T H E C H R IS T IA N ’S H A N D B O O K OF

B IB L IC A L SC H O L A R SH IP
 Other Materials Available

By Dr. Peter S. Ruckman:

* Bible Believer’s Commentary Series
* Beginning and Advanced Bible Study Material
* In-Depth Apologetics
* Numerous Pamphlets on Selected Topics
* Variety of Gospel Tracts
* Audio Cassettes
* Video Cassettes

Also Available:
* AV 1611 Bibles
* Study Helps
* Concordances
* Biographies
* Evangelism Material
* Material by Other Authors and Speakers

For FREE Current Catalogue write:

B IB L E B A P T IS T B O O K ST O R E
P.O. B ox 7135 P ensacola, FL 32534
 The Christian’s Handbook of

Biblical
Scholarship

By
P eter S. R u ck m an
B.A., B.D., M .A., Th.M ., Ph.D.

P residen t an d F ounder o f
P ensacola B ible Institute

B IB L E B A P T IS T B O O K ST O R E
P.O. B ox 7135 P ensacola, FL 32534
 Copyright © 1988 by Peter S. Ruckman
All rights reserved

Reprinted 1999

ISBN 1-58026-078-0

PUBLISHER’S NOTE
The Scripture quotations found herein are from the
text o f the A uthorized K ing Janies V ersion o f the
B ible. A ny deviations therefrom are not intentional.

No part of this publication may be reproduced

or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photo­
copying, recording, or any inform ation
storage, retrieval system, m ultim edia, or
Internet system, without permission in writing
from the publisher.

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Table of Contents
P re fa c e ..................................................................................... ix

1 The V oice o f A u th o rity ................................................... 1

2 M uch L earning D oth M ake Thee M a d .............. 37
3 Putting a G reek N ew T estam ent T o g e th e r....... 63
4 V ersions and P erversions, R evisions
and V is io n s .............................................................. 101
5 “M ad D og is an E nglishm an” ................................. 146
6 The H osts o f H ell “In the N am e o f C h rist” .........171
7 The P rofessional L ia r s ............................................. 200
8 R estoring the O riginal A frican M u m m y ............256
9 “How D are You V iolate O ur Sacred C anons
O f T extual C riticism !” ........................................ 297
10 The Plenary, V erbally Inspired, O riginal
T h in g a m a jig s ..........................................................337
11 R om an C atholic H ate L ite ra tu re ........................... 376
A ppendix
1 The C reed o f the A lexandrian C u lt................. 416
2 The U ncial M a n u s c rip ts .....................................420
3 The Im portant C u rs iv e s ...................................... 427
4 The C hurch Fathers and Patristic Q uotations 432
5 The Papyrus and the “O ldest M anuscripts” .. 434
6 Inconsistencies in the Use of the
“Best and O ldest M anuscripts” ....................439
7 C orrecting “T he” G reek T ext and “T he”
“B est and O ldest M anuscripts” ....................444
E n d n o tes..................................................................................461
R e so u rc e s............................................................................... 543
In d e x ........................................................................................ 550
 Dedication
This volume is dedicated to the Scholars’
Union, of which I never was (or ever will be) a
member— thank God. It is affectionately bestowed
on my educated peers who labored for more than
half a century to destroy my faith in the Autho­
rized Version of the Holy Bible, without one par­
ticle of success.
 Preface

“How do ye say, We are wise, and the

law of the L o r d is with us? . . . the pen
of the scribes is in vain.” (Jeremiah 8:8)

Back in 1970, we published a work which was

written between 1960 and 1965; it was entitled The
Christian’s Handbook o f Manuscript Evidence. It
was the first book we printed that really caught the
attention of apostate Fundamentalists in Christian
universities, seminaries, and colleges who had been
bragging about their belief in the “plenary, ver­
bally inspired, original autographs.” Its effect upon
these vicious apostates was remarkable. It caused a
whole series of publications to come forth, suppos­
edly “answering” the charges found in the book. In
this series, which came forth from several Chris­
tian schools and more than two dozen individual
Christian “scholars,” no one actually handled any
of the material found in the book. The book stated
that all English translations, since 1800, were R o­
man Catholic Bibles. It documented this fact to the
tune of fifty-one verses. It further stated that no
such thing as a Greek Old Testament written be­
fore the time of Christ was ever quoted by any
Apostle anywhere in the New Testament, and that
the Authorized Version often gave advanced light
on revelation and theology that the scholars could
not find in what they called “the original Greek
and the original Hebrew.” (One must understand
that this term is a lying term used by all profes­
sional liars— see Chapter Seven— for purposes of
income and self-exaltation. No nineteenth or twen-
tieth-century scholar has ever seen an “original of
one word in either Testament.)
Now, seventeen years later, The Handbook re­
mains unanswered. Not one scholar in that time
produced one verse in Greek, written before the
time o f Christ, that any New Testament writer
quoted after the birth o f Christ. At least half a
dozen apostates (including Custer and Metzger) pro­
fessed they had proof, but when put “on the car­
pet” and requested to produce ONE Greek verse of
an Old Testament written before A.D. 70 that any­
one in the New Testament quoted, neither could
produce ONE verse. They couldn t because there
has never been one.1 In the Handbook of 1970, on
pages 40-53, we gave the manuscript evidence for
a “B.C.” Septuagint, and no one has improved on
it since. Still, the myth persists just like a Roman
Catholic rosary, and it will persist until the Judg­
ment Seat of Christ. The B.C. Septuagint is a uni­
versal legend, steadfastly preserved in every gen­
eration, without one scrap of evidence showing up
in 2,000 years. Five hundred “Christian schools”
on three continents have never produced ONE
Greek manuscript containing ONE verse of a Greek
Old Testament that any New Testament writer ever
quoted. Good and bad men have believed in this
fable, Bible believers and Bible rejectors have be­
 lieved in it, Catholics and Protestants have believed
in it, and no man is immune from believing in it if
he refuses to demand EVIDENCE. I have had a
copy of the “Greek Septuagint” in my office for
thirty years. There isn ’t one line o f it that w asn’t
written more than sixty years after the completion
o f the New Testament. Any scholar knows that the
“Septuagint m anuscripts” are Sinaiticus, Alex-
andrinus, Vaticanus, and others which were writ­
ten more than a hundred years after the completion
of the New Testament Canon. But the lie is so well
rooted that it will stick. It will stick because it is a
GREEK lie and a GENTILE lie (see 1 Cor. 1:22
for an explanation), and it is the Gentile way of
taking credit for having something to do with “the
oracles of God” (see Rom. 3:2 for an explana­
tion). It is the Gentile being “wise in your own
conceits” (see Rom. 11:25), whom Paul warned us
about.
Between 1970 and 1984, several writers tried
to bluster, blow, stick out their chicken breasts,
and prove that such corruptions as the ASV, RV,
NIV, NASV, RSV, and others did not attack the De­
ity of Christ. In order to do this, they deliberately
sidestepped all of the salient verses that dealt with
it (see Acts 4:27; 1 Tim. 3:16; Acts 20:28; Luke
2:33; John 3:13; etc.) and chose other verses that
were not salient.2 Several of them latched onto Ti­
tus 2:13 in the AV and tried to prove that the AV
also attacked the Deity of Christ there, where the
ASV and NIV did not. This was accomplished by
taking advantage of the fact that most of the read­
ers of those authors hadn’t read Proverbs enough
to recognize this type of clause. Any fool could
have seen the same construction in Isaiah 45:21.
“The God of thy father” and “the Almighty”
(Gen. 49:25) are obviously not two Gods, and no
modern translation had to alter the word “and” there.
The ASV didn’t in 1901, and the NKJV didn’t in
1983. This shows you one of the facets of the inner
life of the AV critics. It reveals their “mind set” or
“mental life-style,” and this spiritual frame of mind
will often appear in what is about to follow. If it is
analyzed constantly through a period of years, it
will appear in its true light. It is the thinking of a
mind that is led by Satan and controlled by Satan.
It is found most frequently in the faculty and staffs
of “m ilitant Fundamentalist” schools. (We will go
into great lengths to make this clear in Chapter
Seven, where the real spiritual “depth” of such
men as Bob Jones III, Robert Sumner, Harold Will-
mington, A. V. Henderson, Truman Dollar, Ken­
neth Wuest, Spiros Zodhiates, Doug Kutilek, D. A.
Carson, Fenton Hort, Arthur Farstad, and others
will be revealed for what it is.)
In the April and August issues of the Bible
Believers’ Bulletin in 1985, you will find two ar­
ticles on the “Mythological Septuagint” dealing
with all of its imaginary sources (Philo’s quota­
tion, Josephus’ reference, “The Letter to Aristeas,”
etc.) and the whole rotten mess. No scholar since
has peeped against that article. No peep is avail­
able. The evidence has been printed again and again
and again and again, and still not one scholar, liv­
ing or dead, of any persuasion, in North America,
Britain, or Europe, could answer a simple thesis
 from 1970 found in The C hristian’s Handbook o f
M anuscript Evidence. The thesis was bombproof.
There never was any Greek Old Testament on the
fa ce o f this earth before the second century A.D. In
vain you will read Swete, Scrivener, Augustine,
Origen, Wuest, and Hort, or for that matter, Hills,
Fuller, Burgon, or the King James translators them ­
selves, for ONE shred of evidence that any New
Testament writer quoted a Greek Old Testament
verse written before the time of Christ. No such
animal ever existed except in the minds of Jewish
apostates like Josephus (the Roman leader Titus’
right hand man), Philo (an Egyptian apostate under
the ban of Jer. 44:26), and Ebionites such as Sym-
machus, Aquilla, and Theodotian, and none of them
produced ONE VERSE THAT ANY NEW TES­
TAMENT WRITER EVER QUOTED.
So as this work begins, we start on a firm
foundation that has taken seventeen years of bar­
rages and bombardments from every quarter, with­
out one paragraph or sentence in it having to be
revised for anyone. The “answer” that the apos­
tates at Piedm ont, Pillsbury, Fuller, W heaton,
Moody, Liberty University, Arlington, Springfield,
Tennessee Temple, and Bob Jones University gave
to their followers was:
1. Ruckman says, “The AV is the plenary, ver­
bally inspired original autographs. “
2. Ruckman says, “You can correct the origi­
nal, verbally inspired original autographs with the
King James. ”
3. Ruckman is a “crackpot” and a “nut” be­
cause he has “peculiar teachings.”
 4. Ruckman is a “cult leader” who has founded
a cult that is not “historic.”
5. No one believes like Ruckm an because
“good, godly men” take the historic position.3
In short, they threw out all o f the documented
evidence that was presented in The Handbook. They
couldn’t handle The Handbook. In the July 1984
issue of the Bible Believers’ Bulletin, we printed
the four reasons why the AV is superior to ANY set
of Greek manuscripts. No scholar discussed one
point out o f the four. They had been printed in
1980 in Problem Texts (now titled The “E rrors” in
the King James Bible). They were printed as far
back as 1964 in The Bible Babel. No scholar, liv­
ing or dead, had the guts even to list the four items
as we listed them, let alone refute them. In the
series entitled The Bible B eliever’s Commentaries
(1969-1986), we listed and discussed more than
forty-five places where the AV text gives advanced
light (see Appendix Seven) and proved it “beyond
the reasonable shadow of a doubt.” No apostate
Fundamentalist who was upset by The C hristian’s
Handbook o f M anuscript Evidence dared to list the
references, let alone discuss them. His security lay
in “pleading the Fifth Amendment.” He pretended
that the verses had never been listed and discussed.
Notable among this Mafia of twisted mentalities
was Stewart Custer, who in 1981 put out a paper­
back booklet that went out all over the country and
was distributed by nearly every apostate Funda­
mentalist as “p ro o f’ that “Ruckmanism” was a cult
and that Westcott and Hort were “Conservatives.”
In this remarkable pamphlet, Custer wrote a chap­
 ter entitled “Ruckman’s Peculiar Teachings” (pp.
24-33), AND HE WAS UNABLE TO DISCUSS
ANY OF THEM AFTER LISTING THEM, thus
violating the requirements laid on him by the Holy
Spirit to qualify as a Bible teacher (see 1 Tim. 3:2).
Custer was never qualified by the Holy Spirit or
the New Testament to teach the Bible.
Again, this reveals this peculiar INNER life of
these modern Fundamentalists, for C uster’s book
was distributed through the bookstores of every
major Christian school in America (via Bob Jones
University), while the answer to this pamphlet
(C uster’s Last Stand, 1981) was censored like the
Catholic Index from every bookshelf. Students were
forbidden to buy or read it. C uster’s Last Stand
documented more than fifteen lies that the head of
the Bible Department of Bob Jones University told
in less than forty pages and documented his rela­
tionship to one of the recognized, unsaved Liberals
in Christianity (Burkitt) in his attacks on the R e­
ceived Text readings in The Peshitta (see Chapter
Six). The reader should learn that this noble group
of apostate Fundamentalists (whom we call, with
good reason, The Alexandrian Cult) evidently be­
lieve in some great “historic fundamentals” when
it comes to practicing scholarship, as well as pro­
fessing Fundamentalism. Three of these “historic
fundamentals” are:
1. If you can’t answer the documented evi­
dence, discuss something irrelevant.
2. If you can’t understand the Biblical truths
presented, call them “heresies.”
3. Censor your adversaries’ works so that the
reader always gets ONE side.
Catholic historians write in the same fashion
(see Ruckman, The History o f the New Testament
Church, 1984, Vol. II, pp. 79-82). Catholics have
an additional gimmick which is often used by the
Fundamentalists: make a shocking statement, with­
out presenting material for or against it, and then
trust the ignorance of the reader to bring him into a
state of shock that will agree with your position.
Custer does this admirably in his desultory and
viciously corrupt work on The TRUTH About the
King James Version Controversy. It has about as
much “truth” in it as a pamphlet put out by the
Watchtower Society.
Since our book, which was written seventeen
years ago, has never been refuted, it might be asked,
“W hat need is there for another similar work?”
The answer is twofold. In the first place, the former
work was little more than an inspirational sketch
of the problems involved in translation, preserva­
tion of readings and manuscripts, and the merits of
the Authorized Version. A much more complete
work is needed. In the second place, many of the
references given in the chapter entitled “The Great
Juggling Act” are no longer accurate, for in the
interim, someone (!) put so much pressure on the
German scholars in Stuttgart, West Germany, that
they reversed a position they had held fo r eighty
years! They suddenly reinserted 467 Receptus read­
ings into their “eclectic” text, which they had omit­
ted in every edition (25) since 1898. The pious,
progressive alibi for this was “The Age of Westcott
and Hort and of Tischendorf is DEFINITELY over”
 (Novum Testamentum Graece, Deutsche Bibel-
stiftung, Stuttgart, 1979, p. 43). Forward! Evolu­
tion is at work!
1. It never “came in” with over 40,000,000
Bible believers.
2. If it were there, it produced the greatest
bunch of ecumenical apostates who ever fell off a
bingo table.
3. If it was “over,” why is N estle’s text and
the United Bible Societies’ text still, basically, the
Alexandrian text of Westcott and Hort, established
on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?
I studied N estle’s Greek text at Bob Jones Uni­
versity (1949-1953) under Dr. W illiam Brunner, a
graduate of Louisville Seminary, and translated the
entire Greek text from Matthew through 2 Peter
while going to school. I checked all of the critical
apparatus in all of the editions from 1948 (1949,
1950, 1952, 1956, etc.) for every letter and word
of that Greek text from Matthew to Philemon and
finally taught Nestle’s Greek text (I had a large
print edition to use here) from 1964 to 1976. I still
teach it here at the Pensacola Bible Institute, but
suddenly (1980), I found myself confronted with a
whole “new” format. There was no longer any “Re-
ceptus. ” That hated word had been obliterated, and
the term “M ajority Text” was inserted. Weiss had
dropped out, and Merk and Vogels had entered (p.
70). The proper names for the uncials Vaticanus,
Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, etc., had dropped out as
though some plague had suddenly become attached
to their names; the names were not given (p. 689).
What reformation do you suppose hit Nestle and
company? After all, a reversal after eighty years in
one direction is pretty difficult for a German! (I
haven’t made any reversals in my belief about the
Bible once in thirty-nine years, not even for ten
minutes.)
You will find the King James readings of the
Textus Receptus stuck back into N estle’s Greek text
on pages 21, 22, 43, 55, 59, 65, 80, 88, 190, 215,
218, 228, 239, 254, 274,277, 300,331, 333, 344,
350, 353, 384, 385, 397,398, 401,421, 423, 425,
436, 437, 463, 470, 482,488, 503,504, 511, 526,
532, 553, 554, 558, 580,600, and 603; and that is
about ONE THIRD of the pages.4
Imagine these characters, who bragged about
demonstrating conclusively” that the Textus Recep­
tus was the “poorest form of the New Testament
text” (p. 27), while they had constructed “A M A­
JORITY TEXT” from Alexandria which “soon be­
came a KIND OF NEW TEXTUS RECEPTU S” (p.
40), reversing their position and accepting the real
Receptus readings from 1520-1611, which the Bible
believer never gave up once while that garbage
was being put out.
Why give up any of the rest? Out of the seven
hundred changes made in the twenty-sixth edition
of N estle’s, if only four hundred and sixty-seven
were restorations of the correct text (the one we
went by since 1611!), why should we accept the
other two hundred and thirty-three as reliable? Wait
eight years and all two hundred and thirty-three of
them will have been brought back into line with
the Receptus. You just have to be patient. While
you are reading the Bible and getting a blessing,
winning souls, training foreign missionaries, hold­
ing revivals, comforting the bereaved, marrying
the young, burying the dead, praying, and rejoic­
ing in God, these EGGHEADS are waiting to de­
cide if they have the “right reading.” We had it
before they began to look fo r it.
For example, in 1 John 2:23, we had the “origi­
nal Greek” supplied in italics, when the AV trans­
lators confessed they were putting it in “on their
own.” They guessed right. It showed up in Greek
manuscripts AFTER the publication date of 1611.
Though it was NOT in “The M ajority Text” (nei­
ther was 1 John 5:7-8), it showed up in Sinaiticus,
Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus
(Aleph, B, A, and C) AFTER 1611. M urphy’s Law:
Any time a translation looks like an improvement
on the AK you have overlooked something.
Why fool with the amateurs when you can
play with the “big league”?
So, here we embark on The C hristian’s H and­
book o f Biblical Scholarship to show the Bible-
believer what is really behind the continual attacks
against the Authorized Version as carried out by
Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Conservatives,
as well as Catholics, Atheists, and Communists.
Here we will find the ROOTS of Biblical criticism
(see Chapter Nine) and their African and Catholic
allies. The Bible-believer will learn the difference
between THE BIBLE and “bibles,” and between
THE BOOK and “reliable translations.” He will be
presented with “both sides of the question” from
start to finish, including the attacks on the person­
ality of King James (see Chapter Seven), “word
 changes” in various editions (see Chapter Ten),
and the constant references to the fact that R. A.
Torrey, Spurgeon, or some other “godly” man
thought the AV had errors in it (see Chapter One).
In short, the whole A lexandrian warehouse of
Egyptian-stocked goods and every devious device
that can be invented by the carnal mind to “cast off
the cords” of the Most High and to play “God”
(Gen. 3:1-3) will be presented. This is the realm of
Biblical Scholarship. For six years, we have printed
what they really believe in a column called “The
Creed of the Alexandrian Cult” (see Appendix One).
It can be found in every issue of the Bible B eliev­
ers’ Bulletin. It says, in less than a quarter of a
page of newsprint, what the scholars are about to
say in this book, which took them more than five
hundred volumes to explain through a period of
three hundred years.
We will slight no one. We will show the reader
where and when opposition to the AV arose and the
parties connected with it (see Chapter Ten). We
will list the Receptus Testaments and the variations
between them and show “beyond the reasonable
shadow of doubt” (see Chapter Ten) why God the
Holy Spirit has set His seal of approval on the
Book of Books, the Monarch of the Books, the
Lion of the Library, the Book to end all Books
(Eccl. 8:4): THE AUTHORIZED HOLY BIBLE OF
THE ENGLISH PROTESTANT REFORMATION.
 CH APTER ONE

The Voice of Authority

“ . . . yea, I have spoken it, I will also
bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I
will also do it.” (Isaiah 46:11)

Today, at the end of the Laodicean period of

church history, the Authorized Bible of the Protes­
tant Reformation is still the “bone of contention”
in every religious institution on the face of this
earth. Absolute authority has always been the “bone
of contention” with mankind and always will be.
All attempts to create side issues, such as, “Is the
translation reliable?,” “What is the BEST transla­
tion?,” or “Which translation is best for YOU?” 1
are ducks and dodges. W hatever the Bible does not
deal with, there is certainly one thing that it does
deal with from cover to cover: A THRONE (see
The Sure Word o f Prophecy, 1969). The first re­
corded words that anyone speaks in that Book (in
chronological order) were spoken BEFORE God
said, “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3). As any
Bible-believer knows, they were spoken before
Genesis 1:2. They are recorded in Isaiah 14:13.
They deal with a THRONE. That throne shows up
in Revelation 22:1, so no translation of any Bible
that was ever produced on this earth could avoid
presenting the three main fundamentals of the Book
itself:
 1. A THRONE.
2. A KING (the word occurs over 2,000 times
in the Bible).
3. KINGDOMS.
“Where the word of a KING is, there is
power” (Eccl. 8:4).
Americans know nothing about such matters
at all; they dumped their king in 1776.
The problem is sim ply “W ho gets to run
whom?” That is the subject of every telecast, news­
cast, front-page article, headline in the newspaper,
and every magazine article in America and Europe;
it has been for 100 years. Who is the champ? Who
gets the cup? Whose weather forecast was right?
Who will be elected? (M urphy’s Golden Rule: He
who has the gold makes the rules!) Who gets the
award? Who is recognized? Who has the authority
to arrest, imprison, release, and appeal? Who has
the final say-so? Can they do it and get away with
it? W hose decision is final? There is no “NEW S”
in a twentieth-century newspaper. There is simply
one endless list of competitors for “top place.” What
does the poll say? Who gets the Grammy? Who is
the most popular? Who determined the style? Do
they have the right to immigrate? Do they have the
right to tax? The issue is authority. The final issue
would be FINAL AUTHORITY. The issue doesn’t
change any more in the home, school, or church
than it does in the United Nations, the Army, or the
police force. Who is the “King of the M ountain”?
God is a King (Psa. 47:7; Mai. 1:14) who runs
kingdoms (Dan. 4:17, 25) and who will take over
kingdoms (Rev. 11:15) with His own King (Psa.
2:6, 89:19), whom He called “KING OF KINGS”
(Rev. 19:16), although at His first coming He was
only the “King of the Jews” (Matt. 27:29). He is a
“POTENTATE” (1 Tim. 6:15), which means a
monarch with absolute power (Job 26, 28; Isa. 44:7-
8).
No rebel can get along with the King (Num.
14:1-12, 16:1-33; 1 Sam. 15:22-26? Modern Amer­
ican Christians are rebels. The ones who encourage
them to rebel (Num. 13-14) are their leaders. Their
leaders do it because they are ambitious and desire
personal gain (1 Sam. 15:21). They want to be­
come gods (Gen. 3:1-5) and usurp the place of
God as the Christian’s ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY.
Of course, they would be the first to deny this. In a
bullfest taped at Bob Jones University in 1985 by
Panosian, Custer, and Bob Jones III, this was said:
“I am sure that none of the panelists would claim
to be a final authority . . . .” By the time you have
studied this book, you will have better sense than
to believe any critic of the Authorized Version just
because he talks piously. Talk comes cheap, and as
we shall see, the professional liars will say any­
thing in order to duck an issue. The issue is fin a l
and absolute authority. The Pope claims it for him­
self and his church. The scholars at BJU and Lib­
erty U niversity claim it for C hristian scholars
(Protestant). The Federal Judges deny any absolute
authority and yet remain as the final authority (Su­
preme Court) with no absolutes” !2
Many years ago, a Book came off the press
that lacked the word “Authorized.” The original
edition of 1611 did not have the word printed on it
even though it had been “authorized” by King
James. The term “Authorized Version “ was a term
that became attached to this Book by virtue of the
witness of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ.
Not one convocation was called, not one “Con­
gress” passed a resolution, not one committee made
a decision, not one group of scholars gave an opin­
ion, and not one official meeting was held any­
where to determine this title. “AUTHORIZED was
not the product of some “priest class” of New Tes­
tament “Levites” who had replaced the Old Testa­
ment Levitical priesthood (see Mai. 2:6-7; Ezra
7:12; Deut. 33:10, 31:25-26; 2 Chron. 17:8-9).
The title “AUTHORIZED” came out of nowhere
and remained fixed as a poison dart in the side of
every Christian scholar in the world who resented
the B ible’s authority.
From that day to this, apostates have taken the
word “authorized” and applied it to other versions’
in hopes that it would eventually die out of cir­
culation or lose its startling association with one
Book. One group of radical fanatics (the Lockman
Foundation), knowing that they could not call their
production “authorized, ” did the next best thing.
They usurped the word “BIBLE” and called their
“Version” a “Bible” instead of a version (NASV).
Kenneth Taylor “upped” their ante and called his
version a "LIV IN G BIBLE.” In 1985, one apostate
corruption was advertised simply as “THE BOOK.”
It was not a King James Version. All of this, you
understand, took place AFTER the 1611 version
became known as the “Authorized Version ”: after,
not before.
 There are other curious things that follow the
appearance of this Authorized Bible in America. To
imitate it, the RSV (1952) switched from its origi­
nal red covers to black covers. The NASV and the
NIV followed suit. Somehow or another, a “bible”
couldn’t sell in America unless it LOOKED like a
dimestore King James Bible. The twentieth-cen­
tury apostates were really having a time of it. Even­
tually they had to gild the edges of their “bibles.”
They finally even published concordances with
them to pass them off as genuine. (The Monarch of
the Books is quite a Book to keep up with!) To
assist in this fraud, all of the Sunday School publi­
cations switched from the King James Bible to the
“King James VERSION” and omitted “AUTH O­
R IZE D ” altogether.
Watching this leavening operation through a
period of three decades will leave an indelible im ­
pression upon any man who is really looking for
all of the “facts,” not just selecting a few from the
pile. Someone wants to get rid o f that Book. No
attempt like it was made on a universal scale to get
rid of the “original manuscripts” or to criticize the
“original m anuscripts.” All of the sinners’ fury,
after 1611, was vented on one Book that came out
of England over 370 years ago.
The power and authority of this A V is so tre­
mendous that as late as 1984 the money-mad trans­
lators still had to compare every version that they
invented with the King James Version. When the
RV came out in 1885, it laid itself alongside the
King James Version. When the ASV of 1901 came
out, it did the same thing. When the RSV came out
in 1952, it did the same thing. When the NASV
came out in 1959, it did the same thing. When the
N IV came out in 1979, it did the same thing. Every
issue of Moody Monthly, Christianity Today, and
every other Christian periodical that handled the
ads for these new versions compared them with the
King James. The thing is confounding when one
considers that when the NKJV came out, as late as
1983, the publishers were actually saying that God’s
“eternal truths” had not been spoken with “clarity”
from 1611 to 1982. We cite from the publication:
“The first King James Version was published in
1611 . . . now, almost 371 years later, that AV has
been carefully updated SO THAT IT WILL ONCE
AGAIN speak God’s eternal truths with CLAR­
ITY ”4
Now, did you grab that: “now, almost 371 years
later”? Well, sir, do you know what came out in the
American Weekly for September 28, 1952? We quote
verbatim : “GREATEST BIBLE NEWS IN 341
YEARS . . . A N E W AUTHORIZED VERSION . . .
that preserves the timeless beauty of the BELOV­
ED KING JAMES TRANSLATION.” This article
was also printed in Life Magazine in September of
1952.
W hat was this “New K JV ” published in 1952?
IT WAS THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION OF
THE N A TIO N A L C O U N C IL OF C H R ISTIA N
CHURCHES, W H IC H WAS C O N D E M N E D
BY 90 PERCENT OF THE OVERVIEW BOARD
OF THE NKJV, who ran their ad “now, almost 371
years later.”
Notice: the same ad, pitch, fraud, method o f
 selling, claim, and PUBLISHING COMPANY fo r
both “bibles. ” One was recommended by Jerry Fal-
well, Ed Hindson, Truman Dollar, James Price, and
Elmer Towns; and the other was recommended by
Norman Vincent Peale and Harry Emerson Fosdick.
You see, “profession” meant nothing (see Chap­
ter Seven). Profession was a sales gimmick. To sell
the grossly corrupt RSV (which John R. Rice and
Bob Jones Jr. supported in Japan— see p. 160), the
Madison Avenue hucksters decided that the word
“authorized” carried such weight and authority on
the AV from 1611, that if they could just transfer
that one word to their version it would sell better;
i.e., it would fool more suckers. So, they adver­
tised the RSV as an “AUTHORIZED BIBLE”
(Vancouver Sun, October 1, 1952). I have the ad
right here. “Authorized” by whom? By the greatest
organized Communist group in the U.S.A.: the N a­
tional Council o f “Christian Churches.5To sell this
ridiculous excuse for a “bible,” 3,000 communities
were hitched up to the Madison Avenue bandwagon
to all beat the same drum at the same time as a
“celebration” for its publication.6
What did the revisors claim as they tried to
replace the authority of the Protestant Reforma­
tion? They claimed exactly what EVERY FACULTY
M EM BER OF BOB JONES U NIVERSITY HAS
CLAIMED FOR FIFTY YEARS IN REGARD TO
THE ASV. We quote: “The RSV is based on the
m ost authoritative m anuscripts, SOME MORE
ANCIENT than previously known. In a sense, IT
is our oldest Bible.” Interpretation: “We followed
the RV text of 1885, which was already seventy
years defunct. We ‘freed the Bible from outdated
expressions’ that make it hard to understand.” Ditto
the seventy translations you find listed in the pages
of this work. My, what “originality” ! My, what a
“demand” and a “need.” It’s sort of like the need
for a Mormon Church in Salt Lake City, don’t you
think? Maybe it’s as needy as a new Southern Bap­
tist work in Montreat, North Carolina?
“Who AUTHORIZED this version?” asks Perry
Rockwood7 of the P eople’s Gospel Hour— who was
thrown off the radio station at Bob Jones Univer­
sity (WMUU) for correcting the NASV. Well, the
unsaved Liberals who wrote it do not hesitate to
tell you that they don’t believe 90 percent of what
any Bible believer ever believed from Augustine to
Pope John Paul II. These men (among them Edgar
Goodspeed, Julius Brewer, James Moffat, William
Albright, Henry Cadbury, Walter Bowie, Clarence
Craig, Frederick Grant, Fleming James, W illard
Sperry, M illar Burrows, and William Irwin), among
them, deny EVERY fundam ental o f Biblical Chris­
tianity. So what do they do? They translate the
SAME GREEK TEXT USED BY THE NASV and
NIV COMMITTEES for the translations that Bob
Jones III, Bob Jones Jr., Robert Sumner, John R.
Rice, and the Moody Bible Institute PROMOTE
TO THIS DAY. If you don’t believe it, lay down all
three “versions” and compare Luke 2:33; Coloss-
ians 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 17:21; Mark
9:44; Matthew 12:47; Mark 11:26; Romans 16:24;
Matthew 21:44, 6:13; Acts 8:37, 9:5-6; and M at­
thew 1:25. All of the clowns are not in the circus.
This is some more of that “mentality” of which
we spoke in the Preface. Observe the actually in­
sane overtones of this kind of Madison Avenue
nonsense. The statement about 341 and 371 years
was given in the face of the following FACTS,
which will be documented:
1. More than ninety “updatings” of the AV took
place before these words were ever written (see
Chapter Six).
2. The publication which they were prom ot­
ing did not just UPDATE the AV, it altered the AV
to make it match the RSV of the NCCC and the
defunct ASV of 1901, which went bankrupt in less
than fifty years.
The Fundamentalist Journal (Old Time Gos­
pel Hour, Lynchburg, VA, Nov., 1982) devoted a
full page ad, in color, to the selling of the NKJV.
W hat kind of a hold do you suppose this “ar­
chaic” Book from 1611 has on modern Christians
(1986) that can force them to lie, misinterpret, ad­
vertise falsely, and compare their works with it?
To lighten the force of this desperate piece of
misinformation (the NKJV), The Fundamentalist
Journal got Ed Hindson to write an article on it
(pp. 35, 39). The article takes up the standard at­
tacks on the AV, which have been current for one
hundred years (1880-1980):
1. The AV “HAS BEEN” (past tense) the most
popular version.
2. It was a compromise translation.
3. Some people objected to it. (You are to pre­
sume from this that anyone who objects to
the ASV, RV, RSV, NIV, and NKJV is to be
overlooked, because “after all, didn’t the
 AV turn out fine?”.)
4. Inspiration applies only to the original
manuscripts. (Hindson doesn’t quote a verse
to prove this ancient heresy, because there
isn ’t any verse to back it up in either Testa­
ment.)
5. The ASV was well-received by Conserva­
tives, but the R SV was not. (You are now to
presume that they came from different texts;
they didn't. They are both from the Alexan­
drian text of the Roman Catholic Vulgate:
see Chapter Seven.)
6. The “King James Only CULT” has sprung
up. (He didn’t identify ONE member of it.)
7. Hindson successfully shakes the faith of a
new convert in the Holy Bible by showing
him a 1611 copy that didn’t match word-
for-word his AV of 1980. (This is why Tho­
mas Nelson and Sons printed a reasonable
facsimile of the 1611— in the hopes that it
would destroy some more Christians’ faith
in the Book. Nice people. They also pub­
lished the RSV o f the NCCC.)
8. The King James Bible is only a translation,
but it is “sublime in its literary qualities.”
9. The NKJV is from the same text as the old
one, and since the men on the board of the
NKJV were Bible-believing, born-again men
who “deeply revered” the “Word of God,”
you need to get a copy. (R S.: HINDSON
WAS ON THE COMMITTEE, SO HE IS
RECOMMENDING HIS OWN WORK, p.
49).
 10. “Good, saved scholars” disagree about the
Alexandrian text of the Roman Popes, and
you shouldn’t call them ignorant or apos­
tate just because they side with Rome (see
Chapter Seven).
11. The proof that the AV is not the final au­
thority is that you can get saved reading
other translations (p. 49).
Now, that is the standard gaffed act. It is from
1982; not A.D. 1200 or 1500. It is the “Alexan­
drian mentality,” and we shall thoroughly evaluate
it before this book is over.
Observe that all of the attacks are on the A u ­
thorized Version. The book that Hindson is recom ­
mending (the NKJV) is no more an “A uthorized”
Version than the Living Bible. The book he is try­
ing to “sell” here has denied that “the love of
money is the root of all evil” (1 Tim. 6:10), has
denied that some people think that “gain is godli­
ness” (1 Tim. 6:5), and has denied that a Christian
should be “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2
Tim. 2:15). It has also altered C hrist’s Sonship to a
servant relationship in Acts 4:27 and has denied
that anyone was ever engaged in corrupting the
word of God (2 Cor. 2:17). “SO, IT WILL ONCE
AGAIN SPEAK G O D ’S ETERNA L TRUTHS
WITH CLARITY!”8 That’s a pious bunch of hypo­
crites, aren’t they? You have to take your hat off to
them; they certainly can TALK.
The NKJV, which Hindson is recommending
here, reads with the RSV of Dean Luther Weigle in
Job 1:1; 3:7-8; 4:4, 17; 13:8, 12, 18, 27; 24:24,
26:6, 13; 30:29; 32:15-16,;38:19-20; 41:25; etc.,
 and then swears that the “Leviathan” of Job 41 is
“UNKNOWN.” It was known to Isaiah (Isa. 27:1-
4) and to John (Rev. 12:9) more than 1,800 years
before the NKJV committee sat down. The ASV
text was printed instead of the AV text in Proverbs
1:4-6, 32; 2:1, 7; 7:6, 11-12, 16; 8:17; 12:4;14:11;
15:4; 19:24; 20:2; 21:27; and four dozen other
places. “SO, IT W ILL ONCE AGAIN SPEAK
GOD’S ETERNAL TRUTHS WITH CLARITY”?
They altered the AV text in Acts 17:16, 22; 2
Corinthians 5:17; and Philippians 2:7 (the last one
being an attack on the Deity of Christ found in the
RSV of 1952).
They took “worshipping” out of M atthew
20:20 and capitalized “he” in 2 Thessalonians 2:7
so that you would be forced to interpret it as the
Holy Spirit, instead of the “man of sin.” They
covered up their own perversions by adopting the
RSV readings for Romans 1:18 and 1:25. They then
said, “We have again and again been made aware
that God was AT WORK AMONG US, imparting
to us a small measure of His infinite wisdom.”
Isn’t that the limit?
If any one of you had said that God was
“present” with the 1611 committee of the King
James “again and again” and “working” with them,
you would have been accused of spreading a lie.
Now, who was on this infamous committee
that lined up the NKJV with the RSV of the NCCC
and then talked about “God working among them”
to make His “eternal truths CLEAR” for the fir st
time in 371 years? Here they are, some of the “god-
liest” men in the century:
 1. Truman Dollar, Baptist Bible Fellowship.
2. A. V. Henderson, Baptist Bible Fellowship.
3. Adrian Rogers, Bellevue Baptist Church,
Memphis, Tennessee.
4 W. A. Criswell, First Baptist Church, Dallas,
Texas.
5. Duke McCall, Southern Baptist Theologi­
cal Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.
6. Ed Hindson, Liberty University, Lynchburg,
Virginia.
7. Elmer Towns, Liberty University, Lynch­
burg, Virginia.
8. Curtis Hutson, editor of the Sword o f the
Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
9. James Price, Tennessee Temple University.
10. Harold Ockenga, Neo-Evangelical, Gor­
don Conwell College.
11. Thomas Zimmerman, General Superinten­
dent, General Council of the Assemblies of God.
This will give the Bible-believer some idea of
the power and authority behind the hated and en­
vied Book (AV 1611). When dealing with it, it is a
“no-holds barred” proposition, and no quarter is
given. Fundamentalists will say anything to replace
it, Conservatives will do anything to replace it, and
professions of faith, such as “ Bible-believing” and
“born again,” are absolutely immaterial. Their ob­
jective is to get rid of the Book. There is not a hair
to choose betw een them and M adalyn M urray
O ’Hare when it comes to replacing the A V with
anything, nor do other committees approach the
problem any differently in the twentieth century.
The Monarch of the Books still dictates the terms
 to Biblical scholars, and they must meet him on his
terms, even if they are “371 years out of date.”
For example, here is a production called the
New International Version (1978). As all modern,
corrupt English Bibles, it was mainly a commer­
cial venture. The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 16,
1978) stated the matter simply: Zondervan is about
to “clean up” because church leaders endorse the
latest translation fad. The article brags of 1,200,000
being sold out before the book went on sale and
raising Zondervan’s earnings ten cents per share to
$1.85. There was talk of its “sales predictions”
running up to $41,000,000 for the year. It was pro­
moted by the same people who promoted the Liv­
ing Bible and the RSV.9 It modestly claims to be
worthy of “universal acceptance,” which is “suit­
able for public reading, as well as private devo­
tion, for study and memorization, as well as for
evangelism .” That is, it was designed to completely
replace the A V fo r every fa ce t o f Christian edifica­
tion. The Trinitarian Bible Society says, “One of
the aims of the sponsors was to establish UNIVER­
SAL ACCEPTANCE . . . .” It is solidly based on
the Roman Catholic Greek text of Alexandria, Egypt
(see Chapter Six).
It says that Mark 16:9-20 is not “reliable,”
although Dean William Burgon proved its reliabil­
ity beyond any shadow of a doubt more than eighty
years ago.w It insists that John 7:53 through 8:11
is not part of the Bible. It completely omits M at­
thew 17:12, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46,
11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:3-4; Acts
8:37, 15:34, 24:7; and Romans 16:24. In addition,
it contains all of the errors connected with the NKJV,
which were listed above. “By constant revision and
polishing, the translation matured into an accurate,
smooth, and dignified version.” That’s exactly what
God never intended for any Christian to fool with
unless he was a backslidden apostate.
It is almost impossible to realize the real power
of the A V in overthrow ing all of these new,
“smooth,” “dignified” versions unless one consid­
ers the tremendous advantage that any twentieth-
century production has over any edition of the A u­
thorized Version. For example, when Zondervan
cashed in on this NIV and raised their Wall Street
stocks, they had two “research studies” made by
Dwight Chappel, principal of Calvert Schools in
Prince Frederick, Maryland. They then printed these
“findings” to prove that American young people
could no longer understand the King James Ver­
sion. This brochure was published (undated) by
Zondervan to back up its sales production. In study
“No. 1,” 315 students in three INTERDENOMI­
NATIONAL “kiddy schools” (see Pensacola Chris­
tian College, Santa Rosa Christian, and BJU, among
others) were given nine New Testament passages
and three Old Testament passages to read. This
was followed by questions to see if the student had
grasped the material. The passages picked were
naturally selected so that out of 31,000 plus verses,
twelve of the most difficult wordings in the AV
were to be read. The tests showed that the N IV was
the most “readable” Bible, the NASV was the next
most “readable,” and the King James Version was
the least “readable.” The study “proved” that
 twelfth-grade students had a worse time with the
King James Bible in the passages than sixth-grade
students did with the NIV
You are to surmise from this that two Alex-
andrian-text Bibles from the Jesuit Douay-Rheims
Version of 1582 (see Chapter Three) are superior
to the Protestant text of the English Reform ation.11
Both o f these Alexandrian Bibles attack the Deity
o f Christ in the places we listed. You are to sacri­
fice the Deity of Christ for “readability.” With it
you are to sacrifice the eternal truths of 2 Corin­
thians 2:17; 1 Timothy 6:5, 10, and 20; and 2 Timo­
thy 2:15; however, you will have “readability.”
The two studies refused to give any statistics
on how many o f the students who were examined
wound up as soul-winning evangelists, missionar­
ies, pastors, or Bible teachers. Here at the Pensa­
cola Bible Institute, we teach the AV to young men
whose I.Q .’s range from 90 to 150. Some of them
have four years of previous college work, and some
of them never finished high school. Thirty percent
of our graduates wind up in full-time ministries.
Thirty-one of them are overseas right now on the
m ission field, and sixty of them pastor local
churches. It’s too bad that they didn’t have a “bible”
that was “readable” like the N IV or the NASV. Where
do you suppose a man would look, in ANY Bible,
to see where God wanted him to have “mature,
accurate, smooth, and dignified” eternal truths to
look at? “Readable”? Chapter and verse?
Here at the start, one must get used to a type
of tradesm en’s vocabulary (see Chapter Three),
which one will find is completely foreign to any
Bible in any language. If there is one outstanding
mark about the Alexandrian Cult, it is the fact that
they never speak or write as any saint does in
either Testament. From “dynamic equivalences” and
“scholia” to “glosses” and “colloquialism s,” there
is no sign of New Testament attitude, vocabulary,
approach, or power.
Here is a “New ” Scofield Reference Bible, pro­
moted night and day to replace the “O ld” Scofield
Bible. W hy? T hat’s easy. The text of the Old
Scofield Reference Bible is the King James text.
The “New” is NOT, albeit it professes to be on the
frontispiece of every edition published. The pub­
lishers simply lied. “Holy Bible, AUTHORIZED
VERSION, with introductions, annotations, subject
chain references, and such word changes IN THE
TEXT as will HELP THE READER.” Pious, aren’t
Mama’s little helpers, right? What are these “helps”?
Easy: restoration of the bankrupt A SV text of 1901.
You will find the A SV readings put back into Gen­
esis 1:30, 3:5, 15:2, 17:27, 24:27 (also RSV), 34:30,
49:6; Daniel 3:25 (an R S V reading); Proverbs 21:3,
21:11; Isaiah 14:1; Romans 8:33 (RSV); etc. They
couldn’t sell the corrupt ASV of 1901, even with
every major, recognized scholar in America pro­
moting it night and day, so they reinserted its read­
ings into the NIV, the New Scofield Reference Bible,
and the NKJV, and said that it was to “help you”
understand the “eternal truths” with “clarity.”
No, thank you, we prefer the Mafia; you al­
ways know where they stand.
Imagine a Book so powerful that it can force a
“good, godly, dedicated, born-again, etc.” saint (see
 Hindson’s line of baloney listed above) to lie in
order to sell a book. That’s power, friend.
I have a clipping on my table from Faith M aga­
zine which promotes “The W orld’s Most Unusual
University.” It says that this university “stands,
without apology, for the ABSOLUTE AUTHOR­
ITY OF THE BIBLE.” As you read further in this
book you will find where the head of the Bible
department at that school believes that N estle’s
Alexandrian Greek text is the infallible, inspired
“original.” Check it out. The same school, repre­
sented by three of its faculty members (Wisdom,
Panosian, and Neal), has stated publicly (and in
print) that there is no such thing as “THE B IB LE ”
available today.
The same magazine (Faith fo r the Family!)
says, “W hatever the Bible says is so. “ It also says
that a Christian “judges all things by THE BIBLE
and is judged only by THE BIBLE. 11
You never met a bigger pack of liars on the
face of this earth. I have two tapes here from that
school (BJU), over forty-five minutes each, where
every speaker on the faculty agrees that there are
only “reliable” or “unreliable” translations avail­
able, that no translation is infallible, inspired, or
without errors, and that the AV is just a translation.
What “BIBLE” does BJU judge everything by?
They said they judged everything by “T H E ”
BIBLE. They were pulling your leg. They would
lie just as quickly as look at you.12
While their president (Bobby III) was “identi­
fying” him self with the AV— without believing it—
his faculty put this out:
 “When we teach the content of the Bible,
we naturally study a passage in THE
GREEK TESTAMENT . . . [see Chapter
Seven] to help the student grasp the m ean­
ing of THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT
[see Chapter Seven] a careful comparison
of these manuscripts [Alexandrian: Vati­
canus and Sinaiticus] has convinced us that
a more accurate and careful job of copy­
ing was done by the Alexandrian scribes
[see Chapter Nine]. We believe that the
text of WESTCOTT AND HORT, based
on these ALEXANDRIAN manuscripts is,
as a whole, SUPERIOR TO THE TEXT
[Receptus] based upon manuscripts of the
middle ages.”
“A m en,” says Pope John X X III, L oyola,
Bloody Mary, Pope Paul VI, the Jesuits, Adolph
H itler’s Benedictine teacher, Pope John Paul II,
and A1 Capone’s priest (see Chapter Six).
Here, on the other hand, is the grossly corrupt
ASV of 1901, headed up by the “Back-to-Rome”
apostate Philip Schaff (see documentation in Chap­
ter Eleven). This ridiculous “bible” was recom ­
mended by every leading, recognized scholar on
the American continent for fifty years. Its support­
ers, in their self-conceited megalomania, professed
it to be “a monument to the best British and Ameri­
can scholarship, and Biblical learning of the latter
half of the nineteenth century.” “Assiduous labor
and thorough procedure” marked this huckster’s
gimmick. The “recognized value of the version,” it
was “felt,” deserves and “demands perpetuation
 . . . recognizing a responsibility to posterity. The
Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to rescue this
noble achievement from an inevitable demise, to
preserve it, as a heritage for coming generations,”
since it “had been, in a very real sense, the STAN­
DARD for many translations . . . invaluable for
perspective, ACCURACY, and FINESSE.” 13
Translation: rubbish.
The above was the alibi given by the Lockman
Foundation for publishing the New ASV. The idea
was that the sucker’s fake bible (ASV) that couldn’t
perpetuate itself for fifty years— while professing
to be superior to one that perpetuated itself for 370
years— should be “preserved for posterity.”
What did this rambling wreck look like? Why,
the ASV (1901) was nothing but an RSV ahead of
time, based on the Westcott and Hort theory that
the Roman Catholic manuscripts from Egypt were
superior to those that God used to bring about the
English and German Reformations. The ASV at­
tacked the Virgin Birth in Luke 2:33, the Resurrec­
tion in Acts 1:3, the Omnipresence of Christ in
John 3:13, and the Deity of Christ in Luke 23:42
and 1 Timothy 3:16, plus all of the changes given
in the NKJV, and finally, called Christ a “CREA­
TURE” 14 after changing “creature” to “creation”
in 2 Corinthians 5:17. This was the Alexandrian
deadbeat that needed to be “preserved for poster­
ity.”
The faculty at Tennessee Temple and Bob Jones
University took the con men seriously. They pro­
moted both versions;15 so did every other school in
the country. The New ASV, which finally appeared
in 1963, used the wrong tense for Greek verbs in 1
T hessalonians 1:10; M atthew 3:1; Acts 13:11,
10:11, 18, 7:51, 53, 55-57; etc. It left articles un­
translated in Acts 10:2-3; Matthew 17:1, 16:13,
15:29, 12:28, 11:2-7; Romans 11:2; and Philemon
1:5 (after complaining about the A V translators do­
ing so). It added articles in Luke 1:17, 32; He­
brews 2:9, 1:10; Acts 10:1, 6; and 1 Corinthians
2:16 (after complaining about the AV translators
doing so). It added words to Luke 1:18, 20, 25, 31;
1 Thessalonians 1:6, 2:13, 3:3; Hebrews 1:3; Acts
13:39, 47, 10:13, 16:34; and Philemon 1:8 (after
complaining about the AV translators doing so). It
then attacked the Deity of Christ in Luke 2:33;
Acts 4:27; and 1 Timothy 3:16.
You must understand that this was all carried
out while talking about King James being “effemi­
nate,” playing tennis on Sunday, and being “G od’s
silly vassal” (see p. 157). It was all done while
talking about the “variations in different editions
of the King James.” It was all carried out while
blabbing to young converts about “W here was the
word of God before 1611?” and “If the AV transla­
tors didn’t profess to be inspired, how could their
scriptures be God-breathed?” (see Chapter Ten).
All of these corrupt fantasies (ASV, NIV, TLB,
NASV) were preceded by the RV from England
(1881-1885). I have a first edition copy here with
its Preface. It says,
“So far as the PURE foundation from
which to draw the revision is concerned,
our opportunity is VASTLY SUPERIOR
to that enjoyed in the times of King James
 [How immensely valuable these helps are
have already been shown: attacking the
Deity of Christ in Luke 23:42; John 1:18;
Luke 2:33; 1 Tim. 3:16; Luke 24:51-52;
etc.], and they are peculiarly our HERI­
TAGE. We tarry far below our privileges
if we do not avail ourselves of the special
AIDS which pertain to our day.”
Compare that to the “help” offered to you by
Zondervan, Thomas Nelson and Sons, and the Lock­
man Foundation. Pious, aren’t they?
“In the matter of scholarship, also, this
age is far in advance of the attainments of
King Jam es’ age . . . SCIENCE now puts
matters with a clearness and forcefulness
hitherto unknown.”
So, the word “SCIENCE”— with the warning
against it— was removed from the RV, RSV, NRSV,
ASV, NASV, NIV, NKJV, and every English Bible on
the market (1 Tim. 6:20).
The “helps” that these gentlemen offered (pre­
served for posterity” in the NASV, NIV, and NKJV)
are: “headbands” should be sashes, “m any
colours” should be long tunic, “veil” should be
mantle, “brass” should be copper (see The Bible
B eliever’s Commentary on Exodus, 1976), “coats”
should be trousers, “unicorn” should be wild ox,
“satyrs” should be goats, “dragons” should be
jackals (see The Unknown Bible, 1984), “devil”
shouldn’t be translated if it’s plural, “hell” shouldn’t
be translated at all, “m ules” should be warm
springs.
There w asn’t one soul-winner on either com­
mittee on either side of the Atlantic any time when
either book (RV or ASV) was being produced. Their
versions were gas bags for gas balloons and were
about as useful as a parachute on a submarine.
Nevertheless, they were lauded and promoted to
the exosphere. WHY? Neither lasted fifty years.
Both of them were as God dishonoring pieces of
falsehood as any RSV or NRSV on the market. Why
were they recommended? We will answer our own
question: “SOMEONE IS DEAD SET ON GET­
TING RID OF ONE BOOK, and it is not the ‘origi­
nal autographs.’” There is evidently ONE BOOK
that must be gotten rid of at any cost; any devilish
stratagem is perfectly “godly” when trying to re­
place THAT Book. That Book is the terror of Ameri­
can Fundamentalism, the terror of the Vatican State,
the terror of the Politburo (it is forbidden in Rus­
sia, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Cuba, and Iraq, among
others), the terror of Louisville Theological Semi­
nary, the terror of Bob Jones University, the terror
of the NCCC, and the terror of the IRS, which is
now planning to shut down every Bible-believing
local church in America.
In spite of the “noble efforts” of Biblical schol­
ars for one hundred years (1885-1985) to replace
that roaring lion of the English Reformation, no
one has succeeded yet. The AV has gone into
809,000,000 copies since 1611, being translated
into more than three hundred languages, with por­
tions of it going into over one thousand languages.
The combined sales of the Living Bible and the
N IV do not “place” or “show” in such a triathalon,
in spite of the fact that all of the time they were
 being written (and published), they were receiving
mass news media coverage and world-wide pro­
motion, while their collaborators were attacking
the AV morning, noon, and night by every possible
means.
The A V of 1611 evidently carries an intrinsic
spiritual weight and force that automatically oblit­
erates every committee of “Biblical scholars” who
attempt to replace it. It does this with no one to
promote it.
The most popular effort by the Alexandrian
Mafia to hoodwink the body of Christ was the
production of a paraphrase which was called THE
LIVING BIBLE. The overtones of such a lie are
obvious. The article “THE” indicates there is only
one “living” Bible; obviously the others—AV, NASV,
NIV, etc.— are DEAD. (No one has said anything
yet about such a grossly criminal type of slander.
You are to assume that the Authorized Version is a
dead Bible, and Kenneth Taylor’s popular pulp lit­
erature is “ALIVE.”) The presumption was made
on the grounds that nothing in the twentieth cen­
tury can be ALIVE unless it is in the modern lan­
guage. This effectively removes the HOLY SPIRIT
from the twentieth-century scene, for HE is the
One who presumably breathed life into the “Scrip­
tures” (2 Tim. 3:16; John 6:63). Kenneth Taylor
breathed life into the “Scriptures” by furnishing
the ninety-ninth “updating” since 1611. His “liv­
ing” bible bears all of the marks of Satan. (We
realize SATAN is not a proper subject of discus­
sion when discussing manuscripts, versions, trans­
lations, and revisions, but since his first attack in
the Scriptures in Gen. 3:1 was on what God said,
we may presume that all of the translators since
1611 and all of the revisors and committees of the
nineteenth- and twentieth-century translations elimi­
nated him on purpose.)
William Kerr16 assures the body of Christ that
the Living Bible is not “just another version." To
the contrary, it is the best version for the edifica­
tion of church members, the best for the evange­
lism of the lost, and for “missionary outreach.” In
addition, Dr. Keith Crim assures us that it is good
for “serious” Bible study that is “responsible,” be­
cause it makes a “contribution” to understanding
“neglected portions of scripture.”
Taylor’s text “throws light” (a standard apos­
tate cliche: see The Bible B eliever’s Commentary
on Exodus, Exod. 25, 1976) on “the text.” 17 It is
“easy to read and understand,” especially the illus­
trated edition by Tyndale House called Reach Out.
Notes in this “living” bible say, “Youch!! in a
ripsnorting competition, riding a hunk of cowhide
to the end of the rodeo arena!” and “Christ, the
greatest activist who ever lived!”. Luke is prefaced
with: “In the snap and sizzle, emotions soar, and
excitement grabs everybody.” The title is “Go! Go!”
M ean w h ile, G alatian s is p refa ce d w ith four
belly-dancing cheerleaders at half-time “leaping in
exuberance and precision.” The title is “Up, up,
and away!” Taylor follows the Roman Catholic
Church on Matthew 1:25 to protect the doctrine of
the perpetual virginity of Mary. He implies that
Peter is the Rock (or stone) of Matthew 16:18, and
then confirms the Catholic fantasy that Peter was
 in Rome by placing him there (1 Pet. 5:13). He
then inserts the RSV readings at Romans 14:10 and
John 9:35, exactly as the RV, ASV, and New A SV
did. John 6:69 has been altered to slight the Deity
of Christ, and God is not the Father of Jesus Christ
in Ephesians 3:14-15. “The LO R D ” goes out of
Malachi 3:1 into a footnote, and John 16:16 does
not have Christ going to the Father.
This is the book that you are to “edify” the
church with and use on the mission field (see above).
All of the renderings in Mark 7:20, 10:26; Luke
11:52; Ephesians 1:1, 1:17, 1:11; Titus 1:7, 1:5,
1:3, 2:10, 2:13, 3:4; 1 John 2:4; and Matthew 12:35
are highly inaccurate, according to the Trinitarian
Bible Society, although Taylor had endeared him ­
self to the ecumenical Charismatics by converting
the spirit of man (1 Cor. 14:2) into the Holy Spirit,
without any warrant for it other than a desire to
sell a book. (Taylor him self never professed to have
talked in tongues anywhere.) At verse 14 in the
same chapter, he inserted the private interpretation
of the Charismatics again.
You are right: the “Living” Bible is certainly
not “just another version.” It is an “U nholy” Bible,
and it is popular because it is unholy. It will never
outsell TV Guide or Playboy, but it is “in the run­
ning” ! Its first attack on the Bible doctrine of cre­
ation begins where the Book begins (Gen. 1:1),
and the perversions go on without a letup to Rev­
elation 22:14, where the Roman Catholic Jesuit
verse of the RSV, ASV, NIV and New A SV is “pre­
served for posterity.”
Among scores and scores of perversions of
Biblical truths are the renderings Taylor puts on
Genesis 1:6, 20, 3:1, 6, 15, 6:1, 49:18; Job 42:13,
38:16, 24, 35, 37:4-5, 2:10; Micah 7:4, 5:2; 2 Timo­
thy 2:15; 1 Timothy 6:5, 10, 20; Zechariah 9:9,
12:10; Revelation 13:18; John 2:2; Lamentations
4:21; and Colossians 2:8. That is about one tenth
of the list.18
Christians are to take this jazzy piece of pulp
literature seriously because it is “popular” and “easy
to understand.” Amazing, isn’t it? I mean, if you
are sane, is it not amazing? Here is as phony a
piece of nonsense as ever came out of a sideshow,
and it bears the title, The Living Bible PARA­
PHRASED. No one even questioned such wording,
but there is not a sixth-grade pupil in Europe or
America who does not know that i f you say, “The
LIVING Bible paraphrased, ” you are speaking o f
SOME other Book that was paraphrased. If the
LIVING BIBLE was “paraphrased,” what then was
the “LIVING BIBLE” before it was “paraphrased”?
The “serious-m inded” Biblical scholars who “take
their Bible study seriously” simply don’t discuss
the question. The truth is, Kenneth Taylor’s para­
phrase is a paraphrase of the LIVING BIBLE: the
REAL LIVING BIBLE being the King James A u ­
thorized Version o f 1611. If not (and after all, he
followed the Alexandrian texts many times), what
other bible was paraphrased? Inability to think
clearly seems to be another hallmark of the Alex­
andrian Cult.
Now, on the other hand, here is this 1611 Voice
of Authority that is the real cause of all of this
shuffling, updating, revising, “dynamic equiva­
 lences,” and “better renderings.” Here it is in the
hands of four men: BILLY GRAHAM, WALLY
CRISWELL, TRUMAN DOLLAR, and JERRY
FALWELL. What do they say about this roaring
lion of the English Reformation?
1. BILLY GRAHAM— a prayer:
“Father, I cannot understand many things in
this book. I cannot come intellectually all the
way, but I accept IT by faith to be the AU­
THORITATIVE [Ah, there is the issue!], IN­
SPIRED [Look out!] WORD OF THE LIV­
ING GOD.” 19
That is one side of Billy Graham ’s nature; ev­
ery Christian has two natures.
2. WALLY CRISWELL:
“The preacher who starts with the word of
God in HIS HANDS stands upon an invincible,
impregnable ROCK . . . when you come to my
church, it will be a message from THE Book
. . . THE BIBLE is the infallible word of God
. . . GOD WRITES IT DOWN, and we can
OPEN THE SACRED BOOK and READ ITS
holy words.”20
That is one side of Wally Crisw ell’s nature;
every Christian has two natures.
3. TRUMAN DOLLAR:
“We will not be a friend to this world, as we
are true to THIS BOOK . . . preach THIS Book . . .
I want to lace my sermons with the Word of God.
PREACH IT: D O N ’T CHANGE IT. ”21
That is one side of Truman D ollar’s nature;
every Christian has two natures.
4. JERRY FALWELL:
 “No human being has the right to change
WHAT GOD SAID . . . our faith . . . our
ministry as a New Testament church finds its
premise in THIS BOOK [He holds up an AV]
. . . W henever you are reading something be­
sides THIS Book, be sure it agrees with THIS
Book or it isn’t worth your reading tim e.”22
[There went the RV, RSV, ASV, NASV, NIV, and
25 percent of the writings of Trench, Thayer,
Schaff, V incent, W uest, Berry, L ightfoot,
Salmon, Rendall, and Mounce out the win­
dow!]
That was one side of Jerry Falw ell’s nature;
every Christian has two natures.
Make no mistake about what we are dealing
with: the issue is FINAL AUTHORITY. The subject
of the Bible is a Throne and a King. Rebels are
never subject to any fin a l authority that is higher
than their own opinion (1 Sam. 15:23). Every child
of God has two natures according to Romans 6 and
7, and one o f them is a rebel against G od’s author­
ity (see Rom. 6:12-20).
W hat the Biblical scholars would have you to
believe is that the critics of the AV are SINLESS if
they are born again and believe in the “verbally
inspired originals.” They consider it a rule of order
that no one talk about the SINS of “godly Funda­
m entalists,” even when they attack the Authorized
Version. You are to presume that in this case, the
“godly Fundam entalist” is justified in lying. (We
will document this matter beyond a shadow of a
doubt.) Here are R. A. TORREY and CHARLES
HADDON SPURGEON:
 1. R. A. TORREY.
“I was brought up to believe that THE BIBLE
was the word of God . . . in early life I accepted it
on the authority of my parents . . . later in my life,
my faith in THE BIBLE was shattered through the
influence of the writings of a very celebrated, schol­
arly, and brilliant skeptic . . . but . . . the Holy
Spirit sets His seal in the soul of every believer to
the divine AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE . . . the
nearer he gets to God, the nearer he gets to THE
BIBLE. When we get to where God is, we and
THE BIBLE m e e t . . . in other words, THE BIBLE
is written from G od’s standpoint.23
That is Torrey; the man that Robert Sumner
admires. All believers have two natures.
2. CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON:
“The Bible is God’s word, and when I SEE IT,
I seem to hear a voice saying, ‘I AM THE
BOOK OF GOD, man, read me; I am GOD’S
WRITING: open my leaves, for I was PENNED
BY GO D’ . . . I plead with you, I beg of you,
respect YOUR BIBLES, and search them out.
Go home and read your Bibles . . . O Book of
Books! And wast thou written by my God?
Then I will BOW BEFORE THEE, THOU
BOOK OF VAST AUTHORITY! For He has
written THIS BOOK H im self. . . let us love it,
let us count it more precious than fine gold!”24
That is one Charles Haddon Spurgeon; natu­
rally, there are two of them.
Now, let the reader put on his thinking cap and
for a few minutes think soberly, seriously, and
deeply about what he has just read. These men are
not the men put forward in The Biblical Evangelist
by Robert Sumner, nor his writer, Doug Kutilek.
These are not the men spoken of in Stewart Custer’s
book on The Truth About the King James Version
Controversy. No mention is made of these kinds of
men in C arso n’s Debate or H arold L in d sell’s
Battle.25 Apostates avoid such men like the bu­
bonic plague or AIDS.
Who are these men who nearly deify a Book
which they HOLD IN THEIR HANDS? Are they
“Ruckmanites”? Are they members of a “cult”?
Are they just “Bibliolaters”?
Observe that in all of the publications by ev­
ery Fundam entalist outlet in America from 1900 to
1986, there isn ’t one mention o f these quotations
when discussing FINAL AUTHORITY. Instead, do
you know what you are given? Well, let Robert
Sumner (Biblical Evangelist) speak for the Alex­
andrian Cult. In his work on Bible Translations
printed in 1979 (recommended by the faculty and
staff of Tennessee Temple), Sumner prints excerpts
from Spurgeon and G. Campbell Morgan to show
that they did NOT believe that the AV was the
infallible and final authority, for it contained “er­
rors.” Sumner then published statements by Torrey
where he didn’t believe the AV was “THE” BIBLE.
Criswell and Dollar then joined a committee that
changed the AV in more than five hundred places
(the NKJV), and Jerry Falwell promoted it when it
came out!
Now, who was lying? The first Spurgeon or
the second? The first Torrey or the second? The
first Falwell or the second? The first Dollar or the
second?
 ANSWER: IF YOU ARE A LAODICEAN
APOSTATE, YOU WILL ACCEPT THE NEGA­
TIVE CRITICISM AS “THE HISTORIC PO SI­
TION” THAT A FUNDAMENTALIST IS SUP­
POSED TO TAKE, BU T YOU WILL CONTINUE
TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR CONGREGATIONS
WITH THE OTHER POSITION, ALTHOUGH IT
CONSTITUTES OUT-AND-OUT LYING.
Now, at the beginning of this writing (1986),
that is where American Fundamentalism is. This is
the last twenty years of Laodicea (Rev. 3:16) be­
fore the Advent; the apostasy is in full bloom.
The OLD NATURE in the believers has set up
its preferences and opinions as “historic, Funda­
mental positions” that all believers are supposed to
take, without abandoning a public profession that
all preferences and opinions are supposed to be
subject to one book called “THE BIBLE.”
Modern Fundamentalism justifies lying, i f it
will gain a following.
There is no way on God’s earth that you can
reconcile what Dollar, Criswell, Spurgeon, Torrey,
Morgan, Scarborough, Falwell, and others said
about final authority on one occasion with what
they said about it on another occasion. It is true
that all modern, apostate Fundamentalists attempt
to reconcile the “polarities” by various pragmatic
and humanistic stratagems, but a lie is a lie. If you
are able to correct the living words of the living
God, after saying they were the living words which
God penned, you are obviously God (Gen. 3:1-4).
That is the position of the old nature in the be­
liever— any believer; Torrey, Spurgeon, Graham,
John R. Rice, Curtis Hutson, Ian Paisley, Dr.
DeHaan, Mordecai Ham, Chuck Swindoll, Mac-
Arthur, Hagin, Afman, Price, Martin, Custer, Neal,
and Bob Jones III are not exempt. They just think
that they are.
So, before launching into orbit (see Chapters
Two through Ten), let us arrive at an understand­
ing. Let us arrive at a sane understanding about the
issue, which is not “reliable translations,” “godly
men,” “qualified authorities,” “accurate renderings,”
and certainly not “easy to read and understand.”
The issue is final authority. All of the men who
were listed above had to USE a Book all of their
lives which they claimed had errors in it. All of
them said that God wrote it, and it shouldn’t be
changed. All of them changed it when they thought
that it was absolutely necessary. All of them, at
tim es, usurped the authority of the Book they
claimed was “G od’s” Book in order to assert their
own authority. We simply take the positive side in
these matters while Panosian, Afman, Jennings,
Faulkner, W illmington, Hindson, Dobson, Neal,
Custer, Bob Jones III, Hobbs, MacRae, Kutilek,
Sumner, and others take the NEGATIVE side. They
side with the carnal nature that came from Adam
(Gen. 3:6-13), so they can be “as gods” (Gen.
3:5).
We take issue with them. We take issue with
them at the point where they sit in judgm ent on
THE BOOK, and by now there should be no doubt
in the reader’s mind about what we mean when we
say “ THE BOOK.” We mean a Book which you
can buy, read, study, learn, memorize, preach, prac­
 tice, live, and die by.
The only way out of the mess that these “schol­
arly” egotists have gotten themselves into was to
claim that the critical professions of the “godly
men” (where they altered the A V text) was really
“the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth”; but it was perfectly all right, morally, to
LIE about these matters when preaching or teach­
ing publicly, because the congregation needed to
be “accommodated” in a language they could un­
derstand. This was the “A C C O M M O D ATIO N
THEORY” of one of the worst unsaved Liberals
the world every knew: Sender (1725-1791). This
theory explains why and how anti-Trinitarians
(1800-1900) eventually got control of the NCCC
(1900-1980) and filled the pulpits with Commu­
nists. It is nothing but the age-old application of
the Jesuit teaching: “the end justifies the means.”
To a modern, apostate Fundamentalist, it is per­
fectly proper to lie publicly about what you be­
lieve, as long as you don’t get caught. We’ve been
“catching them” for three decades. We will catch
them ten times a week until we are dead or rap­
tured.
Now, we are ready to examine the roaring lion
that destroyed not only the minds of the Liberals
but the moral integrity o f the Fundamentalists. We
will study his birth and growth as a “cub” and his
emergence from the thicket (Mic. 5:8) to scare the
“shepherds” (Isa. 31:4) out of ten year’s growth.
He is more authoritative today than ever and still
bears a weight and power in 1989 that no ten trans­
lations or versions can compete with.
 CH APTER TWO

