The King James Only Controversy-
Answered

Do not Trust the Modern Translations!

An Exposé of the fallacies of James R. White, contained in his book:

The King James Only Controversy.

Including a chart comparing over 400 verses in the King James Bible with the modern versions.

By Pastor Hugo W.K. Schönhaar

Pastor of TORONTO BAPTIST CHURCH

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Introduction

There have been many able men who have written in defense of the preserved and inspired King James Bible. Men like Dean John William Burgon, Dr. David Otis Fuller and more recently Dr. D.A. Waite and Dr. William Grady have well stated the case for the King James Bible. Sadly, most people today are not readers and much of this good work has not been read by the men and women who need it most. There are those who would discount their scholarship and accept the opinions of men about their work, never having read the books for themselves. The scholarship of Dean Burgon can not be seriously be doubted. He wrote to an educated people who had Latin and Greek at their fingertips. His multi-lingual footnotes and reference to a schoolboy’s Greek grammar should not only make one sit up and take notice but ask if ones training and education even equals that of a nineteenth century English schoolboy!

Yet there are those reading this who would question the very words of our great God and Saviour when He said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matt. 24:35). Others having studied the material have rejected it because the cost of adopting this position is simply too costly, after all, they reason, a man has to make a living and get along with the ‘brethren’. It has been well stated that if standing for the truth affects a man’s property or prestige he will more often than not choose to remain in error. There are some that reject the truth because of spiritual blindness and satanic deception. This is truly a sad condition because of the very nature of deception; the person affected is not aware they are deceived. Such satanic influence is usually rooted in previous involvement in some form of falsehood that has not been confessed and forsaken. The ‘problem’ of the King James Bible issue is not an intellectual problem but a spiritual one.

This should not be a surprise to even the most casual reader of Scripture. Satan is still as much involved in attacking God’s Word as he was back in the garden of Eden. Satan and Eve managed in the first five verses of Genesis chapter three to; cast doubt on God’s Word, twist the Word, add to the Word, subtract from the Word, soften God’s Word, deny the words of God and finally to deify man. God has given us a pattern to watch out for in the area of satanic attack on the Word of God. We would do well to take heed to the Devils methods and to those under his influence. See the chart below:

This satanic interference is at the root of all the corruption in the modern versions. Satan is still busy, using modern day Eves, having had six thousand years to refine and perfect his talents.

God predicted over two thousand years ago: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:" (Amos 8:11). This is being fulfilled today by the very means by which men seek to make the Bible available to all men! At a time when dozens of modern versions are available in every conceivable format; on the Internet, in bookstores and in hundreds of languages, God said there would be a famine. We are indeed living in interesting times. What a paradox! Hundreds of versions, in dozens of formats but the famine continues.

Recently a book came to this writers attention called, The King James Only Controversy by James R. White. A Bible believer had been trying to point a brother to the superiority of the King James Bible and by way of response was sent a copy of Mr. White’s book. This writer has taken it upon himself to try and answer the statements made in Mr. White’s book. I do not want Mr. White’s book to ‘set the agenda’, so material will be introduced and discussed not necessarily related to his arguments and assertions.

The material presented is the result of many years of study. The King James Bible issue will not go away, nor should it. This is written with the hope that men will once again allow their hand to cleave "unto the sword" and allow the LORD to bring "a great victory" in their lives.

Now to the battle…

Stacking the Deck

In the forward Dr. Mike Baird ‘stacks the deck’ before the reader gets past the first paragraph. The implication is that King James Bible believers are somehow guilty of the same heresy as the modernists! Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who promote or use the modern versions are the ones who regularly attack the Word of God in their schools and pulpits. It is these men who will point out error and mistranslation time and time again in the very same way a modernist would.

The very translations these men claim will help clear up any ambiguity are actually doing more damage than they realize. All these translations have different messages and doctrines. Logic dictates that if two statements claim two different things, both can not be correct. Both can be wrong but both can not be right. Jesus promised His words would not pass away and yet dozens of His words are missing in the new bibles. Now there are two possibilities and only two. One possibility is that all English versions are in error at least in part, or there really is a Bible we can get our hands on that literally fulfills the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." If there are errors in all versions then there remains a foundation of sand at best.

Jesus made a promise about two thousand years ago that has stood the test of time. He promised His words would not pass away. God is not a liar but the God of truth (John 14:6). The Book God authored is also a Book of truth.

If the Bible contains any other words than those inspired by the Holy Spirit then what a man holds in his hands is a compilation of God’s Words and man’s words. The only conclusion one can come to is that the Bible contains the Word of God. This is the assertion of every modernist and neo-evangelical that has ever corrected the Bible from the pulpit or classroom! It has to be to be consistent with his profession. To teach that the Bible is the Word of God and at the same time teach that it has errors in it is to call God a liar. How dare these apostates claim to preach the Word of God when they believe nothing of the kind! If a man can not find an inerrant Bible to preach from let him get out of the pulpit and find a job doing something he does believe in.

Another assertion made in the forward is that the modern versions do not downplay the deity of Christ. Mr. Baird needs to do some collation work. Mr. Baird needs to get right with God.

The chart below will give a sampling of how blatant the attack truly is:

If any Christian, after reading these blatant attacks on his Saviour, sees no ‘downplaying’ he is either willfully ignorant or so deceived and blinded by Satan, that he can no longer discern truth and error.

