism

---

The inclusion of this article is a very painful one for us because of the high esteem we have for William Schloebelen who has a very important ministry in countering satanism and whose books have had a profound impact on me personally. However, I think this exposé by James White is important because it demonstrates how vunerable we can all be to deception unless we are very careful.

A word of clarification: whilst I believe the NIV and NASB to have certain advantages over the KJV I do not believe them to be surperior as Mr. White does. In fact, I do believe they contain serious errors.

I am not sure if this article is copyright or not so it is being put up here until we learn one way or the other. If anyone has a link to the original we should be pleased to include it.

---

At times it seems like an epidemic. It's always the same tired arguments, refuted a hundred times before, that are being presented as some "new information," some great new insight into the truth. How could "Christian scholars" have missed such obvious errors on their part? Who knows? But another Christian writer has fallen for KJV Onlyism, and is helping to promote this divisive, a-historical, and utterly unbiblical theory.

Bill Schnoebelen is used to controversy. The first item I ever saw from his pen was titled something along the lines of Joseph Smith and the Temple of Doom. It was being passed out in Salt Lake at the General Conference. Later Schnoebelen's claimed background was questioned by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, noted researchers and authors. To be honest, I hadn't heard or read anything about Mr. Schnoebelen for quite some time, until an article from the November/December, 1996 Liberator newsletter was forwarded to me electronically. And once again I found myself reading every single argument I had addressed fully in The King James Only Controversy.

While there is certainly nothing new in Bill's article (at the end he advertises materials by Sam Gipp and William Grady, both of whom are referenced, and discussed in my book), it provides us with an excellent opportunity to see someone right at the beginning of their journey in KJV Onlyism. So far Mr. Schnoebelen hasn't picked up the attitude of a Peter Ruckman yet, but one can already detect the attitudes of Gail Riplinger. Surely we will not be the only folks responding to this article, and the real question is, how will he respond? Will he really interact with the data that shows his arguments to be fallacious, or will he respond like most KJV Only advocates? That is the real question.

I would like to invite Mr. Schnoebelen to view the 8-part series on KJV Onlyism that was taped on the John Ankerberg Show. I'd like to invite him to read The King James Only Controversy. If he would like to demonstrate any errors of fact, history, or logic, I'd like to read his responses.

Below I provide some of the text of the Liberator article in Times Roman font, centered, with my responses following. I must rely upon the accuracy of the article as forwarded to me.

But, what of our "highly respected authority"? Well, in the celebrated NIV Study Bible, (1985, The Zondervan Corp.) in Matt. 5:22, we read Jesus saying: "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."

Going in the same bible to Mark 3:5, we find the Lord Jesus looking "around at them in anger..." Now this means that according to the NIV, Jesus just put himself in danger of judgment-He sinned!

The NIV's "twin sister" bible, the New American Standard (1977, The Lockman Foundation) says this in Matt. 5:22-"everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court." Similarly, in Mk. 3:5, it states that He looked "around at them with anger."

Now, it must be admitted that both bibles place a marginal note which says (e.g., NIV) "some manuscripts brother without cause." This reading is what is found in the Authorized Version (King James Bible). The AV has Jesus teaching that it is sinful to be angry with your brother without a cause. Quite a BIG difference.

The footnote--which some might not bother to read--casts doubt on the authenticity of the Words of God. Either the words "without cause" are there or they aren't. If they are, then the verse makes sense. If they aren't, then not only Jesus, but also God the Father sinned!

Reply:

As with so much of the KJV Only material that is to be found in the Internet and in print, such arguments ignore the real issues. The reason the NIV and NASB do not have the phrase "without cause" at Matthew 5:22 is quite simple: the Greek text that underlies these modern translations does not contain the Greek term eivkh/. Mr. Schnoebelen may not like the reasons the editors of the modern Greek texts give for not including this term: but, he doesn't bother to tell us why these texts read the way they do. In fact, one must ask, does he know? The reading is, of course, found in all modern Greek texts in their textual notes. No one is "hiding" the reading. One can, in fact, make a strong case for the reading, as it is found in a wide variety of manuscripts and has early attestation. The reason it is excluded is that most felt it was easier to explain the addition of the term (so as to soften the rigorous precept enunciated here) than to explain its deletion. But in any case, it is a matter of reason and fact as to why the term is not found in the modern Greek texts. It is not a matter of a conspiracy.