Much Learning
Doth Make Thee Mad
“Let no man deceive himself. If any man
among you seemeth to be wise in this
world, let him become a fool, that he
may be wise.” (1 Corinthians 3:18)

Many years ago, I was accosted by a brilliant

young intellectual at a “young people’s fellowship
m eeting” in a private home, after a Sunday night
service. He was an ensign in the Navy, and I would
say that he was about twenty-eight years old. He
was quite “put out” with me. A heated discussion
began in the “breakfast nook,” and gradually sev­
eral young people disengaged themselves from the
“fellowship” and began to listen. According to the
brilliant young intellectual, I was a dark-eyed and
deep-stained hypocrite, an Elmer Gantry in sheep’s
clothing. The young ensign’s point was simple:
“No one could have read what you say you have
read and really believe what you profess to be­
lieve.” Looking back (1962), the criticism was re­
markable. I have often thought of it when consid­
ering how modern “qualified and recognized Chris­
tian scholars” approach my present profession. I
profess to believe that the AV, that I hold in my
hand and from which I preach, is the word of God,
containing the words God wants me to have, and
that it has been preserved by His grace without
proven error. But, no: “You couldn’t have read what
you say you’ve read and believe this!”
I laughed at the irritated young fool and said,
“Sonny, if you don’t think I ’ve read Hegel, Ni­
etzsche, Plato, Dewey, Aristotle, James, Huxley,
Marx, Darwin, and Russell, just give me a quick
exam to see if I’ve read them .” He said, “ Oh, no, I
don’t doubt that part. I just believe that you are
lying about the other.” To make a long story short,
I asked him three questions, and then I had him ask
me the same three questions. The last question was,
“Who gave you your mind, or where did your mind
come from?” His answer was: “It came with the
equipm ent.” My answer was: “God gave it to me,
and He could take it from me in twenty seconds
and leave me a raving idiot. ” Upon that answer,
the young man turned the color of a linen bedsheet
and excused him self from the table and the house.
He called a taxi. I found out two weeks later that
he had been under psychiatric observation at the
Naval Air Station for some time.
When a Biblical scholar wishes to destroy the
faith of a Bible believer when it comes to the Book,
he resorts to the obvious weapons: a vast list of
quotations, historical “facts,” citations, and opin­
ions of “qualified authorities,” especially those of
Hebrew and Greek scholars and “collators” of
manuscripts. This pile of evidence is intended to
“snow” the believer into giving up his Bible as the
final authority “in all matters of faith and practice”
and to reduce him to the level of the Bible scholar—
 a relativistic humanist with no higher authority than
his own opinions and preferences (see Appendix
One). The trick is to amass a pile of “authorities”
who have rejected the AV as the word of God. You
must overwhelm the novice or the uninitiated with
this “evidence” until he surrenders his Bible. Thus,
there is a problem in dealing with “Ruckman,” for
he is not a novice nor is he “uninitiated.” When
Bob Jones University made Lester Roloff “Chris­
tian of the Year” (1975-1976), they did it with full
knowledge of the fact that when it came to FINAL
AUTHORITY and belief in the AV as the FINAL
AUTHORITY, Lester Roloff was a “Ruckmanite”
from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet.
Why the discrimination? That’s easy: the class­
room students could be talked out of R oloff’s be­
lief on the grounds that he was a “fine fellow” but
he was “country.” After all, he was a “real Chris­
tian,” but not “knowledgeable.” He was a “fine
fellow,” so don’t “criticize” him. “He’s entitled to
his belief, even if it is a little off-center. ” “Ruck­
m a n ” would pose an entirely different problem, as
you will see.
You see, “Ruckman” has access (and has had
access) to every FACT to which any critic of the
AV ever had access. He has been acquainted with
all o f the “facts” against th e A V for thirty-five years
without abandoning his faith in it. Professor Bro-
kenshire of the faculty of Bob Jones University
gave “Ruckman” his personal copy of K ittel’s Old
Testament Hebrew text upon his decease (1953).
You don’t pull any stuff on me. I sat at the feet of
Dr. William T. Brunner for three years, after he had
memorized all 5,000 Greek words in the New Tes­
tam en t v o cab u lary and was c ritiq u in g A. T.
Robertson’s monumental “Greek Grammar.”
W hat surprises do you suppose these green­
horns and tenderfeet are going to pull on a man
who has had an exact copy of the original 1611
edition (not a “fairly reasonable” facsimile pub­
lished by Thomas Nelson and Sons) for more than
twenty years and an original copy of a 1613 right
off the press? Do you suppose someone is going to
try to bamboozle him with variants in the different
editions of the King James B ible”!
Read the handwriting on the wall and get it
right. I have here on my desk the granddaddy of all
Fundamentalist attacks on the King James Bible. It
is the “source book” for nearly everything that came
off the platform at Bob Jones University since 1950,
at least when they attacked the Book. The work is
called How We Got Our Bible. It was printed in
1899 by James Pott and Company, New York, and
its author was J. Patterson Smyth. It contains pho­
tographs of portions of the Sinaiticus manuscript (I
have the complete New Testament photocopied right
here in my office), photographs of portions of the
Vaticanus manuscript (I have that photocopied, too),
photographs o f A e lfr ic ’s A n g lo -S a xo n B ible,
Tyndale’s New Testament, W yclijfe’s Bible, Codex
Bezae (I have the complete New Testament m anu­
script with Latin and Greek parallels), and Codex
Ephraem (manuscript “C”).
W hat did I find in seventy-four pages of this
work that would shake my faith in the AV that I
hold in my hand? Not one item.
 Does it have Broughton’s famous criticism of
the AV in it? Of course, it does (p. 69).
Does it mention Erasm us’ “unfortunate” find­
ing of manuscript evidence for 1 John 5:7-8? Of
course, it does (p. 235).
Does it claim that the “science of textual criti­
cism” was perfected after King James? Of course,
it does (p. 64).
Does it claim that we “now have access to a
greater treasury of older and more accurate m anu­
scripts” ? O f course, it does (p. 64).
Does it claim the real power of the AV is its
“literary charm ” because it is a “beautiful book”?
Of course, it does (p. 73).
Does it claim that the word of God is not actu­
ally a Book but something you find in a reliable
translation as a M ESSAGE?1 Of course, it does (p.
74).
It claims just what John R. Rice claimed when
he got into that pitiful contest with Herb Evans
back in 1973. Upon reading page 5 of the Sword o f
the Lord (April 13, 1973), Evans wired Rice and
asked him the following question:
“WHAT VERSION IS MEANT IN YOUR
STATEMENT i HAVE IN MY HANDS A M ES­
SAGE FROM GOD, THE INFALLIBLE, ETER­
NAL WORD OF GOD’?”
Rice never answered. He couldn’t. He was
Neo-Orthodox from head to foot. The infallible
“word of God” is nothing but a MESSAGE ac­
cording to Barth and Brunner, as well as Tillich
and Niebuhr.2 John R. Rice simply believed J.
Patterson Smyth (1899). He didn’t even have to
 read him to believe him. Smyth set up the format
for the Alexandrian Cult to follow, and they all
followed it religiously for nearly ninety years.
I canceled Smyth when I read him. I had his
number before he had gone one page. You see, he
had titled his book HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE. I
spotted the first person plural— WE. (I can read
English; that is something they taught us back in
the 1920s and 1930s.) I knew “OUR BIBLE,” if it
was an English Bible, was a King James Bible. But
“OUR Bible,” according to Smyth, was the Re­
vised Version of Westcott and Hort, the English
Jesuit Rheims Bible of Africa (see Chapter Eight).
“OUR” was a joke. Smyth was a jo ker—so
was any nut who believed him.
Now, matters certainly don’t end here. I have
The E xpositors’ Greek Testament—all five vol­
umes— that I read ten years ago. Ditto for fifteen
volumes by Kenneth Wuest, especially the Untrans­
latable Riches (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publish­
ing Co., 1942). What do the faculty members at
....... (fill in your own; one is just like another)
know about Golden Nuggets in the Greek New Tes­
tament or Bypaths in the Greek New Testament or
even Treasures from the Greek New Testament that
we didn’t know and discard thirty years ago?
When we are vilified by contemptible little
pip-speaks like Stewart Custer, Bob Jones III, Rob­
ert Sumner, and others (I have their letters here),
we answer with Job: “WHO KNOWETH NOT
SUCH THINGS AS THESE?” (Job 12:3). “What
ye know, the same do I know also: I am not
inferior unto you” (Job 13:2).
 But, you see, they think otherwise. These, and
other Biblical scholars, imagine themselves to be
SINLESS, although you are a great sinner i f you
point our THEIR sins to the body o f Christ!
Question: “How does a man retain his faith in
the infallible A V after reading all five volumes of
V incent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
(Scribner and Sons, 1887; Eerdmans, 1946)? Easy:
judge Vincent by the Book. I did. I do. Vincent,
Thayer, M ounce, Rendall, Salmond, and Wuest
could no more shake my faith in the Holy Bible
than they could shake the Giza pyramid.
There are three books on my table. One is
called The Text o f the Greek Bible. It is by Freder­
ick Kenyon, whom you will find cited in the works
by Hills, Fuller, and Pickering. It was published in
1937 by Gerald Duckworth and Co., LTD., in Lon­
don. It deals with:
1. The Greek Old Testament.
2. The Manuscripts of the New Testament.
3. The Versions and Fathers.
4. The Printed Text.
5. The Textual Discoveries and Theories.
6. The Present Textual Problem.
I have read it in two and one-half hours and
critiqued it with “highlighters” in forty-five places.
And you say that you have information that WE
don’t have?
L et’s see if you do (you little rabbit-eared gos­
sips who worry about “Ruckm an’s bad language
and speech” !). Here is a book called The Text o f
the New Testament. It is by Bruce M etzger of the
United Bible Societies. It was published by the
 Oxford Press in 1968, and it deals with the trans­
mission, corruption, and “restoration” of the New
Testament text. In reading it, I simply studied the
following “basics” :
1. The history of the New Testament textual
criticism as reflected in the printed editions of the
Greek Testament and the collection of variant read­
ings.
2. The beginnings of “SCIENTIFIC” textual
criticism and the overthrow of the Receptus.
3. The origins of textual criticism as a “schol­
arly discipline,” with methods applied to local texts
and ancient editions, eclecticism and “conjectural
emendations,” and the criteria for the evaluation of
variant readings.
You were saying?
You were saying nothing. There is nothing in
M etzger’s works that could successfully overthrow
one word in any edition of the AV that ever came
out.
Shall we look at The Principles and Problems
o f Biblical Translation, according to W. Schwartz
(Cambridge Press, 1955)? It’s only 212 pages long.
It can be read in seventy minutes. Would you pre­
fer The Ancestry o f Our English Bible by Ira Price
(Harper and Row, 1906) with the third edition revis­
ed by Allen Wikgren and William Irwin? It’s only
330 pages including the appendices— three hours
work at a maximum.
Furthermore, I have Scrivener’s complete list
of all of the variants in all of the editions of the AV
(The Authorized Edition o f the English Bible: Its
Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives,
Cambridge Press, 1884). You are going to impress
us with the differences between the editions of the
AV, are you? You are going to impress us by telling
us that there were five or seven major editions,
when we have a list which gives fourteen (1612,
1613, 1616, 1617, 1629, and 1630, with the K ing’s
printers; then 1640, 1660, 1701, 1762, 1769, 1833,
1847-1851, and 1858)? You have more “authorita­
tive sources” than we do on the King James Bible,
do you? Well, I have the complete list of all of the
changes in all of the books of both Testaments,
including five Appendices which detail the read­
ings of the Greek text used by the AV translators.
Why did I not lose my faith in THE BOOK after
reading every word in this work? As they say “down
home”: “It do present a problem, don’t it?”
Do you have Codex B and Its Allies (H. C.
Hoskier, Bernard Quaritch, London, 1914)? Why
not? Custer and Neal at Bob Jones University said
that they had CAREFULLY EXAMINED ITS
READINGS. Well, my hat is certainly off to them
if they did! The “readings” run over 390 pages
and deal with variations in spellings on the indi­
vidual words in over 4,000 verses, with Latin ab­
breviations throughout. “Codex B” is Vaticanus (see
Chapter Three). I not only have the critical mate­
rial on it as it was compared with every verse in
the New Testament with every other source, but I
also have a copy of the New Testament manuscript
itself.
You know something we don’t, do you? “W HY
D O TH T H IN E H EA RT CARRY T H E E AWAY?
AND W HAT DO THY EYES W IN K AT” ? (Job
 15:12).
You superstitious little “graduates” of Tennes­
see Temple, Cambridge, Arlington, Springfield, Pa­
cific Coast, Piedmont, Pillsbury, Oxford, Moody,
Wheaton, Fuller, Princeton, Denver, and Liberty
who lost your faith in the Holy Bible as an infal­
lible authority, you found someone that knew more
about the Bible than “Ruckman,” did you? Who?
Some lukewarm blank like Hoskier, Scrivener,
Trench, Hodges, Thayer, Price, Wuest, or Rendall?
Suppose Hoskier, Scrivener, and Burgon were sound
on the “majority text”— like Zane Hodges, Farstad,
and Donald Waite— what would that mean? BA­
NANAS? If their real final authority was their own
opinions about the opinions of their friends, what
then? EGG NOG?
I have Scrivener’s Six Lectures on the Text o f
the New Testament (Deighton Bell and Co., 1875),
where he discusses the modes of discriminating
the date of manuscripts, the methods of notation
for uncial manuscripts, the ancient versions, the
“comparative purity” of the sacred text, and “pas­
sages selected for special exam ination.” Since the
work only went 207 pages, it didn’t cover enough
ground to play hockey on. You have the Report on
the History and Recent Collation o f the English
Version o f the Bible (American Bible Society, 1852,
presented by the Committee on Versions to the
Board of Managers), do you? So do we. You know
nothing that we do not know. The professors that
taught you don’t know anything else either. You
just imagine such things. The problem is too much
television; your fantasies carry you off.
 Do you believe in Richard Soulen’s Handbook
o f Biblical Criticism (John Knox Press, Atlanta,
1933)? If not, how about Fred Batton’s History o f
the Bible (Beacon Hill Press, 1959)? Or better still,
aren’t you fascinated by the “SCIENTIFIC meth­
ods of criticism ” used by Ernest C. Colwell in
Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism o f the
New Testament (Eerdmans, 1969)?
W hat do these books say? They say just what
the Alexandrian Cult has said since Origen (A.D.
200).
W hat is the sum total of all of the above? It is
printed in Appendix One on ha lf o f a page. Noth­
ing “new” showed up in any m an’s effort to get rid
of the BOOK. It’s all old “stuff.”
You say, “Have you read . . . ?” Yes, we read
Burgon’s Traditional Text. I have a copy right here.
I also have his The Causes o f the Corruption o f the
Traditional Text o f the Holy Gospels and The Revi­
sion Revised. For good measure, I threw in Inspi­
ration and Interpretation by the same author (Ox­
ford and London, J. H. and James Parker, 1861), so
nobody could fool you into thinking that just be­
cause a man had access to the “verbally inspired
originals” he could interpret the Bible any better
than Jimmy Swaggart or Ted Kennedy. I ’ve had
M iller’s Biblical Introduction for years. I had the
complete write-ups on The Dead Sea Scrolls (Will­
iam S. LaSor, Moody Press, 1956) before Bob Jones
III was old enough to shave. They established my
faith in a B.C. Septuagint (see Preface) about as
well as Adolph Hitler established Israel’s faith in
Nazism.
 You critics of the AV have material we don’t
have, do you? What, for example? The Interna­
tional Standard Bible Encyclopedia? I ’ve had it
for decades. The Westcott and Hort Greek text? It’s
here on the table. N estle’s Greek text? It’s on the
shelf. Metzger and Aland? On the shelf. B eza’s
Fifth Edition with refinements? Over on the couch.
The Greek Septuagint? Bottom row, left shelf. The
Masoretic text in Hebrew and English? Bottom
row, right shelf. The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee
Lexicon? Second row, left shelf. Theological Word
Book o f the Old Testament (Harris, Archer, and
Waltke; Moody Press, 1980)? Second row, right
shelf. You were going to mess up my AV with
Tyndale, The B ishops’ Bible, M atthew ’s Bible, or
Coverdale, were you? I also have had a copy of the
Jesuit Douay-Rheims Bible for more than twenty
years. You were going to “pull a fast one” on us
Bible believers, were you? Not at THIS END OF
THE LINE, SONNY! Stick with the quails and the
doves. Pick out some young, carnal believer who
is a brand new convert and who comes to you in
wide-eyed amazement at your “vast learning” and
draw a bead on him. Don’t get into the jungle with
the tigers and lions, little boy; w e’ll eat you alive.
We know WHOM we have believed (2 Tim.
1:12), we know WHAT we have believed (Acts
24:14), and we know WHY we have believed it
(Isa. 43:9-12).
Three thousand rabbit prints in the mud are
not going to sidetrack us. You’ll have to hunt game
elsewhere.
We say these things only to prepare the reader
for our subject, which is “BIBLICAL SCHOLAR­
SHIP. ” In the next five chapters, the material that
these men have talked about and the “facts” that
they dug up will be presented. We simply want our
readers to know that all of this material and all of
these “facts” were well known to us when we pub­
licly put in print “Four Reasons Why the AV is
Superior to ANY Greek or Hebrew M anuscripts,”
when we put into print the material on Tribulation
salvation (which differs from ALL theologians and
“historic” positions), and when we gave more than
forty-five cases where superior revelation was given
to the reader of the AV English which no Greek or
Hebrew scholar was able to find in A N Y set o f
Hebrew or Greek manuscripts. That is, we have
done what we have done with full knowledge; we
do not plead innocence. We are as “guilty as hell”
of telling the body of Christ for thirty-five years
that the Holy Bible o f the English Protestant Refor­
mation is the supreme and fin a l absolute authority
in all matters o f faith and practice and can be
believed to be so by any human being on the face
o f this earth.
We continue to do this after reading the mate­
rial that REJECTED that position in Translators
and Translations (Harold Phillips, The W arner
Press, 1958), Our God Breathed Book— The Bible
(John R. Rice, Sword o f the Lord, 1979), How We
Got the Bible (Lightfoot, Baker Book House, 1963),
thirty copies of Faith Magazine (Bob Jones Uni­
versity Press), ten copies of The Fundamentalist
Journal (Liberty U niversity, Old Time Gospel
Hour), How Our Bible Came to Us (Herklotts, Ox­
 ford University Press, 1954), The Books and the
parchments (F. F. Bruce, Flem ing and Revell,
1950), The King James Version Debate (D. A. Car­
son, Baker Book House, 1979), So Many Versions?
(Sakae Kubo and Walter Specht, Zondervan, 1975),
and fifty other books just like them.
Your professor has some information about the
AV that we d o n ’t have, does he? Like M cGregor’s
chapter on “The Most High and Mighty Prince”
(The Bible in the Making, Lippincott Co., 1959,
pp. 140-156)? We had the smut material on King
James being “effeminate” and “vain” more than
thirty years before Moody Monthly attacked the AV
on those grounds (1985). We “cultists” are the m is­
informed ones, are we? (You je s ’ bet your booties,
don’t you, baby?)
Do you really believe that the little “poop
sheet" by MacRae and Newman (The Textus R e­
ceptus and the King James Version, 1975) had
something “new” in it, or something that w asn’t
answered 100 years ago? I have Richard Averitt’s
pamphlet here along with those by Kenneth Brown
and Robert Flannigan— every last one of them is as
Alexandrian as Ted Kennedy or Pope John Paul II.
Did they miss A Survey o f Syntax in the Old Testa­
ment (E erd m an s, 1964)? We d id n ’t. I have
twenty-six English versions of the New Testament
sitting on my bookshelves with all of the notes
from 200 Biblical scholars on 31,000 verses in The
Cross-Reference Bible—which printed the A SV text
of 1901. We Bible-believers are “King James fans,”
are we? We are a “lunatic fringe,”4 are we? We are
a cult of ignoramuses, are we?
 Do you know what WE think about unin­
formed, misinformed fools who talk like that? We
think that the entire scope of their intellects and
the lifelong compass of their researches could be
printed on less than h a lf a sheet o f paper. To save
you the trouble of doing it, we printed it fo r you in
Appendix One in the back of this book. You little
mental pygmies would have to stand on a ten foot
ladder to scratch the instep of the meanest transla­
tor on the Authorized Version committee. You don’t
know whereof you speak, you don’t know what
you affirm, and you are living in a dream world
that would make the “lunatic fringe” look like a
gathering of geniuses.
You know nothing that we do not know about
The Book and neither do the men that taught you
nor the men that taught them. The Alexandrian Cult
has no resources that we do not have, they have
access to no information that we can’t get our hands
on in ten minutes, and as you will see in Chapter
Three, their entire panoply, attendants, flotilla, and
regatta from Origen to John M acArthur is just one
infernal, interminable, negativistic, critical, destruc­
tive, egotistical attack on the words of God.
Put your ears on for a minute ( “Living” Biblos,
c. 1990). Here are these smart alecks professing to
be able to CORRECT your Bible (and they have
been at it for 375 years) on the grounds that it is
not a PERFECT translation. That’s it, isn’t it? Have
we misrepresented someone? Have we maligned or
“slandered” anyone? Is that position a “straw
dummy”? They profess to be able to CORRECT an
imperfect translation (AV 1611) and have been en­
 gaged in that work for over 375 years. All right!
Where, then, is the perfect translation? You say,
“It’s nowhere.” WHAT?! After 375 years, 600,000
scholars (including 500 commentators, 1,500 trans­
lators, 10 publishers, 4,000 professors, 500 archae­
ologists, 200 historians, and 500,000 students) have
not been able to CORRECT ALL OF THE M IS­
TAKES THEY FOUND IN AN AV 1611? Isn’t that
a confession of some kind or another?
Why, they were just guessing to start with, and
they are still guessing.
You are to wait for them? You are to read
Colwell {The Study o f the Bible, Chicago Univer­
sity Press, 1937) and Casper Gregory (The Canon
and Text o f the New Testament, Scribner’s, New
York, 1907) and Kirsopp Lake (The Text o f the
New Testament, British Academy, London, 1916)
and take them seriously when not one of them can
make the necessary corrections? A fter making
35,000 corrections (RV, ASV, NIV, et al), you are to
believe that THEY DIDN’T FIND ALL OF THE
MISTAKES?
After applying Roberts’ theories (The Old Tes­
tament Text and Versions, Cardiff, University of
Wales, 1951) and Alexander Souter (The Text and
Canon o f the New Testament, Scribners, 1913) and
reading Westcott and H ort’s The New Testament in
the Original Greek (Harpers, New York, Vol. I and
II, 1882), you are to believe that they still have an
imperfect text?
Well, what in . . . (and I do mean what in . . .
[dynamic equivalent of “HADES”]) were you do­
ing abandoning the Authorized Text of the Holy
Bible from the Protestant Reformation when the
nerds attacking it admitted that they couldn’t COR­
RECT ALL OF THE ERRORS IN IT IF YOU GAVE
THEM 375 YEARS? Do you understand? Milligan
and Roberts (The Words o f the New Testament as
Altered by Transmission and Ascertained by M od­
ern Criticism, Edinburgh, 1873) couldn’t do it. Fre­
derick Gardner (Principles o f Testament Criticism
with a Graphic Table o f Uncials, Bibliotheca Sacra,
Vol. X X X II, 1875) c o u ld n ’t do it. J. H arold
Greenlee (An Introduction to New Testament Tex­
tual Criticism, Grand Rapids, 1964) and Ernest
Colwell (What is the Best New Testament?, Chi­
cago, 1952) couldn’t do it. They couldn’t even do
it with the help of Doedes, Tregelles, Porter, Tho­
mas Green, F. H. Scrivener, John Fenton Anthony
Hort, Brooke Foss Westcott, J. P. P. Martin, Charles
Sitterly, Mattheus Lundborg, Kirsopp Lake, Rudolf
Knopf, Heinrich Vogels, Merk, Groenen, Souter,
Irgens, Mercier, August Pott, Vaganay, LaGrange,
Auguste Holland, AND ALL OF THEIR STU ­
DENTS, PROFESSORS, TEACHERS, AND REF­
ERENCE LIBRARIES.
Back in the 50’s and 60’s, we used to watch
Larry, Moe, and Curly; they were called The Three
Stooges. One day, Curly asked Moe for the time.
Moe showed him three wristwatches and informed
him one of them gained five minutes every twenty
hours, one gained five minutes every seven hours,
and one lost five minutes every three hours. Upon
being asked, “Then how do you know what time it
is?” Moe produces an “Engineer’s” pocket watch
that keeps the correct time.
 He had one standard, absolute authority by
which he judged the other three. It was set on
Greenwich, England.
If any one of the men listed above (or any of
their followers, promoters, colleagues, students, or
supporters) said, “We have one standard watch,”
don’t you believe him for a minute of Daylight
Savings Time in any Time Zone. They have cor­
rected THEIR OWN STANDARD MORE THAN
SEVEN HUNDRED TIMES IN ONE YEAR (see
Nestle’s editions before 1982). Their Engineer’s
gold watch “is their own top-heavy noodle” which
has so many errors in it, we would abandon any
five hundred of them before we would give up one
verse in the Authorized Version.
There is nothing— we say “absolutely noth­
ing”— in the writings of Broomall, Coder, Black-
welder, Wedge, Hindson, Bruce, Theissen, Zodhi-
ates, Archer, Nestle, Dollar, Willmington, Aland,
Harris, Afman, Metzger, Hodges, English, Davis,
Machen, Farstad, Robertson, or Gleason that con­
tributes ONE thing to anyone believing any Book
on this earth is the word of God, unless it was
something they got from that Book or a book writ­
ten by someone who believed that the AV was the
word of God. The rest is warmed-over hash. No
man in that group (or any similar group listed in
this work) could come up with ONE NEW DOC­
TRINAL truth from any translation of any version
that was not apparent in 1611, in the first edition of
a King James Bible.
Shall we talk about the “Koine” of Adolph
^eissm ann (Light From the Ancient East, Baker
Book House, 1965)? There w asn’t any “light” from
Deissmann. The light came from L u th er’s Bible
and the King James Bible, which resulted in more
than 8,000,000 conversions before Adolph Deiss-
man was born. Do we understand Briggs’ critical
theories (General Introduction to the Study o f the
Holy Scriptures, Baker Book House, 1970)? Of
course we do. It was Briggs who edited the Inter­
national Theological Library with Stewart D. F.
Salmon; it was Briggs who helped Francis Brown
and Driver to produce the definitive English edi­
tion of G esenius’ Hebrew Lexicon; and it was
Briggs who helped Driver and Plummer edit the
International Critical Commentary Series. He was
defrocked by the Presbyterian Church in 1893 for
Liberalism and became an Episcopalian. W hat do
his 669 pages teach us? They teach us that his
stand on the “truthfulness of scriptures” (pp. 607-
650) is the one now being taken by the faculty and
staff of every major Christian college and univer­
sity in America.
Now, I have omitted our real Bibliography for
the sake of saving space: Pinneberg’s work, Parvis
and W ikgren’s works, Kilpatrick’s comments, the
theories of Ropes and Clark, Feinberg’s works,
L ake’s works, and the books by Warfield, Muntz,
Zuntz, Butler, Angus, Milligan, Moulton, Zahn,
Black, Kurz, Alford, Hackett, and the rest of the
Cult. But let our reader understand something, and
let him get it “down pat” before he then “goes out
of whack” ( “Living” Biblos, c. 1990). We never
base our convictions and beliefs about the Autho­
rized Version of the Holy Bible on hearsay, rumor,
 feeling, preference, recommendations, ignorance,
superstition, lack of education, lack of research, or
inadequate material. We know what J. L. Hug said,
and what Rendall Harris (1908) said, and what K.
W. Clark (1950) said, and what H. Greeven (1960)
said, and what R. M. Grant (1963) said, plus what
Sanday (1893) said, and what F. C. Burkitt (1906)
said about OUR Book: the AV Holy Bible from
1611. No one was slighted.
Having a great deal more grace and a great
deal more “liberality” than the Biblical scholars
who have attacked our Holy Bible, we graciously
gave ALL of them a hearing and never took the
time to censor anything any of them wrote or said.
Their literature is no threat to us or our convic­
tions, and it never will be. It simply constitutes a
nuisance; a pile of trivia and conjectures which
have been examined on the grounds of “fair play.”
Certainly there are no rational grounds for digging
an inch into the pile. We allow these little “day
care center” kiddies to speak their piece on the
grounds of Christian charity. If they do not allow
us to do the same, it only bears witness to their
lack of grace and integrity (Phil. 2:4).
Are we familiar with what Swanson (1884)
thinks about THE BOOK? Of course. Ditto Butler
(1951), F arber (1954), Voobus (1947), Hatch
(1952), Black (1951), and all of their friends—
Michaelis (1948), Ramsay (1897), Carrsen (1896),
Bousett (1894), Blass (1894), Schmidt (1919), and
Souter (1912). And what do we learn from study­
ing these great “scholars”? (See Appendix One.)
We learn that a rebel is not subject to a King, and
 if “every man did that which was right in his
own eyes,” (Judg. 21:25) there would be no fin a l
authority but preference and opinion. Where final,
Divine Authority is rejected, the Scholar’s Union
sets up its OPINIONS as the final authority, being
careful to avoid PROFESSING that. All hypocrites
are very careful about “professions.”
Now, we would not think of defending the
Authorized Version (any edition) as the word of
God, containing the words God wants us to have,
without first carefully examining and screening
EVERY SCHOLARLY VOICE known on this earth
that was ever raised IN OPPOSITION AGAINST
IT. So, we did not ignore Skeat (1949), Hamack
(1914), or Roberts (1944), even if you did. If your
professor was so narrow-minded that he failed to
check out Kenyon (1937), Streeter (1924), Voss
(1938), and Ropes (1926), we were not. We were
quite broad-minded in these matters. In order to
avoid the isolated mentality of the faculty mem­
bers of Bob Jones University, Tennessee Temple,
Springfield, D allas, A rlington, Denver, Pacific
Coast, and Liberty University, we gave Lenski
(1934), Steck (1893), Grenfell (1919), and Sanders
(1926) a fair hearing. We then threw in Bullinger,
Salmon, Rendall, Trench, Wuest, Robertson, Thayer,
Berry, Vincent, Hutton, LaGrange, Madan, Millet,
Barnard, Bell, Vagany, Goodspeed, Pfeiffer, and
Klijn so that you w ouldn’t think that we were
“prejudiced” for the AV text.
“What knowest thou, that we know not?”
(Job 15:9).
I have mentioned only a few “blanks” to show
 the reader that what he is about to read is not
hearsay, rumor, heresy, or fantasy. Our acquain­
tance with Biblical scholars is as solid as any ten
revisors that ever sat on any committee in the last
one hundred years. We are not intimidated or im ­
pressed by those who think otherwise. We do not
consider this to be boasting, for even if it were, it
would say very little for our own spirituality or
understanding of the Bible. After all, Biblical schol­
ars who serve on revision committees in America
are some of the dumbest Bible blockheads that
ever followed Westcott and Hort back to Rome. No
modern Biblical scholar (1880-1980) has ever put
any LIGHT on anything in the Scripture (see Foot­
note 17, Chapter One).
The “Dead Sea Scrolls” didn’t “open up” the
interpretation of one verse in either Testament. Nei­
ther did the excavations of Wooley or Garstang.
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus never enabled any Bible
student to find any light on any verse in either
Testament that wasn’t already clearly there two hun­
dred years before anyone published either manu­
script. All one has to do is to read The Bible
B eliever’s Commentary Series on Genesis, Exodus,
Job, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, M inor Prophets (Vol.
1), Matthew, Acts, Galatians-Colossians, Pastoral
Epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation to see immedi­
ately that all real light— light that is true (John
1:4—9)— comes from the Scriptures themselves and
come in spite of Biblical scholarship in most cases
(see Chapter Eight).
We conclude our chapter with this thought:
having read all of the material against the A V that
 all of the scholars (saved and lost) have compiled
through a period of 350 years, we are more firmly
convinced than ever that it is the Book of Books,
the Monarch of the Books, the final, authoritative
Judge of all scholars, including Biblical scholars
(Heb. 4:12—13; John 12:48). With that in mind, we
now voluntarily exclude ourselves from the ranks
of “scholarship.” Since the first requisite for being
a “recognized Bible scholar” in America since 1880
is to ATTACK the A V text, we step out of the ranks
and desert. We go over to the other side. Let the
educated pip-squeaks vie with each other to see if
they can qualify as “scholars” in the eyes of the
destructive critics who have preceded them; we
will take another course. We line up with Bob Jones
Sr.’s mother, Jack Hyles’ mother, Pappy Reveal,
Mel Trotter, George Myers (A1 Capone’s converted
chauffeur), Dr. Bob Gray, Billy Kelly, Carl Lackey,
Tim Lee, Lester Roloff, Bruce Cummons, Maze
Jackson, Greg Estep, Sam Gipp, Jim Modlish, Bill
and Larry Bartlett, Edmund Dinant, Hugh Pyle,
Jack Hyles, Bobby Ware, and 2,000 MORE JUST
LIKE THEM. We profess to be only a student of
the Holy Bible: a learner, a researcher (John 5:39),
a “suckling” (Isa. 28:9), dependent entirely upon
the Author of the Book who gave us the Book.
In other matters we may not be a battle-scarred
veteran, but when it comes to “information” and
“facts” on manuscript evidence, Biblical theology,
Biblical criticism, higher and lower criticism, sys­
tematic theology, corruptions of texts, variant read­
ings, English translations and editions, the soph­
istry and treachery of Biblical scholars, tradesm en’s
 terms, “fam ilies” of manuscripts, critical appara­
tus, the Greek Receptus, motives and methods of
translators, tricks of promotion and publicity, du­
plicity in dealing with issues, equivocation in pro­
fessions of belief, and outright lying, we profess to
have a knowledge and comprehension equal to, or
superior to, any five hundred Alexandrian transla­
tors who ever declined a Hebrew noun or con­
jugated a Greek verb.
We now give some attention to the subject
“how to put a Greek New Testament together so
that you will be the final authority in all matters of
faith and practice.” This way, if you don’t like
something that the Holy Bible says (as in 1 Thess.
5:22, 1 Tim. 6:10, or 2 Cor. 2:17), you can get rid
o f it by going to “the original Greek.”
 CH APTER THREE

Putting a Greek
New Testament Together
“The words of the Lord are pure words”
(Psalm 12:6)
“Thy word is very pure: therefore thy
servant loveth it.” (Psalm 119:140)