Now to be as accommodating as possible let us just imagine for a moment that all versions are acceptable. Let us pretend that all English versions are reliable and that none should be tossed into the dumpster. If one takes this position then why do these folks prefer to use anything but the King James Bible?! There are hundreds of verses in the KJB that magnify the Lord Jesus Christ far more than the modern bibles do, yet time and time again the new translations will be held up and the King James Bible will be put down. If all translations are acceptable why do most Christians today use a bible that attacks every (you heard right) fundamental of the faith, including; the blood atonement, the trinity, salvation by faith alone, confession of sin to God alone, the virgin birth, the attributes of Christ, the person of the Devil, the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures, personal evangelism, messianic prophesies, the love and compassion of God and many, many others. This is not about turning the word ‘dwelling’ to ‘house’ or changing ‘shrub’ to ‘bush’. The new versions change the plan of salvation and promote another Jesus. Why do men like Mr. White insist on the bible with the weaker readings? If all versions are the Word of God why is the KJB usually the least used among this crowd? Why is the God honoring English text so maligned?

In his introduction Mr. White admits that most scholars and theologians don’t feel the Bible ‘issue worthy of any real investment in time.’ This is sad since the Bible and its integrity is of paramount importance. God says: "…thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Psalm 138:2c. If God puts such stock in His word, should not today’s Christian leaders put some effort into studying this issue and seeking God’s wisdom? Should not the issue of the Bible be of supreme importance?

The deletion of one verse from the Bible should be cause for alarm. Matthew 18:11 for example has been deleted from the NIV. It concerns the purpose of our Lord’s ministry on earth. It’s not changing a word but omitting a whole verse. Putting a footnote at the bottom of the page accomplishes the same thing as Satan’s question to Eve in Gen. 3:1 "Yea, hath God said…?"-casting doubt on God’s Word. Men and women have suffered horrible deaths for their stand on the Word of God. Today few believe we still have it. These deletions and the questions and doubts they engender are indeed an ideal ‘breeding ground’ for men of God to stand up and face this controversy. Men of God always know where to turn to explain these situations: the Bible. "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." (Proverbs 30:5).

Mr. White recommends a different approach:

‘It is this kind of confusion that provides the perfect breeding ground for controversy. Our friends knew they could call upon us to explain the situation.’

This is to be expected from a man who does not have an inspired and preserved Bible to which he can go. Oh, by the way Mr. White, did you take the time to explain to your friends who the author of confusion is?

The division resulting from the proclamation of the KJB as the preserved Word of God is altogether scriptural. Truth always divides and the sooner the better. We must speak the truth in love but the truth we must speak. Jesus told us to shout truth from the tops of houses! The only kind of division we need worry about is that spoken of in Romans 16:17, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." Those who would cause division concerning that which is contrary to sound doctrine are to be avoided. If it is the truth that divides, and Jesus said, "Thy word is truth", then so be it. God is very clear when He speaks of the preservation of Scripture:

To claim this means the perfect Bible is up in Heaven somewhere is a bit of a stretch. God is saying that the matter of the content of His Word is settled. God’s Word was given to us, here on earth. God would not take the time to inspire His Word, only to have it in Heaven and leave us without a ‘settled’ Bible here on Earth!

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." Isaiah 59:21

Here the doctrine of inspiration and preservation are found in one verse. One can not have one without the other. If the Bible the reader holds in his hand is not preserved then it is not inspired because every word of God is pure. If it is not preserved then what the reader has are not God’s words. If one does not have an inspired Bible then what is read is not Scripture –by definition. The doctrines of inspiration and preservation are vitally linked and dependant on each other.

Jesus words are clear: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35

If the King James Bible is not the preserved and inspired Word and words of God then where is the Book that contains the words that Jesus said would never pass away? I would not want to be on the horns of that dilemma!

To try and dismiss the authority of the KJB, Mr. White calls it an ‘Anglican translation’. I would rather have an early seventeenth century Anglican translation than a twentieth century modernist/new-age/sodomite translation.

Modernists worked on all contemporary translations. Let us go to the ‘original Greek’ shall we? The underlying Greek text for all modern versions, except the NKJV (although it retains many of the same readings as the other modern versions), have, at their root the New Greek Text of Westcott and Hort, "used as the broth for …[the modern] translations". One quote from each man will show they were modernists from a theological point of view.

Westcott rejects the infallibility of the Bible, in a letter to Lightfoot in 1860:

‘If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you…’

Hort is as mushy on the Bible as Westcott. In a letter to a student he wrote:

‘…the strictly historical character of the account of the Fall in Genesis…is now, in my belief, no longer reasonable.’

How would you like these men preaching in your church next Lord’s Day? Yet the same men who would not stand for Westcott and Hort’s many heresies have no problem using their Greek text to correct the King James Bible. What a kettle of fish!

One does not have to go back to Victorian England to find Bible rejecting modernists. Nestles twenty-third edition was the Greek text used for the NIV. Four of the editors were: Carlo Martini (an ecumenical Roman Catholic cardinal- at the time of writing [July 2000] Carlo Maria Martini is being promoted as the man most likely to become the next pope!), Eugene Nida (his views on inspiration border on the blasphemous, is neo-orthodox and existential philosophically), Kurt Aland (this man denied the doctrine of verbal inspiration) and Bruce Metzger (a modernist who’s Oxford Annotated Bible received an imprimatur from Rome). Can any good thing come from this bitter fountain? Folks would not want their children taught by these men but they will accept their translations as ‘reliable’.

Mr. White claims the King James only camp has destroyed ‘many Christian churches.’ He gives no examples and this writer has heard of none. Hundreds of churches have been started by King James only missionaries. Dr. James E. Mosbacker came to Toronto Canada in 1983 and by the grace of God started Toronto Baptist Church-the members are united Bible believers. This writer has not heard of one that has been destroyed. What will destroy a church is their rejection of the Word of God. Church members who believe in the inspiration and preservation of the Word of God do not destroy a work, they build it! Why, how could anyone ever get the idea such a doctrinal stand would be a detriment to a congregation of believers! Faith in an inerrant and preserved Bible is a mark of orthodoxy.