Now Mr. Schnoebelen wants us to believe that to read as the modern texts read is to introduce a contradiction in the Bible. By so speaking, he illustrates well the very concern that modern textual scholars refer to in explaining why someone would add the phrase in the first place. Seeking to avoid seeming contradiction was a concern on the part of early scribes, just as it is for Mr. Schnoebelen. I say seeming contradiction, because truly, there is none, even if one reads the modern text. Mr. Schnoebelen should be aware of the fact that he has to often explain context to Mormons with whom he speaks, so why can't he allow the context of this passage to solve his problems for him? Jesus is speaking in the context of sinful anger. He speaks of calling a brother a "fool." He is obviously not speaking about righteous anger as exemplified in Jesus' anger at the hard-hearted Pharisees. To compare the two passages is to compare apples and oranges. One must be looking for "contradictions" to come up with this one. One can only wonder why KJV Only advocates are forced to search for such things.

You will hear advocates of the NEW (Acts 17:21) bibles say, "No doctrines of any consequence are touched by these changes." But wouldn't you say that the sinless nature of Jesus is a pretty important doctrine?

Reply:

Throughout his article, Mr. Schnoebelen joins with Gail Riplinger in refusing to capitalize the word "Bible" when used of anything other than the KJV. His citation of Acts 17:21 is a gratuitous insult that does nothing but inflame passions. If he thinks that any translators on the NIV or NASB translation committees do not believe in the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, I think he owes it to everyone to tell us who. He can't do that, of course, so he has to use innuendo to attack the character of fellow believers. I hope he has simply fallen for the "line" that is found in so much KJV Only material, and really doesn't realize that he is guilty of attacking, without foundation, fellow believers in Christ.

Finally, I invite Mr. Schnoebelen to interact with my own rebuttal of the claim that modern translations like the NIV and NASB present a "different" theology or a different gospel. He will find this topic frequently addressed in The King James Only Controversy.

That's just like the Lord's righteousness and our sin. Contrary to what some religionists think, God does not weigh our good deeds against our sins in a scale. Even one tiny sin brings the whole law crashing down on our heads (James 2:10). Only absolutely perfect righteousness can get us into heaven. That is why we cannot do it, but Jesus can do it for us. He lived an absolutely perfect life, and--through the cross--made provision for us to appropriate His righteousness as our own. (Rom. 3:22, 10:4; Phil. 1:11, 3:19)

That is why it is such an abomination for the publishers of the NIV, NAS and most modern "bibles" to even hint that Jesus may have sinned in anger. It doesn't matter if their versions say He is sinless somewhere else, they slander Him repeatedly.

Reply:

Mr. Schnoebelen's misinterpretation of Matthew 5:22 in comparison with Mark 3:5 is not grounds for him to accuse the translators and publishers of the NIV and NASB of an "abomination." Again, he should be well aware of how easy it is to misuse the Bible. He knows Mormons will misuse Jesus' words in John 10:34 to support their idea of a plurality of Gods, and that right from the KJV! Indeed, he must be aware that Mormon leaders have cited the poor translation of the KJV at Revelation 1:6 as evidence that the Bible teaches polytheism! Should we then attack the KJV translators for this misuse of their words? Of course not. So why does Mr. Schnoebelen attack the translators of the NIV and NASB over the misuse of Matthew 5:22? Such is inconsistent.

Jeremiah 23:30 warns, "Therefore, behold I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour." These modern translations literally steal thousands of words out of the Holy Bible! In 99 times out of 100, that theft ends up either somehow taking glory away from Jesus, His gospel or His atonement. So what if they left some precious Bible truths intact? That is like a thief who steals all your cash and then wants congratulations because he left you your clothes! He is still a thief!

Reply:

Such is a broad-brush accusation that ignores the real issues. Mr. Schnoebelen shows only a familiarity with KJV Only materials, not with scholarly responses. This leads to gross unfairness in his presentation. The NIV and NASB in no way, shape, or form, take glory away from Jesus, His gospel, or His atonement. This is purely fallacious rhetoric. It may preach well, but it's untrue. As such, it should be repudiated by Christians.

Jesus IS sinless, yet the modem versions subtly (Gen. 3:1, Prov. 7:10) undermine His unblemished character! They cast doubt on His virgin birth (read the modem versions in Luke 2:43 and compare to the Authorized Version!). The NIV eliminates every SINGLE reference to Jesus as God's only begotten Son (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Acts 13:33; Hebr. 1:5; 5:5; 1 John 4:9 in both versions) They usually replace it with "One and Only Son." Now WHY on earth would they do that? Whose theological agenda is being served? It is another lie to take away a little bit of the glory and uniqueness of Jesus!