When Biblical scholars prepare an “eclectic

text” (the word means nothing: it is the tradesm en’s
terminology to show that the scholar is not going
to use just ONE source for his Greek New Testa­
ment), they will use a number of sources for trans­
lating, for they have a number of things to rely on.
Once these sources are consulted, then the m ythi­
cal “scientific methods of criticism” come into play.
Higher and lower criticism, “conjectural emenda­
tion” (the term means nothing: it is the tradesm en’s
terminology for a man changing a word because he
guessed that it was wrong as it stood), and other
mysterious, high-sounding words come into play.
These deal with the dates of the manuscripts, the
notes on the manuscripts, the editors and correc­
tors of the manuscripts, the materials on which the
manuscripts were written, and so forth and so on
(und so weiter). This chapter will go into this mys­
terious hocus-pocus, which Stewart Custer sug­
gested be left “to those who were equipped to deal
with such m atters.” 1 We never have to blush with
modesty before professional liars like Custer or his
“colleagues.” We would not hesitate to go into ALL
of the matters with everyone that is equipped or
not equipped to deal with them, and we will not
hesitate to correct any of them with THE BOOK
where they err from THE BOOK.
For the sake of brevity, we shall often leave
statements that have been made by the “Scholar’s
Union ” unchallenged, if they are of no consequence
one way or another in determining a Greek text.
For example, we will not start an argument about
the exact methods of dating manuscripts, nor will
we “raise a stink” about writing materials or the
number of manuscripts available for use. We can
always “borrow brains,” as Bob Jones Sr. used to
say, but we cannot borrow truth, character, hones­
ty, or correct INTERPRETATION of FACTS. Those
things depend upon what the final and absolute
Authority says in regard to doctrine, prophesy, rev­
elation, and wisdom. We have the absolute and
final Authority in the form of a Book. Unlike Bob
Jones University, which only professes to judge all
things by the Book and to be judged by the Book
and DOESN’T do anything of the kind, our prac­
tice will match our profession. Believe me, we will
come to the point where the adversaries of the
Book will be ready to curse.
The word for “Bible” is a Greek word: pip^oq.
The first man to refer to the Bible as “THE BIBLE”
was Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407), who referred to
it as “THE BOOK” [o pip^oq-]. When Chrysostom
 said this, there were three things that he was N O T
referring to:
1. He was never speaking o f some lost pieces
o f paper called “original autographs. ” That
is a much later invention of an entirely dif­
ferent class of sinners.
2. He was never speaking o f a Book which
contained all o f the “verbally inspired origi­
nal autographs. ” That is some cock-and-
bull story that some Bible critic invented at
a later date.
3. He was not referring to Vaticanus or Si­
naiticus, or any manuscripts like them from
Alexandria. Chrysostom used a Byzantine
or Syrian-type text, according to ALL Bible
critics, all textual authorities, all manuscript
“detectives,” and all Greek scholars.
So at the start, let us have an understanding:
the terms “BIBLE” and “THE BIBLE,” in their
original context— where they refer to the New Tes­
tament, after sixty-six books are in the canon— is
never a reference to “verbally inspired original au­
tographs” from anywhere, let alone Alexandria,
Egypt.
Faced with the prospect of having to deal with
a BOOK, it would “behoove us” to examine the
matter of how ancient books were written and put
together.
Two millenia ago, people wrote on stone slabs,
clay tablets, wood, leather, and various metals.
When writing is found on pieces of pottery, it is
known as ostraca. The two most common m ateri­
als used for books were papyrus and parchment.
 Obviously, our word paper comes from papyrus.
Papyrus grew in abundance along the Nile River in
Egypt. It is a reed-like or “rush-like” plant. Parch­
ment simply means scrolls or rolls made of animal
skins. To be technical, the finest type of skins (such
as antelope) were called vellum, while goat and
other skins were called parchment. Papyrus scrolls
and parchment scrolls made up most of the con­
tents of ancient libraries. The scroll was like a
window shade, rolled together, except that it was
fastened to two “rollers.” Since first and second
century Christians had a motive for getting the
word of God out, worldwide, as soon as possible
(Acts 13:1-5), and were engaged in teaching the
Scriptures to lost (Acts 18:28) and saved alike,
they quickly got rid of their scrolls and rolls and
invented the codex, which is the modern book form.
(In the plural, these are called codices.) The codex
is a Christian invention, according to Peter Katz
{The Early Christian Use o f Codices Instead o f
Rolls, Journal of Theological Studies, XLIV, 1945,
pp. 63-65). We would expect this, for the modern
“paperback” (1880-1990), which now fills over 90
percent of the contents of all of the shelves in
bookstores and newsstands, came into use by the
Moody Colportage Association (1880-1910) for the
purpose of getting Biblical truth out as cheaply as
possible. Bible believers are always ahead of the
age when it comes to communicating truth; natu­
rally, since the first book printed on a printing
press was a translation of the Bible.2
Here, at the beginning, our first “dog” in the
manger shows up, along with the camel that got his
 head in the tent (or, in the modern vernacular, when
Reagan selected an am bassador to the Roman
Catholic Vatican State, 1985). The ambassador here
is Eusebius (270-340), the noted boot-licking poli­
tician3 whom Constantine requested (285-337) to
furnish Rome with fifty copies of “the Bible” to be
written “ON FINE PARCHMENT in a legible man­
ner and in a convenient portable form . . . BY PRO­
FESSIONAL SCRIBES . . . .” (Life o f Constantine,
iv., 36). Eusebius obliged with the aid of a man
named Pamphilus,4 and, in obliging, they went to
the library at Caesarea (where Eusebius was a
bishop) and hauled out the works of the greatest
“PROFESSIONAL SCRIBE” (called “Professional
Liar” in Chapter Seven) that ever fouled up the
pure words of God: Adamantius Origen (184-254),
who taught the Catholic doctrines of baptismal re­
generation and purgatory. Origen also used the term
“priest” in reference to a pastor, denied an eternal
hell for anyone, and taught salvation by works.
Although the Catholic church later called him a
“heretic,” they retained his teachings on the pastor,
purgatory, works for salvation, and the postmillen-
nial return of Christ.5 The early church fathers
(Barnabas, Papias, Tertullian, Lactantius, and Ire-
naeus) were all premillennial.6
Although Bruce M etzger is willing to assent
to the fact that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus might be
two of these infamous “fifty copies,” he is still
very nervous about it, obviously because of the
Catholic implications. Further, M etzger knew that
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were two of the most
fouled-up, clumsily copied pieces of transcription
 (see Chapter Eight) that ever fell out of the back
end of a dumpster. C onstantine’s “professional
scribes” were first class ding-a-lings, if Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus are samples of their work. So, to
relieve the pressure from the Pope, Metzger says
that there are “one or two indications” that EGYPT
is the source of Vaticanus. That only ties the rag on
the bush, for that is where ORIGEN presided as
the P re sid e n t o f the W o rld ’s M ost U nusual
Hell-hole: The University o f Alexandria.1
Egypt is a type of the world and the world
system, as any student of the Scripture knows (see
Gen. 49:29-31, 50:25; Exod. 13:19; Matt. 2:15).
Someone around A.D. 313 fell in love with a
w orldly “b ib le ” because o f the “professional
scribes” connected with it. It winds up in Rome
with Constantine, who referred to him self as the
Bishop of Bishops. This title was converted to
ARCHBISHOP when the Catholics took over Rome.
Having picked up some “facts” which Robert
Sumner, Doug Kutilek, Cornette, MacRae, New­
man, Kenneth Brown, Bruce, Robertson, Wuest,
Willmington, Gleason, and others chose to ignore
in discussing the King James Bible, we should take
stock:
1. Papyrus, a cheap paper used by common
Christians and common readers, versus the
expensive vellum used by the educated
“professional scribes.”
2. An unsaved, demoniac ruler at Rome, who
counted on w ater sp rin k lin g ON HIS
DEATH BED to give him eternal life (CON­
STANTINE), versus a born-again, soul-win­
 ning evangelist in Constantinople (CHRYS­
OSTOM).
3. The association of all Roman Catholic pro­
ductions in the future with EGYPT, versus
a type of Greek Bible that came from Anti­
och of Syria.
Now, let the reader ponder point ONE with
great care, for Bruce M etzger tells us that “the
cursive or running hand which could be written
rapidly was employed for NON-LITERARY, every­
day documents, such as letters, accounts, receipts,
petitions, deeds, and the like.” Do you know WHY
this is of such importance? For eighty years, the
Scholar’s Union has been bragging about the great
research work done by Adolph Deissmann, which
he published under the title of Light from the A n ­
cient East. The work came from journeys into the
Near East around 1908 and 1909. This 409 page
work, with eleven appendices, was “p ro o f’ that the
“Koine Greek” of the New Testament was the com­
mon, ordinary street language of the first century,
NOT THE LITERARY KOINE of any century.
When Deissm ann’s book came out, the Alexan­
drian apostates in Europe and America took up the
same old “gung ho,” “hurrah,” “ new find,” “new
light,” “ scientific breakthrough” that they always
take up when they think their team has scored
against ONE BOOK. As big a stink was made over
D eissm ann’s discoveries as the one made over the
“Dead Sea Scrolls.” W hat did Deissmann actually
prove to any Bible-believer? Well, nothing, really.
His discovery was used by revision committees to
prove that the AV was not the street language—
 although it is American twentieth-century street lan­
guage— so “living” bibles were needed in street
language. (No “modern language” bible by Ken­
neth Taylor or anyone else really uses the Am eri­
can street language. The scholars are too bookish;
they don’t know how people talk on the street.
Imagine “DUNG” [Phil. 3:8] translated into the
“American street language” ! Tsk! Tsk!)
But Deissmann really proved something much
better: he proved that the Alexandrian Catholic
vellum manuscripts from Egypt could not have been
genuine Bible manuscripts by any means, fo r they
contained all o f the marks o f LITERARY Koine,
and so many o f them, that when Nestle printed
their unholy Egyptian texts, he had to say:
“The Greek orthography which is in HTW
[the Greek texts of Westcott, Hort, Tis-
chendorf, and B. W eiss— all three are
Egyptian, Alexandrian texts] was substan­
tially that of the Greek WRITERS of the
fourth and fifth centuries, has now been
regulated . . . FOR THE TIME IN WHICH
THE NEW TESTAM ENT W RITINGS
ORIGINATED.”
Following that confession are examples of ac­
cent, accented syllables, breathings, iota sub-
scriptum, word separations, proper names, Semitic
code, etc.
Remarkable confession.
They took the Egyptian, Alexandrian, vellum
manuscripts of Constantine and Eusebius, written
in A.D. 330-350, and altered them so that they
would look like ordinary, KOINE, papyrus street
language, when they were in the LITERARY STYLE
o f A lexandrian university professors that the
Apostles did NOT USE.
You see, with Deissm ann’s discoveries, the
Sch o la r’s Union had to make a quick shuffle. They
did.
R em arkable confession of tam pering with
manuscripts.
The Professional Liars Club originated long
before Robert Sumner, John R. Rice, Kenneth
Brown, Kutilek, Carson, Lindsell, Harold Willming-
ton, Chuck Swindoll, John MacArthur, Bob Jones
III, Cornette, MacRae, Newman, and Zodhiates
stuck in their oars.”
Would these same “godly” scholars tamper with
the original manuscripts if they had them? That is,
would they if they thought that they could prove a
point by doing it? Undoubtedly, yes, they would
(Jer. 36:23).
Now, in the foregoing, the Bible-believer may
have noticed some more “gimmicks” appearing.
(By the end of this book, these tradesm en’s terms
will mount up to the sky.) They are designed to
impress those who are “outside the trade” with the
intelligence of the apostate; this is done so that
when the apostate (whose only motive is to get rid
of ONE BOOK) finally gives his opinion about the
AV, it will have to be honored, or at least “consid­
ered.” This is one of the oldest con-man tricks on
the face of this earth. Samples now run into the
millions. Most notably, one can find them in the
news media press releases, where every other day
a famous “scientist” is called upon to give his au­
 thoritative opinion about things he knows nothing
about at all— God and the Bible.
In the preceding, you may have noticed the
words cursive, Koine, orthography, iota sub-
scriptum, etc. (Apostates always talk in an unknown
tongue. It gives an aura of mystery and power to
the “area” in which they are going to meet you. It
is like a Catholic Mass in Latin, with the priest’s
back turned to you. It is impressive in a m ysteri­
ous, religious, African, magical way. Alexandria is
in Africa.)
Cursive simply means “lower case letters” writ­
ten like handwriting; that is, a, />, c, </, e ,J \ etc., in
a “running hand.”
Uncial, on the other hand, means block capital
letters written in print; such as A, B, C, D, E, F,
etc.
Koine means plain, ordinary, or common. (The
Latin vulgar is similar to it. “Colloquial” is some­
what like it.)
Orthography is simply “ortho” (as in ORTHO-
doxy) stuck onto “grapho” (as in tele-GRAPH). It
means the standard, acceptable way of putting a
word together in writing.
You see, the trick is to mystify the Bible-
believer. It is the equivalent of laying down a smoke
screen before an infantry attack. “G ideon’s 300"
(Judg. 7) perform it perfectly: with nothing more
than broken jugs and torches, they rout 135,000
troops who outnumber them 450 to 1. The trick
was to make the torch represent a BATTALION
standard bearer, the broken jugs to make it sound
like troops breaking cover, and the trumpets to
 sound like three hundred battalions coming, with a
bugler blowing “charge” for each one. This is the
way that the Alexandrian Cult has operated since it
opened its first “Christian” University at Alexan­
dria— as a pattern for Bob Jones University, Lib­
erty University, and all the others, including Har­
vard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Oxford, Cam ­
bridge, and Columbia. We are simply informing
our readers about three hundred apostate “Bibli­
cal” scholars from 1611 to 1990, who were terror­
ized by one Book (AV 1611) and used nothing to
frighten you but high sounding nonsense (2 Pet.
2:3, 18) and pious CRAP. (That is the “Koine,” and
it is the Biblical style of the first century— not the
literary style in which Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
were written.)
Further, one will find that the term minuscule
has been used by Nestle for a CURSIVE while the
word majuscule has been used for the UNCIAL
style. According to Hatch (Classical Philology,
XXX, 1935, pp. 247-254), the word “uncial” means
a “twelfth part,” the twelfth part being a reference
to the letters the scribes printed, which occupied
roughly one-twelfth of a line of writing. Scribes
hired to write were paid by the line, and in prose
works (that just means “not poetry”), a line with
sixteen syllables in it was called a stichos. The
tradesm en’s terms m ount.8
Since one of the main sources of the New
Testament Greek “eclectic” texts are the uncial
manuscripts, the Bible-believer should know that
in all of the four great corrupt uncials (Aleph, A,
B, and D), the block capital letters are written to­
 gether. In English, this would be as in GOD-
ls NO WHERE, or possibly ISAWABUNDANCEON-
THETABLE. (We have often commented on the su­
periority of the AV text to ANY of these Greek
manuscripts, and one of the reasons we gave—
which no Bible scholar cared to discuss for fifty
years— is the fact that the letters in an AV do NOT
run together.)
One of the essential qualifications that always
accompanies common sense is a sense of humor.
We readily see, then, that ISAWABUNDANCE-
ONTHETABLE could be “I saw a bun dance on
the table” or “I saw abundance on the table.” The
other example could have been “God is no where”
or “God is now here. “ “Rightly dividing the word
of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15) becomes an essential in
Biblical interpretation if one is dealing with an­
cient manuscripts. So! So, the expression given in
2 Timothy 2:15 has been removed from the TEV,
NEB, NWT, ASV, NASV, RV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NAB,
JB, TLB, and fifty other English “reliable transla­
tions.” There is no command to “rightly divide the
word of truth” in any English bible published since
1880. (The qualified “Biblical scholars” and rever­
ent “Biblicists” and their “recognized colleagues”
never could do it anyway, so what was the point in
leaving it in the Biblical text?)
Now, when one begins to pick up cursive and
uncial manuscripts, one finds a number of things
that must be “m ystified” as quickly as possible if
the Scholar’s Union is to retain its “image” and
keep its “stock up” before the body of Christ. The
first of these is simply a collection of notes placed
at the close of a book or chapter. Naturally, they
cannot stand as “notes,” so they are called COLO­
PHONS. Some colophons are in the form of a bless­
ing or prayer, and sometimes one finds “curse”
colophons.
We also have TITLOI. W hat are “titloi”? Well,
bless y o ’ lil’ cotton-pickin’ heart, TITLOI am
TITLES. (Amazing, isn’t it? If you stripped a col­
lege education of all of its hocus-pocus, you could
buy it for $500 a year. You pay $4,000 to $5,000 a
lu i^ciiu tin uiijviiowii Longue. Waii until you
get into “software” to really get the shaft!)
KEPHALIA are simply chapter divisions. Al­
though you are assured by all that chapter and
verse divisions were “very late,” they were not late
at all. The book of Acts, for example, which had
forty kephalia in it, was further divided into smaller
sections in at least twenty-four of the kephalia.
These subsections were called updiatieseis. W. P.
Hatch (Facsimiles and Descriptions o f Minuscule
M anuscripts o f the New Testament, Cambridge,
1951, p. 25) shows that paragraph divisions, as
well as chapter divisions, were found in the Pauline
Epistles and the General Epistles. As far back as
A.D. 580, the book of Revelation had been divided
into seventy-tw o sections after a division of
twenty-four kephalia. You simply don’t get the in­
formation when dealing with amateurs like Farstad,
Sumner, Wuest, Zodhiates, W illmington, Afman,
Price, MacRae, Newman, Panosian, Custer, and
Neal.
We then have the HYPOTHESIS, which is noth­
ing more than a prologue or brief introduction to a
 writing. We sometimes have (along with the hy­
pothesis) the famous BIOS (fanfare!), which just
means a longer statement about the work to follow,
with traditional information on it. But don’t stop
here! Don’t forget the GLOSSES, SCHOLIA, COM­
MENTARIES, CATENAE, and ONOMASTICAl No,
for H ort’s sake, don’t leave them out! How could
you win souls to Christ and teach the Bible without
those? Glosses are brief explanations of difficult
words or phrases. Scholia are notes made along­
side of a text, supposedly from a teacher, for the
purpose of instructing the reader. Ace examples are
the New Scofield Reference Bible and the NASV.
(The latter should be called The See the Footnote
Bible or The See the Margin Bible.) When all of
the scholia are assembled, they become a Com­
mentary. The catenae are groups or chains of com­
ments put together from older writers and other
commentators. Onomastica are notes which are sup­
posed to give the meaning and etymology of cer­
tain words in the text, particularly proper names.
Of course, there is the good old COLA (not
Coca) and good old COMMATA (when you’re in a
coma) and good old NEUMES. You build the su­
perstructure. You pile up the baloney until a moun­
tain of cold cuts 3,000 feet high looks like New
Jerusalem, and then you convince the sucker that
your opinion has to be “weighty,” since, after all,
“Can you understand what I understand?” (That’s
how it's done, kiddies; and I do mean kiddies.)
Custer says to “dump your AV for Nestle’s
Greek text,” while the man who pays him (Bob
Jones III) says that you should keep the A V text
without believing it,9 and then they say, “Don’t
mess with manuscript evidence. Leave it to the
experts” ! Well, kiddies (and I still mean kiddies),
when it comes to “experts,” beside those amateurs,
we are the last word— the very last word!
A Cola is nothing but some short lines. The
King James Bible has been written “colometrically”
ever since it came out. It consists of a double col­
umn of lines, with some of them running less than
five words. “Sense lines” in this system were ar­
ranged “colometrically,” which simply means that
the lines that constituted one thought or gave one
sense were set out in short lines, one over the other.
Commata were the original commas, indicat­
ing the end of a phrase. According to James A.
Kleist (Colometry and the New Testament, Classi­
cal Bulletin, iv, 1928, p. 26), there was no mark
like our present comma, but a group of words iso­
lated as a single group was a COMMA. Groups of
these would be COMMATA.
Neumes are nothing more than musical notes
which assisted the reader (a cantor or lector) in
chanting or singing certain passages of scripture.
The notes appear in the seventh century and show
up as dots, hooks, and “oblique strokes” written in
red or green ink.
The last little do-hickey that you pay tuition to
learn about is the Eusebian Canons. This was a
numbering system invented by Eusebius (A.D. 260-
340) to form a “Harmony of the Gospels” (i.e., get
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John together chrono­
logically). Each Gospel was divided into longer or
shorter sections (although you are to believe that
 chapter and paragraph divisions didn ’t originate
until the late Middle Ages!), and these sections
were numbered in order. Then, ten tables (or can­
ons) were made, the first containing the references
(by number) of the passages that were found in all
fo u r Gospels; the second listed passages only found
in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; the third listed those
passages found only in Matthew, Luke and John;
other sections included Matthew and Mark; Luke
and Matthew; Luke and John; John and Matthew;
Luke and Mark; etc. There is no section for Mark,
Luke, and John; or Mark and John.10
Eusebius’ setup encouraged later Alexandrian
apostates to segregate Matthew, Mark, and Luke as
“Synoptic Gospels” and isolate John, so that no
one would take him too seriously. The Gospel o f
John was written to get you saved (John 20:30-
31). You understand, of course, that all of this pi­
ous devilment was carried out with colophons, un­
cials, stichoi, neumes, commata, and orthography.
My, what reverence we should give these deluded
jacklegs who think that vocabulary is a sign of
spirituality! What a “debt” we owe these “Biblical
scholars” for trying to damn half the populace of
the world while talking about “intrinsic possibili­
ties," “formal correspondence,” “communicators
and receptors,” “dynamic equivalence,” “functional
equivalents,” and “communication loads.” Let us
give them the Jelly Bean Grammy and the No-Belly
Peace Prize.
Another item used in establishing a Greek text
is the LECTIONARY, which contains Scriptural les­
sons from the Bible, arranged in sections for the
 c o n g re g atio n to read to g e th e r each Sunday.
Lectionaries prescribing a Scripture portion that
was to be read each week were called SYNAXARIA.
Another type of lectionary was called MENO-
LOGION, which contained the readings for special
days such as Easter, Christmas, Shrove Tuesday,
Maundy Thursday, Bad Friday, Tennessee Satur­
day Night, Sundays-M ondays-or-Always, etc.
With this brief orientation, we take a breather
from the tradesm en’s con game and go directly to
the sources which all of the Greek scholars have
used (and use and will use) when putting together
a Greek New Testament:
1. THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS: These are
Greek manuscripts written in block capital letters.
A complete description of them and their contents
can be found in any standard work on manuscript
evidence (Scrivener, Hoskier, Miller, Bruce, et al.),
so we will not go into details. We give a list in
Appendix Two.
The “big wheel” among the uncials, according
to 90 percent of the Laodicean apostates, is the
Vatican manuscript of the Pope, which is in the
Vatican Library. It pops up out of nowhere in 1475,
in time to be used by a Spanish Roman Catholic
Cardinal (Ximenes: 1514-1522) to offset the Ger­
man Reformation, which used a Greek text from
Erasmus that rejected its readings. n
The Vatican manuscript, idolized by Westcott
and Hort as coming “from an island of purity,” 12 is
signified in scholarly works by the letter “B.” It
contains Old Testament APOCRYPHAL BOOKS
AS PART OF THE INSPIRED OLD TESTAMENT,
 and this is the manuscript that is quoted nine out of
ten times when an apostate Fundamentalist says
LXX or Septuagint. It was written more than 230
years after the completion of the New Testament
canon (A.D. 330). Its twin sister, Sinaiticus, is de­
nominated as “Aleph” (the first letter of the He­
brew alphabet). Sinaiticus contains OLD TESTA­
MENT AND NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA
AS PART OF THE INSPIRED CANON OF SCRIP­
TURE.
These are the two uncial manuscripts that omit
Mark 16:9-20. Dean Burgon’s classic work on this
omission was published in 1871 (James Parker and
Co., Oxford and London), ten years before the Re­
vised Version Committee sat down at the table and
twenty-eight years before Nestle printed his Ro­
man Catholic Greek text which put the passages in
double brackets— indicating that, according to the
dictates of Westcott and Hort, it was to be rejected
as part of the sacred text.14 The Scofield note lamely
tries to justify its inclusion on the grounds of two
church fathers, after notifying the reader that the
oldest manuscripts (we quote: “two most ancient
manuscripts” !) omit it.
But no one had to justify anything.
With the evidence given, only a STUPID
FOOL— and we say that fully realizing that the
men who doubt the ending on Mark 16 sometimes
hold fiv e earned degrees and have taught Greek
fo r forty years— only a STUPID FOOL (and we
say that knowing the names, pedigrees, titles, and
character of the members of the RV committee of
1881 and the ASV committee of 1901 [see Chap­
ters Seven and Eight)]— only a STUPID FOOL
would have doubted the passage. A sane Christian
man would have doubted the “two most ancient
manuscripts” immediate/}’ (Vaticanus and Sinaiti­
cus), for the evidence AGAINST them was:
a. Papias, A.D. 100, who refers to the pas­
sage.
b. Justin Martyr, A.D. 151, who refers to the
passage.
c. Irenaeus, A.D. 180, who cites the passage.
d. Hippolytus, A.D. 220, who quotes the pas­
sage.
e. The Council o f Carthage, A.D. 256-258,
which quotes from the passage.
f. A ugustine, E usebius, Jerom e, Jacobus,
Nisibenus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Vic­
tor o f Antioch, A.D. 370-425, who all show
familiarity with the passage.
g. The Old Latin, before Jerome (back in the
second century), which has the passage.
h. Jerom e’s Latin Vulgate, A.D. 405, which
has the passage.
i. The Old Syriac and the Peshitta, second to
fifth centuries, which contain the verses.
j. Ulfilas’ Gothic, A.D. 350, which has the
passage.
k. The passage is found in all four “fam ilies”
of m anuscripts invented by G riesbach
(1754-1812) and Semler (1725-1791). The
Alexandrian has it in “A” (Alexandrinus).
The Western has it in “D” (Cantabregensis).
The Caesarean has it in Theta. Thee M a­
jority Textus Receptus is replete with it:
 “W ” in the uncials, the collection of cur­
sives called “f 13”, and the following cur­
sives: 099, 1, 33, 565, 892, 1414, and 1424.
1. It is also found in the Sahidic.
Now, how is one to explain Nestle, Aland, and
Metzger (United Bible Societies) putting double
brackets around Mark 16:9-20 in 1987? Well, no
one with an IQ above 70 has to guess. Westcott
and Hort convinced the enemies of the ONE BOOK
that on the AGE of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
ALONE, the entire evidence o f the Christian
church, the church fathers, Greek manuscript evi­
dence, church history, and the Holy Spirit was to
be overthrown. They overthrew the evidence. But
any honest man with a grain of sense would have
looked at the evidence and then THROWN SI­
NAITICUS AND VATICANUS OUT THE W IN­
DOW AS IMMORAL, GOD FORSAKEN, NON-
BIBLICAL TRAVESTIES OF THE TRUTH, NOT
WORTH THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO READ
THEM. These incredible goof balls (with forty years
of formal education and a lifetime spent studying
Greek) not only gave the manuscripts a hearing,
they accepted them as genuine. After all, was not
one them named after the Vatican?
Do you know the outcome of this faux pas by
“the leading Conservative scholars” of the nine­
teenth century? Did they tell you at Liberty Uni­
versity or San Francisco Baptist Theological Semi­
nary? Well, they sure-as-shootin’ didn’t tell you at
Bob Jones University or Oxford or Cambridge.
When Nestle put out his Greek text from West­
cott and Hort (after the RV had been published), a
hundred voices of criticism were raised to the ef­
fect that the entire operation had been a fifth col­
umn Catholic infiltration of the Anglican church.'5
No criticism of that kind was ever leveled against
the AV of 1611. This criticism against the RV and
the A SV came from Bible-believing Protestants who
had followed the AV of 1611. They cried “Roman­
ism!” in one chorus. Did they lie? Were they de­
ceived? Was it just “prejudice” and emotional panic?
Well, Deuteronomy 18:20-22 in the A V tells you
how to handle these matters. Jeremiah knew ex­
actly what Deuteronomy 18:22 meant (Jer. 28:8-
9), even if your favorite translator doesn’t.
The proof that the entire operation was Roman
Catholic from the start was the end result of Nestle’s
text (and the text of the United Bible Societies).
Let N estle’s Introduction speak for itself:
“By his enthusiasm, understanding, and
skill, E. A. Nida succeeded not only in
gaining the support of the Bible Societies
(at first the American Bible Society, the
Wurttemburg Bible Society, and the Na­
tional Bible Society of Scotland, then later
. . . the British and Foreign Bible Society)
but in achieving the continued coopera­
tion of the editorial committee (K. Aland/
M unster, M. Black/St. A ndrews, B.M.
Metzger/Princeton, A. W ikgren/Chicago)
at an early stage.” 16
For what? For the present UNITED BIBLE SO ­
C IETIES’ PU BLICA TIO N by “A land, B lack,
Metzger, and W ikgren” (UBS, 1966).
1966: Eighty-one years after the RV came out.
 1966: With all of the modern English transla­
tions based on the same text (Hort is still solid in
Nestle and Aland/Wikgren, making the same at­
tacks on the Deity of Christ that were made in
1885. See Chapter Eight.).
1966: United Bible Societies, sending out trans­
lations to the mission field on the theory that the
Vatican manuscript, omitting Mark 16:9-20 and
CONTAINING THE APOCRYPHA AS PART OF
THE INSPIRED OLD TESTAMENT CANON, is the
“Holy Bible.”
Do you know what the United Bible Societies
does? The British and Foreign Bible Society, as
part of the United Bible Socities, puts out the “Good
N ew s” bible with the imprimatur of Cardinal Basil
Hume, the Catholic Archbishop o f Westminster. The
British and Foreign Missionary Society now dis­
tributes bibles that are “Catholic editions with study
helps” (i.e., Roman Catholic private interpretation
of Scriptures that contain the Apocrypha).17 Here,
on the European Regional Executive Committee of
the UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES, is good old “Fa­
ther” Ablondi, the Right “REVEREND” Alberto
Ablondi— the Roman Catholic Bishop o f Livorno,
Italy!
The critics of the RV in 1885 were “bigoted,”
were they? The critics of the ASV in 1901 were
“misled, “ were they? The critics of the NASV in
1959 were simply “carrying criticism too far,” were
they? Where are your prophets now (Jer. 37:19)
that brayed like jackasses in the day of their bray­
ing?
Am ong the U nited Bible S o cieties’ Vice-
Presidents, we find the Roman Catholic Archbishop
ofO nitsha, Nigeria, who was recently made a Car­
dinal in the Vatican. An “honorary President” of
the Societies is the former Archbishop o f Canter­
bury, and the joint-editor of the UBS Greek Testa­
ment, used at every Fundamental school in America
today, is a Roman Catholic Cardinal from Milan,
Bishop Carlo M artini. 18
All roads lead to Rome (see Ruckman, The
History o f the New Testament Church, Vol. II, pp.
150-167).
The critics of the RV, ASV, RSV, NASV, and NIV
were dead right, and the supporters of those Ro­
man Catholic abortions were dead wrong. The proof
is in the pudding (Deut. 18:22; Matt. 13:33). The
Conservatives who thought the critics of the A SV
and the N ASV were getting an “overkill” by associ­
ating them with the RSV and the NEB turned out to
be:_____________ (you fill in the blank; take a
chance; $10,000 in prizes).
N estle’s Greek New Testament was solidly Ro­
man Catholic from his first justification of M ary’s
perpetual virginity (Matt. 1:25) to getting rid of
C hrist’s charge against the Pharisees for trying to
pray dead men out of purgatory (Matt. 23:14). We
stated in 1970 that the ASV and the NASV, recom ­
mended by Bob Jones University (and all transla­
tions like them: RV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, etc.), were
Roman Catholic bibles. When Eugene Glassman
wrote The Translation Debate (InterVarsity Press,
1981) and praised Mr. Nida (see above) to high
heaven, he simply avoided EVERY VERSE IN THE
N EW TESTAMENT THAT DEALT W ITH THE
 REAL DEBATE. The following checklist gives the
essential verses. In any modern work on The D e­
bate About the King James Version, The Truth About
the King James Version, The Debate Over the Bible,
The Debate Over Inerrancy, The Battle fo r the Bible,
or The Battle Over Inspiration, any fifty authors
will simply sidestep the issues. The debatable is­
sues are found in the following verses:
1. Matthew 1:25 17. Romans 1:18
2. Matthew 5:22 18. Romans 1:25
3. Matthew 6:13 19. Romans 8:1
4. Matthew 12:6 20. Romans 9:5
5. Matthew 12:42 21. 1 Corinthians 5:7
6. Mark 9:46 22. 2 Corinthians 2:17
7. Luke 2:33 23. Galatians 3:1
8. Luke 23:42 24. Ephesians 1:6
9. Luke 24:51-52 25. Colossians 1:14
10. John 1:18 26. 1 Timothy 3:16
11. John 3:13 27. 1 Timothy 6:5
12. John 8:9 28. 1 Timothy 6:10
13. John 9:35 29. 1 Timothy 6:20
14. Acts 1:3 30. 2 Timothy 2:15
15. Acts 4:27 31. 2 Timothy 3:3
16. Acts 20:28 32. Revelation 22:14
Now, that is the Biblical checklist by which
any child with a grade school education can judge
the “Biblical Scholarship” of ANY degree in any
century.
Notice that when Carson was trying to get rid
of the ONE BOOK (that is the motive behind the
writing of every apostate Fundamentalist in this
century who wrote anything), he dealt with John
1:18; Acts 20:28; and John 1:1, but he avoided the
 other thirty verses like they were a nest fu ll o f
hornets. His real point was that all apostate bibles
upheld the Deity of Christ. He meant to say, “All
apostate bibles have to have some verses in them
that back up the Deity of Christ; otherwise, they
could not pass off as Bibles. ” (You have to inter­
pret for scholarly wimps who speak in “other
tongues.”)
The other uncial manuscripts are denominated
“C”, “D”, “E”, “F”, “G”, etc. Listings can be found
in the back of works by Nestle or Aland-Metzger.
Details on the number of lines per page, the num­
bers of words per line, and the sizes and contents
of pages can also be found there. Nothing is too
significant about them except that the grossly cor­
rupt “B” manuscript (Vaticanus) stops suddenly at
Hebrews 9:14, as though the writer could almost
smell the anti-Roman Catholic passage coming on
deck (Heb. 10, which, of course, holds the most
anti-Vatican Scriptures found in the entire Bible, in
vss. 8-14). The scribe’s purpose in cutting He­
brews in two was almost as transparent as when he
cut off Mark 16:9-20; for according to Mark 16:9—
20, no ruler in Rome (religious or political) was
“APOSTOLIC,” for he did not have the “SIGNS”
(see the explanation in detail in Ruckman, The H is­
tory o f the New Testament Church, Vol. 1, pp. 9 7 -
98).
After the uncials we find the next category of
manuscripts.
II. THE CURSIVES: these number into the
hundreds (see Appendix Three).
In order that you might not be able to check
 the actual evidence by number which these m anu­
scripts attest to the Receptus of the AV, Nestle has
arranged them mainly into two sets called “f 1” and
“f 13.” The first set contains cursive manuscript num­
bers 1, 118, 131, 209, and 1582. The second set
contains numbers 13, 69, 124, 230, 346, 788, 826,
828, 983, 1689, and 1709. There is one cursive
which Nestle, Hort, and others like to call “The
Queen of the Cursives.” She closely resembles the
Queen of Revelation 18:7, who is the Whore of
Revelation 17:1-6. That is, Cursive 33 tends to
read WITH the Vatican manuscript; hence, she must
be a “queen,” slightly superior to the cursives that
agree with the Receptus. Nice folks.
We prefer the Purple Gang or the Cuckoos
from St. Louis (organized criminals around 1929—
1930).
III. PAPYRI (plural form of papyrus): these
are bits and pieces of manuscripts written on cheap
paper. They are numbered 1 through 88, coming
from several collections.
The first papyri found were not Biblical manu­
scripts at all; they were writings on Epicurean p h i­
losophy and were discovered in 1752 near Naples,
ITALY. More were found in Egypt in 1778, and in
1890, Professor Petrie (followed by Professors
Grenfell and Hunt of Oxford, 1896) found collec­
tions. In Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, they found croco­
dile mummies stuffed with papyri (1900). The pa­
pyri came in three sizes:
1. Literary— Homer, Plato, Herodotus, Lysias,
and other deluded pagans (see Ruckman, The
C hristian’s Handbook o f Science and Philosophy,
1985).
2. Non-Literary—wills, taxes, census lists, bills
of sale, deeds, etc.
3. Theological— both Biblical and non-Biblical
writings.
They found thirty fragments of a Greek Old
Testament LXX, W RITTEN MORE THAN 200
YEARS AFTER THE COM PLETION OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT in the collection called the
“Nash Collection” of papyrus. Between 1925 and
1934, they found P \ which contained a few small
parts of Matthew 1, P2, which contained fragments
of John 1 and John 20, and P 13, which had parts of
Hebrews 2, 10, and 11 in it. Part of the non-Biblical
junk they found in 1897 was the “Sayings of Jesus.”
Chester Beatty purchased some papyri in 1930,
which were found in pottery on the east bank of
the Nile near Cairo. These were published between
1933 and 1937 and are now in Dublin, Ireland.
Among them are P 45, which contains the Gospels
and Acts (c. A.D. 225), P 46, which contains the
Pauline Epistles (c. A.D. 225), and P 47, which con­
tains the Book of Revelation (which the Vatican
manuscript omits altogether for obvious reasons:
Rev. 17-18!). When all of the cursives, uncials,
and papyri were assembled, it was discovered to
the horror of the perennial liars who had lied about
“Erasm us’ ending on Revelation 22,” that Erasmus
had not lied— he had “guessed” using the Old Latin
and had guessed correctly. 19
Well, the Bodmer papyri finally showed up
(1956-62) with P66 and P75, and they are now in
 Geneva. Fifty of them were purchased by E. N.
Adler of London in 1954. Aland thinks both the
Bodmer and the Beatty papyri came “FROM AN
IM PO R TA N T C H R IS T IA N E D U C A TIO N A L
CENTER.” We’ll buy that, and we won’t even have
to guess where it was or who was the president or
what their stand was on the Scriptures. Two hun­
dred and sixty-nine o f the corrections found in P66
follow O rigen’s Alexandrian method (see the list in
Appendix Five).
So, we have the uncials, cursives, lectionaries,
and papyri with which to work.
Let us not over-encourage our reader, how­
ever. The papyri were all found in EGYPT: Egypt
is a type o f this world. NOT ONE SINGLE AUTO­
GRAPH OF ONE WRITER IN THE NEW TES­
TAMENT CAME FROM EGYPT, ACCORDING
TO ALL CONSERVATIVE, CATHOLIC, L IB ­
ERAL, FUNDAM ENTAL, NEO-ORTHO DOX ,
AND EV A N G ELIC A L “S C H O L A R S .” Peter,
James, John, and Paul did NOT write from Egypt.
Neither did Matthew, Mark, Luke, or Jude. We are
evidently following dead leads into dead ends, and
all that we are doing is erecting a monstrous super­
structure of impressive TERMS for future use.
Nothing yet has showed up that would cause us to
doubt ONE word in any edition of a King James
Bible, and much has already showed up that would
make us cling to every word in the edition we
have. No “brilliant scholar” has overthrown our
final authority yet or even come near it.20
IV. AN CIENT OR EARLY TRANSLATIONS:
Again, lists of them can be found in any standard
 work. All bear the same marks.
The general consensus of opinion (until the
pro-Catholic, pro-Jesuits met in 1881 to get rid of
ONE BOOK) was that the Old Latin versions and
the Old Syriac versions originated less than fifty
years after John wrote Revelation. Then with Hort
(1881), and following him, comes the theory that
the Old Latin never existed in the second century
and that the Peshitta originated in the fourth or
fifth century. The last lie was the critical theory of
an unsaved Liberal named Burkitt, and you will
fin d that Bob Jones University backs him up to the
hilt in C uster’s pamphlet on The Truth About the
King James Version Controversy (p. 21).
The Old Latin certainly was written long be­
fore Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for the church fa­
thers in the second and third centuries QUOTE it.
The Old Syriac was certainly in a Peshitta long
before A.D. 400, for the Syrian church split into
two factions around 431, and both factions adopted
the same Bible. Imagine THAT taking place when
the German Protestants split with the German
Catholics in 1520! Imagine Jack Hyles, J. Frank
Norris, and Bob Gray assenting that the one true
Scriptures were those adopted by the NCCC and
the Roman Catholic Church! W ouldn’t that be a
genuine “gasser”?
The Old Latin translations came from Antioch
of Syria (Acts 11:26) and went out into Europe and
North Africa in the hands of Christian m issionar­
ies. Two recensions can be determined (a recension
is nothing more than a revision): one African and
one European. There are no early copies of the Old
Latin translations that contain the Apocrypha as
part of the Old Testament. This does not occur in
Latin until Jerome puts his Latin Vulgate together
(400-420). A church father has quoted Tobit before
Jerome, but then again, Paul quoted UNSAVED
POETS (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12) when writing un­
der “inspiration.” Many times, the Old Latin agrees
with the Textus Receptus in its Old Testament ren­
derings, and since the Old Latin preceded Origen,
we may gather that Origen was REVISING the
Hebrew Old Testament in his HEXAPLA by invent­
ing a text that opposed the Old Latin. There are
thousands of Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts in
private homes and libraries, with 800 in the librar­
ies of Paris alone. A number of editions of the
Vulgate appear from time to time. They are all
listed in N estle’s Introduction (pp. 55-56) and most
other critical works. For us, the important things to
note are:
A. The Old Latin often agrees with the AV
against Jerome (Rome) and against Origen
(Alexandria).
B. The Old Latin can have readings in it that
the Greek manuscripts slighted (1 John 5:7-
8; Acts 8:37, 9:5-6).
C. Jerom e’s Catholic Vulgate often revises the
Old Latin, for the Old Latin was retained
by the enemies of the Catholic church: for
instance, the Waldensians used it. The texts
showed up in the Receptus translations by
Olivetan and Diodati (see Chapter Five),
and it was the Bible ST. PATRICK HAD IN
IRELAND:21
 D. The Old Syriac (Tatian’s Diatesseron, for
example, from 170-180 or earlier) agrees
with the Receptus of King James and M ar­
tin Luther, again and again, AGAINST Si­
naiticus and Vaticanus. We presume that
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, being very, very
late manuscripts (not early: Tatian’s Dia­
tesseron was being circulated 150 years be­
fore Constantine requested any “fine parch­
ment” Alexandrian books), were recensions
of an ancient Biblical text that was hon­
ored by God.
Jerom e’s complaints about the Latin transla­
tions of his day are suspiciously similar to what
was put out by the RV committee, the A SV commit­
tee, the NASV committee, and the NKJV commit­
tee before they aborted the Scriptures again. We
cannot help but feel certain that Jerome, as they,
would have supported ERA where abortion was
concerned.
Other ancient translations were the Gothic by
U lfilas (311-383) and the African translations
(.Akhmimic, Bohairic, Sahidic, etc.). Lists of these
can again be found in the standard works. (A list of
ancient translations and their dates will be found in
Chapter Four.)
V. Then we also have the citations of the
church fathers to help us “reconstruct the origi­
nal.” These men quoted some Book that was around
(“extant”), and they quoted it 36,289 times. Origen
alone quotes the Bible 17,922 times, and he died
before A.D. 256. His quotations abound in King
James readings. As a matter of fact, the computer-
ized, mathematical statistics and their “extrapola­
tion” (they really charge for tuition, don’t they,
buddy?) found in Pickering’s work (The Identity o f
the New Testament Text) show that the King James
Receptus readings (called the “Majority Text” or
the “Syrian text”) have, by far, the edge on Alexan­
drian readings BEFORE A.D. 300.22 The papyrus
bears witness to the Receptus readings over and
over again.23
The way that apostate Fundamentalists handle
this is to say that if a reading is also found in
Alexandrian manuscripts later, the early one had to
be Alexandrian, not Syrian. To pull off this “shell
trick,” the apostates resorted to the “family text-type
theory,” which laid down the insane dictum (and
insanity is the right word for it) that unless the
cited manuscripts bore the DISTINCTIVE TEXT-
TYPE of that family, the individual verses could
not have come from some other family, even though
they were found in THAT “FAMILY.” This is how
the apostate devils who lauded “the scientific meth­
ods of textual criticism” made all of the King James
readings LATE and all of the A SV and NASV read­
ings “EARLY.” Nice folks. I ’ve seen better in
flat-joints on the Midway. A list of the church fa­
thers and their dates is found in Appendix Three.
The sermons of early preachers are given as
possible sources, but we would simply include these
under “Church Fathers,” who sometimes are preach­
ing, sometimes writing apologetical polemical tracts
(more “jazz,” m an! Apologetic means they defended
some Biblical truth, while polemic means they at­
tacked some heretic or heresy), and sometimes are
writing letters.
VI. THE LECTION ARIES (see above): these
will be valuable, for they will retain Biblical texts
and verses for the age in which they were read.
The master of lectionaries was Dean Burgon.24
VII. The last (and least important) source for
a New Testament text would be the scholarly opin­
ions of people like Harold Willmington, Kenneth
Wuest, Dr. A. T. Robertson, Neal, Kirsopp Lake,
Streeter, Ropes, Caspar Gregory, Custer, Panosian,
Benjam in W arfield, T hiessen, Swete, C olw ell,
Voobus, Ramsay, Ellicott, M erk, Hort, Schaff,
Vogel, Lightfoot, Thayer, Trench, Nestle, Vincent,
Zahn, Ewald, Bousset, Zuntz, Grenfell, et al., which
are called “SCHOLARLY CONJECTURES.” (See
how it’s done? “Conjectures” is a “bear cat,” ain’t
it? It means a guess; it is the same word as “theory”
or “theoretical.”)
And here we reach the bottom line; on televi­
sion, this “wraps it up,” and the “anchor m en”
sink. There is nothing in the entire history of these
“sources for New Testaments” that could properly
overthrow ONE WORD of the AV Holy Bible.
Original manuscripts were written, and no doubt,
they were “given by inspiration” (2 Tim. 3:16)—
not “inspired”— even though no verse in either Tes­
tament says anything o f the kind. Paul did not pro­
fess to be “inspired” when he dictated Romans (see
Chapter Ten), so it was NOT inspired! Affirma­
tive? No, that can’t be right, but the Laodiceans
who hate THE BOOK say, “The AV translators did
not profess to be inspired or infallible, therefore
. . . .” See how the snow drifts? (Can’t bank on it,
 can you? But it sure is FLAKEY.) Mark didn’t say
one word about being “inspired” when he wrote
his Gospel, and he never opened his mouth about
being “infallible” or “inerrant. “ Neither did M at­
thew, but we grant that the “originals” were given
by inspiration: we accept that on faith.
But having granted that, the scholars now
present to us a gigantic problem of immense pro­
portions, which they will undertake to solve with­
out the Holy Spirit: how could God possibly pre­
serve what He inspired WITHOUT THEIR SCI­
ENTIFIC METHODS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM?
He, according to the vast majority of qualified
droids (see above), could not preserve through the
centuries the words He wanted you to have in 1980—
1990, whoever “you” are.
This brings us to the subject of our next chap­
ter: “ Versions and Perversions, Revisions and Vi­
sions.” It brings us more specifically to the line
that leads to the Book of Books, the Monarch of
the Books, the AV o f 1611.
I have on my table a typical Alexandrian cult
production called The English Bible from KJV to
N IV by Jack Lewis (Baker Book House, 1981). His
profound and scholarly conclusion, after 366 pages,
will be found printed in Appendix One on less than
a page. All Alexandrians have the same mentality.
They all live in “W onderland” with Alice and the
White Rabbit. None have any final authority any
higher than their own opinions and preferences:
they are subject to no BIBLE on the face of this
earth. They are not Bible-believers; they never have
been, and they never will be (see Chapter Ten for
 proof). They are in love with their own imagina­
tions (humanism), they are drugged on their own
intellectual abilities (humanism), and they are ab­
solutely convinced that the human mind (human­
ism) can judge the Holy Bible (Heb. 4:12-13) with
natural (humanism), rationalistic methods, called
“scientific” in order to sell the sucker the bill of
goods. In this age, 90 percent of them are born-
again members of the body of Christ, serving as
teachers and professors on the faculties of “Chris­
tian” schools.
They are just as apostate as Demas, Jehudi,
Manasseh, Caiaphas, or Ahaz, when dealing with
the Biblical issue o f fin a l authority. They all imag­
ine that they are “Mister Big.”
Final authority has been, is, and will be the
issue in the United Nations, both Houses of Parlia­
ment, all Bible revision committees, all faculty
meetings, both Houses of Congress, the Vatican,
churches, schools, the Army, as well as the science
laboratories, the football stadiums, the hockey rinks,
the tennis courts, the golf courses, the HOMES,
and the body o f Christ.
 CH APTER FOUR

Versions and Perversions,

Revisions and Visions
. . ye have perverted the words of the
living G o d ----- ” (Jeremiah 23:36)
“For we are not as many, which corrupt
the word of God . . .
(2 Corinthians 2:17)