In contrast, take a look at the next generation in a church that is using a modern version from the pulpit. What kind of music do these young people like? How do they dress? Are they sold out for missions and other church work? Do they prefer Bible reading or TV watching? What sorts of activities do these young people engage in with members of the opposite sex? Would it be tract distribution with a chaperon or necking and groping in the back seat of a car? This generation is a testament to the fruit of modern versions.

Mr. White speaks of translating the rich Greek text "into our less rich English tongue". He makes a good point. Our English language is devolving at an alarming rate! This writer suggests Mr. White get a copy of the King James Bible. The KJB was translated when the English language was at the zenith of its development. For example, in 1611 we had two words for love ("charity" [used in the KJB in the context of the love Christians ought to have] and "love"). Today the word "love" has almost no Biblical meaning at all. The English that is spoken and read today is but a shadow of its former glory.

In his book, Mr. White groups King James only advocates into five camps. In Group #4, the "Inspired KJV Group", we find some remarkable statements. The reason the KJB is the standard is because it is the only English Bible that has been translated from the Textus Receptus. In Mr. White’s "any bible, (except the King James) will do camp" all bibles are defined as the Word of God. Then why does Mr. White despairingly declare: "…in the mind of a KJV Only believer, any attack upon the KJV is an attack upon the Word of God."? If Mr. White does not think the same way then what does he think is being attacked? As far as group #5 is concerned this writer knows of no one who believes the way Mr. White describes. KJB advocates do not believe in re-inspiration, correcting the Hebrew and Greek texts with the KJB, believing the KJB is new revelation or that worships the Bible. Get your facts straight James White.

Christian Freedom or Satanic Bondage?

Personal choice in whether to purchase a large print Bible or pocket Testament is not the issue. On page 5 of his book, Mr. White confuses the issue by speaking of personal preference and freedom. Speaking of the KJB camp, Mr. White writes, ‘For them this is not an issue of freedom, but of doctrine, belief, and faith. Exactly! The new versions contain false doctrine. Modern translations attack and weaken many of the beliefs that are foundational to the Christian faith.

In chapter two one finds this statement: "We are never to look for ‘new truths’ that take us beyond the rich revelation God has already given us in Christ Jesus." Amen! The problem is we have to go to the Bible to get these wonderful truths. If some of that truth is missing, as it is in the new versions (ie. Acts 8:37 & I John 5:7 et al), then one is left without the whole truth.

Good Enough for the Apostle Paul?

For the record, the King James Bible was good enough for the apostle Paul and it is good enough for this writer as well. The reason? -we have a copy of what Paul wrote that we can hold in our hands and believe today. If Paul did not write the same readings as the King James Bible then we do not have a copy of the Bible. Common sense, Mr. White! Where do you think the Bible came from if not from the inspired writings of Paul?

The Septuagint is an interesting item. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of a B.C. Septuagint. James White would have us believe that this was the Bible Jesus used. We may assume that; "if it was good enough for the Lord Jesus Christ", it is good enough for James White. The Septuagint is the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla. Dr. Ruckman commenting:

‘I have read ten works by prominent, textual critics and church historians who finished their works by saying that Origen’s fifth column in the Hexapla WAS "the LXX" (Septuagint).’

Ruckman commenting again:

"…Origen was the author of THE Septuagint…"

‘It is the systematic depravation of the underlying Greek which does so grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but the poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source. Our revisers… stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of Inspiration in every page, and of having substituted for them fabricated Readings which the Church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence; and which only survive at this time in a little handful of documents of the most depraved type.’

So much for ‘the original Greek’. The sad fact is this New Greek Text of Westcott and Hort was just that: new. These men invented the modern eclectic Greek text! Burgon commenting:

‘… to construct a new Greek text formed no part of the instructions which the revisionists received… Rather were they warned against venturing on such an experiment…’

The damage done by the Greek text of Westcott and Hort can not be overstated. In modern times the Jehovah’s Witnesses have based a whole translation mainly upon the Greek text of Westcott and Hort. Decades of missionary work is being undone in places like India and Eastern Europe by replacing the Bibles translated by men like William Carey with versions based on corrupt Greek texts. Churches in North America are being flooded with conflicting and contradictory bibles that are producing dry and withering fruit in the lives of this generation. Corruption and contradiction are strong words indeed especially when the topic of discussion is the Sword of the Spirit. Here is proof:

John 3:16 says:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (KJB)

The NIV says this:

"… one and only Son…"

The fact is that God has many sons (John 1:12). He has millions of sons, brought into His family by adoption (Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:5 and Ephesians 1:5). The Son of God is the unique, only begotten Son. The modern versions contain theological corruption.

For an example of satanic contradiction in the modern versions look at this:

II Samuel 21:19 says:

"And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam."

The NIV says:

"… Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath…"

Does this mean we are going to have to rewrite all the Sunday school curriculum? By the grace of God this writer’s daughter will know who killed Goliath by the time she is three years old, and it will be taught to her from a King James Bible. The Word of God means nothing to these apostates; even to the point of inserting a contradiction into the text!

Just in case there is a complaint about the italicized words not being in the original Hebrew, we will take the Lord’s example as authoritative.

Compare these two passages:

Matthew 12:18, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles.

With,

Isaiah 42:1, Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

God obviously has no problem with italicized words in the text. In fact, they are quoted as Scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself has no controversy with the italics:

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.

That was a quote from Deuteronomy 8:3, straight from the lips of God the Son. Notice that Jesus quotes all of the verse as Scripture, even the italics. Compare:

Deuteronomy 8:3, And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

The Bible is the rule by which we ought to measure all faith and practice. Some folks need to change their practice. The brethren get a little squeamish when it comes to matching their ‘matters of faith and practice’ with their professions of faith.