Reply:

Again, Mr. Schnoebelen does not address the real issues. The reading at Luke 2:43, "His parents," rather than, "Joseph and his mother," has far superior manuscript support. And again, Mr. Schnoebelen's concern well illustrates why later scribes (especially after the concept of the exaltation of Mary, her perpetual virginity, etc., came into vogue) expanded upon the original reading. Rather than asking the only question we can properly ask, which is, "What did Luke originally write?", Mr. Schnoebelen plays on the emotions of believers, clouding the issue with accusations of conspiracy. The issue of Joseph being properly called Jesus' "father" (may I ask, what do you think Jesus called Joseph?), and the texts bearing on the issue, and how all of this is irrelevant to any serious defense of the Virgin Birth, is discussed in The King James Only Controversy, pp. 216-218.

Next, Mr. Schnoebelen goes after the NIV's rendering of monogenh,j (monogenes) as "One and Only Son." This again is a matter where the real issue is ignored for the sake of emotion. Bill never asks, "What is the best translation of the underlying Greek phrase?" Instead, he accuses the NIV of "eliminating" a doctrinal concept, and of promoting a "lie" to "take away a little bit of the glory and uniqueness of Jesus!" If Mr. Schnoebelen would take the time to contact Kenneth Barker, the editor of the NIV Study Bible, I'm sure he would find that Dr. Barker would send him all sorts of information demonstrating that 1) the NIV translators believed in the uniqueness and glory of Christ, and 2) their translation of the Greek term is superior to that of the KJV! I am currently finishing work on a book which will be published by Bethany House Publishers on the topic of the Trinity that contains an entire section on the meaning and translation of the Greek term monogenh,j. To put it bluntly, Mr. Schnoebelen is on the wrong side of the facts at this point. I would direct him even now to the in-depth study provided by Dr. Murray Harris in Jesus as God (Baker Books, 1992), pp. 73-103, for enlightenment on the issues that surround the term.

God's Word must be 100% perfect and pure because that is how it is defined repeatedly in the Bible. (Ps. 18:30,19:7, 119:140, 12:6; Prov. 30:5, James 1:25) It cannot be like Ivory soap, "99.44% pure." If there is the tiniest error or lie in it; then it obviously cannot be of God because God "doesn't make junk." (Mark 7:37, 2 Sam. 22:31)

We also have His promise that it would be preserved perfectly. (Ps. 12:6-7, Isa. 40:8, Matt. 5:18, 24:35, Luke 16:17,21:33; 1 Pet. 1:24) Obviously, it would make little sense to preserve it imperfectly.

Would a parent give their teen a driving manual, telling him it was perfect, but actually knowing all along that dangerous errors were in it? Only a stupid or evil parent would do such a thing, and obviously God is neither of these. He promised it would be preserved perfectly and it is. As the first pastor who discipled us used to say, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

Reply:

Here we have the standard "preaching" of the KJV Only position. It obviously sounds real good, as it traps many people. Most KJV Only advocates never get past this stage to apply their reasoning to their own position. The questions are too obvious for much comment: what was the "real" and "preserved" Word of God prior to 1611? Was the Geneva Bible a "good" one? How about the Bishops' Bible? Tyndale's translation? Wycliffe? What was the "preserved text" in the year 1000? How about before the English language evolved? Can Mr. Schnoebelen, or any of those upon whom he is relying, show us a single Greek manuscript from anywhere in the world that reads exactly like the KJV at every point? No, they cannot. So as much as they may want to believe that this is how God did things, the simple fact of the matter is, He didn't. God preserved His Word in a different manner than KJV Only advocates would like us to believe.

I would like to ask Mr. Schnoebelen to submit to us, for posting on this site, his response to the four paragraphs found on pages 94 and 95 of my book that deal with this very issue. Of course, it would be great if he would deal with the chapters that came before, including the information on how the Textus Receptus came into existence.

Finally, not a single one of the passages cited by Mr. Schnoebelen is relevant to his claim.