The verse from Second Corinthians, quoted

above, has been permanently lost, by accident or
by intent, in the last forty years. It appears in all
English Bibles except the Geneva Bible until 1946,
and it then vanishes from the face of the earth.
Even the Jesuit Rheims Version of the Roman
Catholic Church clung to the sense of the “origi­
nal” when it accused corrupters in 1582 of “adul­
terating” the word of God. The old English ver­
sions (Tyndale, the Great Bible, and the B ishops’
Bible) were even more specific: they said that many
Biblical scholars were not only changing the word
o f God but C H O PPIN G it up— “choppe and
chaunge.” Someone was at work corrupting the
Scriptures before the New Testament was complete.
Who would this be? How did “many” escape the
notice of all the faculty at Alexandria, the church
fathers, and Eusebius, the church historian? The
only corrupters that Jerome and Eusebius find fault
with are among the numerous Old Latin transla­
tions that pop up AFTER the New Testament is
complete. (Amazing oversight on the part of every
Biblical scholar from Augustine to Wikgren and
Metzger!) Who was messing with the Book BE­
FORE John wrote his Gospel and before Paul wrote
Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pasto­
ral Epistles? Any help from F. W. Farrar (The Bible:
Its Meaning and Supremacy, 1913)? No. Any light
from The Interpreter’s Bible (Abingdon Cokesbury,
1952-1957)? No. Any light from Loraine Boettner
( The Inspiration o f the Scriptures, Eerdm ans,
1940)? No light. William Lee (The Inspiration o f
Holy Scriptures, Hodges and Smith, 1888)? No.
Well, how about Benjamin Warfield (Revelation
and Inspiration, Oxford Press, 1927)? Not a word.
Not a peep. No peep from F. F. Bruce (The English
Bible, 1970). Not a squeak from Frederick Grant
(Translating the Bible, 1961). Nothing from H.
W heeler Robinson (The Bible in Its Ancient and
English Versions, Oxford, 1954). Amazing, isn’t it,
how vocal the Scholar’s Union is when some “silly
vassal” like Dr. Broughton “requireth the King
James Version to be burned” and how quiet they
get when asked to exegete ONE verse in the New
Testament that is found in every Greek manuscript
o f 2 Corinthians 2:17 extant. Will Alexander Souter
help us out (The Text and Canon o f the New Testa­
ment, London, 1947)? I think not. C an’t Gwatkins
or Lietzsmann help us? After all, they wrote about
The Beginning o f the Christian Church and Early
Church History. “Sorry: not in today. We’ll call
you. (This is a recording!)”
Well, three-fourths of the word of God (Gen­
 esis to Malachi) was written before Paul wrote any­
thing. It could have been worked on by “corrupt­
ers” for 400 years before Paul’s conversion. Who
would do a thing like this? The infidels and athe­
ists in ancient Athens and Rome (and most of them
were polytheists) didn’t bother to mess with He­
brew Old Testaments. What would be the point in
doing that?
I know of some people in a certain location
that would be very interested in messing with He­
brew Old Testament manuscripts (and Bibles) and
where many “Christian” scholars would be inter­
ested in corrupting New Testament Scriptures as
soon as they showed up. Who would be more inter­
ested in messing up an Old Testament than an apos­
tate Jew (like Aquilla or Symmachus, for instance,
who wrote in Origen’s Hexapla)? Who would be
more interested in messing up an Old Testament
than an apostate Jew like Philo (20 B.C.-A .D . 50)
and his Alexandrian buddies, who were told not to
name the name of Jehovah in Egypt (Jer. 44:26)?
“What is sweeter than honey? and what is
stronger than a lion?” (Judg. 14:18). As anyone
knows, the Jewish scribes were the most meticu­
lous copiers and transcribers in the w orld,1 and
still some of their pens were “IN VAIN” according
to any modern version of Jeremiah 8:8. Who, that
studied Biblical scholarship, would fail to read the
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 1,
pp. 182-183) and note that the word Apocrypha
itself was a Jewish designation that originated
among apostate Jews (Hellenists) in Egypt, and
their productions (preserved in Vaticanus and Si-
naiticus— 200 years after the completion o f the New
Testament canon) originated somewhere between
200 B.C. and A.D. 100? That is, before and during
the writing of the New Testament canon. The old­
est of these spurious books was written between
190-170 B.C., and it was not in Greek— it was in
Hebrew (ibid., p. 183). The Greek form of this
book doesn’t show up until nearly fifty years later.
Note that by inserting B.C. false writings into
the A.D. “Septuagint, ” it would give the appear­
ance of the existence of a Septuagint BEFORE the
time of Christ. This desired effect was obtained by
O rigen and com pany w hen they put out the
Hexapla, and it was reinforced when Eusebius and
Pamphilus sent Constantine his fifty “fine parch­
m ent” bibles by professional liars (excuse me:
“scribes!”).
To this day, no scholar on earth ever found one
verse quoted in the New Testament that came from
a B.C. manuscript written in Greek. C uster’s “evi­
dence”2 in his work (The Truth About the King
James Version Controversy, p. 19) is as conclusive
as a street map of Atlantis.
The first two “ancient versions” we must speak
of are the A.D. Septuagint (wrongly attributed to a
period 200 to 400 years earlier than it was written)
and O rigen’s great critical six-columned “H ex­
apla. ” (Tradesmen again. Yoo-hoo. Hexapla means
“six colum ns.” Make it as hard to understand as
possible: you can charge more.) Septuagint means
The Seventy—which is an apocryphal reference to
nothing on the face of this earth. No “seventy” did
anything, not even in the fairy tale legend about
 the Septuagint found in the “The Letter to Aristeas.”
According to him, there were seventy-two transla­
tors from twelve tribes, thus violating the Old Tes­
tament instructions for translating: THE TRIBE OF
LEVI WAS THE CUSTODIAN OF THE SCRIP­
TURES (Mai. 2:4-7; Ezra 7:12; Deut. 31:25, 33:10;
1 Chron. 16:4).
Sixty-six of the Septuagint’s “seventy” (or
seventy-two) translators were out of the will of
God and were living like the Devil if Aristeas had
told the truth; which he d id n ’t The author of
“Aristeas” was a professional liar; th a t’s how they
make a living. (See Chapter Seven.)
Now, the roots of a B.C. Septuagint were so
firmly entrenched in the days of Origen (A.D. 180)
and Augustine (A.D. 410; Augustine, by the way,
thought it was inspired), that from those days to
these, champions of the Receptus have been taken
in by it, right along with unsaved Liberals and
unsaved Roman Catholics. The AV translators them­
selves mention a B.C. Septuagint. It is true they
couldn’t produce ONE manuscript in Greek writ­
ten before A.D. 150 that any New Testament Apos­
tle quoted, but then neither could Kenyon, Bruce,
Aland, Metzger, Swete, Thayer, Burkitt, Rendall,
Burgon, Hills, Moffat, Fell, Mill, Walton, Good-
speed, Scrivener, Zuntz, Alford, Ropes, Streeter,
Schaff, Green, Barnes, Kennedy, Harnack, or any
other 500,000,000 sinners, give or take a few m il­
lion.
Not one scrap o f evidence showed up in three
hundred years o f manuscript research.
In “The L etter to A risteas” (U niversity of
Manchester, No. 241, Manchester, 1935, for ex­
ample), we read that seventy-two Jews translated
the Old Testament in seventy-two days for Ptolemy
II Philadelphus (284-246 B.C.). The king banqueted
with these mythological dumbbells for seven days
and asked them questions about politics, military
affairs, and king’s reigns, with the accent on ATHE­
NIAN GREEK PHILOSOPHY.4 He gave them per­
mission three days later to translate the Old Testa­
ment into Greek, being assured of their Biblical
scholarship, since he had not asked them one ques­
tion about the Hebrew alphabet, one question about
the writing o f the Pentateuch (or how it was pre­
served), one question about the differences in the
Greek and Hebrew idioms, one question about the
differences in TENSES in the two languages, one
question about the different writing styles o f the
Hebrew characters, one question about the A ra­
maic portions o f the Old Testament (Dan. 2-7, for
example), one question about who taught them He­
brew well enough to qualify as scribes, or one
question about five hundred verses in the Old Tes­
tament that speak of the Messiah who will come to
rule EGYPT.
Bats in the belfry. “The Letter to Aristeas”
couldn’t fool a sophomore learning how to type. It
only fooled the Scholar’s Union. “You can’t con a
man unless he is crooked.” (Think about that one
for a while. I got that from a professional gambler
and rip-off artist in 1955 who conned people out of
money for thirty years before his conversion. Ezek­
iel 14:1-14 shows how it operates.)
I cite from my own copy of the Septuagint,
 published by Zondervan (Grand Rapids, 1970),
which I have had for fifteen years:
“The earliest version of the Old Testament
Scriptures, which is extant [that means
AVAILABLE, where you can SEE IT] or of
which we possess any certain knowledge
[that means “CERTAIN,” not “UNCER­
TAIN,” unless you are bugs], is the trans­
lation executed at Alexandria in the third
century before the Christian era.”
Now, where is the copy, since it is extant? He
said it was extant. He said he HAD a Greek Old
Testament translated in 246 B.C.
April fool! “Last night I saw upon the stairs a
little man who wasn t there; he w asn’t there again
today. Oh, gee, I wish he'd go away!” He lied.
Why did he lie? That’s how the Scholar’s Union
has made a living fo r 1,900 years. There is not one
copy of an EXTANT Old Testament in Greek writ­
ten in 300 B.C., 250 B.C., 200 B.C., 150 B.C., 100
B.C., 50 B.C., A.D. 10, A.D. 20, A.D. 30, or A.D.
40. When in trouble, lie your way out. (See Chap­
ter Seven.)
“The history of this translation [which is EX­
TANT] was embellished with various fables [fables]
at so early a period, that it has been a work of
patient, critical research in later times to bring into
plain light the facts (THE FACTS], which may be
regarded as well authenticated [WELL-AUTHEN-
TICATED?].”
There is your key word: “the facts.” That is
what these boys delight in talking about: “the facts.”
Well, if these FACTS are “well-authenticated,” we
 have no problem. L et’s see if they are authenti­
cated at all, even if poorly:
“We need not wonder that but little is
known with accuracy on this su b je ct. . . .”
WHAT? A group o f well-authenticated “fa c ts ”
about which “little is known with accu ra cy”?
Would you like to get a loan from a bank with that
kind of tommyrot? Why don’t you try it? You can
only get away with that miserable hypocrisy in
religious circles.
“We possess no information whatsoever
as to the time or place of their execution,
or by whom they were made . . . thus we
gather the fact [FACT? Way out, man!
Nose candy! Like “strung out on smack,”
man!] that they must have been previously
executed.”
You are supposed to be taking this seriously.
This “extant” Septuagint is a work so revered and
“God-blessed” that the “Apostles used it,” even
though it contained Bel and the Dragon, Tobit,
Judith, and Jesus, the Son o f Sirach.
“The earliest writer who gives an account
of the Septuagint version is Aristobulus, a
Jew, who lived at the commencement of
the second century B.C. He says that the
version of the Law into Greek was com­
pleted . . . .”
Oh, I see. Then it w asn’t the OLD TESTA­
MENT SCRIPTURES, even though they are “ex­
tant” ! It was just the Law of Moses— I see! Aristeas
lied and Ptolemy lied. The author of the “Letter”
lied, and Zondervan published the lie when they
put out The Introduction to the Septuagint. Shall
we try again?
“Hence it has been reasonably inferred that
Aristobulus is a witness that the work of
translation began under Ptolemy Soter [not
Ptolemy Philadelphus— see above]. The
fact may, however, be regarded as certain
[like Rambo took on Jaws\] that prior to
the year 285 B.C., the Septuagint version
had been commenced, and that in the reign
of Ptolemy Philadelphus, either the books
in general or at least an important part of
them had been completed.”
Extant evidence? We printed the list in 1970.5
No Apostle quoted one manuscript any scholar
found in 2000 years.
“The basis of truth, which appears to be
under this story, seems to be . . .” [p. iii].
Aw, go on, man! You haven’t given a FACT
large enough for a bird to roost on.
In Henry Harman’s Introduction to the Study
o f the Holy Scriptures (Phillips and Hunt, New
York, 1882, p. 46), we read, “The Septuagint had
great authority in the early church . . . the transla­
tions of the five books of Moses were made, it
would seem, about . . . the whole was completed
most probably . . . .”
“ Well-authenticated fact, ” was it? Like King
Kong’s bout with Godzilla? Like the theory of evo­
lution?
Here is a Septuagint Concordance (Concord-
antieae Graecea-Hebrais, Conrad Kircher, Franfort,
1607). Is there found in it ONE word of a Greek
 Old Testament written before A.D. 130 that the
Apostles quoted? Not one word. Not one word of
one verse.
Here is a Septuagint Concordance by John
Friedrich Schleusner, published in 1780. Could he
find one word or one verse that any New Testa­
ment writer quoted from a Greek manuscript writ­
ten before A.D. 120? No, he couldn’t. Neither could
Abraham Trammius find one for his Septuagint
Concordance written in 1718. Bocker couldn’t find
one for his, which was written in 1854. Want an
“updating” ? The standard, small edition of the
Grammar o f the Septuagint Greek, by Conybeare
and Stock, was printed in the 1970’s and 1980’s by
Zondervan. In this you will find detailed discus­
sions and concrete examples given on ALL the
Greek forms in the Greek Septuagint, going from
“absolutes” and “anacaluthon” to “s u b s ta n tia l par­
tic ip le s ” and “ e p s ilo n -c o n tra c t v e rb s .” Can
Conybeare and Stock find ONE verse in the Old
Testament written in Greek before John died on
Patmos that anyone in the New Testament quoted?
Of course not. Such citations are about as abun­
dant as right-wing District Court Judges. Not one
in a carload. They are as scarce as honest Popes.
When Jesus, the Son o f Sirach, is resurrected
with all of his Philonic, Alexandrian, Apocryphal
baloney, we are to think he is reading, or has read,
a B.C. “Septuagint.” Jesus, “Son of Sirach,” was
tra n s la tin g his g ra n d fa th e r’s w ork, and his
grandfather’s work was not in GREEK— it was in
Hebrew (Harman, p. 46). His famous reference to
the Law and the Prophets had no reference to ANY
 Greek Bible. The reference said that the Law and
the Prophets have little difference when read in
their own language. “Their own language” was
HEBREW, not Greek.
Jesus, the Son o f Sirach, said nothing about a
B.C. Septuagint. What he said was
“. . . for the same things expressed in He­
brew have not an equal force when trans­
lated into another language. Not only so,
but even the Law and the Prophecies and
the rest of the books differ not a little as
to the things said in them . . .” [p. iii],
Sirach never said one word about the Law and
the Prophecies existing in a Greek Old Testament.
He said the Law and the Prophecies and the other
BOOKS differ as to what they SAID. The con­
ceited Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22, 2:6; Rom. 1:25) inter­
preted this to mean that there was a Greek copy of
the Law and the Prophets and a Greek copy of the
“other books” that differed in translation from the
Hebrew books because of the remark made previ­
ously about “equal force” in languages. The first
statement said nothing about the GREEK language
at all, and the second statement was not on the
force of a translation—it was on what the Hebrew
books SAID.
On these “FACTS,” the Septuagint Introduc­
tion tells us that the Apostles used it as an “hon­
estly made version” in general use at that time” (p.
iv).
Imagine the incredible naivete of some chump,
like the head of the Bible Department at Bob Jones
University (Stewart Custer), trying to justify this
 myth by saying that “Patrick W. Skehan proved it
well before Ruckman wrote his H andbook” (Custer,
The Truth About the King James Version Controver­
sy, p. 19). The proof was that there was a list of
“scores of manuscripts in Greek that were circulat­
ing while the New Testament was being written.”
Did he list one? Of course not. Did he cite one
manuscript Skehan listed? Of course not. Did ei­
ther of them produce ONE of the “scores of manu­
scripts” which any New Testament writer quoted?
D O N ’T BE RIDICULOUS. The word “scholarship”
at Bob Jones University is synonymous with “pro­
fessional lying.” Thus the fabricated, lying non­
sense has survived to this hour, without ONE
“FACT” to back it up. Kahle, as myself, never
believed for a minute that any pre-Christian Greek
Old Testament existed in 250 B.C. Why should he?
When you’ve had 2,000 years to find one verse
that an Apostle quoted from a B.C. Greek m anu­
script and can’t find it, why not admit that you’re a
deceived nut and quit lying like a Persian rug?
I have the Septuagint Concordance with all of
the Septuagint manuscripts listed in it. There isn ’t
one that any Apostle even partially quoted. When
faced with a dozen quotations in the New Testa­
ment that matched the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus writ­
ten 240 years after the New T estam ent was
completed and a dozen that don’t match, the schol­
ars really began to rewrite G rim m ’s Fairy Tales
and Billy Goats Gruff.
You see, the blockheads who manufactured an
Old Testament in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus couldn’t
find (or didn’t have time to find) all of the Old
 Testament references to pervert them. Many of them
remained there, still improperly quoted in the New
Testament (see Matt. 8:17 and Rom. 1:17, for ex­
ample), with no Old Testament to match them. This
led the Scholar’s Union to the conclusion that some­
times the Apostles quoted the Septuagint, some­
times they quoted the HEBREW, and, at other times,
they gave a free quotation from nothing. They could
have saved themselves the trouble if they had re­
membered that they were dealing with G od’s Book,
and that the Holy Spirit can quote any of His own
writings any way He wants.
What is the most scientific solution for the
non-extant translation of the mythological “70”?
Simply take Ira Price’s chart from page 75 of his
work entitled The Ancestry o f Our English Bible
and read LXX for O rigen’s fifth column in the
Hexapla. O rigen’s fifth column IS the LXX. It is the
Greek Old Testament “Septuagint. ” It is called that
on page 75 o f P rice’s work, although neither Price
nor Wikgren intended for that to happen. This is
one of those vile accidents that occurs quite often
among Biblical scholars in spite of their “scientific
methods.”
Gleason Archer (Survey o f the Old Testament,
pp. 39-40) did exactly the same thing. Upon listing
the contents of Origen’s six-columned Hexapla, he
accidently called the FIFTH column (the one writ­
ten by Origen) “the LXX. ” It is the fifth column
that was copied out repeatedly after A.D. 254, ac­
cording to Miller; and lo and behold, when we
pick up the Syro-Hexaplaric translation of Bishop
Paulus o f M esopotam ia (A.D. 617), we find
ORIGEN’S CRITICAL APPARATUS SIGNS IN
THE MANUSCRIPT (Archer, p. 229). ORIGEN
M ESSED WITH THE OLD SYRIAC TRANSLA­
TIONS.
We haven’t opened all of the boxes of goodies
yet! Philip Schaff, head of the ASV Committee of
1901, tells us on page 794 of his History o f the
Christian Church, Vol. II, that a four-columned
Tetrapla (after A.D. 250) contained: Aquilla, Sym-
machus, THE SEPTUAGINT, and Theodotian! Why,
the two missing columns were one and two (the
Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek translitera­
tion). The FIFTH column was ORIGEN. Merry
Christmas! Look what else we have under the tree:
H.G.G. Herklotts tells us that in the Hexapla, Ori­
gen put the “Hebrew text in the first column; in the
second column, the Hebrew text was transliterated
into Greek characters. Thirdly came the translation
of Aquilla, fourth, that of Symmachus, fifth, THE
L X X . . . ”! How many times do you have to be told
the truth before you believe it? The men who be­
lieved in a B.C. Septuagint were forced, against
their own wills (in their own writings, carried out
by their own pens and typewriters), to testify to the
truth.
Adamantius Origen invented the “Septuagint. ”
He reproduced three other versions of it when
he invented it, and those three copies were all writ­
ten more than forty years after the completion of
the New Testament and the death of the last Apostle.
So be it! In the mouth of FOUR witnesses will
every word be “established.” We knew it from the
start. O rig en ’s H exapla is fo u r post-C hristian
 “Septuagints ”—every one of them written after the
completion of the New Testament. Alexandrinus
(A) and Vaticanus (B) are “Septuagint manuscripts”
according to Bleek.6
If you ever find one thing wrong with Old
Latin manuscripts (such as some that contain the
Apocrypha or some that match the Alexandrian
readings of the Sahidic and Bohairic or some that
go against the Syrian readings of the Receptus
Greek), you are dealing with POST-SEPTUAGINT
MANUSCRIPTS that came from Origen’s work.
When I say, “Post-Septuagint, ” I mean a Septua­
gint that had no more “extant existence” on this
earth in the days of Christ and the Apostles than a
Catholic Pope or a Catholic Mass. If you ever find
anything wrong with the Old Syriac manuscripts
(such as matching the Alexandrian readings of
Aleph and B against the Receptus), you are dealing
with POST-SEPTUAGINT MANUSCRIPTS that
someone was trying to bring into line with Origen,
respecting him as a great and noble “bold and mili­
tant Fundamentalist” who believed ABSOLUTELY
in the “verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.”
Adamantius Origen is the old scoundrel of
whom Philip Schaff wrote (and Philip was the head
of the ASV comm ittee of 1901): “The greatest
scholar of his age, and the most gifted, industrious,
and most cultivated . . . brilliant talent and vast
learning . . . his knowledge embraced all depart­
ments of philology, philosophy, and theology of
his day . . . profound and fertile thought, keen
penetration, and glowing imagination . . . a true
divine.”7
 He was a true deluded blockhead, a first-rate
heretic of the rankest sort, and he probably did
more to corrupt pure Christianity and pure Bible
doctrine than any two infidels who ever lived. He
was completely equipped with shorthand experts
and secretaries. His hand is found in the corruption
of Old Latin manuscripts before Jerome corrupted
them and in the corruption of Old Syriac m anu­
scripts before Bishop Rabulla corrupted them. (The
Sch o la r’s Union do have a way of drum m in’ up
business for themselves, don’t they?)
So, to begin where the scholars begin, we say
that the first two most ancient manuscripts of the
Scriptures were Origen’s Hexapla and Origen’s Sep­
tuagint. Neither was written in a book form until
seventy to three hundred years after John finished
the New Testament in A.D. 90. The authors of the
“Septuagint” simply converted Old Testament pas­
sages from Hebrew to Greek so that they would
match the Greek New Testament writers. This cre­
ated the desired illusion that the Apostles (every
one of them 100 percent Hebrew) must have re­
vered a GENTILE BIBLE that contained Bel and
the Dragon, The Wisdom o f Solomon, The Books o f
the Maccabees, The Song o f the Three Holy Chil­
dren, etc. However, not one writer in the New Tes­
tament would quote ONE LINE of any line in any
one of the books, and C hrist’s canonical statements
on the content of the Old Testament (see Matt.
23:35 and Luke 24:44) excluded every single book
in the list.
In spite of this, Schwartz informs us that a
CURSE was pronounced on anyone who would
 alter the text of the version (Septuagint): “No revi­
sion should take place because of its origin by
God.”
Final authority finally rears its head: it is AF­
RICAN. (Black is beautiful!)
Here, some African “university” has declared
that God has altered the Hebrew Old Testament
given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) with an inerrant, in­
fallible Gentile version, including the Apocrypha,
given to Gentile Christians. (Conflicting opinions
are not supposed to be taken more seriously than a
pre-Super Bowl party on television with Bob Hope
as the M aster of Ceremonies.) According to the
apostate Jewish liars in Alexandria, the translators
of the LXX had written, “under inspiration” with
each one writing “word-for-word,” as though dic­
tated to each by an invisible prompter. It was said
that they had become “prophets.” Prophets? The
last canonical prophet is Malachi, and not one
prophet shows up again until John the Baptist (Luke
1:15-17; Matt. 3:1; Mark 1:2-4). These Alexan­
drian “prophets” profess to precede the herald of
Jesus Christ. “Their work was inspired and thus
open to no error . . . it is completely identical with
the original, and it is truly God’s Word.”8 Imagine
what would happen in the Scholar’s Union if any
“fanatical crackpot” (to quote Custer and Neal in
the Biblical Viewpoint, Bob Jones University Press)
said THAT about the AV o f 1611!9
The Scholar’s Union, bursting every seam in
their britches and popping every button on their
shirts in an effort to establish this fake myth as
extant,” says that even the Old Latin of the sec­
 ond century had an Old Testament taken from the
Septuagint, not the Hebrew. W hat is the evidence
for that statement? (You’ve read enough by now to
guess right every time you guess.) The evidence is
that more than 200 years later, Augustine (Schaff
says he was the first real Roman Catholic), who
thought the LXX was inspired, claimed the Latin
Bible he was reading matched the Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus “Septuagints, ” which were written a cen­
tury before he read any Old Latin.
Schwartz didn’t find one Old Latin copy of
anything from Genesis to Malachi that came from
a “Septuagint” in the second century. None of that
showed up until AFTER Origen had published his
Hexapla (A.D. 240). (They do have a way of
“weighing the evidence,” don’t they?) The Old
Latin Bible that Augustine read was called The
Vetus Latina. It is Augustine who wants the Vati­
can and Alexandrian manuscripts of the Old Testa­
ment to be reinstated as a B.C. “Septuagint.” Jer­
ome actually made fun of the inspiration of the
Septuagint; hence, the Authorized Version is cor­
rect in following Jerome where he corrects the LXX.
Augustine’s defense of the phony Greek Old Testa­
m ents o f O rig en, S ym m achus, A q u illa, and
Theodotian (written 100 years before he was born;
get that— get THAT) was on the pious grounds that
if any Old Testament translation from Hebrew into
Latin replaced them, it would “split the church”
(ever hear THAT one before?) in North Africa. This
is interpreted by the Yea-Hath-God-Said Society to
“show the insistence of the people upon the TRA­
DITIONAL TEXT OF THEIR HOLY BIBLE.”
 You never read a bigger lie in Midnight or The
National Enquirer.
The “TRADITIONAL TEXT” in Latin from A.D.
120 to 240 was the Old Latin o f the Waldenses that
matched the Syrian Greek Receptus o f Antioch. Au­
gustine had no “traditional text.” He had Origen’s
Hexapla. The quotation from Augustine shows only
the insistence of one Roman Catholic demagogue
trying to replace the God-honored Old Latin Bible
with Origen’s African “Septuagints,” written 100
years after the completion of the New Testament
and fifty years after the writing of the Old Latin
Bibles.
Augustine thought the Apocrypha was inspired.
And now, it is tim e to leave this POST-
CHRISTIAN farce, which never showed up on the
face of this earth until its inventors had a New
Testament before them to use in altering the He­
brew Old Testament. Let us turn to the kingpin of
all of this African business. L et’s go to the greatest
“black hole” (an astronom er’s term) in Egypt to
examine the greatest black light the Christian world
ever observed. The Septuagint, with its fourteen
Apocryphal books, is an Alexandrian production
from Africa. Not one single “original autograph”
of one New Testament writer came from Africa.
Ernest Colwell’s Studies in Methodology in Tex­
tual Criticism o f the New Testament (p. 191) speaks
up for every apostate in the Fundamentalist camp
and Conservative camp, as well as the Liberal and
Roman Catholic camps, when he says, “As a critic
he [OrigenJ lacked in historical sense . . . on the
other hand, his rejection of the literal view was, in
itself, a step in the right direction of scientific criti­
cism .”
Harry Emerson Fosdick, Bishop Oxnam, and
Pope John Paul II couldn’t have said it better.
According to Colwell:
“[Origen] could see the impossibility of
accepting certain passages in the Bible as
factual or historical [the first three chap­
ters of Genesis, for example, which Pope
John Paul II said was a M Y TH 10] yet he
lacked the perspective [oh, aren’t we the
“cat’s meow” !] of later scholars who would
be able to assign such passages to garbled
report, myth, or lack of proper knowl­
edge.”
That is just how Dean Luther Weigle, Edwin
Dahlberg, Leslie Weatherhead, and the Communist
committee of the RSV (1952) would put it. Well
spoken. We know O rigen’s company, associates,
backers, supporters, crew members, followers, and
students. ANY Bible or manuscript connected with
him should be “HANDLED WITH CARE,” and its
readings taken with a ton of bicarbonate of soda.
Since he was the man Westcott and Hort used over
and over again to vindicate the authority of Vatica­
nus, we will treat Vaticanus as it ought to be
treated— as a dead skunk.
Now, what about the Fundamentalist who be­
lieved in the verbally inspired “originals”? What
about this great scholar who set up the foundations
for the unsaved Liberals in the NCCC, according
to Ernest Colwell? Well, according to the head of
the A SV Committee of 1901:
 “It is the privilege of great pioneering
minds to set a mass of other minds in
motion. One of these minds was Origen,
the most learned and able divine of the
Greek Church . . . The true followers of
Origen attained a clearer knowledge of the
specific doctrines of Christianity; such men
were Pamphilus and Eusebius . . . and at
first Jerome . . . the blind followers inca­
pable of comprehending the free spirit of
Origen clave to the letter. The opponents
of Origen, some from ignorance and some
from narrowness and want of discrim ina­
tion, shunned his speculations.”11
The “specific doctrines” referred to above were
no physical resurrection, universal salvation, pur­
gatory, salvation by works, a “mystical kiss,” bap­
tismal regeneration, postmillennialism, and calling
a pastor a “PRIEST.” 12
That is the man who was eulogized by the
head of the ASV C om m ittee of 1901— Philip
Schaff— as an “Orthodox Conservative.” If you re­
ally believed one-tenth of the Holy Bible, you would
shun the company of men such as Philip Schaff
and his committee (ASV of 1901) like you would
avoid a snake pit. His compatriots, associates, and
associations are documented in black and white:
VATICANUS, ALEXANDRIA, ORIGEN, ROME,
EUSEBIUS, PAMPHILUS, CONSTANTINE, ASV,
NASV, BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, THE LOCK­
MAN FOUNDATION, SINAITICUS, THE POPE,
EGYPT, AFRICA, and N E STLE ’S GREEK TEXT.'3
Here then, at the beginning of church history
and the history of Biblical scholarship, we are find­
ing two different “Bibles,” two different schools of
thought, two attitudes toward the Scripture, two
kinds of “reliable translations,” and TWO kinds of
scholars connected with them. As Wilkinson has so
truly said, there are basically two different Bibles
(Which Bible?, Fuller, pp. 176-194); God wrote
one, and somebody else wrote the other. Guess
who?
The first “recognized,” destructive critic of the
Greek New Testament is Origen, exactly as the
first recognized, destructive critic of the King James
text is a Roman Catholic priest (Richard Simon;
1638-1712, the “Father of Biblical Criticism”) 14
Origen’s “monumental” critical work consisted of
six vertical columns with four “Septuagints. ” Fol­
lowing a standard Madison Avenue procedure (see
any brochure advertising any NEW translation that
came out since 1880), the Hexapla is said to be
“one of the great achievements of early Christian
scholarship, besides being an epochal point in the
whole history of the transmission of the Bible.” 15
According to Ira Price, the purpose of Origen was
to restore the “original Septuagint”— so the leaks
in the ship begin to pour water. Again: the fifth
column is “the Septuagint, revised by him self” and
“It was Origen’s revision of the Septuagint, ” “a
passage was found in the Septuagint," and the
“sources and variations of his version of the Septu­
agint. ”
Speak up, you “dumb dogs” who “cannot
bark” (Isa. 56:10). Are you saying Origen had a
copy of the Septuagint on his writing table in A.D.
 200-254 which the Apostles had used, and yet no
one on his “board” (the other three writers) and no
one in his school (A lexandria) and no one in
Caesarea (where his library was) WAS ABLE TO
GET HOLD OF THE COPY HE HAD? Nor could
anyone before or after he lived (184-284)?
Do you want to know what us common, ordi­
nary, stupid people think about that kind of “schol­
arship”? We think that any Christian who would
respect the opinions of such a man (Origen or those
who laud his work), when it comes to final author­
ity, is a candidate for the funny farm . Seriously,
just as serious as a heart attack, those kinds of men
are not playing with a full deck. THERE WAS NO
“SEPTUAGINT” ON ORIGEN’S TABLE; he and
his buddies (Symmachus, Theodotian, and Aquilla)
wrote four “Septuagints. ”
The first column of the Hexapla was a Hebrew
Old Testament. The second column was a Greek
transliteration. (Trade talk! You spell a word out
in the letters of your language without translating
the word into your language. Thus “CEPHAS” is a
transliteration, as is “PETROS” ; “Peter” is trans­
lating. “H A D ES” is a transliteration, w hile
“HELL” is translating.) Genesis 1:1 would have
begun as beta-epsilon-rho-epsilon-sigm a-rough
breathing-iota-theta “pepeotG” to approximate the
sound of the Hebrew bereshith. The third column
was by Aquilla (A.D. 95-135), an apostate Jew,
who professed Christianity while retaining astrol­
ogy. He turned against the Christians and went
back to a Rabbinical school. The fourth column
was written by an Ebionite named Symmachus (c.
 180-192). An “Ebionite” is a man who believes in
getting to heaven by following C hrist’s example
(In His Steps, Sheldon, and all that jazz.). The fifth
column (see The Bible B eliever’s Commentary on
Genesis, 1969, Gen. 5:5 for a discussion of the
number five) was by good old Origen. The sixth
column was by another Ebionite named Theodotian
(c. 1 6 1 -1 8 1).16 Theodotian is the rascal who said
that Joseph was C hrist’s father in Matthew 1:16.
So much for Origen’s bosom buddies. They
were just as “orthodox” as Westcott and H ort.17
These fo u r men wrote “THE SEPTUAGINT ”
Until they showed up, no such animal ever existed
on the face of this earth. Not a man among them
began to write until he had a New Testament in
front o f his fa ce to use in altering the Hebrew Old
Testament to make them match the New Testament
quotations. The four sh y sters (“m onum ental
achievement,” “epochal work,” “brilliant and de­
vout,” etc.) pulled off the greatest gaffed act that
was ever pulled off on the body of Christ. They
manufactured a complete Greek Old Testament out
of thin air after the New Testament was completed
and then palmed it off as a B.C. Septuagint with
the aid of the writings of two apostate Jews: PHILO
and JOSEPHUS. Eusebius and Augustine hit the
bait like a bluefish going after a shad minnow.
You say: “Where is the proof of all this, Ruck­
man?”
That is easy: reject it when you find ONE
verse any Apostle quoted from the Old Testament
written in Greek before Aquila, Symmachus, O ri­
gen, and Theodotian. Just ONE will do fine.
 We turn now to other A.D. ancient transla­
tions, satisfied that the Septuagint or “LXX” was
just as much a post-Christian production as Jerom e’s
Latin Vulgate.
I. SYRIAN VERSIONS: Syria is the area
northeast of Palestine. The Jews came from SYRIA
(Deut. 26:5), and Mesopotamia is in this area (Gen.
24:10). It is Antioch of Syria that has the distinc­
tion for having the first Bible-teaching, missionary,
Gentile, “Christian” church (Acts 11:26). We use
these Scriptural fiats (judge all matters “by the
Bible,” remember?) when depositing African schol­
arship in the dumpster. If any translating had been
done from the “Greek originals,” it certainly would
have taken place in Syria first and would be aimed
at the Syrians who were the ancestors of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 11, 12, 24, and 28). After
all, the “oracles” were given to the Jews (Rom.
3:2), not the Athenian gnat-strainers (see The Bible
B eliever’s Commentary on Acts, 1974, pp. 490-
514).
A. The Old Syriac version o f the fo u r Gos­
pels. One manuscript is in the British Museum af­
ter being edited by a man named William Cureton
in 1858. (In Greek notes, this version is signified
by syc. We are referring to the tradesm en’s “critical
apparatus,” or notes on the bottom of the page or
in the margin of the Greek Testaments.) Another
Old Syriac is the “palim pset” found by Mrs. Agnes
Lewis in the St. Catherine Monastery, where Tis-
chendorf found his “Septuagint. ” This is called sys
in the critical apparatus to identify it as Sinaitic
Syriac. It was written around A.D. 400-500, but it
preserves a text form from A.D. 200-300. These
texts are called “W ESTERN,” although they agree
with the Syrian Greek manuscripts over and over
again. The latter agreement is attributed to the in­
fluence of Tatian’s Diatesseron (A.D. 170), which
reads with the King James. The other view— about
which no scholar opens his “cotton pick in g ”
mouth— is that the “Western readings,” that are
NOT in line with the Old Latin but are in line with
Alexandria, were the work of Adamantius Origen
when he got hold of the Old Syriac at Caesarea.
After all, syc and sys came from a text “extant”
before Origen sat down to write.
There is no lack of evidence for this state­
ment, for Melito makes a comment on Genesis
32:13 as far back as A.D. 170 before Origen was
born (Harman, citing Routh’s Religue Sacrae, Vol.
I, p. 118). Hegesippus knows of a Syrian Book of
Matthew at the same time (A.D. 170), and it had to
come from a Greek text from earlier than that—
possibly A.D. 130-150. When commenting on Gen­
esis 4:14 and Genesis 8:7, Origen’s quotations from
a Syrian translation in A.D. 200 were written in his
Hexapla. (A complete version, in Syriac, is m en­
tioned by Ephraem Syrus in A.D. 317.)19
B. The Peshitta or Syriac Vulgate. The first
word means “straight” or the “rule” (like “canoni­
cal'’). The second word means “ordinary or com­
monly accepted.” The orthodox view of Bible-
believing scholars for 1,700 years was that the
Peshitta was written early in the second century.
Since it agrees over and over again with the King
Jam es’ readings, this position had to be dumped. It
 was neatly dumped by Burkitt, Metzger, and others
by pretending that Bishop Rabulla (Bishop of
Edessa) put it together around A.D. 415. This view
is accepted by all unsaved Liberals, with Metzger
only inserting the conjecture that Rabulla’s version
was only an “intermediate stage.”20
It is George Lamsa that makes so much of the
Peshitta, and naturally, I have had his “bible” (The
Holy Bible from Eastern Manuscripts, Holman,
Philadelphia, 1957) with me for about twenty years.
It is built on the ancient Matthew “Q” Document
theory that the New Testament Gospels had to be
written in Aramaic originally because “that is the
language which Jesus spoke.” This is often con­
fined to M atthew’s Gospel, but only because M at­
thew is so Jewish that a gullible sucker looking for
an alibi would have to land there first. The Ara­
maic translated into Greek in Mark 5:41 and M at­
thew 27:46 and other places shows that the origi­
nal was Greek.
C. The Harclean Syriac (sometimes called the
Philoxenian Version). This manuscript, signified
by sy h, supposedly was the w ork o f B ishop
Philoxenus (Bishop of Mambug), and was reissued
in A.D. 616 by Thomas of Harkel, a later bishop.
D. The Palestinian Syriac. This is indicated
by sypal and dates from A.D. 400-450. Since it
agrees with the King Jam es’ Greek over and over
again, it is shuttled into a “fourth” invented fam ily
called the “Caesarean family. ” This family was
invented to remove the authority of the Syrian-type
texts found in the THETA UNCIAL (see Appendix
Two), which obviously was a Syrian-type text.
When the apostates invented this fourth family,
they took for granted that no one with any sense
would put two and two together— Caesarea would
have been the place where a Biblical scholar would
have gone to work, altering the Syrian manuscripts
in order to bring them into line with his own manu­
scripts in Alexandria that he had just left. You see,
Origen worked with THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXT
IN EGYPT AND THEN MOVED TO CAESAREA
TO PERVERT THE SYRIAN TEXTS.21 “So geht
es im Leben. ”
II. THE LATIN VERSIONS:
No codex of the entire Old Latin Bible (A.D.
130-200) is extant (neither is one manuscript o f a
B.C. Septuagint that any Apostle quoted), but the
Gospels are found in thirty-two mutilated m anu­
scripts and a number of “fragm ents.” These consti­
tute four manuscripts and fragments of Pauline
Epistles, and they date from A.D. 330-1250, show­
ing that they were continually being copied IN
OPPOSITION to Jerom e’s Latin Vulgate, more than
five hundred years after the Latin Vulgate came
out.22 They are signified in “critical apparatuses”
by lower case letters: a, b, c, d, e, f, etc.
A. Old African: Codex Palantinus (e), Fleury
Palimpset (h), Bobbiensis (k). The last one was
copied out around A.D. 400 and was brought to an
Irish monastery in Bobbio, northern Italy. (IRISH­
MEN IN NORTHERN ITALY? Read about it in
The History o f the New Testament Church Vol.
II— Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1984, Chapter Seven,
Footnote 6.)
B. Old European:
 1. Codex Vercellensis (traditionally written by
St. Eusebius, the Bishop of Vercelli).
2. Codex Veronensis at Verona, Italy. The un­
saved Liberal Burkitt, who altered the Peshitta date
from A.D. 200 to A.D. 431, thought that this was
the type of text Jerome used to correct the Old
Latin Authorized Bible, which he objected to so
strongly.23
3. Codex Colbertinus, written in the twelfth
century.
4. Codex Bezae.
5. Codex Corbiensis from the fifth century
(tends to be “kin” to manuscripts a and b).
6. Codex Gigas (the “giant”), indicated in the
apparatus by gig. This manuscript was written in
the thirteenth century in Bohemia. It is sometimes
called “The D evil’s Bible”— not so much due to
the huge picture of the Devil in it, but because it
came from the original hot-bed of “heresy” and
“anti-Catholicism” in Europe. Naturally, it contains
the Book of R evelation— WHICH VATICANUS
OMITTED—and the readings in it match citations
from Lucifer of Cabliari (Sardinia), which were
written AT THE TIME VATICANUS WAS W RIT­
TEN.
7. The letter “m ” refers to a collection of Latin
Biblical passages arranged by topics. It is called
the Speculum (Latin for “m irror”), and its quota­
tions are in the Spanish form of the Old African
text.
C. The Latin Vulgate (A.D. 420). This is the
official recension (“Lucian” made none) called by
an official body of Christians (which was never
done in Antioch or Constantinople in regard to the
Receptus) designed to bring in the DARK AGES.
In the New Testament, it is the wiping out of the
Greek Receptus, the wiping out of the Old Syriac
Receptus, the wiping out of many Old Latin Re­
ceptus readings, and their replacement with the A L­
EXANDRIAN T E X T OF ORIGEN, FROM EGYPT.
Jerom e’s New Testament is basically Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus, although (being wiser than the transla­
tors of the RSV, ASV, RV, NASV, and NRSV) he
occasionally retains the correct Old Latin Receptus
readings AGAINST the Alexandrian corruptions
from Egypt.24 Jerome went to the “Hebrew and
Greek,” but the Greek he went to was the Egyptian
or Hesychian type text of the University of Alex­
andria. Against his wishes, the Pope (Damasus)
had the Apocrypha stuck into the Old Testament as
part of the inspired canon. THIS IS HOW IT HAD
APPEARED IN VATICANUS AND SINAITICUS,
to which Jerome had access. Both of them were
written ninety years before the Vulgate was trans­
lated.
Rule One: A Christian with common sense will
reject Jerome and the Douay Rheims where they
use the Alexandrian Greek texts to correct the R e­
ceptus Greek texts.
Rule Two: A Christian with common sense
will reject Jerome and the Douay Rheims where
they alter the Old Latin to bring it into line with
the Alexandrian texts.
Rule Three: A Christian with common sense
will accept Jerome where he uses the Old Latin or
the Receptus Greek to correct “the great uncial
codices” or the Alexandrian “papyri.”
You scream, “You are setting us up for the
King James B ible!” You never screamed a truer
scream in your life. You cry, “You are being eclec­
tic! You are not playing fair! If you are a champion
of the ‘M ajority Text, ’ you must stick to it on EV­
ERY READING!” Run along and play with your
hula-hoop, okay, sonny?
There are about eight thousand Vulgate manu­
scripts today, varying greatly due to “professional
scribes” correcting Jerome (among them Alcuin,
Theodulf, Lanfranc, and Stephen Harding). Some
of these are:
1. Codex Amiatinus in Florence, given to Pope
Gregory in A.D. 716.
2. Codex Cavensis from the ninth century, con­
taining the whole Bible.
3. Codex Dublinensis (the Book of Armagh)
in Dublin, dating from the eighth century.
4. Codex Fuldensis, written between A.D. 541—
546. It contains the whole New Testament with the
Apocryphal “Epistle to the Laodiceans” (see The
C h ristia n ’s Handbook o f M anuscript Evidence,
1970, p. 226).
5. Codex Mediolanensis in Milan, a Gospel
manuscript from the sixth century.
6. The Lindisfarne Gospels from A.D. 700,
now in the British Museum.
7. Codex Harleianus from the sixth century,
now in the British Museum.
8. C odex S angallensis, the oldest known
manuscript of the Vulgate Gospels written in Italy
around A.D. 480.
 9. “The Golden Gospels,” to be found in the
j. Pierpont Morgan Library in New York. It came
from around A.D. 600-750, and since it has “Irish
affinities” and “Northumbrian affinities” that would
link it with a PRE-JEROM E TEXT, the African
Alexandrians have been careful to move the date
up to the tenth century! The early date was advo­
cated by W attenbach, De Rossi, Gregory, and
Hoskier (the latter a champion of the Receptus).
The late date was conjectured (“conjecture,” re­
member?) by one man: E. A. Lowe.
Now, behind all of these conjectures lies the
first real Roman Catholic—Aurelius Augustine, who
worshipped Origen’s “Septuagint” with its A poc­
ryphal books as being “verbally inspired.” August­
ine saw (in Jerom e’s time) the threat to his Old
Latin version, which he called the “traditional text,”
but Jerom e’s “traditional text,” to which Augustine
wished to cling, was an Origenistic revision of the
Old Latin called “the Itala. ” (Some scholars refer
to the Old Itala as the original and Augustine’s Old
Latin as a revision of it; but either way, one thing
is certain— the Old Latin Bibles of the second and
third centuries, which preceded Origen and Vatica­
nus, would certainly have excluded the Apocrypha
and would have lined up with the Byzantine Greek
New Testament texts of the Syrian church.) Notice,
at the beginning of this section, that the Old Latin
manuscripts, running contrary to Jerom e’s Vulgate,
were being copied long after the Vulgate came out.
The early Celts, Franks, and Gauls ran into Old
Latin Bibles that contradicted Jerome. You will
notice also that there are two types of Old Latin
readings: European and African. The Old Euro­
pean (Note: “Italy”— Itala) was the type Jerome
(from ITALY) used to bring the Old Latin into line
with the Pope (who was in ITALY). Any “Old
Itala” would have been the right “Old Latin” B E ­
FORE JEROME MESSED WITH IT, and conse­
quently, any Old Latin would have been the right
text in Africa before ORIGEN messed with it. Thus
Jerome, Origen, and Augustine stand perpetually
bound together as an eternal memorial to the de­
pravity of Bible-rejecting “Fundam entalists,” who
enthrone their egos as the Holy Spirit. Certainly
Pam philus, Philo, Josephus, Theodotian, Pope
Damasus, Symmachus, Aquilla, and Hesychius may
serve as a guardrail around the memorial.
Tertullian is citing the Old Latin in A.D. 200
(Harman, p. 439). Cyprian is citing it in A.D. 240-
250. Irenaeus cites it in A.D. 120-192. Hippolytus
is found citing it in A.D. 180-235, long before
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus show up. This is what
creates Jerom e’s terrible “problem ” with “conflict­
ing Latin translations” where “untutored scribes”
are doing damage by “copying thousands of care­
less copies” that “vary in thousands of places,” so
that an OFFICIAL “AUTHORIZED VERSION” is
needed to correct these errors. This, of course, is
so that “the ONE BODY, and ONE FLOCK, can
get together under ONE SHEPHERD, with ONE
BOOK as A FINAL AUTHORITY” (the other two
being the Shepherd and his Councils) in order that
Augustine’s City o f God might grow “like a mus­
tard seed” (see The History o f the New Testament
Church, Vol. I, pp. 123, 105) until it “filled all the
e a rth with the . . . blankety, blank, blank, blank,
etc.
The only official “recension” to “conflate”
readings to “produce a smooth version” (that was
the basis of the Westcott and Hort fairy tale, which
they invented to account for the Majority Text) was
the one from Jerom e’s Vicar at Rome and his bud­
dies. There never was any “recension” at Antioch
(see The C hristian’s Handbook o f M anuscript Evi­
dence, p. 225). The recension was in ROME at the
Vatican.
I l l THE COPTIC VERSIONS:
“Coptic” is nothing but first-century Egyptian,
which came to be converted from hieroglyphics to
Greek uncials, with the addition of seven charac­
ters from “demotic” script. (Tradesmen’s terms—
“a simplified form of ancient Egyptian writing.”
That will be $55.66; cash, check, or money order!)
The southern part of Egypt is called “upper”
Egypt for the same reason southern Germany is
“hoch”—it is a land of elevation. Lower Egypt is
the Nile delta. The SAHIDIC dialect (like Bavar­
ian in Germany) prevailed in “upper Egypt,” while
BOHAIRIC (like a Brandenburg dialect) prevailed
in “lower Egypt.” A number of intermediate dia­
lects (like Swabian, Tyrolian, and Saxon) devel­
oped along the Nile called “Memphitic, Achmimic,
Bashmuric, and sub-Achmimic.”
Sahidic portions of the New Testament begin
to show up after A.D. 300, but they tend to follow
the University of Alexandria with the Origenistic-
Catholic type of African text. Many times, they
agree with the Receptus, but these readings are
immediately denied to the Receptus and are called
“WESTERN READINGS.” The fact that they oc­
cur in the Western fam ily AND the Syrian fam ily is
not mentioned. (I imagine that drug runners caught
coming into Miami and Punta Gorda handle the
“narcs” about the same way.) Since the “Sahidic”
agrees with the Catholic African texts of Alexan­
dria, it has to be EARLIER than the “Bohairic”;
so the Bohairic “appears to be somewhat later.”26
Either way, it is not too significant, as the Boharic
often uses Alexandrian readings. It omits John 7:53—
8:11 (see chapter nine), showing the detrimental
influence of Alexandria, extending southward past
Thebes.
IV. THE GOTHIC VERSION:
This is by the “little w o lf’ (Ulfilas, A.D. 350),
and it is the first translation to show up in a Euro­
pean tongue. The “Apostle to the Goths” created
the Gothic alphabet in order to reduce the spoken
language to a written form. Ulfilas uses the King
Jam es’ Receptus Greek sources out of Constanti­
nople (Byzantium), which differ from Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus time and time again. Much against
their will, the scholars have to publish the FACT
that U lfilas’ Greek text is as old, or OLDER, than
Vaticanus or Sinaiticus, clearly showing that the
Syrian family text type in Greek PRECEDED THE
“OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCRIPTS.”
Ulfilas was born in 311 and was in Constanti­
nople in 321. He studied Latin, Greek, and He­
brew, having already known Gothic. He picked up
a little “Arianism,” as the term in those days was
beginning to mean “anti-Catholic.” After 400, the
term was applied to ALL BIBLE BELIEVERS who
resisted Roman Catholic Fascism (see The History
o f the New Testament Church, Vol I, pp. 43, 182,
and 214).
A survivor of Ulfilas’ work is Codex Argenteus
(“the silver Codex”) now found at Upsala, Swe­
den.
V THE ETHIOPIC VERSION:
The Biblical work done by the Ethiopian eu­
nuch (Acts 8:27-40), after his conversion, was leav­
ened and corrupted as much as possible in 330 by
two Alexandrian “m issionaries” who brought the
“glad tidings” of O rigen’s corrupt revisions to
Ethiopia (Aedesius and Frumentius).21 Frumentius
went back to Alexandria, where they made him a
bishop over a territory that w asn’t his or Alex­
andria’s. (See the case of Thomas a Becket, being
given England as a gift while Tommy was in France,
or see England, given to the Pope as a gift while
the Pope was in Italy. The History o f the New Tes­
tament Church, Vol. 1, p. 329.) The modern Ameri­
can setup is handled by the District Court Judges
who operate alongside the IRS.
The Ethiopic version shows up around A.D.
350, with ten Apocryphal books, seven Pseude-
pigraphal books (Look out! The word just meant
“FALSE W RITINGS.” That will be $66.66. Use
VISA!), and the “decrees of the Apostolic Council
of Jerusalem ,” which is about as “Biblical” as Joe
Sm ith’s m oron’s book for Mormons— Macaroni for
Moroni.
The text of this Ethiopic version is a “mixed”
text and shows definite signs of having been Byz­
 antine before it was messed with.2* We don’t have
to guess who messed with it, since it occasionally
agrees with P46 and B (Vaticanus) against all other
witnesses.29
VI. THE ARM ENIAN VERSION:
This is sometimes called “The Queen of the
Versions,” and more copies of it exist than any
other ancient version with the exception of the Latin
Vulgate. It is related to Tatian’s Diatesseron, which
is solidly King James in its readings against the
ASK RV, RSV, NRSV, NASV, and NIV readings in
Matthew 1:25, 5:22, 6:13; Luke 2:14, 23:42; John
9:35; and numerous other places. To eliminate it
from the Majority Family of Syrian Text-types, the
apostate perverters classified it as “Caesarean” in
character. They couldn’t make it “Alexandrian,”
but by moving north-east only 200 miles, they
stopped just short of SYRIA. If they had continued
along that course for another 100 miles, the A rm e­
nian version would have been a Syrian Version,
but this is a “no-no” with “highly educated, recog­
nized authorities, whose dedication to restoring the
original text qualifies them to apply the modern,
scientific m ethods of JOHNNY CARSON and
JESSE JACKSON
Greek, Syrian, and Persian letters were used in
putting an Armenian New Testament together long
before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written, and
then around A.D. 400, a man named Mesrob con­
verted these to the Armenian language, as Ulfilas
had done for the Goths.
VII. THE GEORGIAN VERSION:
Georgia is not only in the southeastern United
States but also in southern Russia. The area lies
between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. M is­
sionaries from Constantinople brought these people
the Gospel around A.D. 330. Mesrob (see above) is
given credit for the Georgian Version which comes
out around A.D. 440. Its Gospel manuscripts are
the Adysh manuscript of 897, the Opiza of 913,
and the Thet of 995. It, too, is called a “Caesarean”
type text because it is obviously a SYRIAN or B YZ­
ANTINE text. (Nestle dropped the Caesarean fam ­
ily altogether in 1983, after retaining it for eighty
years.)
These are the main early versions. We also
have the Arabic and Slavic versions from around
A.D. 792-816. Tradition says that an Arabic ver­
sion was made from the Syriac around A.D. 650.
Cyril and Methodius (862) evangelized Bohemia,
Moravia, and Poland and reduced the Slavic lan­
g uage to a w ritte n a lp h a b e t, p ro d u c in g an
anti-Catholic Bible which was later banned, after
being revised by Catholic copiers to make it con­
form to Jerome (See The History o f the New Testa­
ment Church, Vol. 1, pp. 273-274).
Around A.D. 500, the thick, impalpable dark­
ness of Roman Catholicism settles over the face
of Europe like an African blackout, extinguishing
every Biblical witness it can. With the official ac­
ceptance of a D evil’s bible, produced by “many”
corrupters (2 Cor. 2:17) who “perverted the words
of the living God” (Jer. 23:36), the old Roman
Whore takes over and murders 5,000,000 Bible-
believing people (other estimates run as high as
50,000,000), who will not abide by Jerom e’s Catho-
lie version plus Catholic tradition (the Western text
ADDS, remember?).
The first attempt to break this stranglehold,
that was “quackling” (try that one— that is 1661,
William Gurnall) the life out of every Christian in
Europe, was that of the “Morning Star of the Ref­
ormation, “ John Wycliffe (1320-1384), who tried
to put the Latin Vulgate into the English vernacular
(see details as found in The History o f the New
Testament Church, Vol. I, pp. 309-311).
With the later publication of Erasm us’ Greek
Textus Receptus (1516-1527) and the advent of the
printing press (Gutenberg, 1450—1454), all hell
broke loose”— that is, if you were pimping for the
Roman W hore of Revelation 17 or “shacking up”
with her, as described in Proverbs 5:3-14, 30:20;
and Revelation 2:20-23.
You see, until Martin Luther’s time, there was
no European recognition of the correct Bible text.
It was traveling by “underground railroad through
Europe, being propagated by Lollards, Waldenses,
A lb ig en ses, P icards, L yonists, P etro b ru sian s,
Henricians, Berengarians, Bogomiles, Paulicians,
Cathari, and “M ontanists,” but they had the “dice
loaded against them .”
The printing press (1455) dumps over the felt
table. Out go Luther’s works, out go Calvin’s works,
out go the w ritings of Z w ingli, Beza, Knox,
M elanchthon, and others, and all of them say that
the Roman Catholic Pope is “THE MAN OF SIN.”
If so, who would recommend a bible HE would
recommend? Along come five Greek Testaments
from the “w rong set of late m edieval m anu­
 scripts”— if you are to believe some sap-headed
Biblical scholar who sat on the ASK RSV, RV, NRSV,
NASV, NIV, TEV, NEB, TLB, or PDQ committees.
Colinaeus (1534), Erasmus (1516-1527), Stephanus
(1546), Beza (1598), and Elzevir (1633) are print­
ing the Syrian-type texts that were associated with
Antioch o f Syria (Acts 11:26), from whence came
the majority of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS,
according to Kenyon, Hills, Roberts, Kilpatrick,
Goodspeed, and many others.30
Horrors! What do you suppose will happen
with a switch of Biblical texts, after one thousand
years of good old Jerom e’s African Vulgate from
Alexandria in Egypt?
You don’t have to guess. Every nation that
adopted the Receptus translations and obeyed the
missionary commission given therein rose to the
top of the pile, and every nation that stuck with
Jerom e’s African “bible” from Alexandria “hit
the skids.” They “bombed out.”
With the coming of the Greek Receptus trans­
lations on a worldwide scale, over 5,000,000 people
were saved in Europe, more than 10,000,000 in
America, more than 4,000,000 in England, and,
conservatively speaking, more than 10,000,000
in C hina, A frica, India, and the South Seas.
JEROME’S LATIN VULGATE NEVER WAS IN
THAT KIND OF A RACE— WIN, PLACE, OR
SHOW— ONE TIME IN 1,600 YEARS. It con­
tained too many Alexandrian readings. It contained
the Apocrypha as part o f the Old Testament (from
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus— the famous “Septuagint
m anuscripts”). God junked it. He junked it as soon
as it was written, and no one picked it up again
seriously until the revision committee of 1881 sat
down in England with the intention of handing
England back over to the Vatican. For 381 years
(1500-1881), God showed the world what He could
do if Christians believed His word (I Thess. 2:13;
Acts 24:14), instead of the CONJECTURES of edu­
cated, Bible-rejecting critics (Gen. 3:1) who thought
the sun rose and set on a university education and
a “knowledge of the original languages.” Martin
L uther’s German Bible and the King James Bible
are the products of taking a Byzantine Syrian New
Testament “slant” on manuscript evidence. The Vul­
gate and the RV, RSV, ASV, NASV, NIV, and NRSV
are the products of taking an AFRICAN slant:
DARK AGES— the DARK CONTINENT. “Hav­
ing the understanding darkened” because “there
is no light in them” (Eph. 4:18; Isa. 8:20).
There are no questions about manuscript evi­
dence, textual criticisms, or “variant readings” that
even need to be discussed when going by the Scrip­
tural slide-rule “by their fruits ye shall know
them” (Matt. 7:20). The products speak for them­
selves. The RESULTS (which constitute hard, his­
torical facts, working out in history where they are
recorded by all historians) of “Christian” Biblical
scholarship at Alexandria (The Hexapla, Origen’s
theories, and Philo’s allegorical methods) and the
results of Jerom e’s Vulgate (the Papal hierarchy,
tradition raised to the same level as the Scripture,
the Inquisition, the Armada, and the social and
economic conditions of Spain, Mexico, South Ire­
land, and Italy) speak for themselves, without any-
one consulting ANY “qualified authority” for any
opinion about anything “Biblical.” W hatever may
have been wrong with King James and his transla­
tors, whatever may have been wrong with Erasmus
and his theology, whatever may have been wrong
with Luther and his translation, and whatever may
have been wrong with B ishops’, G eneva’s, U lfilas’,
Tavener’s, or Tyndale’s Bibles, there is one thing
that is certain: they produced the three most pow er­
fu l and wealthy nations in the world, with the great­
est number o f Bible schools, evangelists, churches,
missionary endeavors, and soul-winning activities
on the fa ce o f this earth. W hatever may have been
right about Jerom e’s Vulgate or the Douay-Rheims
of 1582, whatever may have been right about the
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and whatever may have
been right with the ASV, RSV, RV, NRSV, NASV, and
NIV, they produced the most poverty-stricken, su­
perstitious nations in the Western Hemisphere and
caused the deaths of more Christians in ten years
than the other set (listed above) caused in five
hundred years. In addition to that, they produced a
“C hristian” world of hom osexuals, rock bands,
Charismatic nuns, ecumenical crackpots, a world­
wide drug culture, an international system of ter­
rorism and torture, two World Wars, worldwide
famines, the highest suicide and venereal disease
rates on earth, and an ignorance o f the CONTENTS
o f the Bible that is ABSOLUTELY APPALLING.
For those of you who dare to think that
“BIBLES” have nothing to do with those social,
economic, and political conditions of countries, AS
WELL AS THE WEATHER AND THE CROPS, may
we say, charitably, with all the love that we can
muster, “YOU NEVER BELIEVED ANY BIBLE
FOR FIVE MINUTES. ”
Nations are run and controlled by the Author
of the Book (Dan. 4:17, 35; Jer. 49-51). Their crops,
weather, and financial matters are controlled by
God (Psa. 135-136, 147; Isa. 40-42).
If a sinner is stupid enough to think that BIBLE
TRANSLATIONS, BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP, or
BIBLE REVISIONS can be separated from the spiri­
tual, moral, economic, and social conditions of ANY
COUNTRY (including China, India, Cambodia,
Ethiopia, Vietnam, Africa, the East Indies, the West
Indies, and Greenland), we have him pegged for
what he is: an ostrich who doesn’t face FACTS.
Any “Biblical scholarship” that refuses to discuss
the RESULTS o f Bible revision and Bible perver­
sion on a POPULACE is not “scholarly.” (You’ll
find the subject missing from the works of any
fifty randomly selected Biblical scholars in any set
of books published by anyone in either hemisphere.)
It is also not “Biblical.” In the Bible, God judges
peoples and nations for what they do with His words
(Exod. 9:20-21, 20:1-20; 1 Kings 13:7-26; Jer.
23:34-38; Deut. 28:14; John 8:40-45, 12:48).
A discussion, like the one we will enter into in
Chapter Five, disconnected from the history of En­
gland, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Russia,
America, Mexico, India, China, Africa, and Pales­
tine, is like discussing the steps that led to World
War I and World War II without a discussion of
PAPAL POLITICS. It is absolutely sterile and mean­
ingless. We will not make that mistake.
 CH A PTER FIVE