Fuller Manuscripts and the Telephone Game

Now who do you suppose is interested in removing the name "above all names" from the pages of the Bible?! It was not an ‘expansion of piety’ that is responsible for Jesus name being included in the text but a fidelity to the text received by the apostles. The name of Jesus was not added to the Textus Receptus, rather, Jesus name was removed by first century heretics like Marcion. Does the work of the Jesus Seminar produce a fuller text? I trow not! The reason a text is ‘fuller’ is because all the Words are still there! The heretics or the deceived are the ones responsible for removing Words from the Bible.

In the preface Mr. White constrains us to ‘abandon those beliefs that are found to be contrary to God’s revealed truth’. My Bible reveals the truth that God would preserve His Word and words. I find James White’s views to be contrary to the teachings of the Word of God. Mr. White ought to visit a Christian day school Kindergarten class and learn a thing or two:

The B-I-B-L-E,

Yes that’s the Book for me!

I stand alone on the Word of God.

The B-I-B-L-E.

BIBLE !!!

Putting it Together?

"I would have those words translated into all languages, so that not only Scots and Irishmen, but Turks and Saracens might read them. I long for the plowboy to sing them to himself as he follows the plow, the weaver to hum them to the tune of his shuttle, the traveler to beguile with them the dullness of his journey."

Similar arguments are used today but by different camps altogether! We are not holding to Catholic tradition. The opponents in Erasmus’ day had different motives and a different text from the one we are defending! To equate the defense of Dark Ages Catholicism with the efforts of Bible believers today is to compare apples and orangutans! Remember the text the Catholics were defending in the dark ages is the same text that Mr. White is advocating today! Now, isn’t that ironic?

Much of Mr. White’s efforts are concerned with discrediting the theology, motives and scholarship of Erasmus of Rotterdam. There is no need for this writer to go into a lengthy defense of Erasmus. The issue is not this man but the preservation of the Bible. The way some men argue you would think Erasmus invented a Greek text from his own imagination. Erasmus compiled his Greek New Testament from manuscripts already extant. Thousands of brethren, for centuries, had used these same manuscripts. These were the texts that the blood of the martyrs was shed over.

Erasmus was no friend of the Catholic church, even refusing a cardinal’s hat that he might be free to carry out his important work. Erasmus ridiculed the excesses of Rome and chose to die among his protestant friends.

In discussing the manuscripts of Erasmus, Mr. White speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On page 54 he says:

‘He drew from barely half a dozen Greek manuscripts in his initial work…’

‘When the first edition of Erasmus’ work came out in 1516 this phrase, dubbed today the "Johannine comma," or in Latin, the Comma Johanneum, was not in the text for a very simple reason: it was not found in any Greek manuscript of I John that Erasmus had examined. Instead, the phrase was found only in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus rightly did not include it in the first or second editions.’

How could Mr. White say that when six pages back he admits that Erasmus only looked at six Greek manuscripts before he wrote his Greek text? Would Mr. White accept that kind of scholarship today? Imagine a Greek scholar today omitting a verse from the Bible because it was not found in 6 manuscripts! Erasmus did right by including it later, after more evidence came to light. Not only was I John 5:7 found in several Greek manuscripts but many ‘fathers’, versions and lexicons also quoted the verse as Scripture. Mr. White doesn’t like to call I John 5:7 ‘Scripture’ he prefers to call the verse a ‘phrase’.

Michael Maynard spent 13 years researching I John 5:7 and came to the rock solid conclusion that it is indeed authentic. The fruit of his research has yielded a book called, The Debate Over I John 5:7-8. Today men will not bother with a book of 382 pages but feel ‘safe’ and ‘satisfied’ when they read a wimpy footnote in their Bible that says:

"It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted."

Brother Maynard has a different assessment:

"A marginal note with more justice in the treatment would be, a few late Greek manuscripts, at least four Old Latin manuscripts, over eight Church Fathers (including Cyprian who died A.D. 258), four Syriac editions, Slavic and Armenian manuscripts, over 600 distinct editions of the Textus Receptus from 1522 to 1881, 18 pre-Lutheran Bibles, and thousands of Vulgate manuscripts read… Further of those Greek manuscripts which do omit this verse, 97% are late manuscripts, dated from the 10^th century or later."

It would seem that the brethren have been ignoring the facts.

This author is not a Greek scholar but one thing is clear; the liberty these modern versions take with the English language is pitiful. An example of this is cited conveniently on page 66 of James White’s book:

‘ And in Revelation 15:3, "King of saints," which should be either "King of the ages" (NIV) or "King of the nations" (NASB)…’

Which reading is correct? There are Greek manuscripts that support both. Well, a look into the Bible might give us a clue! There is no need for Jesus to be purified (I John 3:3). There is no requirement in the Law of Moses for Joseph to be ceremonially purified. No mathematical or etymological gymnastics are needed from this point on because God has spoken:

"¹And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, ²Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. ³And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. ⁴And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. ⁵But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.⁶And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: ⁷Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. ⁸And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean." Leviticus 12:1-8

Peake’s Commentary on the Bible is revealing (Principal A.J. Grieve commenting on Luke 2:22.):

"The alteration is due to the difficulty of supposing the Virgin (sic) to need Levitical purification."

It is indeed! The modern versions are essentially Catholic versions that are more palatable to popish minds:

The Text of the Reformation

Indeed, the text that underlies the KJB is the text that the reformers used. In fact, this text has been used by Christians from the time of the apostles. The first churches read these texts as inspired Scripture and copied them faithfully so that we could have an inspired and preserved Bible today.

Mr. White claims that all the reformers could get their hands on were TR type texts! Let it be remembered that all the reformers were Catholic priests prior to leaving Rome. They had access to all the corrupt texts Rome could supply and they rejected them!