Thus, with these new "bibles" and the "Christian scholarship" behind them, we have two choices. We can either believe God, who promised us a perfect Bible right up to the end of the world (Mark 13:31); or we can believe scholars who tell us we have no perfect Bible today. They tell us only the "original autographs" are perfect. The problem is, no one (including any Christian scholar) has ever seen these celebrated originals. What good are they?

Reply:

Is Mr. Schnoebelen falling into the trap of Ruckmanism here? It certainly seems so. What good are the autographs he asks. Well, that is normally the opening of the door to the denial that we can reconstruct them, or that the Greek manuscript tradition is sufficient to provide us with the original readings. Hence, Ruckman, and his followers (and Sam Gipp, whose materials Schnoebelen offers at the end of this article, was trained under Ruckman) end up denying that we have a preserved manuscript tradition, and instead point us to a re-inspiration of the Bible in the KJV! Note footnote #34 on page 124 of The King James Only Controversy:

This is the true mark of Ruckmanism: the denial, through the use of equivocation, of the existence of the original readings of the New Testament text. Ruckman continuously attacks the use of the word "original" (note the KJV translator’s use of the term in their own Preface!), at times using it to mean "autographs," the original writings of the apostles themselves, and at other times using it to refer to the original readings that were found in those autographs. We do not have the autographs. In that sense there is no "original" any longer. The whole point of the tenacity of the New Testament text, however, is that the original readings still exist, faithfully preserved in the New Testament manuscript tradition. By denying the existence of the "originals," Ruckman reduces his reader to a need for a supernatural way to know what the "originals" read. This ignores, of course, the fact that God has preserved the readings of the autographs in the manuscript tradition down through the ages. This is why it can quite properly be said that Ruckmanism engages in a more radical and destructive form of textual criticism than even the "liberals" they decry, for they deny that the original readings have been faithfully preserved, requiring instead the supernatural inspiration of the AV 1611 so as to have certainty on those readings. Note the startling words of Peter Ruckman in his attack upon the NKJV:

It is this maniacal obsession that makes men like Massey, at Rodney Bell’s school, insist that he can find out the EXACT WORD that God gave Paul when Paul wrote his manuscripts; and it is this same egotism that makes patsies like Stewart Custer (Bob Jones University) tell us that he reads the "verbally inspired original" New Testament daily because he "holds it" in his hand (p. 14).

The meaning of these words should not be missed. Ruckman is ridiculing the idea that we can determine what words Paul wrote originally, and that solely on the basis that with a small percentage of those words we have textual variation, ignoring the entire fact of the purity of the New Testament text, and the fact that in the vast majority of the writings of Paul (or any other writer of Scripture) we can determine exactly what was originally written because there are no textual variants to hinder us from doing so! One example of this: at Colossians 2:9 Paul wrote that all the fulness of "deity" dwells in Jesus Christ in bodily form. The term "deity" is the Greek term qeovthtoj, the translation of which is discussed in chapter 8, pp. 203-204. There are no textual variants regarding this passage. We can be certain that when Paul wrote to the Colossians he used this very term. How Ruckman could deny this is beyond imagination.

Paul writes, "The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;"-Rom. 10:8. God's Word must be near to us, even at our fingertips, for it to be able to transform our lives. These scholars are trying to steal God's Word from the common people and put it back into the "original Greek" which (a) doesn't exist anymore and (b) only a tiny fraction of the world's population could read. However, in virtually every nation on earth, most people are trained in English.

Reply:

Here Mr. Schnoebelen gives us 1) misinterpretation (Romans 10:8 isn't talking about the text of Scripture, but the message of the Gospel itself), followed by 2) personal attack upon the men who work to translate the Word of God into English faithfully. I did not work on the NIV or NASB originally; I have, however, become a part of the NASB translation team, working as a critical consultant with the Lockman Foundation on the Update of the NASB. As such, I can say that for myself, I am a believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I can personally speak to the fact that I have no desires to detract from the glory of Christ. I am active in doing evangelism, working in the counter-cult and Christian apologetics areas (as the rest of this web site gives sufficient testimony). Hence, Mr. Schnoebelen is quite simply wrong to accuse me, or any of my compatriots, of wishing to denigrate in any way the message of God in Scripture.