“Mad Dog is
An Englishman”
“. . . behold, I have set before thee an
open door, and no man can shut it: for
thou . . . hast kept my word . . . . ”
(Revelation 3:8)

L uther’s “Legions” are well known. Having

obtained the God-honored Greek text from Eras­
mus, Luther produced a “hoch Deutsch” transla­
tion that nearly created the German language.1
M artin’s German Bible is the German King James
Bible. It is the equivalent of the “K ing’s English,”
and so all affirm. Further, he takes the inspira­
tional view of the Scriptures,2 which lines up with
the Hebrew prophets in the Old Testament and the
Antiochan Christians in the New Testament.3 There
are no doubts about his motives and methods. W hat­
ever may have been wrong with his views on bap­
tism and the Lord’s Supper (consubstantiation), he
had enough sense to know that the Apocrypha cer­
tainly didn’t belong with the Old Testament ca­
nonical books as inspired, as it appeared in the
“Septuagint m anuscripts” ( Vaticanus, Sinaiticus.
Alexandrinus; see Chapter Four). He put it between
the Testaments with the “Scofield notes” and the
“Thompson chain references.”
The Germans were loaded with Bible manu-
scripts before Luther,4 as a German or a Jew will
read anything you give him, even the cover of a
safety match folder. Luther (1483-1556) translated
the New Testament into German in 1521-1522 with
the Old Testament being translated in 1534. The
dialect he used was that of south Saxony in the
heart of Germany, between Wurtemberg, Hamburg,
Berlin, Prussia, Bavaria, the Sudenten-land, Swabia,
the Rhineland, and Friesland. Before 1580, his Bible
went into seventy-two New Testament editions and
thirty-eight Old Testament editions.
The Holy Spirit sounded the Philadelphia trum­
pet: charge! (You will notice, of course, that there
was no mention of the Holy Spirit by the Alexan­
drian Cult in the previous chapter when the “quali­
fied scholars” were discussing the manuscripts. Did
you notice that? The HOLY SPIRIT seems to oper­
ate on a different wavelength than the Scholar’s
Union.)
Out comes a translation from Holland in 1523;
it is from Luther.
Out comes a translation from Denmark in 1524;
it is from Luther.
Out comes a translation in Iceland in 1540; it
is based on Luther.
Out comes a translation in Yugoslavia in 1584;
it follows Luther.
With that comes a Croatian New Testament in
1562-1563.
Out of Hungary comes a Bible in 1541 by
Janos Erdosi, who had been L u th er’s student at
W ittenberg. All of these, of course, from a “few
late medieval m anuscripts” !
 Out of Poland comes a Bible in 1551.
Out of Finland comes a Bible in 1548 by a
Finn who studied Luther.
Then follow New Testaments in Lithuanian,
Lettish, and Wendish.5 “Where was the Bible be­
fore 1611?” ALL OVER THE COTTON PICKIN’
CONTINENT! The men connected with these ver­
sions were Christian Pedersen and Hans Tausen
(Danish), Olaus Petri and Gustaf Vasa (Norway
and Sweden), M ichael A gricola (Finnish), and
Matthias Flacius (Yugoslavia). All of their versions
came from the wrong text— the pitiful “FEW M E­
DIEVAL, DARK AGE M ANUSCRIPTS” which
came from the “VASTLY INFERIOR” TEXTUS RE­
CEPTUS (to quote the carnal hypocrites who make
up the membership of the Scholar’s Union).
Luther was anti-A lexandrian and pro-Anti-
ochan, according to his biographers (The Romance
o f Bible Scripts and Scholars, John Reumann,
Prentice-Hall, 1965, p. 78). We didn’t have to be
told that. Bible-believers have an instinct about
such things that defies definition.
From Saxony, we step across the Channel to
ANGLO-SAXONY: England. Repeated again is the
great historical lesson of history that deals with the
Holy Spirit, as He “will guide you into all truth”
(John 16:13). England (1520) is ready to sack
Jerom e’s Latin Vulgate with its attendant monks,
nuns, Christian school at Alexandria, Origen’s li­
brary at Caesarea, Eusebius’ bootlicking, the Apoc­
rypha, the “oldest and best manuscripts,” and the
Pope.
No one who read what we have been through
would have to make any guesses about what kind
of Greek Testament was going to be used to break
the Pope’s back and free England for a worldwide
missionary endeavor which would wind up with an
English Bible (AV 1611) on the MOON.
The tide was coming in: the French Bibles
went with the tide. After translations in 1477 and
1487, Lefevre (1523-1530) produced a French
Bible. Following him, in 1535, O livetan’s French
Bible was produced and was revised by Calvin in
1545 and 1551. Martin (1707) and Ostervald (1750)
put out French Bibles, follow ed by Oltramere
(1872) and Segond (1874). In Holland were to be
found DeGrave (1516) and the Antwerp Polyglot
(1525). In Italy, D iodati’s anti-Catholic text showed
up in 1607. This particular version was used by the
King James translators along w ith the French
Olivetan.6 “Where was the word of God before
1611?” All over the ever-lovin’ blue-eyed world!
Brucioli produced an Italian pro-Catholic bible
in 1532 to keep with the tide, but “tide and time”
wait for no man. DeReina (1569) and DeValera
(1602) produced anti-Catholic Bibles for the Span­
ish speaking people. Francis o f Enzina already had
one going in 1543. In Portuguese, the Pope had to
go to the vernacular (1784 from the Vulgate) to
keep up with Ferreira D ’A lm eida’s version (1681;
1712). The Visoly Bible (1590) is the anti-Catholic
Bible in Poland. Gottschalkson’s Bible in Iceland
(1540; 1584) is the anti-C atholic Bible there.
Wenxzel, a Jesuit priest in Bohemia, tried to root
and ground the Bohemians in his Catholic work
(1677, 1778, and 1786), but the United Brethren,
who had come from John Huss, kept up their own
version (1518), which was a Syrian, Antiochan,
Byzantine, anti-Jerom e, anti-O rigen, anti-A lex­
andrian, anti-Eusebius, pro-Protestant text. The
Russian Elizabeth Bible (1751-1756) was fine “kin
folk” for the AV 1611. The Ostrong Bible (1581),
ordered by Peter the Great and revised in 1712,
formed the background for the work. Callipoli pro­
duced a Greek Protestant translation in 1638, which
was revised to match Alexandria and then revised
back to match the A V and then back to . . . , etc.
Before the Conservative and Evangelical apos­
tates of 1880 sat down in England to restore the
Pope and his bible to the supreme place of affec­
tion in the hearts of educated Christians (RV com­
mittee: see Chapter Eight), the old Roaring Lion of
the Protestant and German Reformations had rav­
aged the jungle with six hundred major languages;
growing to 1,039 languages by 1939.
Over in merry England, something had to rip
at the seams, for from the very start, England’s
Celtic C h ristianity (A.D. 100-400) had been
anti-Catholic to the bone.7 The continual battling
between the Popes and English kings through the
centuries bore testimony to the fact that when that
little island had started (Ireland, as well), it had
begun with an Old Latin text that preceded Jer­
ome8 and with missionaries that never sprinkled
babies and never immersed a sinner until he had
made a profession of faith.9
Early translators in England were quite abun­
dant. Caedmon (d. 680), in northern England, sang
stories from Genesis and parts of Exodus and
Daniel. He also sang about heaven, hell, and the
Second Coming. He said nothing about Blessed
Mary, Blessed Joseph, or Blessed John the Baptist,
and the “sacraments” are missing from his reper­
toire. Aldhelm (640-709), in southern England,
translated some of the Psalms. Egbert (705), of
northern England, translated the Gospels. The “ Ven­
e r a b le ” Bede (672-735) translated the Gospel of
John, chosen in spite of the “Eusebian canons,”
which had lined up three “synoptics” against John.
Alfred the G reat (871-901) translated the Law, the
Psalms, and the Gospels, while a man named Aldred
(950) produced the Lindisfarne Gospels. A e lfr ic ’s
works (1000) include the Gospels, Esther, Job, and
part of 1 Kings, plus the first seven books of the
Bible. Orin (1215) was an Augustinian monk who
made a paraphrase of the Acts and the Gospels.
Shoreham (1320) translated the Psalms, and Rolle
(1340) translated the Psalms with a commentary.
Wycliffe (1320-1384) now appears and prom pt­
ly throws the Apocrypha out of the Latin Vulgate
that he is translating and says it is “without author­
ity or belief.” 10 Progress in 1382 and 1388! Origen
and Augustine w ould have included them. The Sep­
tuagint manuscripts, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and
A lex a n d rin u s, DID in clu d e them . F ollo w in g
W ycliffe’s lead, Tyndale removed them from the
Old Testament canon (1535), Coverdale removes
them from the Old Testament canon (1535), M a t­
th e w ’s Bible removes them from the Old Testament
canon (1537), and so does Taverner (1439). The
Great Bible (1539) removes them from where they
stood in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (Sinaiticus and Vati-
canus ), and so does the Geneva Bible (1560), the
B ish o p s ’ Bible (1568), and the AV 1611.
ENGLISH BIBLES WERE NOT CATHOLIC
BIBLES FROM AFRICA UNTIL 1880.
The two manuscripts used in the 1880’s (1881-
1885) to alter the A V text more than 4,000 times in
the New Testament HAD the A p ocryph a in them as
p a r t o f the inspired O ld Testament canon (2 Cor.
2:17).
Old Martin Luther said of them, “These books
are not to be held in equal esteem with the holy
scriptures . . . .” This surely puts the “S e p tu a g in t”
in foul light, even if it had been written before A.D.
100, which it w a s n ’t.
William Tyndale (1484-1536) sets his sails for
Antioch of Syria. He studied under John Colet,
Grocyn, and Linacre and was inspired by the Catho­
lic martyr Savonarola (who was burned by his own
church). Tyndale studied under Erasmus (1511-
1514) and used Erasm us’ third edition (1522). You
are to believe, of course, that Erasm us’ Greek edi­
tions were pro-Catholic! The “pro-Catholics” in
England strangled Tyndale and burned him at the
stake.
M yles Coverdale (1488-1569) preached against
the Catholic Mass, Catholic confession, and im­
ages back in 1528, when you took your life in your
own hands with such messages. He went to Ham­
burg in 1529 and produced a pro-German English
text in 1535. He depended strongly upon Luther
when translating the Old Testament books, and in
James he only changes Tyndale’s text in three
places. He kept in touch with his German friends
and in 1550 put out a new edition of his work in
Zurich. H is B ible w as so lid ly a n ti-O rig e n ,
a n ti-P ap al, anti-African, anti-Egyptian, anti-Hort,
anti -ASV, anti-/VASV, and anti-MV.
M a tth e w ’s Bible (1537) was the work of John
Rogers (1500-1554), who was burned at the stake
for his Protestant, anti-Catholic stand. His work
actually completed Tyndale’s work, and it is the
basis for the Geneva Bible of the Puritans. Rogers
was on the Continent in Antwerp for some time
and contacted Tyndale a few weeks before his ar­
rest. He moved to Wittenberg, Germany, to inhale
the fumes of the fires kindled by good, old “M ar­
tin.” He pastored in Germany at M eldorf (1543).
In regard to his beliefs, he said to the Roman Catho­
lic assassins who had murdered Tyndale, “That
which I have preached I will seal with my blood.”
He did. He preached what Origen, Jerome, and
Augustine did not preach. He sealed with his own
blood what Hort, Tischendorf, Nestle, Aland, M etz­
ger, Wikgren, and Schaff did not seal with theirs.
Observe: when the AV translators, in their
“Preface,” talk about “making a good translation
better” (detached portion quoted by ALL APOS­
TATES TO PROVE THAT THE ASV AND NASV
ARE IMPROVEMENTS UPON THE AV), they are
never talking about making translations like the
RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASV, and N IV “better. ” They
are not referring to any Roman Catholic rag-bag as
a “good translation.” They are referring to Tyndale,
Matthew, Coverdale, the G reat Bible, Taverner, etc.
The application of this A V quotation in “The Pref­
ace to the Reader” to justify such Alexandrian
perversions as the N ew English Bible, the Living
Bible, G o o d N ews f o r M odern Man, the American
Standard Version, the N ew International Version,
the N E W King “J im m y ” Bible, and the N ew A m eri­
can Standard Version is one of those m anifesta­
tions of the Cult Mentality. SATANIC PERVER­
SION of a fact, when a “fact” is given, seems to be
another “hallm ark” of “good, godly, dedicated,
qualified, recognized, Biblical scholarship.”
Is there going to be any relief for Rome in
England? Are these heretical Syrian Bibles from a
“handful of late medieval manuscripts” forever go­
ing to unlawfully usurp the honored place that
should be afforded by the Alexandrian-Augustinian-
African Latin Vulgate?
No, there is no relief in England until Westcott
and Hort in 1881.
Here comes the G reat B ible (1539), which was
only a halfway token gesture in returning to the
C om plutensian P o ly g lo t published by Cardinal
Ximenes just before that. M yles C overdale did most
of the work and attempted to take M a tth e w ’s Old
Testament and correct some places in it by using
the Latin text of Munster (1535). The New Testa­
ment was Tyndale’s, which was revised only slightly
by comparing it with the Vulgate and a Latin edi­
tion of Erasmus.
R ichard Taverner (1505-1575) was persecuted
at Oxford for circulating T yndale’s New Testament.
He was licensed to preach during the reign of Ed­
ward VI and preached all over England on the
streets. He was a member of Parliament but re­
jected a chance to be “knighted.” His Bible was the
first Bible to be completely printed in England,
and it was read publicly in the churches. When
Thomas Cromwell fell in 1540, Taverner was ar­
rested and confined in the Tower for a while (this
was before his political honors). His Bible is sol­
idly anti-A frican, anti-R om an, anti-H esychian,
anti-Aland, anti-Hort, anti-Nestle, and anti-Nida.
The Geneva Bible (1560) was the outcome of
the persecutions of Bloody Mary (1553-1558), the
worst ruler England ever had. Exiled Protestant
scholars in Geneva put it together (Coverdale, Beza,
and Knox), so it was the most anti-Catholic transla­
tion to date. The New Testament appeared in 1557,
followed by the entire Bible in 1560. It om itted the
A pocrypha completely. It ran through 160 editions
in England and was quite popular with the com­
mon people, as it was strongly anti-Catholic. Forty
years of Bible reading ( Tyndale to G en eva ) had
produced an anti-Catholic NATION.
No comments are necessary; no opinions are
valid. That is what Bible reading had produced.
Bible-reading countries are not CATHOLIC
countries.
The present attempts of the United Bible Soci­
eties to fo rc e them to be “Bible reading countries”
by restoring to them the grossly corrupt Catholic
African text of Jerome and Origen will produce
NOTHING. The BREATH OF GOD is not upon
these works. “INSPIRATION ” according to all Lib­
eral, C onservative, E vangelical, Fundam ental,
C atholic, and N eo-Evangelical scholars means
“God-breathed.” Genesis 2:7 and Job 32:8 inter­
pret the term without the presence of any scholar—
at least if you have an A uth orized Version of the
two verses.
The Geneva Bible is a revision of Tyndale,
with an introduction by John Calvin (1560). It suc­
ceeded in undermining to some extent the author­
ity of the B ish op s’ Bible and the G reat Bible and
prepared the way for the ideal, perfect Bible to be
produced by those who knew that John Calvin’s
“Puritans” were Roman Catholic (see the “Dedica­
tory”) and also knew that the Pope’s Jesuits were
“children of hell” (see Matt. 23:15). The A V trans­
lators took the middle course, while adopting a
solid anti-Catholic, anti-African, anti-American (as
it is now), anti-Bing Crosby, anti-Adolph Hitler,
anti-Bob Jones Jr., anti-Custer, and anti-Neal text.
The B ish o p s ’ Bible (1568) followed the G reat
Bible, except for a few obvious departures from
the Greek and Latin. Until 1606, twenty editions
came out, and Lovett says “it is the most unsatis­
factory and useless of all the old translations
(The P rin ted English Bible, p. 120).
However, it was better than any four hundred
that came from Rome or Alexandria.
Now, God, the Almighty Creator, comes on
the scene with a blow that no Biblical scholar no­
ticed, with the possible exception of Wilkinson
(Which Bible?, pp. 231-248). Ignoring the work of
the Holy Spirit in history and pretending that God
the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with wars, revo­
lutions, kingdoms, governments, assassinations, and
troop movements, the S c h o la r’s Union blithely over­
looks Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603) and the Span­
ish A rm ada (May, 1588). Suddenly, their pilot lights
are blown out again (for the fiftieth time since
A.D. 100), and they fail to locate the A uthorized
Version in its historical setting. With absolute time
determined by England (Greenwich Observatory),
with absolute location on the earth’s surface lo­
cated from Greenwich, England (longitude), and
with absolute temperature (BRITISH thermal unit)
being determined from the same island, they forget
that the nation that was best suited to “rule the
waves” was not ENGLAND— it was Spain.
At this point, Bruce, Kenyon, Colwell, Metzger,
Aland, Nida, Wikgren, Hort, Schaff, Green, Parvis,
Salmon, Rendall, Scrivener, Hoskier, Burgon, Hills,
Robertson, Waite, Hodges, MacRae, Wuest, and
Gregory quietly fold their tents and vanish into the
Arabian night, accompanied by the closing bars of
“Scheherazade.”
Spain has more coastline than England. Spain
got the truth before England (Rom. 15:24). Spain
was closer to the Biblical origins than England.
Spain was in a better clim ate for seaports and navi­
gation than England. The early explorers were, in
the main, Spanish and Portuguese (Magellan, Ponce
DeLeon, Vasco De Gama, Cortez, Balboa, Coro­
nado, and Columbus). If any nation in Europe was
situated in such a way as to sail the Atlantic, Pa­
cific, M editerranean, and Indian Oceans (through
the Suez), it was Spain. In 1588, something hap­
pened to Spain as a world leader. After 1588,
“Britannica ruled the waves,” and by 1850, the
“sun never set on the British Empire.” The British
Empire spawned Australia, Canada, and the United
States of America. The Spanish Empire spawned
Mexico, the Philippines, Central America, Cuba,
Venezuela, Brazil, and Argentina. If the Armada
had landed in England, the United States today
would have been a half-breed, pagan population of
dolly-worshipping Papists under the heel of the
most brutal and Fascist religion the world has ever
hosted. (The Communists haven’t caught up with
them yet. u) But the Armada never landed.
As English Bibles began to flood England
(1525-1568), a Roman Catholic Jesuit college
founded in 1568 (during Bloody M ary’s reign) was
moved from Douay, France, to Rheims, France
(1578), due to “political troubles” (someone caught
them trying to overthrow the throne). From this
came the Douay-Rheims (or D ouay-R heim s ) Jesuit
version in English to offset T aven er’s, C o v e r d a le ’s,
M a tth e w ’s, B ish o p s ’ and T yndale’s Bibles. It was
put together at a college where Catholics from En­
gland came over to get a college education with
the intention of returning to England to infiltrate
the Anglican church.12 The Scriptural grounds for
this act of fraud and hypocrisy was 1 Corinthians
9:22. I have a copy of this Jesuit bible on my table.
Every student that went through the Pensacola Bible
Institute for the last twenty-six years has compared
it with the RV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASV, and others
(with later versions including the NIV, TEV, NEB,
NWT, etc.). We compare the Jesuit Rheims of 1582
with twenty-five English versions in more than fifty
places. No student ever left the Pensacola Bible
Institute, after three years, without knowing that
EVERY “RELIABLE TRANSLATION” IN E N ­
GLISH T H A T S ON THE MARKET AND IS REC-
OM M ENDED BY ANY SCHOLAR (FU NDA­
MENTALIST OR NOT) IS A R O M A N CATHO­
LIC, D A R K A G E BIBLE FROM AFRICA.13
The lame alibi that the King J a m e s ’ English
words often match the R h e im s’ English wording14
is just one more of those peculiar Alexandrian twists
that we find infesting the minds of the Professional
Liars Club through the centuries. This time, the
ENGLISH words have nothing to do with it; that is
why the matter was brought up. This time, it is the
T E X T U A L BASIS. T he te x tu a l b asis o f the
Douay-Rheims is Jerom e’s Latin Vulgate, includ­
ing seven Apocryphal books from the “Septuagint
m anuscripts” (written 250 years after the death of
Jesus Christ).
From this D ark Age corruption cam e the
C h a llo n er Version (1750), which was the first
Catholic bible in America. Bishop Challoner saw
which way the tide was moving, so he altered the
Rheims of 1582 a little and tried to bring it into
conformity with the King James Bible. For America,
the King James Bible was the only Bible used in
both Great Awakenings and the revivals of the nine­
teenth and twentieth centuries. Revisions of the
Challoner were made in 1783, 1791, 1803, and
1810. The modern Catholic English bibles are the
Common Version (NRSV), the Jerusalem Version
(1966), and the N ew American Bible (1970). (Dig
that last label, Mac! “Am erican.” Flick my Bic!)
The N ew Jerusalem Edition appeared in 1985.
In 1588, the Spanish fleet went into Davey
Jones’ locker off the English coast. The Almighty,
in His mercy, drowned the Catholic inquisitors who
were carrying their instruments of torture on board.
Spain had forfeited her birthright and had sold it
for a mess of pottage when she began to burn Jews
at the stake (1490) and exile them .15 In 1588, God
was looking down on two naval bases, either of
which was equipped to take the Book to the ends
of the earth. He decided that Elizabeth (“that bright,
Occidental star,” Dedicatory to the AV), Cartwright,
her Puritan scholar, and the hundreds of thousands
of readers of the Geneva Bible and other English
versions would do the job right, for they were
ANTI-CATHOLIC as well as lovers of THE BOOK.
That is an unbeatable combination. It made En­
gland the greatest nation on the face of the earth
for 180 years (1700-1880) and made America the
greatest nation on the face of the earth for ninety
years (1880-1970). A fter 1885, England sank
slowly to the position of a third-rate power (1918)
and then to a fifth-rate power (1950). America be­
gan to move into second place after World War II
and is now well on the way to join England, unless
she absolutely refuses not only the news media
fiats about being “judgm ental,” “intolerant,” “iso­
lationist,” and all the other Socialist spooks, but
also refuses to have anything else to do with the
ASV, NASV, NIV, TEV, TLB, NEB, AWT, RSV, NRSV,
OR ANY OTHER “RELIABLE TRANSLATION”
LIKE THEM.
Lovers of THE BOOK are never pro-Catholic.
The Catholic Church never loved THE BOOK.
“The greatest book ever written against the
Roman Catholic Church was not written by an
ex-priest (Chiniquy, Montano, Lehmann, Zachello,
Alberto, et al.); IT WAS W RITTEN BY GOD.”
Now, here he comes (1604-1611), crashing out
of the bushes: the King of the Beasts! THE M O N ­
A R C H OF THE BOOKS!
This is the ONE BOOK that must be replaced
or annihilated (or both), according to the dictates
of e v e r y “a c c r e d i t e d ” a n d r e c o g n iz e d “B ib le
s c h o la r ” in the w orld and every Pope who ever
lived from 1611 to 1990. This is the ONE BOOK
that is hated by Fundamentalists, Catholics, Athe­
ists, Communists, Conservatives, Integrationists,
Evangelicals, Satanists, and Liberals. This is the
ONE BOOK that the Adamic nature cannot stand,
even where it USES the Book and “prefers” the
Book (because it has to in order to survive in cer­
tain areas). This ONE BOOK is the A uthorized
Version o f 1611. From now on, no one worries
about the B ish ops’ Bible or J e ro m e ’s Latin Vul­
gate. From here to 1885, no large group is occu­
pied with trying to get rid of the Geneva Bible or
M artin L u th e r ’s Bible. From here to 1885 (and on
up to 1999!), no one is worried about altering the
G reat Bible or D io d a ti or Olivetan or the Elizabeth
Bible or the D iatesseron or the Peshitta. From this
time on (1611), there is only ONE BOOK that is
attacked by every branch of science, philosophy,
Biblical scholarship, the Catholic Church, and the
BODY OF CHRIST. It is not the Koran or D as
Kapital.
Out of the jungle steps the Lion of the Tribe of
Jacob (James!). He mounts the heights (1611-1980).
As he climbs the mountain, he blithely knocks off
ninety English translations (some say one hundred
and twenty since 1520), 500,000 recognized au­
thorities, 10,000 qualified scholars, and a library
of books on manuscript evidence, textual criticism,
history of revisions, and Biblical introduction. Then,
lashing his thighs with his tail (Isa. 5:29; Amos
3:8; Micah 5:8), he ROARS with a roar that, to this
day, makes sex perverts, college professors, lesbi­
ans, District Court Judges, the IRS, the Mafia, Time
Magazine, genetic scientists, nuclear physicists,
Greek professors, television newscasters, Hebrew
professors, drunks, adulterers, Catholic priests,
Bible expositors, whoremongers, Bible revisors,
drug abusers, Catholic Popes, Bible translators, and
pimps shake in their boots! There is no doubt about
who is “KING O F THE M O U N T A IN ” (Eccl. 8:4).
The Final Authority has shown up. From hence­
forth, even the Antichrist will have to speak En­
glish (Rev. 13:1-3), because absolute time, abso­
lute temperature, absolute location, and absolute
truth are ENGLISH, and that is FINAL. No changes
will be made before the RAPTURE. (A pure case
of vicious discrimination if you ever saw one in
your life.)
Folks whine about, “Why would God choose
one book?” They say, “Well, you can get saved
from other bibles, too.” Have you ever heard this
one: “W hat about folks who don’t have one?” How
about this one: “What makes you think that you
are right and everyone else is wrong?” The Bible-
rejecting sissies in the Laodicean church age (Fun­
damentalists foremost) forgot that God picked ONE
Man and ONE nation so that ONE Saviour might
“save the world” (Matt. 1:21). God is “pickish.”
He didn’t choose a committee or board to lead
Israel out of Egypt. He chose a man. “There was a
man sent from God” (John 1:6) who turned out to
be superior to every human being born on this
earth from 4000 to 4 B.C. (no overstatement: Matt.
11:11). God was elective in picking a bride for
Isaac. This bride is a type of the virgin bride of
Christ (Gen. 24:1-20; 2 Cor. 11:1-4). The scholars
simply don’t know what they are talking about
three-fourths of the time, but, then again, they never
did (see The Unknown Bible, Chapters 1-3, Bible
Baptist Bookstore, 1984).
The FACTS behind the production of the AV
are so well known that we can dispense with 90
percent of them. We are reminded ten times a year
that they were to follow the B ish o p s’ Bible in the
main (which they did not— they used Tyndale’s
language16). We are reminded ten times a year that
they were baby-sprinkling Anglicans under a king
who had no use for Baptists; you are not told they
produced THE BOOK that built the Northern and
Southern B aptist Convention in A m erica and pro­
duced the ten largest Sunday Schools the world
has ever seen.17 No w riter on the subject o f the
King James Bible gives you h a lf the “facts. ” He
deals only with bare substance: the number of trans­
lators (54), the number of companies (six— at Ox­
ford, Cambridge, and Westminster), the effeminacy
of King James, Hugh Broughton’s criticism of the
translation, King Jam es’ “anti-Presbyterianism ,”
and the archaic language of the “original.” This is
the stock-and-trade of twentieth-century apostate
scholarship. No mention is usually made of the
Jesuit plot to kill the king and bom b the P a r lia ­
ment that had calle d fo r the translation (1604). No
mention is made of the fact that the Dedicatory
identifies the Pope as the “man of sin” (2 Thess.
2:3), though no translation since has dared to bring
up the subject. No mention is found of a super­
natural chapter and verse numbering system 18 that
would astound a professional gambler in Las Ve­
gas, although the S c h o la r ’s Union simply ignores
it as “verse numbers made while riding horseback.”
No mention is made of an order of Books that is
A G A IN ST the H ebrew o rig in al m an u scrip ts
(scholars’s cliche: more properly “ANY set of He­
brew manuscripts making up the Orthodox Hebrew
canon”), so that THE PREMILLENNIAL COM ­
ING OF CHRIST is indicated by the order of those
B o o k s19— a lth o u g h the tr a n s la to r s w e re N O T
premillennial. Finally, no mention is made of the
amazing fact that, to this day, this Book can be
taught to children 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 years old
without any other version, and they can get saved,
called to preach, live separated lives, and grow up
as NON-BABY SPRINKLING, PREMILLENNIAL
ANTI-CATHOLICS. “By their fruits ye shall know
them” (Matt. 7:20).
The AV translators were acquainted with every
textual problem anyone was acquainted with on
the ASV committee of 1901 or the NASV commit­
tee of 1960. The lame alibi (as lame as a crippled
duck) that they did not have “the benefit of the
D e a d Sea S c ro lls” or the “great uncial manuscripts”
to read is as silly a piece of dim-witted nonsense as
the thief who, when leaving a jewelry store, dropped
$10,000 worth of jew elry from under his coat, and
yelled, “Who threw that at me?” The A V translators
had the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus readings ON
THE TABLES IN 1604 WHEN THEY SAT DOWN.
More than that, they had the Waldensian Bibles
that came from the O ld Latin, which p r e c e d e d Vati­
canus and Sinaiticus by two hundred years and
preceded Alexandrinus and Ephraim Rescriptus by
three hundred and fifty years.20 The faculties at
Denver Theological Seminary, Fort Worth Theo­
logical Seminary, Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary, Moody,
Fuller, W heaton, Bob Jones University, Liberty
University, Tennessee Temple, and Springfield just
took advantage of your ignorance and lied like
artificial turf.
T H A T ’S H O W THEY M AK E A LIVING (1
Kings 13). That is their “calling.”
The A V translators knew ahead of time what
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus said about the scores of
omissions, where the Alexandrian Jehudis hacked
out 1 Corinthians 10:28; Romans 8:1; 1 Corinth­
ians 11:24; Matthew 20:22; 1 Peter 4:14; Matthew
16:3; Mark 6:11; Colossians 1:14; Matthew 6:13;
Acts 7:30; Romans 13:9; Acts 24:7; Mark 13:14;
Acts 9:5-6, and a dozen other places.
Having more spiritual understanding in 1611
than the Lockman Foundation that printed the A m ­
p lified B ible and the N ASV in 1963, the A V transla­
tors discarded all of the Greek manuscripts that
contained the A pocrypha as p a r t o f the O ld Testa­
ment W ITHOUT HAVING TO READ EITHER
VATICANUS OR SINAITICUS. The Lockman
 Foundation and Hort (along with the committees
of the RV, RSV, and NRSV of the National Council
of Churches), on the other hand, adopted manu­
scripts that contained the Apocrypha as p a r t o f the
O ld Testament, although they were too YELLOW
TO INCLUDE THEM IN THEIR PUBLICATIONS.
Nice folks! I ’ve met better folks at a bar in an
Officer’s Club on New Year’s Eve.
Here we pause. We have not yet gone into
those great and weighty matters of “intrinsic evi­
dence,” “transcriptural evidence,” “shorter read­
ings,” “itacism ,” “makarisms,” “M eiosis,” “mono­
graphs,” “haplography,” “onom asticons,” “form
criticisms,” “pleonasm s,” “prolepsis,” and all of
the other cute “software” trade terms invented to
keep your nose in a garbage can rather than read­
ing the Holy Bible. But we will get to it in Chapter
Eight. We know how the monkeys play in the ba­
nana trees after they have “gone bananas.” We also
know what they monkey with: ONE BOOK.
There he stands! A i n ’t he a beauty? Six feet,
eleven inches at the shoulder, 1611 pounds, jaw
teeth four inches long, claws like a grizzly, blood­
ied with 1,611,000 engagements, and covered with
the scars of battle. He never lost one in 380 years.
The King of Beasts! The Terror of the Seminaries!
The Horror of the Popes! The Roaring P rotestant
Lion of the Nation that sank the Spanish Armada
and ran Bloody M ary’s kin folk off the throne for
four hundred years. The other nation that avowed
that Lion’s power (and acknowledged his author­
ity) became so powerful that it later beat EN­
GLAND twice in battle (1776 and 1812) and then
bailed ENGLAND out of certain destruction on
two other occasions (1918 and 1941), after she had
forsaken the Lion.
If a scholar says those events are not related to
BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP and BIBLE R EV I­
SION, he is identifying him self in no uncertain
terms. He doesn’t believe any Bible.
“The wicked shall be turned into hell, and
all the nations that forget God” (Psa. 9:17).
“Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a
reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). “Blessed
is the nation whose God is the L o r d . . . .” (Psa.
33:12). “Howbeit in vain do they worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of
men” (Mark 7:7).
You can’t divorce Biblical scholarship from
the condition that your country is in right NOW.
Such things come under the heading of “crystal
speed,” “grass,” and “jolly beans.”
 The Hosts of Hell
“In the Name of Jesus”
“For many shall come in my name . . .
and shall deceive many” (Matthew 24:5)
“And many false prophets shall rise, and
shall deceive many” (Matthew 24:11)

God’s Book has always had its own way of

dealing with fakers, con-men, salesmen, tradesmen,
religious gangsters, and ecclesiastical shysters. It
is its own authority (Num. 23:19) and a law unto
itself (Heb. 4:12-13)— a critic of the most excruci­
ating insights and deadliest judgm ents (Psa. 1-2,
110; Jer. 6:19, 16:16; Ezek. 14:14). Its timing and
placing of words is a marvel to behold. Observe
the placement of 2 Timothy 3:15 just BEFORE
telling you that “all scripture is given by inspira­
tion of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). Note the marvelous
placement of Matthew 16:23 where Peter is called
“Satan” just after the Popes swore their church
was founded upon him! Note the “accidental” place­
ment of the Catholic Mass after a contrast of two
different “Rocks” in Deuteronomy 32:31-33.
G od’s Book (and here we are making no refer­
ence to “original autographs” that got lost before
they could become a book) seems to have a power
and authority that defies rational explanation. Ob-
serve the peculiar and unique “Easter” showing
up in Acts 12 to designate what the Passover was
to a Roman MURDERER (Herod— Acts 12:1—4).
Note the oddball way of translating the word
“temples” as “churches” in Acts 19:37 to show
you that the heathen Roman populace of any age
have churches, as well as “tem ples.” Notice how
strangely Ezekiel corrects those who thought that
Luke 16:19-31 was a “parable” (Ezek. 20:47-49).
I pulled that one off once on a Ph.D. at Bob Jones
University who could speak, read, and write eight
different languages, and he just about “flipped his
lid”— in the Koine. W hat a remarkable time for
Russians to show up (“Scythian,” Col. 3:11) in an
epistle that mentions the twentieth-century church—
Laodicea— five times (Col. 2:1, 4:13, 15-16).
Thank God we have something better than mys­
tical “original autographs” !
No matter what the professional liars have to
say about a mistranslation of Psalm 12:7 (their
spiritual motive being to get rid of ONE BOOK),
isn’t it remarkable to note that history before and
AFTER Psalm 12:6-7 shows that the 1611 transla­
tion was correct? Observe:
1. A Hebrew Old Testament written in He­
brew (1500-389 B.C.).
2. Parts of the Hebrew Old Testament written
in Aramaic (1500-500 B.C.).
3. A New Testament written in Koine Greek
street language (A.D. 40-90).
4. An Old Syriac translation of those texts into
Syrian (A.D. 120-150).
 5. An Old Latin translation of those texts into
Latin (A.D. 150-200).
6. A German translation of those texts for the
beginning of the Reformation (A.D. 1500-
1560).
7. An English translation (AV 1611) for the
end of the Reformation (A.D. 1525-1611).
“Purified seven times” (Psa. 12:6).
The seventh “generation” (see Psa. 12:7) has
the promise. That was the church that “KEPT”
G od’s word, according to Revelation 3:8.
What about Biblical scholarship in regard to
these matters? Go mullet fishing when the tide is
moving; it’s better just before or just after high
tide.
There isn’t one “recognized” Hebrew or Greek
scholar who authored one textbook on the face of
this earth who knew any more about such matters
than a Negroid on the back side of Luzon.
Well, there he is, the King of the Beasts. Prob­
lem: how do you get rid o f him i f you d o n ’t like
him? Answer: YOU LABOR TO RESTORE TO
THE CHRISTIAN W ORLD THE “ORIGINAL
TEXT. ”
So, upon the advent of the AV 1611, the most
remarkable phenomenon occurs that ever occurred
on this earth since the Resurrection and Ascension.
Suddenly, out of a clear blue sky (or, rather, “out
of the Stygian darkness of a maelstrom,” Victorian
for “Hurricane Camille”), come 50,000-plus edu­
cated experts whose one life-ambition is to get rid
of ONE BOOK. This hellish operation is called
Securing the True Text by M iller.1 W hat could be
more “godly,” “spiritual,” and “profitable” than
that?
B iblical Introduction is called “A science . . .
which treats of the critical questions concerning
the Bible” (Miller, p. 13). Obviously, the first real
Bible critic among professing C hristians was
Adamantius Origen. The two branches of Biblical
Introduction are G eneral Introduction (which treats
the Bible as a whole) and Special Introduction
(which deals with the individual Books, canonic-
ity, authorship, contents, purpose, etc.). B iblical
criticism, as a “science” (notice how hung up they
are on that word, like a Communist is hung up on
“sharing”), has two branches: historical and tex­
tual. We are about to enter the field of textual
criticism, which is no more a “science” than soci­
ology, humanism, psychology, or Marxism.
Here is the Monarch of the Books. Someone
wants to get rid of him, and it will take an educated
critic. Who will volunteer for the work? You get
one guess. The first volunteers are two Roman
Catholic priests. The first is R ichard Simon (1638—
1712), and the second is a Benedictine monk named
Pierre Sabatie. The Catholic Encyclopedia says
simply that “simple Simon” was “THE FATHER
OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.”
What enlightened European who knew church
history would even think of disputing such a claim?
The foundation of modern “critical inquiry” was
set up by a Roman Catholic p r ie s t,2 so they now sit
on the board of editors in the Executive Committee
of the United Bible Societies, distributing the Ro­
man Catholic, Dark Age text of the Jesuits, which
they got from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus via Euse­
bius and Jerome.
Richard Simon was “comprehensive in scope
and scientific in method” (Catholic E ncyclop ed ia ,
Vol. 4, p. 492). They love that word like a revision
committee in the twentieth century loves it own
brains.
The watchword, following the publication of
the AV of 1611, was “COLLATION.” This means:
get as many conflicting authorities together as you
p o s sib ly can, in order to confuse the issue as much
as possible, and then gradually weed out ALL of
the A V readings and replace them with the “con­
flictin g authorities. ” This is called “scientific re­
search” by the apostates, who were professional
liars from the crowns of their skulls to the soles ol
their shoes.
The profession is to be “restoring the original
text” so that it is not only “readable” but “commu­
nicates the original intent of the author” to its “re­
ceptors.” It’s sort of like Scarface A1 Capone beat­
ing the brains out of three of his henchmen (liter­
ally, with a ball bat while they were seated at a
table3) and then saying, “Shucks, I didn’t want to
start any trouble. I just wanted to live and let live.”
A1 went crazy with syphilis; the Biblical scholars
went crazy with “scientific m ethods.” If they tried
to blow their brains out with a .45, they would
have to fire three times before hitting the target.
Rendall Harris (1908) said that the New Tes­
tament is more “unsettled” after Westcott and Hort
than before. Kirsopp Lake (1941) said that it is
quite unlikely we shall ever know the “original
forms” of the Gospels. K. W. Clark (1950) said that
even the editing of the “original m anuscripts” is
extremely elusive and obscure. (You tell ‘em, buster,
but don’t tell us. We knew that the first time we
picked up any critic’s opinions.) H. G reeven (1960)
said that the nature of the original New Testament
text IS and always will be “hypotheses.” (Amen,
Buster Bailey, you tell ’em! We knew it without
being told, so we kept the Holy Bible and threw
out all of your hypotheses— and all of the hypoth­
eses of your teachers, friends, associates, colleagues,
and professors— out the window.) R. M. G rant
(1963) said that the recovery of what the New Tes­
tament writers wrote is “well nigh impossible.”
Kenyon (1903) said that “we” (dig that dogmatism,
Doctors!) must treat the Bible as an ordinary Book
like any other book. (Speak for yourself, John
Alden. Some of us are a great deal more intelligent
than you or the men that taught you. We’ve spent
more time in the Book, and we know the differ­
ence between it and ANY BOOK, including any
“bible” that passes off as a “reliable translation.”)
Following COLLATION of conflicting authori­
ties, there comes a sorting out or “classifying” of
authorities (see Chapter Three) designed to make
all Roman Catholic African readings from E gypt
seem to be purer and more authoritative than the
Protestant readings from Antioch Finally, this ter­
.4