It does not make sense that the only manuscripts men like Erasmus could gather up would all read like the TR! Erasmus and the men that came afterward, had access to corrupt readings but they refused to use them. Erasmus had the Latin Vulgate before him, and as a member of the Roman Catholic system had a wealth of manuscripts from which to work. Mr. White is either ignorant of this or is seeking to deceive God’s people with misleading information. Erasmus was possibly the most learned scholar alive at the time and was not "in the dark" concerning Satan’s corrupt manuscripts. The King James translators had the same material Erasmus had.

Grady commenting:

"…[the] readings of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were very much before the scholars of the 1611 Authorized Version as represented in the Latin Vulgate."

The Translation of the King James Bible

Mr. White makes some assertions that are just not true. He claims that some translators sought advancement in their positions because of their work on the KJB. He offers no proof of this. One would have thought that there could not be a better position to be in than to work on the translation of the Word of God! If position was what motivated them –they’d arrived!

Westcott and Hort were more than ‘baby sprinklers’ they were men who were lost and on their way to Hell because of their many heresies. These two men were modernists in every sense of the term. Westcott; denied Bible miracles, was into kneeling before statues of Mary, equated church membership with salvation, was a sacerdotalist (devoted to the sacraments), believed in baptismal regeneration and denied the absolute infallibility of the Bible. One cannot be born again and deny the plan of salvation and the truth of the Bible. Hort believed about the same as Westcott but was even more heretical, if that were possible. To equate the theology of Westcott and Hort with that of the King James translators, as Mr. White does, is historically inaccurate and a slap in the face to the men behind the King James Bible.

The translation methods of the King James committee are also brought into question. Relying on other translations is no problem provided the translation is accurate. In answer to James Whites question about the Bishop’s Bible being inspired in some places, there is no other conclusion one can come to other than that where any translation is faithful to the preserved Greek and Hebrew text, it is inspired. The trouble with this idea when applied to the entire Bible is that the Bible is a unified whole and must be perfect in all its parts in order to be inspired. I refuse to be backed into a corner in this regard and must state emphatically that the only preserved and inspired complete Bible we have in the English language is the King James Bible, purified seven times (There were seven English translations before the KJB was translated: Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew’s, The Great Bible, Geneva and the Bishop’s Bible). Where the Bishop’s Bible was translated properly, it is the preserved Word of God.

These comments are in answer to the tongue-in-cheek question we sometimes get asked, ‘Where was the Bible before 1611’? This writer believes God used the previous seven translations as a purification of the English text and a means to solidify the English language to a richness it had not previously known. In His providence, God chose the time, the place and the people to do this great work of translating the King James Bible.

The old ecclesiastical words that were retained in the text were for accuracy as well as familiarity. Church is accurate and the word congregation is hard to fit with the meaning in some contexts. A church is a called out assembly of baptized believers, organized to fulfill the commandments of Christ. You can find a congregation of people at a Promise Keepers rally but they are not called out, separate from the world!

The word church is familiar as well and this fact should not be dismissed lightly. Imagine changing the word ‘church’ to ‘assembly’ today. All the universal church folks would have a heart attack!

By the way, we are not talking about synonyms here but about the actual Words of God that have been omitted or changed to other, completely different words.

There is no problem with going back to early Christian writings and lexicons to see how men of God in the past translated a word. There is no difficulty with having a Greek word defined in the margin of the Bible either. The marginal notes that are a problem are the footnotes that cast doubt on God’s Word!

Greek words sometimes have more than one meaning just as some English words do. Mr. White mentions inconsistent translations of some Greek and Hebrew words as leading to confusion. It is James White who is bringing in confusion by clouding this issue. There is not one English translation that is uniform in the way it translates all Greek words and that is exactly the way it should be. Some Greek and Hebrew words can be translated numerous ways. The King James Bible is exactly what God would have for us in the English language. There are constraints with language that do not allow for 100% literal translation. Where this phenomena exists it is the Holy Spirit that bridges the gap between languages. The Holy Spirit also did His work by providentially guiding the translators in their choice of words. God does a work today by illuminating the minds of men as they read the Scriptures in English as to the interpretation. The Bible is unlike any other book. God is able to see to it that the Bible loses nothing in the translation from language to language.

There has been some speculation as to how the King James Bible translators died. According to one source some were assassinated by Jesuit agents. The last thing in the world the Catholics wanted at that time was a Bible, authorized by a Protestant king, in the hands of the common people. The Catholic Rheims-Douay version was produced by the Jesuits between 1582 (N.T.) and 1610 (O.T.) but you had to have a written license from a bishop of Rome to read it! To try and hinder the production of the KJB the Jesuits tried to overthrow protestant King James by attempting to blow him up with the English parliament. Guy Fawkes was hung, drawn and quartered for his part in the plot on January 30^th 1606. Incidentally, Guy went to ‘Bible College’ in Douay, Spain- the seminary where the Jesuit New Testament was produced. The seminary was founded in 1568 "for the training of priests who were to win England back to the Catholic faith."

The reason the author takes the time to mention the above is that there was a conspiracy to destroy the Bible. It was not God who was displeased but Satan.

The original languages of the Bible are a fascinating study but are not necessary to an understanding of God’s Word. Mr. White speaks of his pastor going into the meaning of a Greek word and wondering why he bothered. Mr. White thought the English was hard enough to understand without going into the Greek. There should be no problem but if the Greek says something different than the English then there is a problem. There should be no problem but there is. The problem is the underlying Greek text used to ‘correct’ the KJB. With thousands of differences between the TR and the Westcott/Hort text it is no wonder the King James Bible is seen as a poor translation. It works like this:

A preacher quotes 1 Timothy 3:16,

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.(KJB)

He then says something like this, "The KJV departs from the original Greek at this point and leaves us with a poor rendering of the apostle’s original intent. This unfortunate error has no doubt crept in as a scribal interpolation due to the expansion of piety at that time in church history."