The assertion that people in every nation today are trained in English comes directly from the writings of Sam Gipp. When John Ankerberg asked Sam Gipp a question about this on the Ankerberg Show (referenced above), I was thankful (though amazed) that Gipp was willing to give a direct and honest answer. Ankerberg asked Gipp, "So if a guy's in Russia, and he wants to really get to the truth of the Word of God, would he have to learn English?" Gipp paused a moment, looked at Ankerberg, and replied, "Yes." I was watching Dr. Thomas Strousse at that moment, and noticed he was visibly embarrassed by that answer, for he doesn't share that viewpoint. Seemingly, Schnoebelen, however, is falling into the more radical camp of KJV Onlyism.

Attack of the Popelings

Charles Spurgeon, the great 19th century preacher, called these scholars "a horde of popelings [little popes] fresh from college," who would try and set themselves up as the final authority of what God did and did not say.

Reply:

It is a common mistake for KJV Only advocates to cite Spurgeon as one of their own. He wasn't. Note, for example, his words when preaching from John 3:14,15 (Sept. 27, 1857) on the need to 'lift up' the Son of Man and not to veil him behind a host of things. After speaking of how the Roman priest veils the Son of Man through hiding the Bible from the masses, Spurgeon says this, " 'No,' say our Protestant ministers, many of them, 'The Bible must be given, but we must never alter the translation of it!' There are some passages in the present translation that are so dark that no man can understand them without an explanation. 'But no,' say the divines of this age, 'we will not have the Bible translated properly, the people must always put up with a faulty translation. The brazen serpent must be wrapped up, because it would a little unsettle matters, if we were to have a new translation!'" Such are hardly the words of a KJV Only advocate! Spurgeon, in the above mentioned citation, is not talking about those who would deal honestly with the text (something seemingly Mr. Schnoebelen doesn't believe modern translators are capable of doing!), but with those who will not submit to the teaching of Scripture. In message 1604, Heart Disease Curable, Spurgeon says, "Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorised Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner. . . . By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version [KJV] may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, so that the Word of God may come to us as it came from His own hand."

And in his autobiography, recounting the laying of the foundation-stone of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Spurgeon explains why they chose a Grecian design for the building: "Greek is the sacred tongue, and Greek is the Baptist's tongue; we may be beaten in our own version [the KJV], sometimes; but in Greek, never" (Autobiography, vol. 2, p. 327).

Think about it, if you cannot open your Bible and know for certain if God really inspired 1 John 5:7 (a verse the modern bibles attack or omit), how do you know for certain He said Romans 10:9-10 (a key verse for our salvation)? If you have to go to a Greek scholar to find out what God said, how is that any better than having to go to your priest, pope or LDS bishop to find out what God's Word really says?

Reply:

I would very much like to see how Mr. Schnoebelen would defend the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7). Does he really wish to insist that Christians should be under the authority of a reading that plainly did not exist within the Greek manuscript tradition for nearly 1,500 years? I would very much like to see his response to the discussion of this passage in my book, pp. 60-62.

The retort might be, "Well, at least these Christian scholars are saved, and they are mighty men of God. You can trust them." Well, maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. That is between them and the Lord. What kind of a saved man would steal God's very own words out of someone's hand and try to substitute their own authority for it?

Reply:

Such writing is barely above the level of pure rhetoric. Shall I accuse Mr. Schnoebelen of "stealing God's very own words out of someone's hand and trying to substitute his own authority for it" because he supports the KJV rendering of 1 John 3:1, while I support that of the NASB? The modern translations contain a very important phrase here that the KJV does not: "and such we are." This passage asserts that believers are truly the children of God. But the KJV doesn't have this phrase. Shall I say Mr. Schnoebelen is trying to steal God's words and put himself up as the final authority on the basis of 1 John 3:1? Or shall I follow the road of truth and point out that the reason the phrase is missing in the KJV is because the TR doesn't contain it? Should I point out that the TR doesn't have it because it was lost early on in the Byzantine text-type due to a simple error of sight (homoeoteleuton, the error of similar endings)? That would be the truth, but it sure doesn't "preach" as well as the other route! Of course, careful Christians will shun the sensational, and stick with the truth.

Let me be bold (in the Lord Jesus) to tell you what kind of saved man would do that. I know, because I used to be "such an one." (1 Cor. 5:5) I got saved in 1984 and got all wrapped up in Christian apologetics and evangelizing those trapped in cults and the occult. This was the ministry the Lord had called me to. This was all well and good.