minates in the substitution of a Roman Catholic

English bible for PROTESTANTS. This treacher­
ous and miserable fraud was carried out (1820—
1885) in England through the Oxford Movement,
Maurice and Pusey,5 Cardinal Newman, and West-
cott and Hort. Since we have detailed this opera­
tion thoroughly in Volume II of The History o f the
New Testament Church (1984), we will abbreviate
matters here. The most complete discussion of the
operation (and the best documented) is the work
by George H. Coy entitled The Inside Story o f the
Anglo American Revised New Testament. The docu­
mented evidence found there in 226 pages doesn’t
leave any RV or ASV supporter any more room in
which to move around. The RV and the A SV are the
official Roman Catholic “bibles” for Laodicea; they
mark the end of the British Empire.
So, here come the “COLLATORS,” all of them
noticeably absent until AFTER 1611.
Brian Walton (1600-1686) adds readings of
Codex A (which contained the Apocrypha as part
o f the inspired Old Testament) and gave fifteen
other manuscripts besides the sixteen of Stephanus.
John Fell (1625-1686) published variations
from one hundred m anuscripts’ readings that came
from Gothic and Coptic versions (see Chapter Four).
That is, he began to M IX Syrian readings with
Alexandrian readings.
John Mill (1646-1707) published seventy-eight
new manuscripts, including A, B, 1699, D, and D2
(Claromontanus, see Appendix Two) with variants
from the Peshitta (Syrian), the Old Latin (Syrian),
the VULGATE (Alexandrian), and some of the “fa­
thers.”
Isn’t it amazing that none of them show up
until the Monarch of the Books becomes the “King
of the mountain”?
Richard Bentley (1662-1742) published a Latin
and Greek text, supposedly restoring the “fourth
century African text.” His incomplete work is found
in Trinity College at Cambridge.
H. J. A. Bengel (1687-1752) was a German
(Tubingen) who published African and Asiatic
“GROUPS.” He is called the “Father of modern
textual criticism ,” but only “MODERN.” If you
compare the quotation from the C atholic E ncyclo­
p e d ia with this, you will find that he was twenty to
thirty years later than “Father” Simon. Although
Bengel’s text was still mainly Receptus, he “pre­
ferred” the Dark Continent.
J. J. Wettstein (1693-1754) was pro-R eceptus
and said that the ancient uncials (Aleph, A, and B)
had been corrupted by the Latin.
J. S. Sem ler (1725-1791) was the unsaved sin­
ner who invented the “family classification” of
manuscripts that was used so effectively later by
Griesbach and Hort. He set up an “Eastern set”
from Antioch, a “Western set” from Rome, and an
“Alexandrian set” from Origen.
But we have only been giving the reader par­
tial truths, and that is bad business. What we have
neglected to tell him is that during this time, every
man engaged in getting rid of ONE B O O K was
subject to the rise of modern philosophy in the
persons of D escartes (1594-1650), Baruch Spinoza
(1632-1677), and G. W. Liebnitz (1646-1716).
None of these men professed to believe even the
basic doctrines of any New Testament. The New
Testament had warned you about them in Coloss-
ians 2:8, more than 1,500 years before they showed
up. By pure coincidence, they begin to show up
IMMEDIATELY after the w ord o f G o d has been
“purified seven times.” Note the span of Descartes’
life: 1594-1650. Descartes is seventeen years old
when the A V comes off the press. Contemporary
with these out-and-out Bible rejecting infidels (all
of them highly educated) are John Locke (1632-
1704), George Berkeley (1685-1753), D a v id Hume
(1711-1776), and Immanuel K ant (1724-1804).
Our helpful “collators” are nesting with devils
(Rev. 18:1-8). M urphy’s Law: If enough data is
collected, anything can be proven by statistical
methods.
Everyone you see named above, from Walton
to Kant, is a man who was trying to get ONE
BOOK out of circulation, and, of course, it was not
any translation of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, or Alex-
andrinus. These men were supported by Van
H elm o n t (1577-1644), William H a rve y (1578—
1657), N icolas Steno (1638-1687), M artin Lister
(1638-1696), E dw ard Huyd (1660-1709), and Karl
von Linne (1707-1778), who all believed in spon­
taneous generation and evolution. Every man list­
ed above shows up AFTER the A V came off the
press. It was as though they had all been hiding in
a hole underground, and when the lid came off a
bottomless pit, up they came (Rev. 9)! The angel
of the pit (Rev. 9:11) saw no real threat to his
dominion until the A V showed up.
At least that is how history works out, whether
or not you pay attention to it.
J. J. G riesb a c h (1745-1812) extended the
“family theory” and challenged the Receptus, de­
riding the Syrian family of manuscripts ( O ld Latin .
O ld Syriac, King James, B ish o p s ’, Geneva, Luther,
etc.) as “nonscientific.”
C. F. M atthae (1744-1811) of Moscow op­
posed Griesbach. He added seventy manuscripts to
the known collections and added a Greek text with
a Latin Vulgate and twenty-nine facsimiles (like
photocopies) of manuscripts 1803, 1782, and 1788.
Griesbach had laid the egg that Hort hatches.
With the publication of his E m ph atic D ia g lo tt
(meaning “definitely two-tongued ), a definitive
work was at last established by which to convert
the King Jam es Bible into a Catholic A S V or NASV.
This publication was put out by a group calling
themselves “the society f o r prom oting Christian
know ledge [i.e., Roman Catholicism] and the p r a c ­
tice o f virtue [i.e., an ecumenical movement back
to Rome] by the distribution o f books [i.e., Roman
Catholic Dark Age texts of the Jesuits from Af­
rica].”
The Emphatic D ia g lo tt was to “make the New
Testament more generally intelligible” (in 1990,
this means “readable”) and to give “a more correct
text” (i.e., the Jesuit Rheims text that the AV had
ju s t d isca rd e d ).
The Trinitarian Bible Society was formed in
1831 for the purpose of offsetting the work of this
Society, which had stated that Griesbach “should
have the warmest thanks of the whole Christian
world.” (You see, Madison Avenue news media
gimmicks were in operation long before the Gannett
string of newspapers was dictating “guidelines” to
the District Court Judges.) The Emphatic D iaglott
restored the following Roman Catholic readings
 from Africa to its “distribution of books”:
Matthew 6:13— denying the Jewish connec­
tion to the kingdom.
Mark 1:2— making a liar out of Mark, who
was quoting two prophets, not one (see any A SV or
NASV for the same corruption).
1 Timothy 3:16— denying the Incarnation.
2 Timothy 3:16— denying the inspiration of
ALL scriptures.
Matthew 9:16, 27:36; Mark 16:9; Luke 9:56;
John 5:4-5; Luke 2:14, 22:44; Acts 8:37, 20:28;
Colossians 1:14; 1 John 5:7; et al.
On went the collators:
F. K. Alter (1749-1804) was a Jesuit priest
from Vienna who collated twenty-one manuscripts
which contained some readings from the Coptic,
Slavic, and Old Latin. (Now, the gathering up of
manuscripts which the Holy Spirit had junked was
under full steam.)
Andrew Birch (1758-1829) made 172 colla­
tions and examined 191 manuscripts in Italy, Ger­
many, and Spain. He was Danish and was also
pro-Receptus.
J. M. A. Scholtz (1794-1852), a Roman Catho­
lic from Bonn, Germany, adopted Bengel’s classi­
fication system. He had one bright thought: he con­
jectured that the reason the “best ancient manu­
scripts survived” (Aleph, A, and B) was because
they were ERRONEOUS.
Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) applied the same
principles to the Bible as were applied to Latin and
Greek classics (ditto W estcott and H ort6) and
dropped the Receptus altogether, using Origen and
Irenaeus against it. He called Griesbach’s Alex­
andrian text “Oriental”— which it was not. It was
HAMITIC (NEGROID). He also called Griesbach’s
Western family “Occidental.” Any wimp could see
that he had eliminated the real Oriental text that
came from the Near East in the Orient: the Syrian
text.
C. Tischendorf ( \ 815-1879) edited versions of
the LXX, collated twenty manuscripts of the Old
Latin Vulgate, and published eight editions of the
New Testament in 1841, 1843, 1854, 1855, 1856,
1862, 1872, and 1873. He had begun to favor the
Receptus more and more until his sixth edition. It
was then that he found the A.D. “Septuagint” manu­
script containing the Old Testament Apocrypha and
New Testament Apocrypha in the wastebasket at
St. Catherine’s. He immediately reversed field and
claimed that Sinaiticus (Aleph) was the greatest
Biblical manuscript in the world. With it, he al­
tered the New Testament in 3,369 places and pub­
lished the WBV—The Wastebasket Version.
Time would fail to tell of Tregelles (1813—
1875), Henry Alford (1810-1871), Bernard Weiss
(1892-1900), H ort( 1828-1892), and others “whose
diligent labors to restore the original text” by the
most “scientific m ethods” possible (see Chapters
Four and Eight) deserve the “warmest welcome,”
the “highest respect, “ and the “grandest honors”
for our being able to say, “For all PRACTICAL
purposes, we have the Holy Scriptures,” although
“we” judge them by our rationalistic opinions and
alter them to suit our fancy where “we” don’t like
them!
 I believe in giving “honour to whom honour”
is due (Rom. 13:7). Oh, yeah, sure I do!
I will grant that these apostate, dead-orthodox
scalawags were the most rotten crew of Bible-re-
jecting “Christians” that ever tried to make a fast
buck off a sucker. I will say as much at the Judg­
ment Seat of Christ if asked for a quotation. By
Weiss’ time, this crew had been exposed to Charles
D a rw in (1809-1882), K arl Marx (1818-1893),
Renan (1823-1892), Rousseau (1712-1778), Comte
(1798-1857), H obbes (1588-1679), D a v id Strauss
(1808-1874), Astruc (1684-1766), Wellhausen
(1844-1918), DeW ette (1780-1849), Paulus (1761—
1851), K eunen, M ill, E rn esti, Schleierm ach er,
Julicher, Hupfeld, Jung, Freud, and P avlov W ITH­
OUT ONE MAN IN THE BUNCH poking his nose
out of the bushes BEFORE 1611.
The AV, the Monarch of the Books, caused a
worldwide riot among college professors and an
emotional panic among Biblical scholars that God
had shelved. Nothing of the kind attended the
“original autographs.” The educated segment of
Germ any, France, Spain, Italy, E ngland, and
America went completely off their rockers after
1611 in an effort to get rid of ONE BOOK.
All of the English D eists (Lord Herbert, Tho­
mas Hobbes, Sir Thomas Browne, John Locke,
Blount, John Toland, Anthony Cooper, William
Whitson, Anthony Collins, Thomas Woolston, M at­
thew Tindal, Bolingbroke, David Hume, Thomas
Morgan, etc.) show up AFTER 1611.
What were “M om m a’s little helpers” (the bur­
dened, “godly “ scholars who were worrying about
the “readability” of the King Jam es B ible ) doing
trying to “update” the “archaic English” of 1611?
Why, bless your soul, honey chile’, baby darlin’,
dearie, they were doing then just what they did
between 1900 and 1990— turning out inferior trans­
lations that God was dumping almost as fast as
they were printing them. These silly backsliders
were trying to establish themselves as “saviors’
from the archaic words of the AV so that “G od’s
truth” could be “more clearly known” and not be
obscured by “meaningless words.” (Oh, we know
the line, baby! We know what the greatest mur­
derer in American history said after torturing and
dismembering more than two hundred women—
Herman Webster Mudgett, alias H. H. Holmes—
hanged in 1896. If you don’t, we do.7)
Here in 1663 are the Eliot Psalms, followed
by a New Testament from Daniel Mace (1729).
William Whitson attempts to replace the AV in 1745;
it misfires. In 1764, Anthony P u rver tries his hand
at it. In 1768, Harwood tries his hand at it. In
1791, G ilb ert Wakefield tries it. Then in 1795, Tho­
mas H aw eis tries it again. No soap; the A V goes on
through the Great Awakening, converting souls by
the hundred thousand. So, Archbishop N ewcom e
puts out a phony English bible in 1796, followed
by another phony one in 1798 (N athaniel S carlett)
and another phony one in 1799 by J. M. Ray.
O B SER V E HO W TH E E N G L ISH L A N ­
GUAGE BECOMES “ARCHAIC” FIVE TIMES
IN TEN YEARS. (You need a new translation once
every two years; that is, if you are BOOK PUB­
LISHERS!)
 But “the people aren’t getting the message.”
The Second Great Awakening in America takes
place without the help of C harles T h om pson’s v er­
sion (1808), Thomas B e lsh a m ’s version (1808), W.
W illiam s’ m asterpiece (1812), or the one by A le x ­
ander Campbell (1826). Not even Noah Webster
(1833) can “update the K ing’s English,” for it had
to be updated again in 1833 by Rudolph Dickinson,
in 1834 by G eorge Townsend, and then again in
1840 by Samuel Sharpe. J. T. Conquest tried it
again in 1841, while Jonathan M organ tried in
1848, and Whiting attempted in 1849. These were
followed by James Murdock and R. R. Hare in
1851. THE “K IN G ’S E N G L ISH ” GOT “A R ­
CHAIC” THREE TIMES in one year (1851).
Sam Jones, Peter C artw right, C harles G.
Finney, and others were just too stupid to “keep up
with the tim es.” They were too busy leading people
to Christ with a BOOK that was now 240 years out
of date.
But: “The Bible was meant to be read in a
language which the common man can understand
and was not to be hidden with such obscurities as
‘let,’ ‘prevent,’ ‘w ist,’ ‘w ot,’ ‘trow,’ ‘earing,’ and
‘rereward’.”
Abraham Benisch tries to rid the world of the
AV in 1861. It stays, so Hezekiah Woodruff tries to
get rid of it in 1852, but it stays. Then A ndrew s
Norton tackles the job in 1855 and falls flat on his
face. “If at first you don’t succeed, quit, quit at
once!” But the old English Lion is just too chal­
lenging. He is like Doc Holliday— “the top gun of
the West.” Little, mean “nobodies” can at least come
into temporary prominence by challenging him,
even if he whips their socks off and “beats ’em
into rag dollies” (North Carolina, c. 1987).
M urphy’s Law: in simple cases where an obvi­
ous mistake lies in contrast to an obvious truth,
pick the error, so that a number of subsequent “cor­
rections” can be made.
“We’ll get rid of you in the name of Christ,”
cry L. A. Saw yer in 1858 and Leonard Thorn in
1861. The Lion eats them whole and doesn’t even
burp. “Outta here, in the name of the Lord!” cry
R obert Young (1863) and Joe Smith (1867). The
Lion knocks them a country mile with one blow of
his left paw. “You will have to go” scream G. R.
Noyes (1869) and J. N. D arby (1871), “because
you are archaic and no one understands you any­
more!” The Lion yawns and goes to sleep while
they are throwing their jelly beans and powder puffs
at him.
Joseph Rotherham tries it again in 1878, Miss
Julia Smith tries it in 1876, and J. W. Hanson at­
tempts it in 1885.
There has never been “the like” on the face of
this earth. It is a phenomenon that is absolutely
unique in the history of literature. Here is ONE
BOOK— one, mind you, just one —and it becomes
such a fixation and obsession with those that don t
like it that 380 y ea rs o f “Christian scholarship"
are devoted to getting rid of it— “in the name ol
the Lord,” naturally! These men (and women) are
all professing Christians and are just as “godly” as
any megalomaniac who ever sat down at an RV
RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASV, NIV, or NKJV committee
 table. ONE BOOK— with over 8,000,000 in the
Library of Congress!
Well, to make a long story short, W. D. D ollard
tries to get the Lion off the premises in 1885, Agnes
Lewis tries it again in 1894, and R. D. Weeks tried
it again in 1897. (You see, in the nineteenth cen­
tury, the English language became “archaic” thirty
times in ninety years!)
To “understand the word of God more clearly,”
you had to have a new version once every three
years. And, of course, you are supposed to take
such scholarship “seriously” and even reverently.
Hey, man! I ’ve always been a “serious” stu­
dent of the Bible. I believe that every Bible scholar
should concern himself with the really important
things like “WHY D O E S N ’T BILL BAILEY
COME HOME?”
Now, you would think that these two-bit shy­
sters were through in 1880, but not at all. Their
masterpiece was still to come: the R evised Version
of 1881-1885, which printed an English transla­
tion of the Jesuit bibles from Jerome to Challoner.
The R V misfired and had to be replaced by
Weymouth’s translation in 1903 and the ASV of 1901.
Now the fur flies. According to Lewis Foster, who
served on the N K JV and the NIV committees (which
produced two of the most wretched examples of
apostasy in the Laodicean church), there were one
hundred English revisions o f the Bible (or parts of
the Bible) between 1880 and 1980. You see, the
old Roaring Lion of the Protestant Reformation
was becoming “a r c h a ic ” ON CE EVERY YEAR. To
make sure “the word of God would no longer be
clothed in obscure phrases” and be “unreadable”
because of the “words no longer used,” it would
have to be “updated” annually. You are to believe
this. You are to believe this just like you are to
believe in Santa Claus, Neanderthal Man, Pope John
Paul II, Daffy Duck, Gremlins, nuns, RSVs , inte­
gration, gun control, evolution, and Martin Luther
King Jr. You are (honest to God!) to take these con
men, who profess to be “Biblical Scholars,” s eri­
ously. You are to actually stifle your laughter and
bury your contempt for them when discussing their
“ministries.” Why, the cheap shysters are nothing
but commercial businessmen and have no more
Christian integrity than professional politicians.
F oster has the nerve to tell his readers that
there was a “NEED” for these 90-100 English re­
visions. Can you imagine it? ONE A YEAR WAS
“NEEDED”?
In 1901, Moffatt tried to shoot down the Lion;
his gun jammed. In 1923, G oodspeed took up the
safari; he was lost in the jungle. Following him,
M ontgom ery (1924), Williams (1937), and Verkuyl
(1945) bushwacked three pigeons and a turkey
while the Lion went his way in the hands of Billy
Sunday, J. Frank Norris, Bob Jones Sr., B. B.
Crimm, Charles Fuller, and Dr. M. R. DeHaan. Up
popped Norlie in 1951 and the “N ew B e r k e le y ” in
1969, accompanied by an RSV (1952), the NASV
(1963), and Phillips (1972). But the “NEED” was
so pressing that the body of Christ “DEMANDED
a clearer translation of the archaic “Elizabethan
English,” which Youth for Christ (1940-1960), the
Gideons, Jack W yrtzen, John R aw lings, Percy
Crawford, Hyman Appleman, Hugh Pyle, E. J.
Daniels, Oliver Greene, Art Wilson, and Harvey
Springer were using to lead two million people to
Christ. Between 1885 (RV) and 1965 (Amplified
Version), there stood nearly 10,000,000 sinners who
had gotten saved through the preaching of the AV
or through the distribution of tracts and other lit­
erature that contained nothing but the “outdated,
archaic, outmoded” AV of 1611.
W hat was “BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP” do­
ing during this time? Well, just what they had been
doing for three hundred years— attacking the Holy
Bible and attem pting to replace it with H U M A N ­
ISTIC RATIONALISM.
“G o o d N e w s ” came out in 1966, with the New
English Bible following in 1970; they both dropped
out of sight. Beck put out a New Testament in
1963, and Kenneth Wuest tried one in 1961. While
Eugene Nida and other apostate, dead orthodox
Conservatives “worked toward a science of trans­
lation,” the Roman Catholics produced the Coyne
translation (1811), the Challoner (1750), the C on­
fratern ity (later called the N ew American, 1970), a
Westminster version (1935), and a Jerusalem Bible
(1966). Kenneth 7ay/orput on the capstone by pub­
lishing a paraphrase (The Living Bible, 1971) that
said all lunatics were epileptics (Matt. 4:24, 17:15),
no Christian was commanded to ST U D Y the Bible
(2 Tim. 2:15), no one ever corrupted the Bible (2
Cor. 2:17), sex perverts are just “unloving” (Rom.
1:31), young women can get drunk (Titus 2:4), and
that none of the children of Israel who left Egypt
got into the promised land (Heb. 3:16). A ccording
to N um bers 26, o v er 60 0 ,0 0 0 o f them got into the
land.
There it is. That is the peak of nineteenth and
twentieth-century “BIBLICAL SC H O L A R SH IP ”
raving, irresponsible, and non-scriptural madness.
Sin will drive you crazy.
They messed with THE BOOK. That old Lion
scratched out their eyes, tore off their ears, slapped
their mouths shut, knocked out their teeth, ripped
up their backs and stomachs, and left them “half
dead” (Luke 10:30) on the road to Jericho. You
don’t tangle with a full grown Lion when all you
are armed with is a ping-pong paddle and a skate
board.
The English Lion of the Protestant Reforma­
tion rules the waves, roams the jungles, and re­
mains the “KING OF THE MOUNTAIN.” When
he roars (Isa. 31:4), the shepherds tremble, espe­
cially the “idol shepherd” whose DARKENED
EYE (Zech. 11:17) reminds us that the “Vicar of
Christ” is, after all, only an African pagan from
Alexandria, Egypt, no matter what kind of bibles
his friends put out. (SMILE. “G o d loves you!”)
Let the Bible-believer make no mistake about
what is going on. Let him not dare deceive himself
(1 Cor. 3:18; 2 Thess. 2:3; Rom. 16:18) with this
positive, pious line of pragmatic professors. Laodi-
cea is the age of humanism, the “civil rights” of the
“common man” who wants “social justice.” This
age is characterized by POSITIVE THINKING. It
is the hallmark of every branch of education, psy­
chology, psychiatry, politics, propaganda, and
“C hristian” ecum enicism . The catch words are
“sharing” and “dialogue.” The modern Bible revis­
ers are just as worldly as HELL when it comes to
these matters. Their profession does not affect their
attitude, approach, work, products, or their effect
on the body of Christ.
Marvin Fieldhouse (a missionary in Japan) once
wrote a book entitled Between Earth and Heaven.
His thesis was that the first and primary duty of
every Christian in every age from A.D. 100 to
A.D. 1990 was to find out and locate the exact
SPIRIT of the particular age in which he lived and
to gather all of his resources together and go di­
rectly against that spirit (1 John 2:15-16). The
spirit of this age is positive pragmatism: you use
something because it works. You justify corruption
on the grounds of income. You justify perversion
on the grounds of charity. You justify rotten, stink­
ing, m alignant, “relia b le ” tran slatio n s on the
grounds that they sell and you can lead someone to
Christ with them.
If you were to put the revisers of the Living
Bible, the New International Version, the New King
James Version, and the New American Standard
Version “on the carpet,” do you know what they
would say? We know. Do you know? Why don’t
you? You know the spirit of the age; can’t you
guess what they would say? Why, they would say
what any UNSAVED HUMANITARIAN would say
if he were seeking a rational justification for his
sins. They would say, “Look at the results. Look at
the sales. ” Then, being “good, godly, dedicated
Christians,” they would add just the spicy touch
that an unsaved man would overlook. They would
 say, “Why, many young people are being led to
Christ through the use of this translation.”
Why kill a good thing? Amen?
Gather what wits you have left about you and
let no man “thrack” you (William Gurnall, 1662)
with a lot of excess baggage. Clear the mind of the
cobwebs for just three minutes, and think the way
a mind should think that is “sound” (2 Tim. 1:7),
“renewed” (Rom. 12:2), and in line with Jesus
Christ (1 Cor. 2:16). Think BIBLICALLY for a
change, instead of POSITIVELY.
1. Any real soul winner can lead anyone to
Christ with ANYTHING; it doesn’t even have to be
a “reliable translation.” I have led people to Christ
with a wordless book that had NO WORDS printed
on it whatsoever. Who hasn’t? I have led people to
Christ with a Jehovah’s Witness bible (New World
Translation) because ALL OF THE “FUNDAMEN­
TALS OF THE FAITH” ARE IN IT. If you think I
am a liar, write me, and I will give you the chap­
ters and verses from a NWT teaching every “fun­
damental” BELIEVED BY BOB JONES III, CHUCK
SWINDOLL, JOHN MacARTHUR, and JERRY FAL­
WELL.
2. The men who did the actual translation of
these modern versions were not soul winners, and
in their writings you will not find one case where
ONE of them professed to have given a sinner the
plan of salvation, knelt and prayed with him, and
led him to Christ. Soul winners may “use” these
productions through ignorance, brainwashing tech­
niques, high-pressure advertising campaign, or simi­
lar twentieth century procedures and get “results.”
The “results” they are getting are about one-twen­
tieth the results they would have gotten it they had
been faithful and stuck with THE BOOK.
3. It is a miserable business to be engaged in
attacking the Deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the
Ascension of Christ, the Resurrection of Christ,
and the rules for godly living, and then go around
bragging about sales. The sales of the AV (around
1,000,000,000) were not based on any of these
things. To say, “God is using our translation” (in
the case of the RV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASV, NIV, and
TLB) is to say, “Having nearly obliterated the Holy
Bible from the American scene, we have at last
placed God in the position where He will have to
use our fourth-rate material if He wants anything
to get done.” Yes, God will use an ass or the jaw ­
bone of an ass if He has to. However, those respon­
sible for this condition are certainly not to be fol­
lowed, honored, obeyed, or respected, let alone
commended or praised. W hat these men call “reli­
able translations” (NIV, ASV, NASV, etc.) are God
dishonoring, Bible-perverting pieces of nonsense
that came from 370 years of collating ANTI-BIBLI­
CAL MATERIAL and believing it.
4. Anyone with a fourth-grade education can
pick up any copy of any “reliable translation in
this century and check the following verses with
the same verses in the Catholic bibles (Jerusalem,
New American, Challoner, Douay-Rheims, or Vul­
gate) and know where he is immediately: he is
kissing the Pope’s foot at St. Peter’s Basilica at the
Vatican. The following verses are the documented,
black-and-w hite proof that every English bible
printed since 1885 and recommended by Bob Jones
University, Tennessee Temple, Springfield, Colum­
bia, Arlington, Chicago, Dallas, New York, Oak­
land C ity C o lleg e, R ockm ount, N orth Park,
Pikeville, Nyack, M anchester, M essiah, Baylor,
Mercer, Stetson, Liberty University, Furman, Ce-
darville, W heaton, W hitworth Bible College, De­
troit, Bethel, St. Paul, Midwestern, Taccoa Falls,
Faith Bible College, Vancouver Bible Institute,
Heston College, King’s College, Grace Bible Insti­
tute, Bryan College, San Jose, Mid-South, Eugene,
Fort Wayne, (fill out the rest; it’s all the same crew)
IS AN AUTHORIZED ROMAN CATHOLIC M IS­
SAL (nihil obstat) SENT WITH LOVE “IN THE
NAME OF CHRIST” FROM THE VATICAN— old
Mother Whore herself (Rev. 17-18). Here are the
verses:
Matthew 1:25, 6:13, 20:22
Mark 1:1-2, 6:11,9:44-48, 13:14, 15:28
Luke 2:14, 4:8, 41, 9:54
John 4:42, 9:35, 11:41, 17:12, 18:36
Acts 1:3, 2:30, 7:30, 9:5-6, 10:48, 17:26, 23:9,
27:14, 28:29
Romans 1:18, 25, 11:6, 13:9
1 Corinthians 10:28, 11:24, 15:47
Galatians 3:1, 5:4
Colossians 1:14
1 Timothy 6:20
2 Timothy 2:15
Titus 2:13
1 Peter 2:2; 4:14
2 Peter 2:17
Revelation 14:5, 22:14
 No knowledge of Greek or Hebrew is neces­
sary. No knowledge of “itacisms” or “haplography”
is necessary. No high school diploma is necessary.
(“Hit don’t make no never mind”— intrinsic prob­
ability.) No knowledge of church history or manu­
script evidence is necessary.
God put it right out in front of you, just as
plain as the nose on your face or as plain as the
back of your hand. That is about half the verses.
You don’t need a high school education to find the
truth.
We mentioned these matters back in 1970 (The
C hristian’s Handbook o f M anuscript Evidence). No
rebuttal came from one Catholic scholar, one ecu­
menical Charismatic, one fake healer with tongues,
one pious phony “baptized IN the Spirit,” one Fun­
damental Bible scholar, one church dignitary, one
Evangelical believer, or one Liberal on any church
council. Those who talked about “FACTS” simply
shelved more than fifty verses that can be checked
in ANY translation. The modern translation move­
ment is “BACK TO ROME” ; it has been there
since 1901. The Christian leaders in charge of the
destiny of your family, church, state, school, and
country (at least the scholarly men) sold their birth­
right for a mess of pottage, in spite of the clear
warning given in the “Preface to the Reader’ in
1611 that such a thing should be guarded against.
This time, the hosts of Hell passed off as the Body
of Christ and as those holding to the “historic fun­
damentals of the faith.”
We would expect as much (2 Tim. 4:1-4). Fore­
warned (Rom. 16:17-18) is forearmed (Jude 17-
19).
We are armed to the teeth, and our bodyguard
(who always accompanies us) has more and bigger
teeth than we. He is a Syrian lion.
We now turn to the “Professional Liars,” that
“good, godly” Fundamental branch of the Alexan­
drian Cult, who all believe in the “verbal, plenary
inspiration of the original autographs.” All are Con­
servative “Evangelicals.” Any one of them would
lie to you as quickly as look at you.
 CH APTER SEVEN

The Professional Liars

. . men of high degree are a lie . . .
(Psalm 62:9)
. . the prophet that teaches lies, he is
the tail.” (Isaiah 9:15)
. . thou makest this people to trust in
a lie.” (Jeremiah 28 :15)

There are social lies, political lies, military

lies, domestic lies, religious lies, and commercial
lies, as well as philosophical lies and scientific
lies. Christ calls the highly-educated Biblical schol­
ars of His day liars (John 8:55), and says that their
father is a “liar” (John 8:44). Paul, in vicious,
bigoted discrimination, calls a whole RACE of
people “liars” in Titus 1:12; they came from HAM.
A man lies because he is afraid (Abraham—
Gen. 12:11-19; Sarah— Gen. 18:15; David— 1 Sam.
21:12-15). A man with a bad conscience (2 Sam.
14:24-28) is always afraid.
No man has to lie where there is no threat of
some kind. He is told to put away “lying” (Eph.
4:25), whether there is any threat or not, but hu­
man nature being what it is (Job 13:4), he still
tends to lie when under “stress.” Most of those
poor wretches who were tortured to death in the
Inquisition (1200—1600) made “confessions” un­
der torture; their confessions of “truth,” under tor­
ture, were false.
Here, we are about to construct some Greek
Testaments (see Chapter Four), translate some an­
cient versions, collate some manuscripts, check the
“reliable translations” (see Chapter Five), and trace
the AV from the Apostles’ “original autographs” to
the present. And what do we run into? A pack o f
saved liars. They profess to be born again, they all
profess that their friends and teachers are “good
and godly,” and they all profess that their educa­
tion is accredited because of the “qualified authori­
ties” who hold to “historic positions.” How do they
come out in practice ? They come out as bald-faced
liars.
Below, we list the seventeen standard lies be­
ing told a dozen times each day, in over a hundred
Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries in
America, without any regard for the truth at all.
These seventeen lies have been repeated over and
over with the monotony of a television soap opera,
and they show no signs of extinction. While you
are reading this page, the faculty and staff of Den­
ver Theological Seminary, San Francisco Theologi­
cal Seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary, Pacific
Coast Bible College, Arlington, Springfield, Moody,
Wheaton, BBC-Pennsylvania, Fuller, and Bob Jones
University are repeating these seventeen lies in the
classroom a dozen times a day.
1. “THE GREEK TEXT S A Y S ___ ” W hatever
follows this wicked lie is immaterial, for “THE
GREEK TEXT” says nothing of the kind, no m at­
ter what is quoted. No such animal as “THE
GREEK TEXT” exists on the face of this earth.
The published Greek texts (plural) are by Erasmus
(1516-1535), Stephanus (1546-1551), Beza (1565—
1604), Elzevir (1624-1678), G riesbach (1745-
1812), Lachmann (1842-1850), Tischendorf (1841-
1872), W eym outh (1886), Weiss (1894-1905),
Nestle (1898), Souter (1910), von Soden (1913),
Alford (1868), Aland and Metzger (1970), plus Fell,
Toinard, Wells, Mace, Semler, Hardwood, Alter,
Tregelles, Hug, Birch, Vogels, Doedes, Hahn,
Thiele, Bloomfield, and others. “THE GREEK
TEXT”? Go stick your “graduate degree” in your
left ear, you immoral reprobate!
2. “THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT SAYS
. . . .” It says nothing of the kind. You never saw
the original Greek text, nor did your professor, nor
did the rascals who wrote his text books. A man
who says this is a liar. No one is calling anyone
n am es; we are id e n tify in g L IA R S . C h arity
“rejoiceth in the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6), and if a
man has the truth (John 17:17) and the One who
guides into all truth (John 16:13), because he knows
the Truth (John 14:6), he is entitled to mark out a
liar and call him what he is (Rom. 13:9, 16:17-
18). Paul did (Titus 1:12), and he is your example
(1 Cor. 11:1).
I have on my desk a Bible study written by a
native Greek-speaking Greek who professes to be
“burdened” for the Greek people. It is by Spiros
Zodhiates, Th.B., M.A.; and it is modestly entitled,
“WHAT THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT SAYS
ABOUT APOSTASY.”
The man is a liar. His name is Spiros Zodhi­
ates, and he is a good, godly, dedicated, Premillen-
 nial, separated LIAR. He never saw “the original
Greek tex t” a day in his life. He knew that when he
wrote the words. Why did he write the words?
Pressure? Threats? Was he being tortured? No. The
only threat that such men worry about is losing
face before the “Scholars Union. ” They fear ridi­
cule worse than sin, death, hell, or the grave.
I have on my desk a copy of the Sword o f the
Lord, dated September 17, 1971. The editor is John
R. Rice. The ad in this paper says that the New ASV
(which attacked the Deity of Christ in John 3:13;
Luke 23:42, 24:51-52; 1 Timothy 3:16; Acts 4:27;
et al.) is “FAITHFUL TO THE ORIGINAL GREEK
TEXT” (p. 9).
You’re a liar.
“W ho’s a liar?”
The Sword o f the Lord published by John R.
Rice; good, old “Dear Dr. John.” Rice was a “good,
godly,” dedicated, sweet, old soul winning LIAR.
“How dare you say that John R. Rice lied!”
No one called him anything; that is what he
did. He would have been a liar whether anyone had
called him that or not.
You say, “How dare you call good men names!
How dare you abandon the sweet spirit of charity
which all real scholars use when objectively dis­
cussing nonessential differences!”
We weren’t discussing nonessential differences.
We were talking about professional liars that ob­
tain money by lying.
“Do you really think that those white-washed
hy p o crites at “F undam ental C o n g resses” and
“World Congresses” talk any differently when no
 one is watching them ?
Boy, you’re the naive one, aren’t you? You’re
so green that if they stuck you in the ground, you’d
“root.” Do you want to know how these men talk,
after passing resolutions in “Congresses” to “con­
demn all vicious and un-Christian attacks on those
who disagree with them”? I mean, do you really
want to know, or are you just going to go on living
as crookedly as those people live?
Here is how the President o f Bob Jones Uni­
versity talks about Christian pastors when no one is
taping him:
A. Roland Rasmussen has told “THE LIE OF
THE CENTURY.”
B. Roland Rasmussen has “LOST ALL HIS
REASON.”
C. Roland R asm ussen’s “M EAN STREAK
HAS ERUPTED.”
D. Roland Rasmussen “HAS NO REGARD
FOR THE TRUTH.”
E. Roland Rasmussen is “TERRIBLY INCON­
SIDERATE.”
(These are documented facts given to a lawyer
in Canoga Park, California, by Roland Rasmussen,
March 17, 1983.)
W ho is this horrible heretic named “R as­
mussen”? Who is this terrible “party-pooper” who
has lost his mind, lied worse than Adolph Hitler,
and has no regard for G od’s word (John 17:17)?
He is a born-again, secondarily separated,
Bible-believing, once-married, soul-winning pas­
tor of a Baptist church in Canoga Park, California,
who holds a degree from Bob Jones University!
 My, what unholy language! My, what “vicious
name calling” from a college president! Tut, tut!
Bobby-wobby, did Momsy-womsy hurt its itty-bitty
darlin’s feelin’s?
Robert Sumner: “Those of us who believe the
Bible to be the inspired word of God are willing to
... (The Interpreter’s Bible, Sword o f the Lord,
1957, p. 7). In this work, Sumner is attacking the
Liberals of the NCC: “Modernists approach the
Bible with an expectant attitude, confident that they
will find errors, mistakes, and a host of corruptions
from the original text” (ibid, p. 10). Hey! Hold the
phone, boy! Brake it! You just said that Modernists
approached “THE BIBLE,” and you said that THE
BIBLE they approached was not “THE ORIGINAL
TEXT.” Just after you said that THE BIBLE was
“THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD.”
Tongue-tied? A little trouble there, sonny? “Cat
got your tongue?” Are we to presume that you are
just stupid or that you are a professional liar? I
think w e’ll take the latter position. YOU are the
one that approaches the BIBLE confident that you
will find errors. This is apparent when you say,
“THAT IS OUR POSITION EXACTLY” (Bible
Translations, p. 30), after you said that NO trans­
lation was the BIBLE, and even G od’s WORD was
not errorless, but only “PRESERVED FREE FROM
SERIOUS ERROR.”
That’s how they make a living.
If you don’t believe it, write them and get
their signature on the letter. That was from a Bibli­
cal Evangelist (Robert Sum ner).1
How does this muddled, incoherent, God-dis­
honoring nonsense effect local churches? Well, I
will pick one out of my pile of over fifty: “Jimmy
Ellison, a graduate student at Bob Jones Univer­
sity, taught in his class (Faith Baptist Church;
Howard Pyle, Pastor; Decatur, Ga.) that the King
James Bible had errors in it and that he had fo u n d
some (March 17, 1971). He was challenged in class
by two of the boys.” After the class, Ellison was
told that he would have to stop teaching. Ellison
said, “No, because the PASTOR . . . BELIEVED
LIKE HE DID.” So the Sunday School Superinten­
dent took Ellison to Pastor Howard Pyle, and when
he apologized and told Pyle he would recant for
saying the AV had errors in it, Howard Pyle said,
“NO, YOU W ON’T, EITHER.” Then, both the Pas­
tor and Ellison, aping the Cult Creed they had got­
ten from Bob Jones University, stated: “The A SV
of 1901 was the best translation.” Upon being asked
WHY THEY DIDN’T USE IT, THEN, IF IT WAS
THE BEST (!!), “They made no comment.”
The S unday School S u p e rin te n d e n t was
“churched.”
Why? They couldn’t answer. No lying hypo­
crite can abide by his real convictions. You couldn’t
fool the suckers if you did. It would hurt your
income. So you join the “pros.”
On the cover-jacket of that God-insulting piece
of trash, the NASV, Stewart Custer of the Bible
Department at Bob Jones wrote that it was “FAITH­
FUL TO THE GREEK TEXT” (see Lie Number
One, above).
Both Fundamentalists lied and did it just as
smoothly and as piously as John Paul II pushing an
ecumenical movement through with the Muslims.
What pressure were Custer and Sumner under when
they both lied like a dog and knew they were lying
when they lied? None; except the Scholar’s Union,
which had been using both o f those lying cliches
since 1880. They wanted to be “in.” Their old na­
tures drove them to lying because they had . .
m en’s persons in admiration because of advan­
tage” (Jude 16).
Observe the “poop sheet” put out by Neal and
Custer, who led Bob Jones University into apos­
tasy more than twenty years ago: “For the vast
majority of verses in THE GREEK NEW TESTA­
MENT, we do have the exact reading that was in
THE ORIGINAL.” You lie like linoleum. Both of
you would lie to any young man sitting at your feet
as quickly as you would put food in your mouth.
Neither of you have ever seen “THE Greek New
Testament,” and you have never seen “THE ORIGI­
NAL,” and if you weren’t a liar you wouldn’t talk
like one. “These places are clearly marked in foot­
notes in THE GREEK TESTAMENT . . . to accept
as the only true text AN edition of THE GREEK
drawn up by a Roman Catholic Humanist (Eras­
mus) in 1516 and ignore the importance of . . . .”
Do you see the profession ? The ANTI-CATHO­
LIC GREEK TEXT OF THE PROTESTANT REF­
ORMATION, never recommended by ONE Catho­
lic official since the day it came out (1516), is
ridiculed, while you are told that Bob Jones U ni­
versity has “THE GREEK TEXT.”
Like they have Sitting Bull’s beads.
“Robertson defended THE ALEXANDRIAN
TEXT all of his life . . . MACHEN defended the
Alexandrian text all his life. To call these men
liberals or unbelievers is to SLANDER THE
DEAD.”
Kiss my foot. (Dynamic Equivalent of “rcpoa-
K D V E l ” ).
No one ever called Machen or Robertson an
“unsaved liberal” since the birth of either man.
What we said, (and are saying and will say) is that
men like them (including them) were, and are,
DEAD ORTHODOX APOSTATES of the most dan­
gerous sort; and, being totally unreliable when deal­
ing with matters o f fin a l authority, neither man is
worth giving the time of day to. Are we clear?
“This line of reasoning does not authenticate
the Textus Receptus, because the same reasoning
was used against the King James when it was in­
troduced. The Bible which has been used by the
most CHRISTIANS, in the most countries for the
longest time, is undoubtedly the Latin Vulgate. It
was the Bible of CHRISTENDOM for over 1,200
years. The Catholics used THIS ARGUM ENT
against the King James when it was introduced.”
Really?
“Christendom” was it, when you meant CA­
THOLICISM?
“CHRISTIANS” were they, when you meant
ROMAN CATHOLICS?
“THE LONGEST TIM E” was it, when you
meant THE DARK AGES?
“THE SAME REASONING” was it, when the
objection to the AV was that it was a Protestant-
Syrian Text connected with the Reformation, and
the Vulgate was a Catholic-African text connected
with the Dark Ages? “The same reasoning” was it?
Having a little trouble up there at Bob Jones
University, are we? Little “speech trouble,” isn’t
it? How about some courses on remedial reading
and proper speech?
John Rice said (Sword o f the Lord, Friday,
July 7, 1978) that it would be better to be a “Mod­
erate Christian” than a “Hell-Raising Pharisee.” The
Hell-Raising Pharisee Rice spoke of was anyone
who classified the A SV of 1901 with the RSV of the
NCC or the NEB. Rice—just as ignorant as Rob­
ertson and Machen— said that the differences “be­
tween the King James Version and the ASV [were]
so minor, so incidental, so INFREQUENT [that it
was] very foolish to make a big fight over the
difference.”
That’s how they make their living: by lying.
The A SV made 5,880 changes in the New Testa­
ment and nearly 25,000 changes in the Old Testa­
ment, and the changes were attacks on the Deity of
Christ (Luke 2:33), attacks on the Incarnation (1
Tim. 3:16), attacks on the preservation of the word
of God (2 Cor. 2:17), calling God a liar (Mark 1:2),
making a sinner out of Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:22),
denying infallible proofs for the Resurrection (Acts
1:3), and omitting the Ascension of Christ (Luke
24:51-52).
But if Machen, Robertson, Torrey, or some
other misguided Fundamentalist was a big enough
sucker to accept it, then to — - with the truth! Fol­
low the Fundamentalists! That is what we are deal­
ing with: pure, raw, humanistic relativism; pure,
raw, Laodicean apostasy.
Knowing that the ASV is an insult to God, a
blasphemy to the Holy Spirit, a reproach to the
name of Christ, and an inaccurate, bungling piece
o f African claptrap, built on the fantastic theories
o f two apostates (see proof in Ronald Rasm ussen’s
lengthy documented correspondence with Bob Jones
III in 1984-1985), it is recommended so that those
who recommend it will gain “scholastic” image in
the intellectual community and not be ridiculed for
their “nuttiness.” Rice couldn’t think clearly. His
headlines were misnomers. He said “MODERATE
CHRISTIAN OR HELL-RAISING PHARISEES
[ibid]. Must a Fundamentalist be a NUT?” We will
proofread and edit Rice’s attempt to justify an A l­
exandrian washout. Try it this way: “BIBLE-
BELIEVER or CHURCH-SPLITTING EGOMANI­
ACS. Must a Fundamentalist be a liar?”
Would you rather be a ridiculed, Bible-believ-
ing “nut” or an egotistical liar?
Let the President of Bob Jones University an­
swer that question (August 31, 1971):
“The A SV of 1901 is a reliable translation.
The scholars on our Bible faculty are men
of great spiritual INTEGRITY. [The head
of the Bible Department lied fourteen times
in writing thirty-five pages, see C uster’s
Last Stand, 1981.] Allegiance to the doc­
trine of verbal inspiration . . . believe IT
[the ASV of 1901] is A MORE TRUE AND
REFINED TRANSLATION THAN THE
KING J A M E S ___ ”
Upon doing that, Bob Jones III declared he
had no sympathy with anyone who did not uphold
the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, and he wanted his Insti­
tution to be “identified with the King James Bible
>>