He then goes on to quote a word from Nestle’s Greek text as proof of the ‘error’ in the KJB. Then a modern version will be quoted to correct the KJB.

1 Timothy 3:16,  And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory (ASV).

There is not a Greek manuscript in existence that reads ‘He who’. This slick action is pulled off by a man who has forgotten most of the Greek he was taught in college, a Vine’s dictionary and a modern version. This is not scholarship but it sure sounds impressive to the man in the pew who assumes the Greek that is referred to is authoritative.

Now a word on the Greek. The KJB advocates are accused of ‘correcting the Greek with the English’. I believe this charge is brought about for two reasons. The first being that some of the writings of Dr. Ruckman have been misapplied. Below is a quote from the writings of Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. The quote is from his book, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, from a chapter titled, "Correcting the Greek with the English":

1. Mark 1:2,3. Using Origen’s corrupt "Septuagint," Eusebius, Augustine, and Jerome conjectured that the quotation which followed was from Isaiah the Prophet (Is. 40:3). Having made this conjecture, without reading Malachi, all of them changed the verse…The reader will find this Bible "boner" preserved in the RV, ASV, RSV Catholic Bible (any edition), and 95% of all the "new" Bibles.

Here, the A.V. is helpful in correcting the Greek …Where the counterfeits read, "As it has been written in Isaiah the prophet," the Holy Spirit has written (and preserved), "As it is written in the prophets." The A.V. 1611 has "prophets" not "Isaiah the prophet."

Which is correct?

Well? Which is faithful to the orthodox, fundamental, historic, militant position that has been handed down to the brethren, world without end, etc. etc… Now, there is a Greek text that any new convert could correct with a KJB! Let him do it straightway! The KJB is superior to any corrupt Greek text.

The other reason for the attack on Dr. Ruckman is that he rejects the Westcott/Hort/Nestle’s type text. It is assumed that to reject this Greek text is tantamount to saying that the English is better than the original Greek. The fact is that the KJB is superior to the critical Greek text of Nestle. The reason for this is that the KJB was translated from different manuscripts than the modern versions. If one was to look at the Greek and Hebrew behind the KJB one would find that the English was just as good as the original Greek and Hebrew. In fact sometimes the English is clearer:

Acts 12:4  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (KJB)

With,

Acts 12:4  And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people. (ASV)

Which is it? Easter or Passover? The same Greek word underlies both translations. The word is: ‘pascha’ and the King James Bible translates it "passover" every time it occurs except here. The reason the KJB is clearer and more accurate here is two fold.

First, the context is "(Then were the days of unleavened bread.)" Acts 12:3. The days of unleavened bread began on the day of the passover of the Jews and continued seven days:

Exodus 12:14-15  And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.

This feast was seen as a separate memorial than that of the passover:

Exodus 23:15  Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: (thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty:)

The context is clearly the feast or "days" of unleavened bread. The time frame is not the Passover at all but the days of unleavened bread.

Second, the context of Acts 12 is Herod Agrippa I and the actions he took. Herod was on the side of Rome. He did not celebrate the Passover but was sold out to Roman custom (even accepting worship as a god). The pagan celebration of Ishtar, Astarte and Ashtoreth are at the root of Easter celebrations. This holiday was celebrated hundreds of years before Christ was born and was observed throughout the Roman empire in the days of Herod. Herod was interested in keeping up appearances and observed this Roman holiday religiously.

The testimony of the Scriptures and the historical context support the translation of ‘pascha’ as ‘Easter’ as the King James Bible has it. There is one Greek word here but the English Bible translates this word two different ways. In this instance the English is actually better and more accurate than the Greek text from which it came. One might call it correcting the Greek with the English!

In a section on textual criticism Mr. White shows the true state of futility in which he finds himself. He claims the goal of the lower textual critics is "to reproduce the original text of the Bible." Mr. White has painted himself into a very small corner. Mr. White does not believe we have a preserved Bible. Mr. White is calling Jesus a liar (Matt.24:35). Well James, the scholars have had over 120 years to get at it but the confusion has only increased. After 200 attempts at reproducing the "originals" (This sounds dangerously close to double inspiration!) the brethren still do not have an inerrant Bible. God was obviously not willing to cooperate with this sorted ecumenical disgrace.

Which King James Bible?

The editions of the King James Bible did not yield another translation but simply corrected typographical errors, changed punctuation, standardized spelling and changed fonts.

An Infallible Pope or an Infallible Book?

On page 94 of his book, Mr. White speaks of the comfort some people have in believing in an infallible pope or some cultist. This is a ploy that would try and equate Catholicism or heresy with faith in an inerrant Bible. The historical truth of the matter is that the Catholics accused Christians of having a "paper pope". It was Rome who denied an infallible Bible and mocked Bible believers for measuring all matters religious with the Word. Times sure have changed! Five hundred years ago a man writing this kind of accusation would be called a heretic but today he is called a fundamentalist and a Christian apologist.

Mr. White continues his attack:

‘Protestants, however, should be quick to question any such notion of absolute religious certainty.’

When Mr. White speaks of ‘Protestants’ one must assume he would include the Baptists as well. The Bible does provide absolute religious certainty. That is the singular fact that separates Christians from the cults, they seek the Word of God on all matters of faith and practice-or should.

To claim that faith in the KJB is to "invest the KJV translators with ultimate authority" is a twist of the facts. That is like saying that an NIV man is trusting Westcott and Hort for his authority! Trust in the Bible is one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith! Mr. White tries to cloud this important doctrine by turning the facts around and twisting that for which Bible believers truly stand.

Mr. White speaks of the need for certainty among Bible believers "without any factual or logical or even scriptural reason(s)." It is Mr. White who is ignoring the facts, the logic and the Scriptures:

Factual reasons for trusting the KJB:

1. The KJB is stronger doctrinally than all modern versions. These doctrines include: the blood, Christ’s deity, plan of salvation, nature of man, eschatology, nature of Lucifer, Hell and many others.