I began to follow some of the leading "cult-busters" of the day and do as they did. I read dozens of books on apologetics. I had a Masters' Degree in theology and was working on a second one. I thought I was pretty hot stuff. I watched the "cult-busters" recommend the NASV or the NIV and continually correct the King James from the "original Greek." I started doing the same (monkey see, monkey do). I forgot that next to the intelligence of the Author of that Book, I was a complete and utter idiot. Yet I dared to correct His words? Talk about pride! Is that not a pretty "incredible" sin itself?

I CONFESS that I did it because I grew proud of my learning and in the fact that I could read some Greek and Hebrew. Big deal! Millions of Jews and Greeks can read those tongues and most of them wouldn't know Jesus from an eggplant! Because I had all these degrees I thought-deep down inside-that I was "some great one." (Acts 8:9)

I CONFESS that I forgot about the One who had given me what little intelligence I have. I had begun to trust in men's wisdom (even Christian pastors and scholars) more than in God's wisdom. "Let God be true, but every man a liar"--Rom. 3:4. I had forgotten that God's promises to preserve His Word (which I knew well) were infinitely more powerful than the scholar's assertions. All of their training, degrees, and theories amount to the intelligence of a learning disabled amoeba next to God's promises and (more vital) His POWER to keep them. Heaven help me, I had become "the world's most incredible sinner" (1 Tim. 1:15).

Reply:

The wisdom of the world that is decried in Scripture is that wisdom that does not start with the fear of the Lord. The wisdom of God is not limited and finite, earthly or sensual. But neither is it irrational, as KJV Onlyism is. God's truth is still true. It doesn't have to beg the question, change history, or engage in bombast to make its point. Mr. Schnoebelen claims to have a Master's degree in Theology, and to know "a little Greek and Hebrew." If that's the case, then I invite him to address my comments on Granville Sharp's Rule at Titus 2:13, found on pp. 267-270, and explain how it is that the KJV rendering is superior to that of the NASB. I'd invite him to look at all the passages noted in chapter 9 of that book, and explain why we should ignore the very words of the KJV translators themselves and enshrine errant translations as inerrant ones. I truly look forward to his reply.

It took several years of gentle persuasion from my beloved wife, and another dear brother in the Lord to get me back on track. They succeeded in showing me "the way of God more perfectly. " (Acts 18:26) They pointed out that if the scholars and cult-busters were right, then what was the difference between the Mormon position that the Bible is the Word of God insofar as it is translated correctly" and THEIR position that there were no perfect translations today? Answer: None!

Reply:

Here we have the classic "guilt by association." Mr. Schnoebelen should know that what the Mormons believe by their 8th article of faith is not what a Christian scholar believes. Does Bill think the NWT is the Word of God? If not, why not? Is it not because it is purposefully mistranslated so as to insert Watchtower doctrine that we can properly deny it is the Word of God? I have often said to Mormons when the 8th article comes up, "I can accept that phrase, as far as it is understood correctly." That is, no purposeful mistranslation of the Bible should be forced upon us as being the Word of God. But Mr. Schnoebelen hasn't even begun to demonstrate that the NIV or NASB is purposefully mistranslated.

To my horror, I discovered that I had become the very thing I was trying to fight. Why? Because I trusted men more than God. Now, were these cult-busters and scholars wicked? Probably not. They just did what I did. They trusted THEIR professors and teachers more than God, too. Hopefully they are sincere, but they are sincerely wrong, because what they teach does not agree with the absolute authority, The Word of God, the Authorized Version.

Reply:

It is truly sad to see someone being led down the road of KJV Onlyism like this. Those who, like myself, believe the NASB or NIV to be superior to the KJV as English translations do not do so because we trust men more than God. Could I not say Mr. Schnoebelen must be trusting in men more than God to take the position he is taking? He is trusting in Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman, and others, for his information. He is trusting, it seems, in the KJV translators as inerrant, God-inspired men (even though they denied any such status!). He is seemingly trusting in a Roman Catholic humanist scholar and priest, Desiderius Erasmus, as having been divinely guided in the creation of what became known as the Textus Receptus. But what would such an allegation accomplish? Little if anything.

KJV Onlyism is fraught with self-contradiction, double-standards, circular arguments, and simple falsehood. It makes the KJV something it was never intended to be. It undermines the real foundation for biblical apologetics and a defense of the faith. And it almost always becomes a test of fellowship for those who buy into its arguments. I truly hope that Mr. Schnoebelen will reconsider his position, and deal seriously with the responses to KJV Onlyism that are only too readily available.

James White, February, 1997

Orthopodeo@aol.com