Speak ye wise men; . . consider of it, take

advice, and speak your minds” (Judg. 19:30).
Now, how does a professional liar (a “M oder­
ate Christian,” according to John R. Rice, above)
justify this desperate, immoral, wicked type of de­
ception? Well, here it is in black and white (Nov.
14, 1978) from twenty-one years ago: “For this
reason, we can speak of the ‘accuracy’ of the AL­
EXANDRIAN MANUSCRIPTS and the complete­
ness and adequacy of the King James without be­
ing contradictory. AN UNBIASED READER OF
OUR STATEMENT W OULD UNDERSTAND
THAT POSITION” (Bob Jones III).
A. The AV is not accurate, but it is “adequate.”
B. The AV is not accurate, but it is “com­
plete.”
C. The African manuscripts of Origen and the
Catholic Church are “ACCURATE,” but not “ad­
equate.”
D. The University supports the African m anu­
scripts as “THE OLDEST AND THE BEST” and
the most “ACCURATE,” but THE UNIVERSITY
D O ESN ’T WANT TO BE “ID ENTIFIED ” WITH
AN Y TRANSLATION THAT CAME FROM THEM:
they want to be “identified” with an “inaccurate”
translation that came from the “poorest” m anu­
scripts.
But if you are “unbiased” (see above), you
will “understand that position.”
 We are unbiased. We understand “that” posi­
tion perfectly.
It is the position o f a frightened coward who
has been caught in a blatant, God-dishonoring lie,
and he is attempting to crawfish out by speaking
piously and carefully so he will not lose his “im­
age ” before the Body o f Christ. Yes, we do under­
stand “THAT position.” It was the position taken
by a Bible teacher many, many years before the
birth of Christ (1 Kings 13:18).
Your registrar (Marshal Neal: December 23,
1963) said more than thirty-six years ago that he
felt “THE ASV of 1901 IS BY FAR THE MOST
RELIABLE VERSION.” But d o n ’t identify Bob
Jones University with it! My God, what a calamity
to have people think you believed in a version that
was the most reliable “by far” ! What a horror to be
connected with the “most reliable version” on the
market, recommended by Machen, Robertson, and
John R. Rice! W hat could be worse? Nothing: they
would lose their enrollment. That is the way God
set it up. Christian Universities can only survive
by lying. You can count on them. They won’t re­
pent until hell freezes over or until they hit the
Judgment Seat of Christ.
“The truest translation available today,
which is nearest to the original languages,
is the ASV of 1901. You will be happy to
know that this SPLENDID TRANSLA­
TION [see above] is being updated into
modern language by a Christian founda­
tion here in Southern California [Charles
Lee Feinberg, Dean of Talbot Theological
 Seminary, January 8, 1969].”
Feinberg is referring to the apostate NASV,
which stated the doctrinal position of the Jehovah’s
Witnesses in John 1:18 and repeated all of the at­
tacks on Jesus Christ found in the ASV of 1901.
When we published Satan’s Masterpiece, the New
ASV (1972), not one man who used it, read it, or
sold it (including Feinberg) could answer ONE
charge we brought against it:
A. That it was the twin sister of the worst
liberal translation ever put out by the NCC.
B. That it was a Roman Catholic justification
of a Dark Age African text.
C. That it attacked “the fundamentals of the
faith” in a dozen places.
Having recommended a book from which they
do not dare preach, Rice, Jones, and company wind
up using the worst Liberal translation in the NCCC
(the RSV) when they get overseas, where their read­
ers (the readers of Faith fo r the Family magazine
and the Sword o f the Lord newspaper) cannot check
on them. You see, “be sure your sin will find you
out” (Num. 32:23), and once old John Rice says
that Acts 8:37 is a “gloss added by some copyist”
(Feb. 2, 1973) in the AV, it will not be long before
he will use a bible that Harry Emerson Fosdick
w ould recom m end. A fter telling us that some
preachers like Fosdick are “LYING DECEIVERS
(Fri., July 21, 1978)— oh yeah, man, Ruckman is
not the only one that uses “name calling”— and
that the King James Bible is “infallible” in every
matter of doctrine, Rice and Bob Jones Jr. slip over
to Japan, and guess what happens!
 “Dear Brother Rice . . . I was very grieved and
disappointed that you did not want to face the is­
sue of the higher critical structure of the RSV-type
Japanese colloquial version of the Bible that YOU
USED AND ARE CONTINUING TO USE . . . I
sent you the FACTS, and I thought surely you would
face them HONESTLY. [Oh my stars! How many
times have I seen that expression used in R ice’s
letters when he attacked a Bible-believer!] You con­
fused a purely scholarly problem with personal in­
terest in soul-winning, that does not qualify him to
give sound judgm ent in a scholarly matter such as
I treated IN MY LETTER TO YOU . . . You showed
an excellent exam ple of being a conscientious
Christian Scholar by taking a consistent Biblical
stand against the use of the RSV IN AMERICA . . .
but it is impossible for me to understand [Oh, come
come! If you were “unbiased you would under­
stand THAT position”: see Bob Jones III above!]
why you and many others who take a Biblical stand
IN AMERICA when it comes to the same or simi­
lar issue in JAPAN, YOU NOT ONLY ENDORSE
AND FAVOR THOSE W HO HAVE AN E N ­
TIRELY DIFFERENT STAND . . . BUT YOU AC­
TUALLY ATTACK [Oh, com e come! Not “a
moderate C hristian” : see above] THOSE WHO
TAKE THE SAME STAND THAT YOU TAKE IN
AMERICA. ”
Do you know who that was? That was a
born-again, soul-winning Japanese national, named
Tomonobu Yanagita, the Director o f the Bible Trans­
lation Research Institute o f Itabashi Ku, Tokyo,
Japan.
Do you know who the “OTHERS” were in the
above letter? They were Bob Jones Jr., Bob Jones
III, and Stewart Custer, who refused to take sides
for or against the Japanese RSV. I have all the cor­
respondence right here on the table. Yanagita-San
mailed Bob Jones University and the “Sw ord” o f
the Lord (God help us, brother!) all the informa­
tion on the RSV of 1955, and I have a copy right
here.
How do the faculty members of Bob Jones
University handle such an issue?
“We have no sympathy at all with the ex­
treme views set forth by a man such as
Peter Ruckman; those views are neither
scholarly, Biblical, nor correct, in our opin­
ion. In our opinion this text [Nestle’s] is
superior to the Received Text on which the
King Jam es Version is based [May 5,
1971V
So, when dealing with the Japanese in Japan,
the text that BOB JONES’ MISSIONARIES, BOB
JONES JR. HIMSELF, and JOHN R. RICE use is
the REVISED STANDARD VERSION translation of
the Greek text, RECOMMENDED BY THE FAC­
ULTY MEMBERS OF BOB JONES UNIVER­
SITY— in this case, Marshall Neal, Dean of the
School of Religion.
But, if you were an “unbiased person you
would understand THAT position!”
We understand it so well it would shock you.
No Roman Catholic Pope was a greater equivoca-
tor, and no Jesuit Ph.D. from Loyola could get in
the running with such “godly, dedicated” men. They
are in a class by themselves.
3. “INSPIRATION APPLIES ONLY TO THE
ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS.”
You couldn’t prove that if your soul depended
on it (see Chapter Ten). There is not one verse in
any translation, in any edition, of any copy, of any
manuscript on this earth, that says “only” the origi­
nal autographs are inspired; to tell the truth (!),
there isn’t one verse in either Testament that says
ANY “original autographs” were inspired (see
Chapter Ten). (This time, the lie is a half-truth, for
we will grant that faith would tell a Bible-believer
that the first copies were “given by inspiration”
(2 Tim. 3:16).
4. “ERASMUS DEDICATED HIS WORK TO
A POPE BECAUSE HE WAS PRO-CATHOLIC. ”
This is the most dangerous type of lying: it is
the kind of lying that went on in Genesis 3, in
which case the “lie” was 66 percent true. In the
statement above, the first half of the statement is
true, but this teaches as rotten a lie as Hell ever
vomited up. The Index is the Council of Trent’s list
of forbidden books; no translation from the Textus
Receptus has ever gotten off the list. The Fourth
Rule of the Index by this Council said that the
Bible could only be read with the permission of a
Catholic Bishop, and then only if it was a Bible put
out by Catholic AUTHORS. When the RV came
out— using the Catholic Greek text for the ASV,
NIV, and NASV—it was immediately recommended
by Roman Catholic officials. No translation from
Erasmus into any language was ever recommended
by any Catholic official ONE time in 400 years
(1530-1930). Erasm us’ “work” (see above) was an
anti-Catholic Greek text that was so “anti-Catholic”
that the Catholic Church would not use it when
translating the New American Version (1970), the
C halloner Version (1750), the Jerusalem Bible
(1966), or the Douay Version (1582).
You are dealing with “pros.” They are paid to
lie.
5. “ERASM U S HAD ONLY A FEW LATE
M ID D L E A G E S M A N U S C R IP T S TO W O RK
WITH. ”
This sentence, isolated from explanatory notes
(and other “facts” that were just as “factual”), im­
plies that they must have been inferior to Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus from the Fourth Century, and there­
fore, more in ERROR. The implication is carried
through by refusing to tell you the nature of the
“few late” manuscripts and the early ones. We will
show you their nature in Chapter Eight. The apos­
tate who gives you the line above is apostate to his
core, for this is the standard way that all Roman
Catholic historians write Church Histories; they
make a shocking statement, and then (by refusing
to discuss it), they leave the reader with the desired
implication, which is FALSE.
6. “THERE WAS NO TEXTUS RECEPTUS
UNTIL 1633. ”
This is the most vicious type of lying; you will
see it in print in the pamphlet by MacRae and
Newman on the “Receptus. ” This lying was done
by the Jesuit expedient of pretending that since the
exact terminology (“Textus Receptus”) was not used
 as a p rin ters’ expression in publications until 1633,
that no such thing as “a Received Text” (that is
what “Textus R eceptus” means) could have existed
at the time the King James Bible was translated.
This sick type of thinking can only come from a
mind that has been accustomed to lying for so long
that it can no longer handle the simplest problems
in logic. By this “logic,” anyone on earth could
honestly say that the “Alexandrian Text” of the
Revised Version and the American Standard Ver­
sion had no existence until 1798 or 1808, and that
no translation exhibited “dynamic equivalence” un­
til 1901.
The whole godless operation is as sick as a
hippopotamus with chapped lips.
The professional liar is telling you that a thing
doesn’t exist until it is named. (Hyper-Dispensa-
tionalists use this type of “logic” when discussing
the origin o f the Body o f Christ in relation to Eph­
esians 3.5) The “Received Text” is a reference to
the Syrian-type B yzantine Greek texts of the
anti-Catholic Protestant Reformation; it is now
called “The Majority Text.” You are to assume that
it was never in the “majority” until some educated
ass invented that nomenclature (around 1880). It
was always in the majority and was “received” by
Bible believers 1,500 years before the Elzevir broth­
ers put the title on their edition.
7. “KING JAMES WAS A HOMOSEXUAL. ”
Like the last three Popes? You couldn’t find a
shred of evidence to prove such a thing one time,
(although a French editor of a French magazine
was sued by the Vatican [1980] for calling Pope
Paul VI a queer.)
David was an adulterer, and that can be proved.
Noah got drunk, and that can be proved. Moses
was a murderer, and that can be proved. One of
those men was a man after G od’s “own heart” (1
Sam. 13:14), the second was a “preacher of righ­
teousness” (2 Pet. 2:5), and the third spoke with
God “face to face” (Deut. 34: 10).
Some humanists are trying to get you to junk
the AV on the grounds that a sorry King had his
name attached to it. The Psalms are connected with
David, and “the law was given by Moses” (John
1:17). You are to reject both of them on the grounds
of the moral character of their authors? Sick. Sicker
than a giraffe with a stiff neck.
Every pro-Catholic member of the English Par­
liament hated King Jam es’ guts, the Jesuits who
tried to bomb the Parliament hated his guts, the
Theocratic Presbyterians who wanted to establish
their Synodic “elders” as governmental rulers hated
his guts, and the man who called him “God’s silly
vassal” was a five-point, baby-sprinkling Calvinist
who couldn’t have kept up with James Scripturally
if both of them had been on the translating com­
mittee.
God picked a “silly vassal” named James be­
cause James was the right name: it is the English
form of JACOB. JACOB WASN’T A “SILLY VAS­
SAL”: HE WAS A “WORM” (Isa. 41:14.) It was
Isra e l (J a c o b ’s new nam e) to w hom “ THE
ORACLES OF GOD” WERE GIVEN (Rom. 3:2).
God simply waited until all of the Henrys, Arthurs,
Edwards, Richards, Johns, Stephens, and Williams
got out of the way.
Now, what about this Jesuit line that King
James was a “queer”? Was he as queer as any Pope
from A.D. 500 to 2000, who let people bow down
before him and address him as DIETY (John
17:11)? Was he as “queer” as Pope John Paul II,
who dedicated America to a female demon called
“Mary”? Was he as “queer” as the Catholic lesbian
nuns in 1985 who protested for their “rights”? Was
he as “queer” as a half a dozen Catholic priests in
1985-1986 who were arrested for molesting chil­
dren? Just how “queer” was he?
Well, he accomplished one thing that Rock
Hudson and Peter Tschaikovsky and Oscar Wilde
couldn’t handle. He united Scotland and England
for the first time so they became the foundation for
the British Empire, which pu t out more Bibles
worldwide than Russia, Italy, Ireland, Mexico,
Spain, and both Central and South America com­
bined. King James was the first earthly monarch to
encourage the propagation o f Bibles. Not one
Catholic ruler of Italy, Spain, Germany, Austria,
France, or Poland ever encouraged anyone. He pro­
moted the word of God in spite of the fact that his
mother was a thoroughbred Papist. (You should do
so well!) King James promoted the word of God
after seeing Roman Catholics brutally murdering
people in violent brawls while he was growing up,
and he promoted the word of God although he had
been baptized as a Roman Catholic. The Kennedy
Family couldn’t keep up with him.
King James knew Latin, Greek, and French,
besides English, and he could write in Italian and
Spanish. Thus, he was INTELLECTUALLY con­
siderably ahead of the committees that produced
the New American Standard Version and the New
International Version. (Kenneth Taylor, of course,
in such intellectual company would be like Cassius
Clay sitting down with Dean Burgon and Philip
Schaff.) If King James had trouble with “tennis on
Sunday,” he at least printed a tract against SMOK­
ING: no member o f the Revised Version o f the
American Standard Version did.
The originator of the Frisco-fruit-character of
King James was a man named Anthony Weldon,
who blackened the king’s reputation in writing AF­
TER he was dead (1650). Disobeying the specific
orders of Antonia Fraser, who told all future histo­
rians to include the important “rider” to W eldon’s
accusation— that Weldon had been kicked out o f
Jam es’ court circles and had a pathological hatred
fo r Jam es’ fam ily— Moody Monthly, Faith For the
Family (Bob Jones University), Christianity To­
day, The F undam entalist Journal, and ANY
OTHER FIFTY “CONSERVATIVE” OUTLETS OF
THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT would not hesitate
to blacken King James 400 years later; they all
would imply he was a homosexual. W here they do
not print it, the FACULTY MEMBERS AT THEIR
SCHOOLS mention it to their students, who then
print it when defending the American Standard Ver­
sion, the New International Version, and the New
American Standard Version. King James did not
turn against Baptists or Puritans until he was over
fifty-four years old, in a weakened condition, sickly,
and under the domination of High Church Angli­
can Bishops.
All Catholic historians (see Ruckman, The His­
tory o f the New Testament Church, Vol. II, p. 81)
and all Pro-Catholic historians, all Bible revisors,
and all anti-Reformation translators (say, any fifty
in this book) preserve the slander about King James
“fruitiness” with zealous care and holy watchful­
ness. It is “an historic fundamental of the faith”
with them. All they had to show for it was that the
King {as all Kings and Queens) had special “court
favorites” upon whom he showered gifts (like the
Kennedys letting Martin Luther King Jr. use their
private plane and allowing his writings to remain
holy, sacred, and untouched, while the IRS goes
THROUGH YOUR CHURCH RECORDS. There
are “queers,” and then there are queers.)
Moody Monthly (engaged in making money
by LYING; documented evidence follows), was try­
ing to sell the New International Version and the
New American Standard Version, but the Autho­
rized Version was in the way; so in the July-August
edition of 1985, they put out a typical Catholic
history called “THE REAL KING JAM ES,” and
piously attacked him with everything that they could
pick up. You understand, of course, that we are not
supposed to attack them! Special privileges. Dou­
ble standard. Alexandrian cult.
(The material from above will be found in
Antonia Fraser, King James VI o f Scotland and I o f
England, Alfred Knopf, NY, 1975; Stephen A.
Coston, King James Unjustly Accused, KonigsWort,
St. Petersburg, FL, 1996; Caroline Bingham, The
Making o f a King, Doubleday and Co., Garden
City, N.Y., 1969; William McElwee, The Wisest
Fool in Christendom, Harcourt, Brace and Co.,
N.Y., 1958.)
Alongside the Popes of his day, and those be­
fore him and after him , K ing Jam es was a
Spirit-filled Prophet and deserves the title, “The
British Solomon.” Alongside the translating com­
mittees of 1901 (ASV) and 1970 (NIV), he was a
Biblical genius; he approved o f a text that COR­
R EC TED more than f ifty FALSE R EA D IN G S
FOUND IN THEIR WORKS: The New Interna­
tional Version, the American Standard Version, the
New American Standard Version, and the Revised
Standard Version.
8. “THE AUTHORIZED VERSION HAD A
CROWN COPYRIGHT. ”
G ranted, but the copy of the A uthorized Ver­
sion I have has no copyright. Furtherm ore, any­
tim e I w ant to pick up a thousand copies of the
A uthorized Version that have no copyright on
them I can get them . I cannot get one copy A N Y ­
WHERE of ANY edition of a New Scofield, a
R evised Version, a R evised Standard Version, a
New A m erican Standard Version, a New In ter­
national Version (or any other “b ib le”) that does
not have a copyright on it. There is one book
that needs no copyright: it is the one I hold in
my hand. There are 8,000,000 books in the L i­
brary of C ongress that are copyrighted; the A u ­
thorized Version is not one of them .
9. “THE GENEVA BIBLE WAS CONSIDERED
SUPERIOR TO THE AUTHORIZED VERSION.”
He meant “by the Puritans” who were against
 King James. He meant “the Puritans thought it was,
for a few years.” He meant “it was dumped away
with the passage of time.” Liars just don’t say what
they know to be true. They give you half of it
(Gen. 3:5) or a third of it (1 Sam. 20:28-29) or a
fifth of it (2 Sam. 16:3.) That’s how they make
their living.
10. “NO TRANSLATION IS INSPIRED. ”
This is the standard LIE propagated by every
recognized scholar in the world of any persuasion.
Every faculty member of Dallas, Piedmont, Pills-
bury, Denver, Springfield, and Chicago teaches this,
and it has been printed so many times in Faith
Magazine (Bob Jones University Press) that it is a
joke. If there is one thing that all Biblical Scholars
agree upon, it is that “no translation is inspired.”
This agreement is 100 percent between Atheists
and Fundamentalists, Evangelicals and Agnostics,
Catholics and Jews, Neo-Evangelicals and Liber­
als, Communists and Conservatives. It signifies
Spiritual dementia. It is sicker than an elephant
with post-nasal drip.
(Something goes wrong with a m an’s mind
when he rejects fin a l authority.)
These poor, blind, ignorant sinners— many of
them with twenty-five years of formal education—
forgot in their dementia that Matthew 1:23, 2:6,
2:18, 3:3, 4:15, 8:17, 9:13 (and FIFTY verses like
them) were translations when they were first writ­
ten in the “plenary, verbally inspired, original au­
tographs.” Therefore, every lying hypocrite above
who professed to believe that M atthew’s “original”
Was “v erb ally in sp ire d ” excluded from “IN-
 SPIRATION” every quotation M atthew gave from
the Old Testament. The Old Testament was in He­
brew; the New Testament is in Greek.
They forgot the very languages they had been
using to correct the King James with!
Dementia. Just as demented as Jim Jones or
Charles M anson. Sicker than an alligator with
slipped disks.
When you ask them about these matters, their
faces assume the appearance of a jack-o’-lantern
whose candle has gone out. Their degrees, IQs,
knowledge of the original languages, good words,
fair speeches, tricky presentations, horrendous
“facts,” objective approaches, and “verified data”
were not enough TO KEEP THEM FROM LOS­
ING THEIR MINDS. Sin will drive you crazy.
11. “THE WORDS OF THE AUTHORIZED
VERSION NEED UPDATING. ”
They have been updated more than ninety times
in 300 years.6 That is an average of once every 3.3
years. You are to believe, according to these lying
apostates, that the English language has changed
so badly every three years that the Holy Spirit has
to alter HIS BOOK every three years so folks can
find it “readable.” Why would ANY of the words
need updating if “not one single fundamental doc­
trine of the faith was affected?” Why, THAT is the
alibi these apostates use when justifying their own
alterations o f the Authorized Version text in 30,000
places (the Revised Version, the American Stan­
dard Version, the New American Standard Version,
the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised
Standard Version, the New International Version,
etc.). Why the double standard? Simple: the foun­
dation of the Alexandrian Cult is raising conflict­
ing authorities so the scholar can pose as the final
authority: i.e., “GOD.” One standard for altering
30,000 words, but it cannot be applied to ANY
edition o f the Authorized Version. Nice folks: we
prefer the Cosa Nostra.
12. “PEOPLE CRITICIZED THE AU TH O ­
RIZED VERSION WHEN IT CAME OUT, SO THE
NIV, ASV, NASV, ETC., ARE JU ST A S GOOD. ”
You are a liar, and so is your father (John
8:40-44). You made a statement without details or
qualifications. You failed to mention that the people
who objected to the Authorized Version were Puri­
tans who burned “heretics” at the stake (see The
History o f the New Testament Church, Vol. I, p.
365), Catholics who burned heretics at the stake,
and pro-Catholic dignitaries in the English govern­
ment who wanted to return to Rome. The people
who objected to the RV, RSV, ASV, and the NASV
(all from the Roman Catholic Jesuit Greek Text of
1582: see Chapter Six) were born-again, saved,
soul-w inning, Fundam entalist PROTESTANTS,
who recognized a wolf in sheep’s clothing when
they saw one. Observe that by lying in generalities
(see above), the professional liar— No. 12 will be
found in print in every article ever published on
the King James translation— passes off a lie as the
truth. The prophets of Ahab and Jehoshaphat did it
just like that in 1 Kings 22:6. They told “the truth;'
they just didn’t say WHICH king would win. (Nice
work. Nice folks: we prefer the Unione Sicilone.)
13. “THE RUSSIANS HAD NO AUTHORIZED
 VERSION BEFORE 1700: WHAT ABO U T THEM?
WHERE WAS THE WORD OF GOD BEFORE
1611?’’
Answer? Chapter FIVE. It was all over the
world, because “the word of God is not bound”
(2 Tim. 2:9). Tertullian says that European nations
had the word of God before Constantine put out
the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313.
Note again the peculiar Satanic dementia that
afflicts liars like these, for by their logic (and I
never read one of them who didn’t think No. 13
was an “unanswerable argument”), one would have
to also ask: “What about the Russians AFTER
1900?” If only the “verbally inspired originals” are
the word of God, then neither Russia, Germany,
America, France, Sweden, China, Japan, Africa,
Asia, Australia, Cuba, Argentina, Hawaii, Alaska,
Spain, Italy, or Mexico EVER had the “Word of
God,” and they never will have the “Word o f God. ”
You will have to admit that a King James Bible in
700 languages worldwide sure has the “original
autographs” beat to a phrazzle (“frazzle” in the
“original”) when it comes to AVAILABILITY.
Consider: what kind of a God would inspire a
Book where three-quarters of it in the “originals”
was written in a language spoken by less than two
percent of the w orld’s population? The Old Testa­
ment is in Hebrew. How did the Russians make out
with that? The Japanese? How about the Chinese?
Do you want to line up the Hebrew-speaking Chi­
nese today with the English-speaking ones and see
whether or not the “originals” did the job?
When the world was a Greek-speaking world,
God had for it a Syrian-type Greek text from the
New Testament Church at Antioch (Acts 11:26).
W hen the gospel w ent EAST, it w ent into a
SYRIAC text from the New Testament church at
Antioch (see Chapter Four). When the world was a
Latin-speaking world, God gave it an Old Latin
Waldensen text that preceded Jerome by 100 years
(see Chapter Four). When the Reformation began
in Germany, God produced a German Textus Re­
ceptus for the Continent, and when He left the
Continent (History o f the New Testament Church,
Vol. II, Chapters One and Two) and went “world­
wide” from an island nation, He gave the world an
English Bible in “The King’s English” (see Chap­
ter Five). Where was the word of God before 1611?
All over the cotton pickin’ planet; what of it?
14. “YOU ARE WORSHIPPING A BOOK. ”
You are a liar, and so is the sinner who taught
you. I never met on this planet any man, woman,
or child who worshipped AN Y book. No Bible-
believer on this planet believes that you can mark
on God with ink or leave Him in the rain or tear
part of Him out or fold Him or put Him in a drawer,
or in a desk. Your problem is that you are about
half nuts. Sin has burned your brains out. The
nearest thing to “Bibliolatry” on the face of this
earth are the statements made by Paul in the New
Testament on COPIES OF THE SCRIPTURES.
They are in Galatians 3:8 and Romans 9:17, and
you will not find them discussed in ANY literature
printed by a major Christian educational outlet in
this country. I have worn out five Bibles printed on
the best paper you can buy. If you told people that
“ R u c k m a n b e lie v e s h e h as w o rn o u t God fiv e
tim e s ,” y o u w o u ld a p p e a r e x a c tly fo r w h a t y o u
are: a d a n g e r o u s , silly, irresponsible liar w ith the
m o ra l s ta n d a rd s o f a d o u b le a g en t. (A n d I say th at
w ith c h a rity !)
Liars, in “Biblical Scholarship” circles, make
a living by lying. That’s their “bread and butter.”
15. “THE BEST TEXTS READ . . . A BETTER
TRANSLATION I S ___ ”
Lied again, didn’t you? You said “best,” with­
out giving us the Greek text you used. Bob Jones
University does it all the time. On the Back of
“Faith fo r the F am ily” you will find that their
“Congress” condemned four Alexandrian versions
by name, but referred to “reliable translations” by
“good men" as . . . as nothing. The ad said only:
“Among such perversions of Holy Scripture this
Congress would identify the following: Good News
fo r Modern Man, The Living Bible, The Revised
Standard Version, and The New English Bible. ”
Any others? He d id n ’t say. He just didn’t MEN­
TION the New International Version, the American
Standard Version, the Revised Version, or the New
American Standard Version. He left it wide open
so no one would guess that he (Bob Jones Jr. in
this case) was teaching that the American Standard
Version and the New American Standard Version
were reliable, even though they came from the same
Alexandrian source as the New English Bible, Good
News fo r Modem Man, and the Revised Standard
Version. You simply play it cool, close to the vest,
as in Las Vegas. (We prefer seven card stud.) These
types of “Christian” ads have to be measured and
calculated with a smooth, slick, crafty, Satanic mind
behind them. Fred Afman, who taught at Bob Jones
University, now speaks up from the faculty lounge
of Tennessee Temple and says:
“I have taught for thirty years in the field
of Old Testament and New Testament;
for twenty-four years at Bob Jones U ni­
versity and for six years at Tennessee
Temple Schools. NEITHER OF THESE
SCHOOLS TAKES A STAND AGAINST
THE AM ERICAN STANDARD VERSION
OR THE NEW AM ERICAN STANDARD
VERSION.”1
Truer words were never spoken by any profes­
sional liar.
In the same letter, Afman says that Bible-be-
lievers will become a CULTIC group and “grieve
the Spirit of God.”
Lied like a dog; slandered your brothers in
Christ, didn’t you?
Do you know what Bruce Musselman Jr. says
about slanderers like Afman?
A. They teach infidelity.
B. They cause confusion in the minds of be­
lievers.
C. They reinstate the Roman Catholic Bible.
D. They repudiate the Protestant Reformation.
E. They cause DIVISION AMONG BELIEV­
ERS.
F. They take the same position as the Roman
Catholic priests.
G. They demonstrate that they are apostate.
H. They reject the wisdom of God.
 I. They reject the verbal inspiration of Scrip­
ture.
J. They are Neo-Orthodox in practice.
K. They put Christian Scholarship above the
Bible.
L. They have no fin a l authority.
M. They recommend versions that are doctri-
nally corrupt.8
When any old liar says “THE BEST TEXT,”
he is referring to the Roman Catholic text of 1582,
translated in 1885 by the Revised Version, in 1901
by the American Standard Version, in 1952 by the
Revised Standard Version, in 1963 by the New
American Standard Version, and in 1978 by the
New International Version. If he says “A BETTER
TRANSLATION SHOULD BE,” even if he is us­
ing a Receptus, he is simply altering the A utho­
rized Version text to suit him self so you will take
HIS word fo r the text, instead o f the B ible’s word
fo r the text.
16. “THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS CON­
FU SIN G TO M A N Y P E O P L E A N D C AU SES
CULTS AND SECTS. ”
Not according to any version of any transla­
tion, of any edition, in any language, on any conti­
nent, in any century. In Proverbs 8:8 it says, “All
the words of my mouth are in righteousness,”
and in verse 9, “THEY ARE ALL PLAIN to him
that hath understanding” (see The Unknown
Bible, 1985). “ . . the wicked . . . KNOW NOT
AT WHAT THEY STUMBLE” (Prov. 4:19), and
a man who rejects the word is appointed to stumble
(1 Pet. 2:8). '
 The Authorized Version never confused any­
one who believed it, but it sure has confused thou­
sands of EGOTISTS who messed with it. As one
apostate said in his paper, “Ruckman teaches that
G od p u rp o se ly m islead s p e o p le .’' W ith that
half-truth (undiscussed, undocumented, and just as
unexamined as any Catholic statement on Church
History), he left the matter where it stood. IT STILL
STANDS A S RUCKMAN GAVE IT FROM 1 KINGS
22:19-23, EZEKIEL 14:1-11, ROMANS 11:8-10,
AND 2 THESSALONIANS 2:10-12. That is how
the Holy Spirit intended for it to stand. Sure, God
will use an Authorized Version to mess up your
mind. “Light rejected becomes lightning.” You mess
with that Book and God will mess with your mind
(see Nos. 10 and 14 for documented evidence). Sin
will blow out your pilot light.
There is not one “cult” or “sect” in the West­
ern Hemisphere that believes the Authorized Ver­
sion of 1611 is the infallible word of God, contain­
ing the words of God: not one. On the other hand,
the Alexandrian Cult never believed ANY book on
this earth was the word of God containing the words
of God (see Chapter Nine.)
17. “YOU ARE FOLLOWING A MAN. ”
Thank God for that. This is what you were
told to do in 1 Corinthians 11:1 and I Timothy
1:16. The problem is following the right man. Ef­
feminate sacramentalists and demented scribes can­
not stand the thought of anyone following anyone
but them (see John 7:47-48). One thousand, nine
hundred, fifty years years ago, they delivered C hrist
“for envy” (Mark 15:10), not really because ot
“heretical teaching.” Accusations of heresy (John
1 0 :3 1 -3 3 ) and sedition (Luke 2 3 : 1 - 3 ) were “cov­
ers” : they wanted the populace to honor and re­
spect T H E M (Acts 5 :2 8 ; John 1 1 :4 7 -5 3 ), so they
a c c u se d real believers of following a “man” (John
9 :2 8 - 3 4 ) . Paul gets their heartfelt anathemas in
A cts 2 4 : 1 - 5 ; he is a “ringleader” of a “sect.”
Bible-believers were called “Hussites” because
“they followed a man.” Bible-believers were called
“D o n atists” because they “follow ed a m an .”
Bible-believers have been called “Lutherans” and
“Calvinists” because “they followed a man,” and
in the early days, they were called “M ontanists”
and “Waldenses” because they “followed a man.”
To tell the truth, all Bible-believers (Acts 2 4 :1 4 )
began their long journey by being called “ C H R IS ­
TIANS” (Acts 11:26), because they “followed a
man.”
When you hear some desperate liar on the fac­
ulty at Tennessee Temple or Pacific Coast Bible
College or Mid-South or Mid-Western or North-
Western, or Moody Bible Institute say “YOU ARE
FOLLOWING A MAN”— because you believe the
Book—you know what you are dealing with: a
mean, nasty, little, envious snipe, who couldn’t get
a real Christian man to follow him to a barbecue
cookout.
Now, here the reader has been given some
samples of the “goods” found in the stock-and-trade
of the “Pros.” These are the professional liars who
are paid to propagate this kind of Satanic rot, year
m and year out. Samples run into the thousands.
Here, for example, is a pamphlet by Christian Weiss
for the “Back to the Bible H o u r” (!)
It shows that the Revised Standard Version and
the New International Version and the New Am eri­
can Standard Version and other Roman Catholic
corruptions came not only from “discovered manu­
scripts,” but from the “original m anuscripts” and
“early copies.” The Authorized Version, on the other
hand, only came from the Geneva Bible and the
Vulgate: it had no relation to “original manuscripts”
or “early copies” or “recently discovered manu­
scripts.”
That is deliberate and intentional falsification
of facts with the manifest motive to replace the
Authorized Version with corrupt nonsense. On the
same chart, Weiss has drawn a line attaching the
Roman Catholic Douay Rheims (Jesuit— 1582) to
THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. (The chart was
taken out of the back of the Thompson Chain Ref­
erence Bible!)
Moody Press joins in (The Practical Use o f
the Greek New Testament, 1946) with “English stu­
dents simply cannot cope with the problem [Heb.
5:7]. The man who knows his Greek Testament
ALWAYS HAS M O RE OF THE TRU TH ON
HAND” (p. 65). A man who believes that is a dirty,
rotten, low-down, lying SKUNK, and that is a com­
pliment in his case.
There is no problem in Hebrews 5:7 a Bible-
believer cannot “cope w ith” (/ AM A BIBLE-
BELIEVER), and the man who “knew his Greek
New Testament” (in this case, John R. Rice) got
the passage so screwed up that you couldn’t un­
screw it with a corkscrew (see The Bible B eliever’s
 Commentary on Hebrews, Heb. 5:7, 1986). By “go­
ing to the Greek New Testament,” Rice decided
that there would be NO APOSTASY before the
Second Advent! (See his book on The Coming King­
dom.)
Biblical Scholarship? F. F. Bruce says that
Today’s English Version is based on “THE GREEK
NEW TESTAMENT TEXT.” He is a liar. There is
no such thing as “THE Greek New Testament Text.”
Ehrenstein also says it is from “THE GREEK
TEXT.” It isn ’t anything o f the kind. Lasor says of
the Revised Standard Version that it is quite faith­
ful to “the BEST Greek texts” (see No. 15), and in
some ways it the BEST translation available.
Michaelis says of the Revised Standard Version
that it is “by far the BEST revision of the King
James Version.” (The two are not even related;
they are not even from the same set of Greek texts,
manuscripts, or Greek editions. Michaelis is a liar.
You don’t get into the Scholar’s Union unless you
are one.)
Biblical Scholarship? F. F. Bruce says of the
Authorized Version that its defects are apparent,
since it came from an “inferior text,” and the trans­
lators were short in their understanding of the origi­
nal languages.9 He is a liar. That’s how they make
a living. Lasor says the Authorized Version has
language that is often meaningless today, and since
it came from an “inferior Greek text,” and that
since the Authorized Version is now dead, it should
be given a “decent burial.”
I have a better suggestion: put some manure
°n the graves where we have already buried all of
these naive, ridiculous, and non-scientific OPIN­
IONS. We buried the opinions of those kooks the
first time they criticized the Holy Bible.
Hawthorne says of the Authorized Version that,
although it is a “masterpiece of English literature,”
it is only a revision of a revision and, therefore,
can be accused of “bad scholarship, bad theology,
bad English,” and is sometimes obscure, and often
crude. (You understand that we are to “watch our
language” when discussing such characters.)
This is what they say about a Book we believe
to be the Holy Bible, containing G od’s words. We
are to say nothing “nasty” in return that “would
hurt our testimony.” That is, we are never to re­
spond as Christ responded to these same vicious
liars in Matthew 23 or as Paul responded to the
Greek theologians in Acts 17 or as Jeremiah re­
sponded to the recognized and qualified scholars
of his day (Jer. 23). No, according to the dictates of
modern Laodicean Christianity, we are to speak
“the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) and kindly “win
the erring” to Christ by manifesting “the love of
Christ” to them.
Here is a gigantic, multi-colored, Madison Av­
enue spread from Lynchburg. It gives its readers
“The New 1983 Christian Family Library,” which
contains The Liberty Bible Commentary (see The
Bible B eliever’s Commentary on Hebrews, 1986,
Chapters Three and Four), the Bible Almanac, and
a Super Giant Print Old Testament, ” and all in a
“beautiful binding.” On the reverse side is an open
page of the commentary with the heading, “Here is
your own BIBLE TEACHER to lead you through
G o d ’s w o r d a n y tim e y o u w is h ! ” W h a t d o e s this
“ B ib le te a c h e r ” te a c h ?
A. Matthew 6:11 is a prayer that a Christian
individual is praying to God after the resurrection,
because the Lord is “OBVIOUSLY THINKING OF
CHRISTIAN PEOPLE,” And “that is why I say
this is a Christian prayer. ”
Like your father’s moustache. (See The Bible
Believer’s Commentary on Matthew, 1969, pp. 112-
115). You'd better go back to taking short orders
for junk food.
B. The coming “Kingdom” in verse 10 is not
Christ’s return to reign over anything: it is a post-
millennial, Catholic interpretation that means the
Christian believer is to conform his INNER will to
God’s will.
How “godly” can one get?
My, aren’t you lucky to get “YOUR OWN
BIBLE teacher” from Liberty University?
John R. Rice in the Sword o f the Lord (!!) tells
you that Revelation 22:14 is a mistranslation that
was corrected in the American Standard Version of
1901.
He lied like a Persian rug. In the first place, if
it needed correcting, it was “corrected” 400 years
ago in 1582, by the Jesuits, more than 300 years
before the American Standard Version came out,
and in the second place, it was not mistranslated.
To this day, there is not a board of revisors on the
face of this earth which could prove that it was
mistranslated. Rice simply aped his “peers.” He
passed on some Alexandrian tradition.
He didn’t stop there either; he said that he
thought Acts 8:37 had no business being in the
Authorized Version because it was a “GLOSS.”
W asn’t he “godly?” Was Rice a “soul win­
ner”? Was he a good, kind, nice man? Was John R.
Rice a sweet, old, Christian gentleman? Of course.
Then what should we do in regards to respecting
his Biblical Scholarship and honoring his scholarly
opinions and educated preferences? Exactly what
we would do with the “Biblical scholarship” of
Bob Ingersoll or Tom Paine, and exactly what we
would do with the opinions of Bishop Sockman
and Bishop Oxnam.
Do you know who put out the Revised Stan­
dard Version (mentioned already a number of times
in this publication?) Well, out of ninety-five men
who put it out, thirty of them had Communist af­
filiations with ninety different Communist front or­
ganizations. One of them (Russell Bowie) had
twenty-nine Communist affiliations. Another (Leroy
Waterman) had twenty-five, and another (Fleming
James) had twenty-two. These men produced a book
which Michaelis (see above) said was the “best
revision of the King James Version available.”
Strange minds, don’t you think?
Here is Moody Monthly for September, 1977.
“HAVE YOU GOT THE WORD? THE ORIGI­
NAL GREEK WORD! . . . now the serious Bible
student [hackneyed cliche used by all apostates]
can learn to understand THE ORIGINAL GREEK
TEXT . . . read from THE ORIGINAL GREEK
TEXT by understanding the ORIGINAL WORDS.
Lie down, Rover. And don’t get too near the
dogs. They’ll get fleas from you.
 A bigger, fatter, juicier lie was never found in
the entire history of the Third Reich from Goebbels
in 1933 to Admiral Doenitz in 1946. It came from
Moody (!) Bible Institute.
Notice how as the apostates gradually loose
their minds— sin will drive you crazy: absolutely
bananas— they are forced to accept something as
infallible and inspired; so having rejected the A u­
thorized Holy Bible of the Protestant Reformation,
they “go a fishing” (John 21:3), in hopes that
some infallible substitute can be found. They usu­
ally land on N ESTLE’S Greek text or ALAND and
M ETZGER’S Greek text. Thus, they wind up with
an inspired “ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT” that is
the product of apostates in Alexandria, Egypt, and
preserved in the Vatican. Here is the classic ex­
ample: we cite a letter from the head of the Bible
Department at Bob Jones University, who has just
stated four dozen times that “ONLY THE ORIGI­
NAL AUTOGRAPHS ARE INERRANT AND IN ­
SPIRED. ” Having passed on this hypothetical
non-scriptural tradition (see No. 3) for twenty years,
he comes out with this!
“There is no doubt in my mind about my
position . . . As far as having an INSPIRED
AND INFALLIBLE BIBLE, yes, I have
one. THE GREEK TESTAMENT that I
HOLD IN MY HANDS I will defend EV­
ERY WORD in. There is not a single doubt
in my mind about the contents of THAT
book. So, as far as having a verbally in­
spired Bible, I HAVE ONE: AND I READ
IT EVERY DAY.”
 You incredible oaf! (They used to say, “vile
wretch” in the Anglican and Puritan tracts between
1600 and 1800.) You d id n ’t even tell us what you
are reading! Imagine a man who has the inerrant,
infallible, inspired word of God in his hand and is
reading it daily (that’s what he said: go back and
read the citation”), and then he will not tell anyone
what it is!
Isn’t that the most incredible thing you ever
read in your life?
Is Stewart Custer “separated?” Yes. Does he
support Neo-Evangelicalism? No. Is he not a “rev­
erent Biblicist?” Yes? Is he premillennial? Certainly.
Is he an honest man? Are you trying to be funny?
This is the man who wrote a pamphlet called
“THE TRUTH ABO U T THE KING JAMES VER­
SION CONTROVERSY ”
Can you match that? Robert Ripley couldn’t
find anything to match it in sixty years.
We will have the courage to tell you what Stew­
art Custer was reading, without asking his permis­
sion, counsel, advice, or response. He was either
reading N estle’s Critical Greek New Testament (of
which we spoke in our Preface), or he was reading
Aland and M etzger’s United Bible Societies publi­
cation, which is 98 percent the same Catholic Greek
text, coming from a Society that has Roman Catho­
lic priests on it, dictating the content of foreign
translations. And if Custer was defending “every
w ord” o f THAT text, he was supporting the
Jehovah’s Witness reading of John 1:18, which says
Jesus Christ was a “BEGOTTEN GOD.”
Dem entia. Kooks from Kookville, bananas
lo o s efrom the bunch, wimps on the ropes, boobies
out of the hatch, ding-a-lings out of the bell tower.
SIN WILL DRIVE YOU CRAZY.
One more good, godly, dedicated liar: this time,
it is Oswald Smith, one of the greatest missionary
statesmen of the twentieth century.12
“The Bible alone is unchangeable . . . there
is NO OTHER AUTHORITY. The Bible
is God’s INFALLIBLE WORD . . . THIS
BOOK I HOLD IN M Y HAND is a Roman
Catholic Bible . . . it is INFALLIBLE for
IT IS THE WORD OF GOD . . . it is not
the “only begotten Son” as in the Autho­
rized Version; it is the ONLY BEGOT­
TEN GOD . . . the difficulty in regard to
the use and meanings of these various
words lies in the erroneous translation o f
the Greek and Hebrew words in OUR A U ­
THORIZED Version o f the Bible . . . in
THE ORIGINAL these terms are never
misused, but in the AUTHORIZED VER­
SION ONE IS HOPELESSLY AT SEA.”
The name of that book was THE BATTLE FOR
THE TRUTH. Isn’t that the most remarkable book
title you ever saw in your life? Isn’t that fantastic?
He almost crossed the finish line before Custer,
didn’t he, when it comes to pure out-and-out LY­
ING? Murphy: the truth of a proposition is not
related to its credibility and vice versa.
Oswald J. Smith was a “good, godly, dedi­
cated, saved, born-again, soul-winning, premillen-
nial, missionary statesman.”
In matters o f FINAL AUTHORITY you couldn't
trust him, or his son, as fa r as you could kick the
Hummingbird Express (1950-1960).
AFTER the head of the Bible Department at
Bob Jones stated that the Alexandrian Text of West-
cott and Hort was superior to the Receptus of the
Protestant Reformation, after he had lied fourteen
times on thirty-five pages of polemic literature, af­
ter he claimed that the Alexandrian Greek New
Testament was inspired and inerrant, after he stated
that no translation was inspired and that the A u­
thorized Version was full of errors, Bob Jones Uni­
versity held a “World Congress” ! In Faith Maga­
zine of May-June 1983, we find that the theme of
the “Congress” was to be “THE AUTHORITY OF
THE SCRIPTU RES”!
Isn’t that the most fascinating rip-off that you
have ever read about?
Why, since 1930, there has never been on the
faculty o f Bob Jones University a Bible teacher
who believed “THE SCRIPTURES” have been on
this earth after A.D. 200. Panosian spoke on “The
Authority o f the Scripture Versus the Pope, ” Ian
Paisley spoke on “The Authority o f the Scripture
Versus the Confusion o f English Translations. ” Rev.
Cooke spoke on “The Authority o f the Scripture
Versus the World Council o f Churches,” and J. B.
Williams spoke on “The Authority o f the Scripture
Versus the Southern Baptist Convention. ”
EVERY SPEAKER IN THE PULPIT USED
THE AUTH ORIZED KING JAM ES BIBLE AS
“THE SCRIPTURES” without one faculty member
on the platform believing it was “the Scriptures,
for Bob Jones University has stated, in print, be­
fore and after, that since “all scripture is given by
A S P IR A T IO N O F G O D ” (2 Tim. 3:16), and NO
TRANSLATION WAS INSPIRED, the King James
Version could not be Scripture.
What then was the “Congress” about?
Easy: the authority o f the Scholar's Union. It
was a “front” for the biggest pack of liars that ever
talked a young preacher out of his faith in THE
BOOK.
Why do they lie? W hat is the pressure that
makes them fear? Men lie when they are afraid.
Well then, what are they afraid of? We will repeat a
great truth. They fe a r RIDICULE worse than they
fear sin, death, hell, or offending God. They are
like Herod at the table, who stupidly committed
himself (Mark 6:26) and then was too yellow to
back out. They will never back out. They will die
in their sins (John 8:21) when these sins amount to
lying about what they believe and what lies behind
their desire to replace and get rid of the Protestant
Text o f the E n g lish R efo rm a tio n . T hey are
“seven-in-a-bed,” a “dim e-a-dozen,” and not a
“straw to choose between them .” They are a mu­
tual, bunny-rabbit society that burrows in false­
hood together. Their PROFESSIONS and their
TALK are nothing but professions and talk; upon
examination (as we have done and will do here),
they turn out to be nothing but sneaky, frightened,
httle children (Eph. 4:14-15) trying to make mer­
chandise out of the Body of Christ by pretending
to believe something they d o n ’t believe at all (see
Campfire Girls and Brownies,” The “E rrors” in
*he King James Bible, 1999). They are professional
liars. They feel that without their lies they could
not make a living.
How did this subject fail to make the agenda
at the Congress: “The Scriptures Versus 20th Cen­
tury Biblical Scholarship”? D on’t you think that
would have been appropriate? Surely these people
believe THE SCRIPTURES are more authoritative
than Biblical Scholarship. Wasn t the theme. THE
AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES, ” Too bad
the Scriptures turned out to be a second-rate au­
thority to the faculty and staff who sat in judgment
on them as th &final authority! You see, the Scrip­
tures,” at this Congress, had power to correct the
Pope, modernistic translations, the World Council
of Churches, and the Southern Baptist Convention
(see above), but when confronted with APOSTATE
FUNDAMENTALISTS ON THE PLATFORM OF
THE “CONGRESS,” THE SCRIPTURES WERE
POWERLESS.
Are we to “honor” these men because of their
“stand”? Are we to speak of them with “respect?’
Who do you think you are talking to, Twinkle
Toes and Tinker Bell?
Why, the Dean of the School of Religion at
Bob Jones University, who sat on the platform in
the “chief seats in the synagogues” (Matt. 23:6),
openly professed (not quite openly— he wrote it,
hoping no one that had any sense would read the
letter) that the word o f God was nothing written.
and that “ideally man should not need to have tlu
Word of God in written form” (Dec. 28,1985).
have his correspondence right here on the table. !
says that 2 Corinthians 2:17 was mistranslated be-
cause it was not a reference to anyone trying to
corrupt the W RITTEN words of God (Imagine
THAT, after studying Vaticanus, Siniaticus, P45, P66,
and P 75!), because “the written words are merely a
physical record of what is in God’s MIND and
heart . . . . The eternal Word which is communi­
cated by The Spirit of God can never contain er­
rors.” Mysticism; pure Charismatic mysticism as
good as Hagin, Copeland, Branham, and Goreman
ever put it out. “The Word of God is eternal, and
IT [not words!] IS essentially SPIRITU AL”— not
physical: not on paper.
According to the Dean of the School of Reli­
gion at Bob Jones University, writing on official
stationary with the approval of Bob Jones Jr., Bob
Jones III, and Bob Jones IV (coming up), the “ one
jo t o r one tittle” of Matthew 5:18 was an Egyp­
tian allegorizing statement in line with O rigen’s
school in Africa. Christ did not really mean “jo t”
and “tittle ”— which are references to the form a­
tion of Hebrew letters printed on paper—no, Christ
was just “accommodating Him self to his audience”
(see Semler, p. 24) and was actually referring to
“the fact that the eternal Word of God will never
lose its authority . . . all His commandments must
be obeyed or there will be eternal consequences.”
(This, incidentally, is the Seventh-day Advent­
ist teaching on the verse: Matt. 5:18. You have to
keep “ALL HIS COMMANDMENTS, ” and the Sab­
bath is one o f them. You are to presume from this
exegesis that the Dean of the School of Religion at
Bob Jones is a Seventh-day Adventist. Of course,
be is not, but SIN will make you incoherent when
you try to pervert the WORDS of God under the
alibi that they are only “what is in the mind of
God,” that they “DO NOT SHOW UP PHYSICAL­
LY ON PAPER. ”)
In defense of the Revised Standard Version
reading o f the N ational C ouncil of C hristian
Churches and the New King James Version (2 Cor.
2:17 has been corrupted in ALL English versions
since 1880), Dean Wisdom, representing a man
who criticized Lee Roberson for not taking a m ili­
tant stand,” says that “The Greek word translated
‘corrupt’ has the idea of HANDLING the Word of
God [nothing physical or written, according to what
he just said] deceitfully . . . the reference HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH PH YSICAL M ANU ­
SCRIPTS. ”
And how does one handle “the word of God
deceitfully” (2 Cor. 4:2), Dr. Dumbbell (called
“W isdom” by some)? It is “ADULTERATING THE
WORD BY MIXING TRUTH WITH ERROR."
And you do that without writing anything or chang­
ing anything written, according to Dr. Dumbhead ?
Would the reader care to check out “Wisdom and
see how much wisdom is in him? Then let the
reader turn to the pages in this work and document
how truth IS mixed with error in writings, in Scrip­
ture translations, in transcription, in translating and
in manuscripts that are “physical.” “ADULTERA­
TION” was the word (see the Scripture quoted at
the beginning of Chapter Ten). It was done in a
LOAF OF BREAD (Matt. 13:33), and the word of
God is BREAD (Luke 4:4; Deut. 8:3). In both of
those last references, it was reference to what was
 WRITTEN down after God spoke it.
How did the “Dean” of a school that brags
about its “militant stands” and its “standing for the
absolute authority of the Bible” fail to see every
salient reference to the passage that dealt with the
authority of the Bible? And then his school had the
nerve to congregate a bunch of suckers under the
pretense that their “Congress” was on “The author­
ity of the scriptures”? According to the Dean of
their School of Religion (Dr. Blockhead), 2 Corin­
thians 2:17 and Matthew 5:18 have nothing to do
with the scriptures.
Do the Dry Cleaners (O ’Hair, Baker, Stam,
Moore, Watkins, Jordan, et al.) fare any better when
it comes to lying? Of course not. Cornelius Stam
will still whimper about “Ruckman” m isrepresent­
ing him and slandering him (Jan. 1986) for calling
him a five-point Calvinist, which he is (limited
atonement), and a Bible corrector (which he is)
who uses the African Jesuit text of 1885 to correct
the Authorized Version (which he does). He then
will pretend that he has not written Man, His N a­
ture and His Destiny, where the corrections appear
five times on two pages (pp. 76 and 107). Stam
says, “The rest of the verse (Rom. 8:1) is an IN­
TERPOLATION.” That is, Stam was stupid enough
to accept the Scofield note on Romans 8:1 as cor­
rect, since Scofield got it from the Revised Stan­
dard Version of 1885 and the American Standard
Version o f 1901: both of them follow ing the
Alrican-Egyptian text of the Roman Catholic Jesu­
its (Douay-Rheims). In From Glory to Glory, Stam
says that a misconception has arisen from the Au-
 thorized Version reading of Exodus 34:33, because
“the word ‘till’ does not OCCUR IN THE ORIGI­
NAL. ”
Stam never saw “THE ORIGINAL” a day in
his life. Neither did Jordan, Baker, O ’Hair, Moore,
or Watkins. He just pretended. HE LIED.
If you read Stam ’s book on The Present Peril,
you would find that he is a hard-shell, primitive
Dry Cleaner (almost said “Baptist” !) to the core.
No one misrepresented him ANYWHERE a day in
his life. I have clipped the pages from these books
and have them pasted in my Doomsday Books.
“I am being m isrepresented.” You are being
exposed.
“I am being slandered.” You are being docu­
mented.
“Ruckman misrepresents our position.” You are
a liar, and you came by it naturally.
“Ruckman vilifies good men.
Ruckman identifies liars.
Liars are born, as well as made.
The Scholar’s Union, (at least that section that
is claimed by the Alexandrian Cult) will lie delib­
erately, on purpose, with a purpose in mind when
they lie. They want to IMPLY that they have access
to the original autographs, although they would
disclaim this charge. The fact that they say “THE
GREEK TEXT” without identifying it, and “THE
BEST GREEK TEX TS” w ithout nam ing them,
shows their intent exactly, and no amount of pious
juggling of the King’s English will absolve them
of criminal guilt. They are purposely leading you
to believe that their sources fo r correcting the Holy
Bible are superior to yours. The deception is cal­
culated, measured, planned, and executed with BIB­
LICAL DESTRUCTION in mind: transferring your
belief from the text of the Holy Bible to the
Scholar’s Union. They have done this continually
fo r 300 years.
They are pros. They make their living by lying.
Would you care to see this old double-tongued
flimflam in operation one more time? Let’s cite Dr.
Allan MacRae (March 14, 1975) and Dr. Robert
Newman in their forward to Facts About the Textus
Receptus. (They do love that word “facts,” don’t
they? T hat’s a real hang-up with them. Almost as
good as “scientific.”) Well, Sir! The authors of this
pamphlet believe that “THE BIBLE IS GO D’S IN­
FALLIBLE W ORD.” Bible-believers, right? REAL
Bible-believers, right?
D on’t be silly.
“ . . . and that its original autographs were ver­
bally inspired and completely free from error of
any kind.” Proof?
Don’t be silly.
You’re dealing with the Scholar’s Union of the
Alexandrian Cult. FACTS are no longer available.
There isn’t one verse in any version of any transla­
tion in any edition of any Bible on the face of this
earth that says the “original autographs were com­
pletely free from error of any kind.” You just got
the opinion of two men whose opinions are “facts
in their own way of thinking.
Now! Having said that “THE BIBLE IS GOD’S
INFALLIBLE W ORD,” we get this: “We are sorry
that it is sometimes asserted that the KJV is the
only Bible in the English language that REPRE­
SENTS the Word of God.” Now, read that again.
I s n ’t he implying (if not stating outright) that there
are OTHER “BIBLES” in the English language
(see above) that “represent the Word of God?” Of
course. Read it one more time and see if we have
m isrep resen ted M acR ae and N ew m an. N ote:
MacRae and Newman believe in English BIBLES,
not just one English “BIBLE.” But what is this?
They just said “THE BIBLE” is “G od’s infallible
Word.” Which Bible? You say, “The original auto­
graphs.” The original autographs were never to­
gether in any “Bible. ” No “Bible” on this earth
had sixty-six “original autographs” in it. You say,
“Well, they meant. Don’t give us that moonshine.
They said “The Bible” was “God’s infallible Word,”
and that the Authorized Version is not the only
English Bible that “represents G od’s Word.”
O ther English BIBLES (did you get that!
“BIBLES!”) must also “represent G od’s Word.”
A. “The B ible” is N O T G od’s “Word. ”
B. The Bible only “represents G od’s Word. ”
C. But, “the Bible is infallible, ” b u t . . .
D. N O T A N Y BIBLE YOU EVER SAW, OR
EVER WILL SEE.
E. However! You can get something that “rep­
resents G o d ’s W ord” and CALL IT A
“BIBLE” (see above, I “asserted that the
KJV is the only Bible in the ENGLISH
LANGUAGE . . .”) even though it is NO T
“infallible,” for it is only THE BIBLE that
“IS G O D ’S INFALLIBLE W ORD” (see
above).
 W hat are MacRae and Newman trying to say,
with hot mush in their mouth and smoked glasses
over their eyes? They are trying to say “THERE IS
NO BIBLE ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH IN
A N Y LANGUAGE. ” They just didn’t have the cour­
age to say it. It would have cost them something (I
Timothy 6:10). You can’t make a good living say­
ing what you really believe, so you duck, dodge
(see above), twist, turn (see above), omit state­
ments while making implications (see above), and
then pretend you are a “Bible-believer.’
According to the sane meaning of the English
words found in a dictionary written by a sane man,
these men just said this (and we have exaggerated
nothing and misrepresented no one):
“THE BIBLE IS G O D ’S INFALLIBLE
W O R D . . . IT IS S O M E T IM E S A S ­
SE R T E D THAT T H E K JV IS TH E
ONLY INFALLIBLE W ORD IN THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE THAT R EP RE ­
SENTS G O D ’S WORD [THE BIBLE].
T H E R E A R E O T H E R IN F A L L IB L E
WORDS THAT REPRESEN T G O D ’S
W ORD [THE INFALLIBLE WORD]. ”
Read it again. Check it with what they just
quoted. Read it one more time. That is twentieth-
century Fundamentalist scholarship at the peak ot
scientific learning.
Murphy: Nature has again sided with the hid­
den flaw.
MacRae and Newman are “manuscriptolators.
They are “autograph-believers.” They just couldn t
make living presenting their true colors, so they
 color: chameleons do it all the time. W ho­
ch a n g e d
ever w asted his tim e to read M acR ae’s and
Newman’s Facts About the Textus Receptus did it
after being warned by their own profession that
they would take the term “BIBLE” and apply it
without any regard to what they professed to be­
lieve was “THE BIBLE.” Ditto Robert Sumner (p.
148), John R. Rice (p. 248), Truman Dollar (p. 21),
Bob Jones III (p. 56), and the faculty and staff of
Moody, Wheaton, Fuller, Denver, Dallas, Chicago,
Arlington, Springfield, Lynchburg, and Tennessee
Temple.
Having disposed with 90 percent of the Pro­
fessional Liars at one blow, we now turn to the
actual history and mechanics of Biblical Scholar­
ship, and the sources and roots of the modern
so-called “reliable translations.”
 Restoring the Original
African Mummy
. . the lips of a fool will swallow up
himself. The beginning of the words of
his mouth is foolishness: and the end of
his talk is mischievous madness.”
(Ecclesiastes 10:12-13)