2. The KJB does not soften the commands against Sodomy as the modern versions do. The NIV changes "sodomite" to "shrine prostitute."

3. The King James Bible contains hundreds of more words than the modern versions. Someone is adding or subtracting from the Word of God. The fact is the KJB is not the same Book as the modern versions.

4. The modern versions replace "He" and "Him" -referring to Jesus with the New Age designation, "The One". THERE IS NO GREEK BASIS FOR THIS ALTERATION.

5. The Greek text behind the modern versions is the same as that used for all Catholic bibles and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

6. When an NIV is purchased a portion of the purchase price goes into the pocket of Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is a committed New Ager and supports the idea of a one-world government. Rupert Murdoch is a producer of pornography.

7. There have been many English translations but only one that was authorized by a king. Deuteronomy 17:18  And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

8. The changes made in the new versions are far from benign. The changes affect doctrine and meaning.

9. The KJB was the Bible used by great men of faith for almost 400 years. It was instrumental in more revivals and conversions than any other translation, including the original manuscripts themselves.

10. The King James Bible is the easiest to read of all the translations available. According to the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator the KJB is rated at a 5.8 Grade level (The NIV 8.4, NASB 6.1, TEV 7.2, NKJV 6.9).

These may not be the most compelling reasons to use a KJB but one should sit up and take notice when faced with such facts.

A CASE STUDY IN MISREPRESENTATION?

In Dr. Riplinger’s book, New Age Bible Versions, one can find several errors. The book is 690 pages in length. There are thousands of footnotes. It is not hard to imagine that a book of that length would contain some inaccuracies.

On page 455 there is a problem with the quote from Isaiah 26:3 in the NASB. The phrase that Dr. Riplinger says is omitted is actually in the text of the NASB ("Because he trusts in thee."). To give Dr. Riplinger the benefit of the doubt, it is possible that these words were missing from the edition of the NASB she had or that she made a mistake on the version that had the omission. To charge Dr. Riplinger with a "plethora of out-of-context citations" and "misrepresenting the position" of the people she quotes is simply not true.

On pages 99-102 Mr. White claims Dr. Riplinger is misrepresenting Westcott and Hort in her book, New Age Bible Versions. Her quote is very short but gives the gist of Westcott and Hort’s position concerning Aleph and B. Dr. Riplinger is not misrepresenting Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort referred to B as a "neutral text preserved on an island of purity" and a "remarkably pure text."

One can understand that, for reasons of space, Dr. Riplinger would choose to quote a few key adjectives to give the bent of Westcott and Hort regarding these two corrupt Greek manuscripts. To give the full context of each quote would result in too large a work for one volume to contain.

Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament may not read exactly like the UBS or the Nestle/Aland texts but the same theories of textual criticism, not to mention the bias toward Aleph and B, have been adopted by the architects of these texts.

On pages 103-106 of his book, Mr. White points to some quotes of Dr. Riplinger that seem to be out of context. On page 103 Dr. Palmer is quoted as saying, "[There are] few clear and decisive texts that declare Jesus is God." The context in which Dr. Palmer said this was in reference to the KJB rendering of John 1:18. Although Dr. Palmer was not implying that Jesus is not God, he was however helping to prove a point that KJB believers have been trumpeting for years: The NIV and all modern versions contain extremely few texts that declare that Jesus is God, mainly because they corrupt the texts that do! John 1:18 is not a verse that promotes the deity of Christ. In fact, the rendering in the NIV supports Dr. Riplinger’s contention that the modern versions are New Age versions.

People did not burn their NIV bibles because Dr. Riplinger took a quote or two out of context. Hundreds have trashed their modern translations because these versions contain false, New Age doctrine! Modern versions are shelved every day in favour of the KJB because the new bibles attack the deity of Christ in many places. It is doctrine that is at issue not some mamby pamby preference for Elizabethan English! Robert M. Baker lists over 20 verses that downplay the deity of Christ: I Tim. 3:16, Dan. 3:25, Acts 3:13 & 26, Phil. 2:6, Acts 8:37, John 6:69, John 9:35, Matt. 20:20, John 4:42, Acts 15:11 & 16:31, Rom. 1:3, I Cor. 5:4, Eph. 3:14, I Thes. 2:19 & 3:11, II Thes. 1:8, John 14:28, Phil. 4:13, Acts 7:59. So much for not "affecting" any doctrines and "updating" the archaic something-or-others.

The quote in New Age Bible Versions from Dr. Calvin Linton, as cited in Mr. White’s book, is bang on. Dr. Riplinger is testing the orthodoxy of Dr. Linton’s theology against New Testament Christianity (Matthew 24:35  Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.), not that theology which is taught in 99% of all Colleges and seminaries the world over. More than 99% of college educated Christians reject the fact of Bible preservation as taught by Jesus in Matthew 24:35. The context of His teaching on Bible preservation comes on the heels of His teaching on the second coming. Yes, Jesus is coming and boy is He angry!

Mr. Linton’s teachings quoted by Mr. White on pages 105 and 106 of his book follow the party line of all Bible apostates since 1881. Mr. Linton is amused at how uninformed the laity are regarding the translation of the text. The Holy Spirit warned of this attitude when He wrote to the church at Pergamos:

¶And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; Revelation 2:12-17a.

The doctrine of the Nicolaitans was the practice of "conquering the laity". This is done by taking away the KJB that God has placed in our hands and replacing its authority with another authority. The preferred standard of authority in this camp is scholarship. While "good, godly" men smirk at the "uninformed" the authority of the Word of God is replaced by the pseudo-scholarship of the seminaries elect. This inner circle are also known as the Alexandrian Cult. Initiation into this cult is subtle and most of the membership are ignorant of its organization or existence. However, all members of the cult subscribe to the following creed:

THE CREED OF THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT

• There is no final authority but God.

• Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.

• Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.

• There WAS a series of writings one time which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.

• However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52, and where the word "Christian" originated (Acts 11:26).

• So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).

• So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate—though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference"—are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite.

• The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Wesley, and Chapman used.

• But we can "tolerate" these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all, since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach, or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.

This is the Creed of the Alexandrian Cult.

Mr. White seems confused about what the creed is saying and who is saying it. Dr. Ruckman is not writing from his theological standpoint but is applying the writings and teachings of Bible critics the world over. Dr. Ruckman is parroting the practical teachings of all Bible rejecters minus all the fluff and great swelling words. The Creed is the practical confession of faith of 99% of all pastors and Bible college professors on planet Earth today (A.D. 2000). This confession of faith will never be printed in their church constitutions or college catalogs but there it is. It is important to look at the Creed point by point and to refute Mr. White’s statements.

1.There is no final authority but God.This is not exactly true and is applied in the wrong way by the modern version advocates. It is the Bible critics who "build a false edifice", teaching that God did not quite manage to communicate authoritatively with a preserved Bible.

2. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.

God is able to communicate but the issue raised is not communication but authoritative revelation. Yes, God has revealed Himself in our conscience and in creation (Romans 1:19-20) but both have been affected by the fall and offer no authoritative revelation on which to base our lives. The Word of God is absolute authority but only if it has been preserved –a position the new bible advocates reject. Point two of the creed is telling it like it is. King James Bible believers, by contrast, have a Bible they can hold in their hands that is the final absolute authority.

3. Since all books are material, there is no book on earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error. Ruckman is focusing on the Scriptures. Ruckman is focusing on a particular Book. The problem is Mr. White equates the Scriptures with only the original autographs. Anything else is just a translation, in his mind. Sadly, Mr. White does not have the Bible or at least "the Scriptures." What does God say about the Scriptures? One thing is for sure: when God refers to the Scriptures He is not only referring to the original autographs but to copies as well. 2 Timothy 3:15,  And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

According to this text Timothy had the Scriptures when he was a child and those Scriptures were inspired. Timothy did not own the original autographs. Acts 8:32  The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: God is focusing on a particular Book and God is focusing on the Scriptures. God is not referring to something "delivered to us via angelic messenger" (nor is Dr. Ruckman).

Thank God the Ethiopian eunuch had the Scriptures. Mr. White needs to be consistent with his statement of faith. The Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The practice of the Bible is to call copies of the originals "inspired" and "Scripture". The next doctrinal statement in the creed more accurately describes Mr. White’s position.

4. There WAS a series of writings one time which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error. All apostates have this position written in their church doctrinal statements and college catalogs. The actual wording goes something like this: "We believe that all Scripture, in the original autographs, was given by inspiration of God." The ramifications of such a statement when divorced from the doctrine of preservation read as point four, above. White’s "re-inspiration" is a red herring designed to steer one away from the Biblical position, held by KJB advocates, that the Scriptures have always been inspired. What we hold in our hands is just as authoritative and inspired as the original autographs. God did not re-inspire anyone or anything: inspiration was accomplished and perpetuated from the original revelation to the present day. Isaiah 59:21  As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever. Praise God for His Word regarding the matter of inspiration and preservation. Sadly, James White does not take what the Bible says as the final authority in this matter of faith and practice. For all practical purposes Mr. White does not have a Bible, at least one he can believe and hold in his hands.

5. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52,) and where the word "Christian" originated (Acts 11:26). Mr. White says he believes God preserved "their content through Christians… everywhere in the world". Where is that "content" that God preserved if it is not to be found in a King James Bible? Where are the words that Jesus promised would not pass away? Implied in the doctrine preservation is the organization of those preserved words. It is no use to the man on the street to have the Bible everywhere and no where! Only a fool would conclude that the content of the Bible is preserved in all the over 5000 scattered manuscripts available today. To conclude that no one Book contains the preserved Word of God is to charge the God of Heaven with falsehood.

6. So God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matt. 2), and Jacob OUT of Egypt (GEN. 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph’s bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus13). Dr. Ruckman may provide no evidence or documentation to support his claim about Gnostic influence in Alexandria but the historical proof is there for all to see. Valentius of Alexandria was a prominent Gnostic who went to Rome in A.D. 140 to spread his false doctrine. Gnostic beliefs persisted into the fourth century and no doubt helped form some of Arius’ theology. In another place in his book, Mr. White is helpful in providing documentation as to the spiritual climate of Alexandria: On page 193 we read: "He was Athanasius, the great bishop of Alexandria.

Almost single-handedly he stood against those who taught that Jesus was a creature, a being who came into existence at some point in the past; against the followers of a man named Arius." Single-handedly? Yes, such was the theological temperature of Alexandria, Egypt. Mr. White sees no problem in going there for a Bible. To further nail this down let’s look to Dr. D.A. Waite for some documentation concerning the Gnostic influence in Alexandria. Again, this writer appreciates Mr. White’s willingness in helping provide the material needed to make the point. Referring to the rendering of John 1:18 in the new versions, Dr. Waite comments: "They take away the word, "Son," and change it to "God."

This is pure HERESY! It is not possible to have an "Only Begotten God." This is an example of the Gnostic error that teaches Christ was only one of the many "gods" that were mere "emanations." You MUST have an "Only Begotten Son" to be doctrinally correct." How do the modern versions stand up in relation to orthodox Christianity? John 1:18 (NIV), No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known. As noted previously, the NIV promotes the New Age god, Lucifer.

Lucifer or Satan are also referred to as "The One". John 1:18 (NASB), No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. The NASB promotes the Gnostic concept of God.