We now get to the particulars of what has pre­

ceded, the actual mechanics of “determining” the
“best and oldest text” or the “best and oldest manu­
scripts” or the “reading which best suits the style
of the author.” Throughout this vast pageantry, de­
scribed in Chapters Four, Five, and Six, an under­
ground tradesm en’s orgy will be going on, care­
fully hidden from the eyes of the body of Christ
and reserved for the choicely initiated “elect” who,
by nature, just happen to have more intelligence,
wisdom, and spiritual discernment than 98 percent
o f the body o f C h rist. T h is e lite group of
self-appointed professional liars (see Chapter
Seven) is w hat we call “TH E S C H O L A R 'S
UNION. ” You cannot enter it if you believe ANY
Book on this earth is the infallible, inerrant Holy
Bible: the word of God, containing the words of
God. You are allowed to PROFESS to believe that
when you don’t, but make sure you don’t believe
what you profess, or they will kick you out of it
(see Appendix One). Like all trades, the top place
in the hierarchy is determined by the knucklehead
who can learn the most words that nobody else
knows. For a modern example, observe this: “The
Fortran and Cobol in the assembler, with the acro­
nyms in the binary machine, give sequential access
and form-feeding to the macro-library and com­
mand dispatcher, so the line-mode and dormant
task of the secondary-pool is executable with data-
transfer and the speech-synthesis modules;” which
means, “Tuition for this course will be $500.00 per
semester hour.”
First, you must look at your material (p. 4 6 -
71). These are the following pieces of information
you are going to work with, according to ten of the
greatest “Biblical Scholars” who ever lived:
According to Stephanus, in 1550, you would
have 15 manuscripts to work with.
According to John Mill, in 1707, you would
have 82 manuscripts to work with.
According to J. J. Wettstein, in 1751, you would
have 125 manuscripts to work with.
According to J. M. A. Scholtz, in 1820, you
would have 3,000 manuscripts to work with.
According to C. R. Gregory, in 1884, you
would have 4,000 manuscripts to work with.
According to H. C. Thiessen, in 1948, you
Would have 4,411 manuscripts to work with.
According to Kenyon, in 1950, you would have
4,489 manuscripts to work with.
According to Bruce Metzger, in 1964, you
Would have 5,255 manuscripts to work with.
 Scrivener and Stephanus are the only two
scholars after 1550 (12.5%) who stand by the Tex­
tus Receptus of the German and English Reforma­
tions; every other man named (87.5%) is a Roman
Catholic supporter of the African Text of the Ro­
man Catholic Church. The last two men work with
Roman Catholic priests in the United Bible Societ­
ies.
Now, there is a further breakdown in these
matters, for as we have noted, there exists not only
UNCIAL manuscripts, but cursive manuscripts, pa­
pyri, and lectionaries. The “breakdown” on these,
according to the latest estimate (Kurt Aland), is 81
papyri, 267 uncials, 2,764 cursives, and 2,143
lectionaries, which total 5,255 manuscripts to work
with. Here the Bible believer should note that West-
cott and Hort constructed the Roman Catholic R e­
vised Version of 1885 on the theory that TWO
manuscripts (and sometimes only one: Vaticanus)
outweighed the testimony of between 100 and 5,000
manuscripts. “A FALSE BALANCE IS ABOM I­
NATION TO THE LORD” (Prov. 11:1).
All right, there you sit with the junk on your
table. You rejected the Protestant Text of the En­
glish Reformation— written in your own language
and preserved by the grace of God through 380
years of attacks by the most brilliant minds the
world ever produced (including ALL the modern
scientists and philosophers: see The C hristian’s
Handbook o f Science and Philosophy, 1985). Now
you are ready to go to “THE ORIGINAL GREEK’
or “THE ORIGINAL GREEK T E X T (see Chapter
Three) and find out “what God really said,” instead
 of “what the Authorized Version translators thought
He said.” Right? Correct!
(Murphy: anything that begins well ends badly;
anything that begins badly ends worse.)
W here do you begin?
Well, first of all, you will have to determine
the AGE of the manuscripts with which you are
dealing. How is that done? You are to believe that
manuscripts containing “short chapters” (Kephalia)
begin with Tatian in the second century (A.D. 120-
200). Manuscripts where the “stops” are rare in the
writing and there is a space only between “clauses”
occur after A.D. 300. The Eusebian Canons in a
manuscript indicate a date after A.D. 330. The
“single dot” begins to occur in manuscripts in the
fifth century, and the comma begins with Jerome
(420). Semicolons and commas are found in the
seventh century, and by the eighth century “as many
letters as possible” are on the lines, which were
formerly in blocks, with spaces between them. In
the ninth century, the uncials are compressed, and
most of the manuscripts are in cursives, not un­
cials. In the tenth century, we find the question
marks showing up. When it comes to paper, the
idea is that the older a document is, the more thin,
white, and transparent is the paper. Lined paper
doesn’t show up till A.D. 1100.
According to the dead orthodox apostates who
translated the Revised Version and the apostate Fun­
damentalists who translated the New American
Standard Version and the apostate evangelicals that
translated the New International Version, the AGE
of “B” ( Vaticanus) and N (Sinaiticus) proves they
are the STANDARD by which other manuscripts
are to be judged. This is done in the face of the
“FACTS” (that’s what we want, isn’t it, kiddies?)
that “B” has in it 620 readings that can’t be found
in any manuscript on the face of this earth, and N
has 852. These are only in the four Gospels, and
the four Gospels differ in K and “B” more than
3,000 times among themselves. (You are to believe
they are the same “family.”) In the entire New
Testament these corrupt manuscripts omit 3,704
words, add 2,213 words, substitute 2,121 words,
transpose 3,471 words, and modify another 1,772.
They make 13,281 changes from the Received Text.
This brings up an interesting point in textual
transcription. If the Textus Receptus of the Autho­
rized Version was an “official recension” made in
Antioch around A.D. 350-400 (as Westcott and
Hort assume), who was the brilliant revisor who
had to alter the “best and oldest manuscripts” 13,281
times according to . . . according to . . . according
to WHAT? Caprice? The Westcott and Hort theory
of textual recension, which was adopted by the
Revised Version committee, the American Standard
Version committee, the Revised Standard Version
committee, the New American Standard Version
committee, and the New International Version com­
mittee, requires its adherents to believe that a phony
text was produced in Syria in the fourth century
due to careless Antiochan Christians: they added,
subtracted, transposed, omitted, and “rounded out"
a “smooth text” that came to them from Alexan­
dria, which had been “CAREFULLY COPIED BY
PR O FESSIO N A L SC R IB E S.” But to do this,
 THREE divisions of A ncient C hristendom as­
sembled AFTER NICAEA, and after prayer and
study, they invented a text that had to interpolate
2,877 words in the Gospels from “B” and 3,455
from N, mutilate the “genuine” text in 536 places
in “B” and 839 in N, substitute 935 words in “B”
and 1,114 in N, and alter the case or mode of 1,132
more words in “B” and 1,265 in N. Then these
three divisions (“with no critical or spiritual in­
sight” according to Hort) caused the true text to
disappear (the “neutral” text of Vaticanus) for 1,450
years! They did this although many of them had
been at the Council of Nicea and had the works of
Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Basil, et al.,
which were WITHIN 200 YEARS OF THE ORIGI­
NAL AUTOGRAPHS.
THIS IS THE “BIBLICAL SCHO LARSH IP”
WHICH AM ERICAN EVANGELICALS AND CON­
SERVATIVES “BOUGHT” IN ORDER TO APPEAR
AS “SCH O LARS” IN ENGLAND AND GERMANY.
This is what Stewart Custer (Bob Jones Univer­
sity) promoted in his pamphlet on the King James
Version Controversy.
Insanity is one of the marks of the old nature
in the believer (Eccl. 9:3).
Vercellone (Dellantichissimo Codice Vaticano
della Biblia Greaca, Roma, p. 21) was of the opin­
ion that no one could read ONE page of Vaticanus
without finding three to four omissions. Codex B
is disfigured with repetitions found nowhere in the
later copies of the Receptus, and scores of times
the bungling, stupid, “professional scribe” has cop­
ied the same word twice without noting that he did
S O .1
The AGE of a manuscript, then, doesn’t guar­
antee anything. A ccording to the collations of
Hoskier, Scrivener, and Burgon, K, A, B, and D are
the four most fouled-up pieces o f scribal copying
that are to be found in the history of manuscript
evidence.2 Dean Burgon was much more exacting
when it came to evaluating a manuscript: he set up
SEVEN criteria for judging the worth of a manu­
script, which we will list.
1. The Age of the M anuscript (“Antiquity”).
2. The Continuity of Witnesses (“Unbroken
Tradition”).
3. The Variety of Witnesses (“Catholicity”).
4. T he R e sp e c ta b ility o f the W itn esse s
(“Weight”).
5. The Number of the Witnesses (“Consent”).
6. The Credibility of the Witnesses (“Internal
Reasonableness”).
7. The Context of the Texts (evidence of the
entire passage).
Such a system of “values” would have been
far more “scientific” than what the Bible perverts
(1880-1990) adopted while talking about “scien­
tific methods.”
So, we collect our material, then “collate” it,
then compare it, then “classify” it. The “evidences’
are supposed to be EXTERNAL and INTERNAL.
“External” would be Burgon’s criteria above, nos.
1-6. “Internal” would be no. 7 and also the “tran­
scriptional probability from the standpoint of what
he thinks the author was trying to say” (subjec­
tive). “Intrinsic” means “the standpoint of what the
writer was LIKELY to have written,” according to
the subjective view of the CRITIC (in this case,
50,000 half-baked, pro-Catholic evolutionists and
philosophers who never lead a soul to Christ in
their life, plus 10,000 heady, high-minded egotists
who couldn’t find the Premillennial Coming of
Christ with a laser beam.)
And here we enter the Devil’s arena, for the
Book these men are about to “CRITIQUE” is a
CRITIC ITSELF (Heb. 4:12-13), and it works them
over while they are dealing with it. There is no
way that they can do anything OBJECTIVELY, be­
cause the Bible was written to give out light or
lightning (Ezek. 14:1-14). It is NEVER neutral,
and it never lauds neutrality, nor even recommends
it. In the Book, you are on the fence or off the
fence, you are lost or saved, you are headed for
heaven or hell, and you are born again or you are
not. Any man approaching it NEUTRALLY will
cut his spiritual jugular vein in two.3
Rule One: “The longer reading between two
readings is the false reading; the shorter reading is
the right one.” (Except when dealing with m anu­
scripts that contain seven more books [or fourteen
more] than the canon. THEY are all right, although
“longer” !)
Rule Two: “The more complex reading is bet­
ter than the simple one, as the simple one was a
scribe trying to simplify something.” (Except when
you translate yourself; then you avoid making a
verse complex and try to make it simple.)
Rule Three: “Pick the reading that best suits
the literary style of the author.” (Except in places
that deal with the Deity of Christ, like John 9:35,
where the author’s style was thrown out [“ SON
OF GOD” in the King James Version replaced
with “Son of m an”], and Acts 4:27, where the
author’s style [“ C H IL D ,” as in Luke 1:59, 66, 76,
2:17, 21, 27, 40 in the King James Version re­
placed with “servant” in the American Standard
Version, the Revised Version, the Revised Standard
Version, the New American Standard Version, and
the New International Version] was obliterated.
Rule Four: “Elim inate verses that bear the
marks of DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSY.” (That
is, attack the Deity of Christ in John 3:13; Luke
24:51-52; 1 Tim. 3:16; Acts 4:27; John 1:18; Matt.
5:22, and other places.)
Rule Five: “Give the Pope’s Vatican manu­
script ‘B ’ the ‘Precedence’4 in nearly all cases.”
(Except where it reads with the Textus Receptus in
a place you don’t like: Luke 24:51-52 for eighty
years in N estle’s, for example.)
One can see that the great “critical scientific
editions” of the Greek New Testament (1700-1990),
constructed on modern “scientific principles,” are
about as secure and stable as Am erica’s Foreign
Policy.
Well, when we “classified” our manuscripts,
we were supposed to have laid them out neatly into
four distinct “fam ilies,” each one displaying a
“text-type.” These four families should have been
(according to Semler, Griesbach, and Hort):
1. Alexandrian (with a “neutral” text in B,
superior to all other Alexandrian manuscripts).
2. Western (headed up by “D ,” E p h r a i m i
 Rescriptus, Itala, Latin, and Vulgate).
3. Caesarean (headed up by Theta uncial and
some Syriac manuscripts).
4. And finally (and miserably), that despicable,
artificially manufactured, “cheap edition” text that
was so “vile” to Hort5: the Syrian or Byzantine
fam ily that brought about the German and English
Reformations, both Great Awakenings in America,
and set up Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth,
Columbia, Bob Jones, Tennessee Temple, Hyles-
Anderson, Liberty University, and the Bible Bap­
tist Seminary of J. Frank Norris.
Now, for the sake of charity, we will pretend
that this is “legit,” although we know, of course,
from Colw ell’s studies and Pickering’s documented
evidence6 that the whole thing was a cockeyed joke
to start with. (All “families” overlap scores of times,
and “text-types” are out, as the thing that marks
the “fam ilies” is the fact that the Western tends to
ADD to the right text, and the Alexandrian tends to
SUBTRACT from the right text. [See Rev. 22:18-
19 for particulars.] The Caesarean family was a
non-existent spook concocted out of thin air to
prohibit a number o f very early Syrian readings
from being classified as “Byzantine. ”)7 We will go
along, however, and “play ball” with the bush
league: fo u r “families. ” We look them over, and
then, lo and behold, we find not only “mistakes in
transcription “and “copyist’s errors,” but here are
repetitions, omissions, errors of carelessness, er­
rors of ignorance, transpositions, errors in judg­
m ent, in se rtio n s, m istak es in a b b re v ia tio n s,
‘eye-wandering,” wrong word division, harmonistic
errors, and doctrinal errors— according to whoever
is critiquing the manuscript. For years, Nestle re­
moved passages from the Gospels on the grounds
that they were “harmonistic” (attempts to make
two Gospels harmonize). This was signified on the
b ottom o f the page in his apparatus as “p."
“H aplography” is the omission of a word or syl­
lable (or even a line) because of the similarity of
the material near it. “D ittography” also character­
izes “B” Vaticanus: constant repetitions of syllables
or words that aren’t even there. “Conflation ” is the
putting together of two variant readings to form a
new reading “not precisely identical with the
SOURCE of either reading” (i.e., you are to elim i­
nate every verse in the New Testament where it
appears the readings vary because they were “put
together”: the HOLY SPIRIT is not allowed to write
in this fashion, ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES
OF SCIENTIFIC BIBLICAL CRITICISM).
Then, we find “assim ilation,” which means
the replacement of the “original reading” of a pas­
sage by a reading which comes from another docu­
ment. (That is, the Holy Spirit is not allowed to
write anything in one Gospel that He wrote in an­
other.) “H om oioteleuton” is where parts of words,
syllables, or lines were omitted because the scribe’s
eye (“eye-wandering,” above) fell on a subsequent
similar ending (or beginning) in a word, syllable,
or line. We give some brief examples:
A. Repetitions (Matt. 24:36): here, in the Al­
exandrian texts, a backslider who was anti-Chiliastic
added (see “harmonistic errors,” above) “NEITHER
THE SON OF MAN” to Matthew from Mark 13:32
to emphasize CHRIST’S HUMANITY. See also
Matthew 27:17 in Vaticanus.
B. Omissions: The Alexandrian Family is fa­
mous for them. As a matter of fact, they excel in
them. Notable are the last twelve verses of Mark,
John 8:1-11, 5:4; Acts 9:5-6, and others.
C. Transpositions (M ark 1:5): “AND ALL
Jerusalemites” in the Alexandrian texts implies that
all of them were baptized, when we are told that
the Scribes and Pharisees were NOT (Luke 7:30).
The order should have been K a i e(3a7txi^ovxo
7tavT£<7 as in the Receptus. (This is a DOCTRINAL
error, as well.)
D. Similarity o f letters: notably Revelation 1:5
and Acts 13:18, where it went either M aav x i or
Xouoavxi, and £Tpo7ro(j)6pr|aev or £ipo(|)0(j)6pr|0£v.
E. Insertions: such as the Alexandrian addi­
tion in Luke 15:21, which has no business there at
all (N, B, and D uncials).
F. Wrong divisions o f words: such as in Luke
23:27, and more notably, in the New Scofield Ref­
erence Bible, where one verse in Joel has been
divided into TWO paragraphs (Joel 2:11), in order
to get rid of the Lord’s army.
G. Eye-wandering: apparent in John 6:11,
where “disciples, and the disciples to them” has
been omitted in Alexandria. The “crumbs” are also
gone from Luke 16:21.
H. Errors o f Judgment: most frequent in the
“Great Uncial Codices,” which knock God out of
His Incarnation in 1 Timothy 3:16, convert Christ
into a created God in John 1:18, and deliberately
make a liar out of God in Mark 1:2. The intentional
errors found in B, K, and company are linguistic
(1 Cor. 13:1-3; 2 Cor. 3:3), where one genitive
between two datives has been altered to a dative;
historical (Mark 6:22), where H erod’s belly dancer
is HIS OWN DAUGHTER in Westcott and Hort;
harmonistic (Matt. 6:13), where the words have
been taken out to match the prayer of Luke 11:4;
doctrinal (Luke 2:33 and especially Matt. 5:22),
where the Alexandrian manuscripts have made Jesus
Christ into a sinner for getting angry, and so forth
and so on.
A good rule to go by is: out of several thou­
sand “m istakes” in manuscripts, 99 percent of them
will be in manuscripts Origen has had his hand on
or that his “buddies” have messed with later
W ithout going into a long thing, note that in
John 16:17, oxi eyeb wtdyco rcpoq' tov Ttaxepa has
been omitted (or bracketed) on the grounds that the
depraved scribes of the Vatican manuscript and “D”
thought the Lord could not have said what the
disciples said He said. John 13:21—27 is an in­
teresting case. Here at verse 25, we have an Alex­
andrian d v a7t£G(bv (to recline) inserted by B over
the oldest Papyrus extant (P66), the “Western Fam­
ily” (“D”), and the Syrian Family (Receptus), which
reads 87tt7teocbv, meaning “to fall upon,” or “to
recline upon.” avaneo(b\ in Vaticanus and “C
(from d v a 7ti7TT(6,) means to “fall backwards,” or to
“recline backwards.” But the opposing evidence
for the Receptus against Nestle and Hort is not
given, for the Receptus reading has the cursives for
the Authorized Version reading at a ratio of eighty
to one in addition to the oldest papyrus. Further­
 more, no one told you that in those seven verse
(John 13:21-27), N, A, B, C, and D disagreed
thirty-five times, with twenty-three words added,
fifteen substituted, fourteen om itted, and the
construction changed four times with senseless
transpositions. Origen went with B and C.
Origen is the author of the corruption in Mark
1:1, where v io v to u 0eo\j has been omitted.
In Matthew 24:15, six words have been om it­
ted under the alibi that they came from Mark 13:14,
but in Mark 13:14, the writer had tjtco for 5ia.
How, then, was it “interpolated”? In Mark 6:11,
fifteen words have been omitted by N, B, C, and D
as being brought across from Matthew 10:15, but
Mark wrote ZoSofioiq- n Toiioppoiq, while M at­
thew had written yi] Zo86|L(ov Kai To|u6ppcov in
every known copy of EITHER GOSPEL. The
scribes at Alexandria simply pretended the two
statements were identical, which they were not.
(This is called “SCHOLARSHIP” by the American
Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New
American Standard Version, New Revised Standard
Version, and New International Version com ­
mittees!)
Now, this will not be a book on textual vari­
ants, but we do note that errors in transcription are
the outstanding things that mark the “Alexandrian”
family. The Greek student is encouraged to study
the following in the Greek Receptus for the Autho­
rized Version and compare it with Nestle or Aland
and Metzger (Mark 14:70; Acts 20:24; Matt. 15:8;
John 6:71, 13:26; Luke 22:43, 22:34, 23:28; Matt.
17:21, 18:11; Acts 21:37, and num erous other
places.) In Mark 7:14, Ttdvxa is misread by some
copyists for 7idA,iv (N, B, D, and L). In John 13:37,
8i3va|iai oot has been altered to 5 v v ao ai jioi in A
(Alexandrinus). In John 19:31, |i£YdXr| f] r^ e p a
has become |ieyd?iri fi|iepa in K and A by omitting
the definite article (fi). In John 6:11, 8ie8(oicev
xoiq |ia0rixaiq shows up, and it omits five words
( x o i g (101)11X 0?, oi 8e pa0r|xai) by the eye going
from the first xoiq to the second xoiq (the one
preceding d v a K et|iev o i? | Origen quotes it in the
A lexandrian aborted fashion; the last o iq in
dvaKBi^evoiq threw him.
“Mistaken abbreviations” is a reference to the
fact that copyists used abbreviations for a number
of Greek words. For example, God (Oeoq) was
written 0 1 , Lord (K/upioq) was written K I, Son
(moq-) turned up as 'FE, and Jesus (Iriaovq) ap­
pears as I I . Others are X I, for Christ, I1NA, for
Spirit, I T I , for cross, IE€>, for Saviour, and AAA,
for David.
Now, this runs into a first-rate mess when a
0 1 (God) shows up in 1 Timothy 3:16 (the great­
est verse in the New Testament on the Incarna­
tion), for here, the depraved Alexandrian scribes
and their supporters have converted “OC” into “OC
by maliciously removing the middle bar from the
Theta. This creates a pronoun “who” (or “he who”),
without telling you WHO “who” is, or who “HE
W HO” is. This led to the most absurd piece of
IGNORANT writing that ever showed up in a
“bible.” It produced (in the American Standard Ver­
sion) a sentence that had a subject with no predi­
cate. Promptly, every jack-leg in the Union began
to brag about the American Standard Version being
“the most accurate work” ever turned out; all the
recognized Fundam entalists and C onservatives
parroted the act, and all the Evangelicals and Fun­
damentalists promoted the American Standard Ver­
sion to the top of the Empire State Building. It was
nothing but a joke, and a joke on the main New
Testament verse that dealt with the Deity of Christ.
Here are the fa cts which the Scholar’s Union (ANY
OF THEM; YOU CAN NAME ANY OF THEM
OR ALL OF THEM, AND IT W ON’T MAKE ANY
DIFFERENCE WHETHER THEY ARE SAVED
OR LOST) omit when talking about “facts” :
1. A line above the word in the Greek manu­
scripts showed it had been contracted and
was not a regular pronoun.
2. It wouldn’t have matched its neuter subject
(mystery) if it had been OC.
3. Patrick Young (1628-1652) saw THETA on
the word; he was the first custodian and
collator of Codex Z.
4. Huish saw THETA in 1659, according to
Bishop Pearson, and it was THETA accord­
ing to Mill in 1707. Bentley (1716) knew
of no other reading.
5. Mr. John Creyk of St. John’s College plainly
saw THETA, and Wettstein claimed to have
seen the original middle line still present,
though retouched, in about 1716.
6. It was no longer visible in 1785, according
to Bengel and Woide. Ellicott said the Theta
was never there, and others said it was just
a “line on the backside of the m anuscript”
 that “bled through.” But on the reverse side
of the sheet, the line that would have “bled
through” would not have been in the middle
of the Theta.
So? So the Revised Version, American Stan­
dard Version, Revised Standard Version, New R e­
vised Standard Version, New American Standard
Version, and the New International Version all at­
tacked the Deity of Jesus Christ on the grounds
that Ellicott was more authoritative than 289 manu­
scripts, three ancient versions, twenty church fa­
thers, plus the evidence above: against this evi­
dence stood one version, six manuscripts, and NOT
ONE SINGLE CHURCH FATHER FROM A.D. 100
to 900.
This is the “scholarship” of Bob Jones Univer­
sity, Moody Bible Institute, Tennessee Temple Uni­
versity, Baptist Bible College (Pennsylvania), and
Liberty University.
So for a moment, let us disengage ourselves
from these irresponsible, fanatical meatheads (while
they complain about us being “reckless, “using bad
language,” and “name calling”) and pretend for a
moment we are sane, responsible citizens with an
I.Q. of, say, at least ninety. With that frame of mind
and viewpoint, let us examine the mental gymnas­
tics these Africans went through before erasing a
mass of evidence FOR the Deity of Christ that
would snow a snowplow under. We cite Colwell
and Metzger. Colwell doubts if a CAESAREAN
family ever existed and says that the term can only
be used of the place of ORIGIN of the text (we
knew that: Origen messed with the Old Syriac in
 Caesarea), not “style.”8 Colwell further is quite
ANTI-HORT when it comes to classifying m anu­
scripts into “fam ilies.” He says, “Certainly we can­
not define a variant reading in terms of variation
from the ORIGINAL GREEK AUTOGRAPHS.”9
We beg to differ, Herr Doktor! John R. Rice, Moody
Monthly, and Bob Jones University, too, all have
“THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT.” (Just kidding!
We knew they were lying.) So how does Colwell
proceed? Well, he says, “Some particular text is
chosen, often at random from the NORM .”10 “A t
random ”? This is the “scientific method”? “Other
Greek texts are compared to Vaticanus and Alexan-
drinus, as these are the norms that Greek texts are
USUALLY COMPARED W ITH.” By whom? Why
Vaticanus and Alexandrinus? Something magical
about two African manuscripts that contain the
Apocrypha as part o f the Old Testament? Did the
Biblical scholar “swaller a bandicoot”? (Georgia:
Koine “living” scriptures.)
Colwell tells us that the important fact to be
noticed is that in any set of variant readings pro­
duced by a process of comparison, there is only
“RELATIVE VALIDITY. ” Relative to WHAT? (You
call that “scientific”? Why, it is no more scientific
than the theory of evolution.)
After denying H ort’s method of spotting Vati­
canus as a “neutral next” in a “family,” Colwell
apologizes by saying, “H ort’s knowledge of the
manuscripts of the New Testament was ENCYCLO­
PEDIC.” Why, he never published a collation o f
any manuscripts, he was unable to answer H oskier’s
collations, he could not locate the manuscripts that
Burgon quoted and could not answer B urgon’s at­
tacks on his own manuscript position. “Encyclope­
dic”? Rather, “MINIMAL.” Colwell says that Hort’s
method, nonetheless, was based on the “agreement
in readings and not on agreement in error” That’s
a lie. Hort based the deletion of twelve verses in
Mark on the fact that two erroneous manuscripts
agreed on the error; he did the same thing for
more than fifty verses in the New Testament where
N and B “agreed” to perpetuate error.
Here are the mechanics of “agreement” as given
by Bruce Metzger (The Text o f the New Testament).
This is the “M etzger” of the United Bible Societies
“Kurt-Aland-M etzger” African New Testament.
The “basic principle” we are to act on (which
is just as “scientific” as a pot party) is that “we
must ASSUME in the process of constructing a
stemm a for a fam ily tree of m anuscripts that,
APART FROM ACCIDENT, identity of readings
IMPLIES identity of origin.” 11
Having taken this “scientific” implication, built
on an assumption (look at the wording), we read
“SUPPOSE [!] that we find seven manuscripts fre­
quently range themselves so that ONE of them
stands apart, showing no great similarity to the
other six” (pp. 157-158). Well, any normal person
would assume that the lone wolf was an odd ball—
say Ruckman, for example— but no! Here we re­
verse the process, and assume that the six manu­
scripts are the odd balls. We are told that the rela­
tionship is to be expressed by dividing six manu­
scripts off into two “fam ilies.” You pick three that
match each other, and thus get one group of three
 that comes from a common ancestor that we are to
call “Y.” We are then told that we can “DEDUCE”
the readings of these non-existent manuscripts (“X”
and “ Y”) by comparing those of the two groups of
three. “Then comparing the readings of X and Y
with each other . . . .” My stars and garters, man!
YOU HAVE NO READINGS FROM EITHER TO
COMPARE W ITH EITHER. “X” and “Y” are
non-extant. (Hello, Darwin! Hello, Socrates! Hey
deah, CBS and NBC! How you, Supreme Court
Justice Warren? You feelin’ good, Bertrand Rus­
sell?) Now, we go back and get that one manu­
script of the seven that didn’t match either group
o f three (remember it?), and by comparing it with
“Y” and “X”— which we don't have—we are able
to deduce a still more remote ancestor which we
may call “Z.” (Hey, man! How about calling it
“CASPER”? The friendly ghost, remember?), and
“Z” will then prove to be the hypothetical arche­
type of ALL the manuscripts. To explain this tortu­
ous, twisted, demented logic, we read, “It follows
that, because one group of three may agree in a
reading” against the “odd ball” (No. 7, above), it
does NOT mean that it is three times more likely to
be correct than the ONE ODDBALL OUTSIDE OF
THE GROUPS.12 In fact, it is
“obvious, other things being equal, that
there is a 50-50 chance that either of the
two readings may be correct . . . thus in­
stead of merely counting the NUMBER
OF MANUSCRIPTS supporting a given
reading, the editor must WEIGH their sig­
nificance in accord with their MUTUAL
 RELATIONSHIPS to one another.”13
Now! Do you know what all of that high-
sounding baloney actually meant, and do you know
the result of eating those cold cuts after African
apostates have dished them out? Well for H ort’s
sake, don’t eat the mess before you know what you
are doing. D on’t go swallowing down “chugalug”
any bottle put to your lips without reading the la­
bel, and even the label may lie! When you get this
stiff dose from Africa via the Vatican, pour it out
on litmus paper or a blotter before you smell it,
and look at it on a microscopic slide before you sip
it.
W hat you just read was a professional scholar
trying to confuse your mind and steal what little
sanity you had left by talking about “weighing re­
lationships” and “evidence.” You ju st read what
a well-educated Jesuit Priest would produce if con­
fronted with the Textus Receptus o f the King James
Bible.
What you actually just read from Metzger was
this:
“If the one Vatican manuscript ‘B ’ (No. 7)
disagrees with all other fam ilies o f manuscripts
(two, in this case), the number of readings against
it (six, in this case) can safely be ignored as evi­
dence. You must ‘w eigh’ each of them out against
each other by inventing ‘fam ilies’ for them so they
will cancel each other out as evidence and leave
the Vatican manuscript ‘B ’ only, standing majesti­
cally as the SUPREME AND FINAL AUTHOR­
ITY IN ALL MATTERS OF TEXTUAL CRIT-
 ICISM .”
That is, you “collate” (remember?) from A.D.
1611 to 1880, until you can get rid of THE BOOK
and replace it with the African “bibles” of Egyp­
tian apostates (the Revised Version, the American
Standard Version, the New American Standard Ver­
sion, the New International Version, the New En­
glish Bible, Today’s English Version, the Living
Bible, and the New World Translation).
The men who practiced this contorted, dis­
torted, psychotic logic on the Bible in the twenti­
eth century were Joseph Bedier (1913), Albert
Clarke (1914), Dom Henri Quentin (1926), Sir
W alter Greer, A rchibald Hill, B urnett Streeter
(1924), Giorgi Pacquali (1932), Kilpatrick, Kenyon,
and so forth. They all followed Westcott, Hort, and
the Jesuits from Rheims like boy scouts follow
their Eagle Scout Master.
The results of these “gigantic labors” in “care­
fully comparing variant readings,” “scientifically
evaluating the evidence,” and “weighing the in­
trinsic probabilities” were:
1. The United Bible Societies publishing Dark
Age Bibles containing the Apocrypha.
2. World War I and World War II.
3. International terrorism and starvation.
4. The destruction of the British Empire and
the downfall of America.
5. “ The m an of sin” (2 Thess. 2:3) taking
over the United Nations (A.D. 2000).
6. Korea, Vietnam, A fghanistan, Lebanon,
Cyprus, Ghana, Cambodia, Sinai, etc.
7. THREE WORLD WARS (Rev. 6, 19, and
20) COMING UP.
Examples of substitutions are found in Luke
6:4; Matthew 11:27; Mark 3:29; and John 1:8 (K,
A, B, etc.).
Examples of additions are found in Luke 6:4;
Matthew 8:13, 24:36; Mark 3:16, etc. (N, A, B,
etc.).
Examples of glosses are found in Matthew
13:36; Luke 9:23; John 20:18 and John 13:24 (R,
A, B, etc.). Also note Matthew 24:31; Mark 6:11;
and John 17:4.
However, we will bring all matters to a screech­
ing halt with one prime example o f how Textual
Criticism actually works to bring about a restora­
tion of the “original text.” (Before doing this, we
will show the reader how these Alexandrian apos­
tates go about “deciding” a reading.)
“Restoring the original text” is the idea behind
“canons of criticism ” (there is no evidence on earth
that Griesbach was a saved man). The shorter read­
ing is to be preferred, and especially when it is
more difficult or is expressed in other manuscripts
or with word order variation; also at the beginning
of PERICOPES (a short section, or short passage,
of Scripture). The longer reading is to be preferred,
if the omission can be attributed to homoioteleuton
(see above), or if “that which was omitted could
have SEEMED to the scribe to be obscure, HARSH
unusual, OFFENSIVE TO PIOUS EARS, or
the shorter reading was “less in accord with the
character and style of the author,” or if the shorter
reading lacked sense, or . . . or . . . .
Now, I ’l l t e ll you w h a t, you s a c r a m e n ta l
quacks— w e’ve had enough. But there is more:
“Griesbach showed great skill and tact in evaluat­
ing the evidence of variant readings . . . the impor­
tance of Griesbach for New Testament TEXTUAL
CRITICISM can scarcely be over-estimated.” 14 (We
won’t over-estimate it. WE know it led to the re­
placing of the Authorized Version on the foreign
missionary field with Roman Catholic bibles and
ushered in the second Dark Age into Europe, En­
gland, and America.) We are told that H ort’s ge­
nealogical method for “RESTORING THE ORIGI­
NAL TEXT OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TES­
TAMENT” WAS “CANONICAL,” but that it is
“doubtful if it can be applied to the New Testa­
ment.” Why then was it “CANONICAL” 15 in the
works of A. T. Robertson, Kenyon, Philip Schaff,
Casper Gregory, and other deluded apostates who
were no more BIBLICAL scholars than Jimmy
Swaggart or Oral Roberts?
Hort produced EIGHT verses in the New Tes­
tament to prove his “genealogical method”: that a
Syrian recension at Antioch “conflated” the West­
ern and Alexandrian texts.16 There are more than
4,000 verses in the New Testament. Such a show­
ing (eight out o f 4,800) would not draw an audi­
ence of kindergarten children. As an Irishman said
upon leaving a boxing match, “Aagh! If me and
the old lady didn’t put up a better fight than that
once a week, the kids would boo us!”
Colwell says that the Caesarean family invented
hy Lake, Blake, and Streeter is in no sense a “fam-
>ly.” He says a new theory and method is needed.
(You are to wait and hold your breath, while
the world goes to hell, as these conceited asses
invent another “theory” and get some equally con­
ceited ass to make a translation built upon it.)
In the meantime, it is “transcriptional prob­
ability” (choosing the reading that best explains
the origins of others) and intrinsic probability
(fitness to context).
“Transcriptional probability . . . consists
of generalizations as to the causes of cor­
ruption incident to the process of tran­
scription which comes from a study of
those readings which can with moral cer­
tainly be ASSUMED to have been intro­
duced by the scribes, [but since] a vast
proportion of variations do not fulfill these
conditions . . . no rule of precedence has
been adopted; but documentary attestation
has been, in most cases, allowed to confer
the place of honor against internal evi­
dence; range of attestation being further
tak e n in to a c c o u n t as b e tw ee n one
well-attested reading and another.” 17
The hypocrite (HORT) who said that never
published one catalogue o f manuscripts, never cited
complete manuscript evidence in a critical appa­
ratus, fa iled to answer one charge out o f more
than 200 brought against him by Dean Burgon,
and privately interpreted the facts o f others to pro­
duce “the BEST EDITION OF THE GREEK TES­
TAMENT THAT WE POSSESS.” It is this edition
that says H erod’s belly-dancer was his daughter,
that no one worshipped Christ in Luke 24:52, and
that He did not ascend at that time (Luke 24:51)!
Murphy: an ounce of image is worth a ton of per­
formance.
O bserve that the finished product of this
“brew er’s” art looks like a twisted piece of alumi­
num that someone tore out of a wrecked airplane.
Still, you are to believe that this is “science.” Let
us look at another clown who was not in the circus.
He says:
“We have already seen one guide as to the
correct reading— the number of families
which support a reading . . . if we look
carefully at the variant readings we may
be able to see which one was likely to
occur through the error of an early scribe
. . . the possibility of scribal error is en­
tailed in weighing up the internal prob­
ability for the reading . . . a reading which
is difficult grammatically . . . is more likely
to be correct . . . however the more diffi­
cult reading may not be the original one
. . . prefer the shorter readings . . . some
scholars, as Dr. Streeter, do not regard this
canon favorably . . . prefer the reading
which is unlike its parallel in another Gos­
pel or incident . . . the variant in Mark
3:14 will illustrate the difficulty in decid­
ing whether a shorter reading is due to
accidental omission of part of the verse,
or the longer reading is not the original
. . . the more likely explanation however is
that the words have crept in from the par­
allel passage.”
Murphy: In case you don’t know what you’re talk­
ing about, make it sound convincing.
Now, after following this “scientific” method
and altering the Protestant Reformation text in 5,000
places in the New Testament, what do we come out
with? Why, exactly what Robert Sumner and Bob
Jones III said you would come out with:
“The last few years have added very much
to our evidence for the New Testament,
and we can look forward to yet richer
FINDS which shall enable us to ascertain
with even more certainty that in EVERY
DETAIL we have THE EXACT WORDS
OF THE SACRED WRITERS and no se­
rious error has crept into our New Testa­
m ent.” 18
Except a “new find” which made a liar out o f
God (Mark 1:2).
Except a “richer find” that made a sinner out
o f Christ (Matt. 5:22).
Except a “more probable reading” that denied
the Deity o f Christ (1 Tim. 3:16).
Except “the exact words” which denied the
Ascension o f Jesus Christ (Luke 24:51-52).
Plus the things you will find on the “check
list” on pp. 62-63.
These shepherds are feeding their sheep loco-
weed. They declared that the course of “progress"
from A.D. 1611 to 1999 was a falling back to the
Vatican Roman Catholic ecumenical movement,
headed up by the church that plunged Europe into
the Dark Ages. “The exact words” (see above),
according to these hirelings (John 10:13, 14:23),
are the words of the Roman Catholic Vatican
 Church State (Douay Rheims, A.D. 1582).
Shall we see what is going on in one more
“rubber room ”?
“T he p re fe re n c e s fo r re a d in g s over
text-types [is a preference for] original
readings. [But] non-original readings [have
had their champions too] . . . this defini­
tion is a definition of a text-type as a group
o f m anuscripts, not a definition of a
text-type as a list of readings . . . the mem­
bers of the group must share some read­
ings that do not appear outside the group
. . . one cannot expect all the witnesses to
a text-type to have all the readings in the
list . . . once the kinship of the witnesses
to a text-type has been established, it is
the presence of the reading in some of the
witnesses that justifies reference to it in
terms of the text-type. The text-type must
be carefully distinguished from three other
groups . . . the Family
And then there follow nine “suggestions” (pp. 9 -
24) on “processes within text-type,” “the nature of
tension between value judgm ents,” “different val­
ues in different groupings,” etc.19
Overkill. “All the Semis T-boned during a white
° u t” (updated “Living Bible,” where Taylor didn’t
know how the truckers talked on the freeways
around Buffalo, New York).
These bungling spendthrifts collated so much
material that sorting it out consumed their lifetime,
and when they finished, all they had was a restored
Latin Vulgate, in ENGLISH, replacing the Autho­
rized Version.
Who said that “garbage” wouldn’t sell? Ameri­
cans major in garbage. If you don’t believe it, watch
TV on any channel for one week, four hours a day.
But you must understand, all of this was done
“in the name of Christ,” for the “glory of God, to
restore as near as possible “the original words of
the Holy Spirit” and the “intent of the original
authors” so that it will no longer be “obscured” in
the “archaic language” of the Protestant Reforma­
tion!
Now! After all of that irrelevant, pious gar­
bage— and you never found a bigger dump for the
gulls on Staten Island in New York— what do you
suppose actually happens when all of these scien­
tific “methods” are applied to a Biblical text? After
telling us that “any manuscript that has more un­
cial than minuscule epsilons in it is later than 1166,
and “any codex where the uncial form of IT domi­
nates the minuscule is later than 1066,” and “any
manuscript later than 1075 will have a majority ol
uncial A’s,” what then?
We will show you “what then” : here is the
SCIENTIFIC product that came from the SCIEN­
TIFIC method.
Here is Mark 1:2 in “the best edition of the
Greek New Testament that we possess.” I repro­
duce it as found in Nestle, Aland and Metzger,
Westcott and Hort, and any other Alexandrian edi­
tion. Ka0cb<? Yeypa7ixai ev too Haa'l'a tco 7tpo(|)ri'rfl
— “As it had been written in the Prophet Isaiah.” I
now reproduce the same verse as it appears in
EVERY EDITION of the Syrian Receptus from
Antioch for 1,700 YEARS: cog yeyparcTai ev xolg
jipo(()fiTCiK (“ as it was w ritten in the P R O P H ­
E T S” ).
Look at the absolute contradiction. One set of
bibles (the American Standard Version, the New
American Standard Version, the Revised Version,
the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised
Standard Version, and the New International Ver­
sion) say that the prophet Isaiah said what you are
about to read (the quotation cited in Mark 1:2-3);
the other set of Bibles (Tyndale, Geneva, and the
Authorized Version) say that what you are about to
read are quotations from more than one prophet.
Now! Apply these rules— the great “SCIEN­
TIFIC rules” of Textual Criticism that you owe to
Griesbach!
D on’t forget the “shorter reading” ! D on’t for­
get the “more difficult readings” ! D on’t forget the
“style” of the author! D on’t overlook transposi­
tions, eye-wandering, dittography, haplography,
omissions, or attempts to harmonize! Look out for
the abbreviations; avoid the “nonsense readings” !
Beware of PHONETISMS (spelling a word wrongly
by spelling it the way it SOUNDS, such as “Bibul
for “Bible”). Apply the “genealogical m ethod” !
Give Vaticanus the precedence! Never forget— oh,
never forget— that in this great “Christian work” of
“restoring” to the world the “meaning and intent of
the original author,” you are a collaborator with
TYNDALE and WYCLIFFE! You are God’s “cho­
sen elect,” destined before the foundation of the
world TO RID THE WORLD OF THE AUTHO-
 RIZED VERSION AND RESTORE “THE ORIGI­
NAL TEXT” !
Ready! On your marks! Get set . . . GO!
TH EEYY’RRE OFF!
Way off. They are off their rockers. They are
ju st as nutty as a pecan praline.
There are TWO quotations in Mark 1:2-3, and
Isaiah did N O T give both o f them: Malachi gave
one (Mai. 3:1).
Murphy: once a job is fouled up, all improve­
ments just make it worse.
So, what happened?
The Revised Version, the Revised Standard Ver­
sion, the New Revised Standard Version, the Am eri­
can Standard Version, the New American Standard
Version, and the New International Version made a
liar out of God on the basis of ft (Sinaiticus), B
(Vaticanus), Uncials L and Delta (see Appendix
Two), Cursives 33, 565, 892, 1241, and good old
A D A M A N T IU S O RIG EN, W HO HAD JU ST
KNOCKED OUT “THE SON OF GOD” FROM
THE FIRST VERSE. U ncial D (W estern) put
“Isaia h ’' in and so did Irenaeus, as did a dozen
Old Latin manuscripts that Origen messed up (b, c,
d, f, ff2, 1, q, and the good old Latin Vulgate out of
North Africa). Naturally, Constantine’s boot-lick­
ing right-hand man Eusebius sided with Origen
against the Holy Spirit, and so did Augustine and
Jerome: birds of a feather nest together.
C onstantine— Jerom e— O rigen— E usebius—
Augustine— Hort—the New American Standard Ver­
sion— Aland— the American Standard Version—
Metzger— the Revised Standard Version— Vatica-
nM5_ th e New Revised Standard Version— Sinaiti­
cus. History has made its own comment.
The absolute truth is that Malachi 3:1 is found
even in the margin of N estle’s text: he knew Isaiah
d id n ’t say it. G riesbach’s excruciating “SCIEN­
TIFIC method” just turned his head into a pump­
kin, and out the window went the Truth, the Holy
Scriptures, the “intent of the Author,” the meaning
of the passage, and the cross references to other
verses in the Bible— in ONE shot. Eighteen hun­
dred years o f educated stupidity have not taught
the Scholar’s Union ONE thing about “preserving
the truth. ” They are going to lie like a dog. Their
living depends on it. That’s how their predecessors
made a living.
W hat is the real reason for this insane render­
ing, backed up by “transcriptional probability” and
“intrinsic probability” where “formal correspon­
dence” gave way to “dynamic equivalency”?
Easy as pie. M alachi 3:1 said, “ B E FO R E
M E ,” and the “M E ” in Malachi 3:1 was Jehovah.
In Mark 1:2, the verse said, “ T H E E ” (oot» in
Greek), and the reference was to Jesus Christ.
EVERY FU NDAM ENTALIST CONNECTED
WITH THE AM ERICAN STANDARD VERSION,
THE N E W AM ERIC AN STANDARD VERSION,
AND THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION AT­
TACKED THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL OF THE
FAITH IN THE SECOND VERSE OF THE FIRS I
GOSPEL WRITTEN. They did it on the grounds of
their Christian education and exposure to profes­
sors who were liars just like themselves. Stewart
Custer (Bob Jones University) followed them blind­
folded.
 How is THAT for “restoring the original?”
Well, THAT is only one case. I have ten o f
them here on my desk. It is my considered opinion,
after thirty-nine years of studying textual criticism,
manuscript evidence, Bible revisions, and “reliable
translations,” that any Christian who would respect
the work of the Revised Version committee or the
American Standard Version committee or the New
American Standard Version committee or the Re­
vised Standard Version committee or the New In­
ternational Version committee is a man who is in­
curably DISHONEST and has a carnal motive for
courting the “elite.”
He is as carnal and worldly as Demas, and his
PROFESSION is a horse laugh.
And who is responsible for this ridiculous read­
ing (Mark 1:2) being called “THE MOST ACCU­
RATE VERSION” by every recognized scholar in
every accredited school in the United States? Who
was the dim-witted DUMBBELL who successfully
pulled off this act so that over 100 scholars listed
in this book fell for it, hook, line, and sinker? You
wouldn’t believe it unless you read it. I ’m going to
give it to you from his own hand, writing in his
Preface for his own Greek New Testament. You
never read a more ridiculous piece of trash in a
lifetime. It is nothing but the record of a wander­
ing, deluded mind that is on the verge of going
psycho. Here it is:
“Internal evidence is itself of two kinds,
the consideration of what an author is
likely to have written and the consider­
ation of what a copyist is likely to have
made him seem to have written . . . each
reading can be explained as a corruption
of the other by reference to some tendancy
of scribes which is known to be often pro­
ductive of textual change . . . the tendency
. . . need not be the tendency which is
obvious to MODERN eyes . . . normally a
scribe’s correction should exhibit at once
a plausibility and latent inferiority . . . the
apparent conflict of the two kinds of
probabilty arising out of the consideration
that no scribe would consciously intro­
duce a worse reading instead of a better
fundamentally all textual transmission
takes the form of a genealogical tree . . .
this fundamental type of transmission is
indeed greatly obscured in the New Testa­
ment . . . through textual mixture . . . all
the more considerable variations must have
arisen before the latter half of the fourth
century . . . all the readings which have an
exclusively Syrian attestation can be eas­
ily accounted fo r as parts of an editorial
revision; and none of them have the stamp
of genuineness to attest the use of extra­
neous and purer sources . . . the Syrian
text has all the appearance of being a care­
ful attempt to supersede the chaos of rival
texts . . . these various tendencies must
have been in action for some time . . .
they could only be guided by intrinsic
probabilities . . . it is therefore no wonder
that the ancient types of texts are seldom
 to be discerned except in fragments inter­
mingled with other texts . . . a reading
marked as Syrian . . . may be safely re­
jected at once . . . it will thus present the
appearance of being much more fully at­
tested than its rival, though in reality a
large part of its attestation is m erely
equivalent to the Syrian text . . . which
owe a deceptive amplitude of apparent au­
thority to the accident that they found fa­
vor with the Syrian revision . . . ,”20
That is what Dean Burgon called “AN EX­
CURSION INTO CLOUDLAND,” and a “rotten,
depraved . . . shallow empiricism, “ that was “pure
fable” ; a “boundless exercise of the IMAGINA­
TION” (The Revision Revised, pp. 376, 371, 378,
485, 516, 520, 405, 398, 397, 304, etc.).
Bob Jones University and faculty, Louisville
T heological Sem inary and faculty, Tennessee
Temple University and faculty, Liberty University
and faculty, Chicago University and faculty, M id­
western and faculty, BIOLA (Bible Institute of Los
Angeles) and faculty, Dallas Theological Seminary
and faculty (80%), New Orleans Baptist Seminary
and faculty, Custer, Sum ner, Torrey, M organ,
Scroggie, and the committees for the American
Standard Version, the New American Standard Ver­
sion, the New International Version, the Revised
Standard Version, and the New Revised Standard
Version called that “SC IEN TIFIC ” BIBLICAL
SCHOLARSHIP.
Every “reliable translation” recommended by
every individual listed with these versions (and
schools) is a product of the above. That was
F. J. A. Hort (1828-1892), writing his Preface fo r
the Greek New Testament that produced the Revis­
ed Version of 1885.
I ’v e jousted with better minds in a rescue mis­
sion in downtown Memphis, Tennessee.
I ’ve seen more logical and rational minds at
work in a racquetball court.
No man on God’s earth could be fooled with
such a pitiful display of MOONSHINE unless he
was a backslidden Christian trying to qualify for
the Scholar’s Union by “aping his peers,” or unless
he was an unsaved man trying to take over a Chris­
tian school.
Hort d id n ’t have the sense that God gave a
French poodle.
Murphy: Pure scholastic hogwash tends to look
like an improvement over ordinary hogwash.
It was Origen who inserted “Isaiah” into Mark
1:2, according to Dean Burgon. He did it because
he was dishonest and stupid. I would say the same
of anyone who followed him on the readings (Amer­
ican Standard Version, New American Standard Ver­
sion, New International Version, etc.). He did it
because he was a great “suffering saint,” according
to Bob Jones University.
In tests conducted by associates of Pickering
and Colwell, it was found that any scribe looking
ahead at his work to be copied lost his place and
omitted words three times as many times as he
looked behind and repeated words: thus, t e
“shorter reading” is wrong nine times out o f ten.
There are 900 clear errors in P 66 in John’s Gospe •
 Pickering asks, “Is a lying witness credible that
lied 900 times in fifty pages?” “Yes,” says every
major Christian university, college, and seminary
in America. N and B lie over 3,000 times in the
Gospels alone, which is fourteen times per page
fo r 220 pages. “Are and B then good ‘sources’
for the ‘best edition of the Greek New Testament
possible’?” “Yes,” said the committees that sat down
to write the Revised Version, the Revised Standard
Version, the American Standard Version, the New
American Standard Version, and the New Interna­
tional Version.
There are six cases of Kakiagraphy in B and N
(misspelling of commonly known proper names)
and at least five misspellings o f common words;
impossible words are found in Luke 1:27, 2:13,
2:44; M atthew 6:28; M ark 4:32; and M atthew
15:23. P66 has 200 nonsense readings and 400
itacisms, has twenty careless readings, P75 has
482 readings that cannot be found in any uncial,
cursive, or lectionary, and P 66 has 257 of the same
kind.
And we are to trust your corrections of the
Authorized Version with the “papyri,” are we?
When Nestle put this impressive mish-mash
together, he ignored the manuscript evidence for
Mark 2:5, 11:3; and Acts 2:39, and he rejected the
“oldest papyrus” in 1 Corinthians 11:26; Galatians
1:2; 2 Corinthians 2:17; Luke 16:27; 1 Corinthians
9:13, 7:15; and Romans 14:4, because the oldest
Papyri often AGREE with the Receptus (see, for
S am p le, Rom. 8:34; Luke 16:27; and Eph. 3:9).
All versions that follow K and B weaken some
fundamental of the faith in SOME place (Heb.
10:34; Rev. 16:17; Mark 2:17; Matt. 9:13; 2 Pet.
2:17; Mark 7:17; Matt. 18:11; Rom. 1:16; 1 Pet. 4:
1; Rev. 1:8; John 3:13; 1 John 4:9), but since they
do not erase the fundamentals EVERY TIME THEY
APPEAR, they are called “reliable translations.”
“Reliable” like a linen gun barrel or a paraffin
sword.
We now turn to the main objections against
the eclectic text of the Authorized Version, as ham­
mered by every member of the Alexandrian Cult
year after year. Let us not forget that in examining
these matters what we have learned here: in the
end, all textual criticism is based on the SUBJEC­
TIVE BIAS OF THE CRITIC. There are no “scien­
tific methods.” There never have been, and there
never will be, as no man can maintain NEUTRAL­
ITY when he opens THE BOOK. THE BOOK
judges him when he opens the cover (Heb. 4.12-
13). There are no neutral, objective, scientific dis­
sertations on “m anuscript evidence” or “textual
criticism ” ; the half-baked egotists who compose
the Cult only imagine such a thing in their own
stupidity and conceit. Mark 1:2-3 is as fine a dem­
o n s tra tio n o f the ir ra tio n a l, n o n -s c ie n tific ,
anti-Biblical nature of all modern textual criticism
as you’ll ever see in your life. The Alexandrian
reading (the New International Version, the Am eri­
can Standard Version, the New American Standanl
Version, etc.) is based on nothing more than defec­
tive eyesight and emotional panic.
It is the frantic spasm of a decapitated chicken,
and it is worth that much serious consideration.
These scholars are so phoney that it is a wonder
their faces have not been painted on $3.00 bills.
(Someone has said, “He thinks because he has a
head like a hub cap that he is a big wheel.” We
only mention that with charity— “speaking the truth
in love.” Have a nice day!)
 “How Dare You Violate
Our Sacred Canons
Of Textual Criticism!”
“Then they that feared the L o r d spake
often one to another: and the L o r d hear­
kened, and heard it, and a BOOK OF
R E M E M B R A N C E WAS W R ITTEN
BEFORE HIM for them that feared the
L o r d , and that thought upon his name.”
(Malachi 3:16)

In this Disneyworld dreamland of “transcrip­

tional probabilities,” “intrinsic evidence,” and “ge­
nealogical trees” (“stemma”), one myth was propa­
gated with such force that the faculty and staff at
Bob Jones University printed it publicly as “THE
CONSERVATIVE POSITION” (The Truth About
the King James Version Controversy, Bob Jones
University Press, 1981, pp. 9-10). It was the mytho­
logical legend that the Traditional text of the Re­
ceptus had no existence before A.D. 400. This was
the theme of C arson’s “Debate. ” As sober as a
sick Great Dane, Carson and Custer told their read­
ers that the Byzantine or Syrian type “text” had no
existence before the time of Chrysostom (347-407).
This was H ort’s theory from 1880, which had been
disproved by Burgon in 1883. Burgon listed the
Byzantine readings cited by the church fathers be­
fore and after A.D. 350 and said, “The testimony
therefore of the Early Fathers is emphatically, ac­
cording to the issue of numbers, in FAVOR OF
THE TRADITIONAL TEXT, BEING 3 vs. 2.” That
is, if the African Alexandrians cite readings match­
ing Vaticanus 100 times, the Church Fathers cited
the King James Receptus readings 150 times. Thirty
against 20; 60 against 40; 120 against 80. To make
sure that some nerd (who talks about “facts” all the
time) doesn’t get confused, Burgon listed the Fa­
thers and the number o f quotations from the two
conflicting fam ilies.' Stewart Custer, being defi­
cient in intelligence, couldn’t find the list, let alone
read it.
Matters do not end here. In the midst of all
this sanctified nonsense about “updating the ar­
chaic language,” and “helps to the reader,” etc., is
the fact that the 30,000 plus changes made in the
American Standard Version, the New American
Standard Version, the New International Version,
the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised
Standard Version, and the Revised Version came
from accepting “the oldest and best manuscripts”
against a mass of evidence from BEFORE the fourth
century. For example, H. A. Sturz (The Byzantine
Text Type and New Testament Textual Criticism,
LaMirada, California, 1972) shows that since only
30 percent of the New Testament has early papyrus
attestation (and much of that is covered by ONE
papyrus) that the appearance of THREE papyrus
manuscripts covering all parts of the New Testa-
 merit would vindicate 5,000 Byzantine readings that
were rejected by Nestle, Hort, Robertson, Machen,
Warfield, Schaff, Tischendorf, Gregory, John R.
Rice, Stewart Custer, Bob Jones III, Harold Will-
mington, Ed Dobson, Kenneth Wuest, and anyone
else dumb enough to believe that the men raised up
by Satan to get rid of the Reformation text had
either the integrity or the intelligence of a greased
salamander.
A shocking thought which poor, innocent,
“lambkins” like these never let enter their head is
so simple (Rom. 16:17-18) and CLEAR that only
a sinner following his old, sinful nature could avoid
the thought. Here is the thought: Why has no one
produced an inerrant translation in 380 years if
they knew the errors contained in the Authorized
Version? Did you ever think about that? They are
still “working at it,” but still confessing they can­
not produce a perfect translation. Why not, if they
know where the imperfections were in the previous
ones? Do you mean to tell me that 3,000 plus
saved men, with all of the “best and oldest manu­
scripts” and “Dead Sea scrolls” and “better knowl­
edge of Hebrew and Greek,” all working together,
cannot produce an inerrant Bible? WHY NOT?
THEY WERE THE ONES WHO PROFESSED TO
h a v e e n o u g h k n o w l e d g e t o f in d e r ­
r o r s IN THE ONE GOD GAVE THEM. Surely, if
they can spot an error, they can correct it, can they
not? They made more than 35,000 corrections in
the Authorized Version— without PERFECTING
T? Then what was the point in correcting it? Sev-
enty bibles full of “corrections” in eighty years,
 120 bibles with “corrections” in 100 years, and
th e c o rre c tio n s h av e n o t a l l been
m ade yet?
My, my, what on earth would the body of Christ
have done in the last 200 years if it had waited for
these destructive critics to fix up their Bible? THEY
HAVEN'T GOT IT FIXED NOW (A.D. 1999).
After 375 years of “correcting errors,” their
own products are fille d with errors, or else they are
justifying their own errors as simply “relative vari­
ants.”
W ouldn't you gather by watching some irre­
sponsible moron, carrying on an operation like that,
that he simply “lost his m arbles”? These are the
“experts”— the men who profess to be able to cor­
rect the Holy Bible. What a profession for a Cult
that after 375 years of labor cannot correct it; all
they did was alter words, swap verses, omit and
add readings, and produce what they themselves
profess is NOT an inerrant Bible. Would you par­
don us Bible-believers if we lean over the rail on
the starboard side and “feed the fish” awhile? Even
an iron gut can take only so much.
Those who fancy that they themselves (or their
professors) are the final authority in “all matters
ot taith and practice,” while sitting in judgment
against THE BOOK, have a way of handling litera­
ture like you are now reading. Verbally, the re­
sponse will be, “Oh, well that! Well, there is no
need to take THAT seriously,” or “Oh well, after
all, look who that is! ", or “Well, we needn’t be
bothered by any work like THAT.” Scribally, it
comes out, “The man actually said . . . !”, followed
by a shocking statement with no documentation,
no listing of facts, and no discussion (see the
“Catholic M ethod” in The History o f the New Tes­
tament Church, Vol. II, pp. 78-81). There will be
plenty of discussion here regarding the objections
to the Monarch of the Books.
After Semler and Griesbach led Westcott, Hort,
and company into the ditch (Matt. 15:14) and Sa­
tan buried them (1 Pet. 5:8), the scholars went on
with their little playthings until they emerged with
a new canon called “DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE”
vs. “FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE.” (We would
expect two standards from any double-tongued,
tw o-faced “pro” like we presented in Chapter
Three.)
The reason for erecting these two conflicting
standards is so obvious that it is laughable. After
all, that has been the official creed of the Roman
Catholic Church since A.D. 325, confirmed by the
most important council their church ever held (The
Council of Trent, 1546-1564). With two conflict­
ing standards, a third authority can insert himself
in between and take over the job of FINAL AU­
THORITY, which was, of course, the issue to start
with. Note that if Russia and America can’t “make
it,” a third authority will always be willing to vol­
unteer (from Rome!) to settle disputes. If Germany
and Russia can’t make it (1942-1944), the old Papa
will gladly volunteer to decorate himself with peace
medals as a God-blessed (Matt. 5:9) “PEACE­
MAKER.” If the Authorized Version contradicts
the American Standard Version, the faculty of your
nearest Alexandrian Hellhole will be glad to inter­
 vene and tell you which one is REALLY correct.
Years ago, I took a young student from M al­
one College (Canton, Ohio), at his request, to visit
his Greek teacher, who had been attacking the A u ­
thorized Version about four times a day for a pe­
riod of eight to nine years. The idea was to “face
o f f ’ with him “one-on-one” and “go for it.” I
warned the young man before we entered the pro’s
house that the confrontation would be very short. I
assured him that anything he wanted to know about
his p ro fesso r’s real M OTIVES and DESIGNS
would be manifested in less than ten minutes no
matter what arguments he used, what sources he
quoted, what fundamentals he did or didn’t pro­
fess, or how he handled any material. (Greek pro­
fessors are normally quite stupid.) The young man
was skeptical. Ten minutes later, he had no doubts
left. After some “ small talk,” the conversation took
the following turn:
“Then when you want to get the truth out of
the New Testament, you go to the Greek, correct?”
“Yes, the New Testament was written in Greek,
so I go right to the source.”
“What is your final authority, then, in deciding
what a Biblical text says? After all, we both know
there are at least two dozen Greek texts in print.”
“Well, I always go by the BEST text, which
admittedly is N estle’s, from Stuttgart, Germany.”
“I see. Do you accept their Arian reading in
John 1:18, which is a proof text for the Jehovah’s
W itnesses?”
“Oh, no! No, of course not!”
“Well, you said a few minutes ago that you
thought the New American Standard Version was
the most accurate English translation, although it
was not inerrant. Is John 1:18 one of the errors in
it?”
“Yes. Definitely. I do not accept the reading,
‘the only begotten God. ’ ”
“But, I thought you said that N estle’s Greek
text was your final authority.”
“Well, yes, but not always. ”
“Not alw ays?”
“Well, no. In places where he obviously is in
error, I do not accept his readings.”
“Thank you,” I said while rising. “Good day,
sir. I appreciate this time you took out to talk to us.
We’ll be going now.”
The poor saphead never did get the message.
He smiled as he escorted us to the vestibule and
there cordially invited us back for a discussion
anytime.” The door closed, and we hadn’t even
gotten off the porch steps when the young man
started snapping his fingers, muttering “I see it! I
see it! I saw it! I got it!”
I knew he had. An honest child can see through
a forty-five year old faker ten times out of ten.
I said nothing. I just grinned and let him talk.
He talked all the way to the car.
“I see it! He is HIS OWN GOD! His opinion is
the final authority! He never accepted any author­
ity! Not even the ones he told us about! He is
GOD! HE IS G O D !” (Gen. 3:1-6).
Exactly. All modern “Fundamentalist” correc­
tors of the Authorized Version are SELFOLATERS:
they worship themselves.
 That has been our “Historic Position” on an­
other main “Fundamental of the Faith” since 1949.
I learned it the first two weeks I attended classes at
Bob Jones University (1949). Nothing has changed
since— in any school.
“ M EN LO V E D D A R K N E SS RA TH ER
THAN LIG H T, B EC A U SE TH EIR DEEDS
WERE EVIL” (John 3:19).
Now, as these “gods” (and “he called them
gods, unto whom the word of God came” [John
10:35!]) approach the roaring Lion astraddle the
Mountain, they realize they are in trouble. They
must invent some pious device whereby the Body
of Christ will not merely overlook their attacks on
THE BOOK, but approve of them. The most pious
device (A.D. 1880-1961) was “we are trying to
restore the original text,” but we have seen in the
previous chapter how that worked out: it produced
perversions that destroyed THE TRUTH. The sec­
ond pious device is now constructed: “but we are
just trying to make the Bible clearer so people
can understand it.” How do we do this? By “DY­
NAMIC EQUIVALENCE” and “FORMAL COR­
RESPONDENCE.”
Formal correspondence: you translate the word
according to the Greek lexicon so that your trans­
lation produces NEARLY a word-for-word rendi­
tion of the Greek into the other language.
Dynamic equivalence: from the Greek you
e x t r a p o l a t e (take out) what you t h i n k the
author had in mind, and then, instead of translating
the words as they are found in the grammar, you
set up words that express the THOUGHT of the
original author in the language you are using.
(Murphy: no matter what goes wrong, you can
always make it look right.)
Now, if that isn’t “scientific” and “Christian”
and “holy,” what AM?
Well, if I were as stupid as Professor Nida,
Casper Gregory, Eberhard Nestle, Anthony Hort,
A. T. Robertson, Spiros Zodhiates, Griesbach, Lach-
mann, Tischendorf, and Philip Schaff, I would say,
“Hey, man, deah ain’t nothin’ m o’ holy an’ mo’
Christian and m o’ pious den DAT!” But you see,
some of us were men many years before we be­
came preachers, or even Christians.
The two devices are for ONE purpose only: to
get rid o f THE BOOK. THE BOOK is the real
author of all controversies among the Biblical schol­
ars; all their gimmicks are invented for one pur­
pose only— to get rid of THE BOOK.
Observe! If the Authorized Version says “ cast
the sam e in his teeth ” (Matt. 27:44), it obviously
is a very poor translation because it does not corre­
spond (formally) to “the Greek text.” Alter it. Make
it formal.
If the Authorized Versions says, “by m any in­
fallible proofs” (Acts 1:3), it is too formal, for the
word T£K|ir|pioiq' (infallible proofs) is found to
mean “demonstrative proofs” in Aristotle and “con­
vincing proofs” in Plato. (Lysias says in his “Ora­
tion against Erastosthenes” that it is “CERTAIN
PROOFS.”) This “should be” DYNAMIC EQUIVA­
LENCE this time, instead of FORMAL CORRE­
SPONDENCE, so every English translation on the
market since 1881 divested Jesus Christ o f the IN-
 fALLIBLE proofs fo r His Resurrection and gives
you “dynam ism ” instead of “form alism ” : i.e.,
“many proofs.”
See how it’s done? Do you see WHY it is
done?
In 1970 we illustrated how wise (and proper)
it is at times to correct anything called “the Greek”
with the English. This has been our chief “blas­
phemy" that the Scholar’s Union has mentioned
over and over again since then, WITHOUT DIS­
CUSSING THE CASES GIVEN. In case these hypo­
critical liars (and the words are well chosen) missed
the point, we shall give them another clear-cut
case. In this case, the Authorized Version is quite
competent to correct “THE HEBREW TEXT” (in
all editions o f all publications using any set o f
Hebrew manuscripts) and does. We illustrate.
In Genesis 1:28, you will find the Hebrew word
from the root word “m ale.” It is trans­
lated “as “RE PL EN ISH ” in the Authorized Ver­
sion. The word has disappeared from the Revised
Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New
Revised Standard Version, the American Standard
Version, the New American Standard Version, the
New International Version, the New English Bible,
Today's English Version, the New World Transla­
tion, all Catholic bibles, and the Living Bible. It
dropped “slap out of sight” in 1885. On what
grounds? On the grounds that the Hebrew and
Chaldean lexicons said the word meant “to fill,”
‘‘to be full, “ “to be fulfilled,” “to make full,” and
to be completed" (formal correspondence).
Isn’t that beautiful? Who would dare mess with
th e “ v e rb a l, p le n a rily in sp ire d O R IG IN A L
HEBREW M A N U SC R IPT” w hich God chose
(AGAINST the Authorized Version) to declare his
thoughts (dynamic equivalencej?
Well, we have decided that in such cases, it is
G od’s intent to correct the Hebrew with the En­
glish. On what ground? Our opinions? No. Our
“preferences”? No. Our scholarship? No. On what
grounds? ON THE GROUNDS OF WHAT THE
FINAL AUTHORITY ALREADY SAID ABO UT THE
HEBREW WORD BEFORE WE READ IT.
Adam REPLENISHED the earth; so did Noah
(Gen. 9:1).
You see, the “INTENT of the author” was ex­
pressed without regard or respect fo r Biblical schol­
arship o f A N Y profession. The INTENT was re­
vealed in the Scriptures (any edition of any trans­
lation in any language in any century) by the fact
that Adam had three sons named (as did Noah),
one of them was connected with a curse (as was
one of Noah’s), one of them was in Christ’s line
(ditto with Noah), Adam was naked when he sinned
(so was Noah), Adam took something orally he
should not have taken (as did Noah), Adam was
given kingship over nature (as was Noah), and
Adam was in a garden when he sinned (as was
Noah). Adam is a head over the human race (as is
Noah: see Gen. 9:1-6), and Noah (horrors! Oh,
saints preserve us from that terrible Book! Oh,
quickly! D elitzsch, Gesenius, Harkavy, Kahle,
Bauer, somebody! Anybody! Help us! Don’t let
that Book correct our Hebrew scholarship! Oh, God,
preserve our “GOD STATUS” !) IS GIVEN A COM-
 MISSION, FOLLOWING THE WIPING OUT OF
A POPULATION B Y A FLOOD.
If you can’t get the contraption together, read
2 Peter 3:5-6 in an Authorized Version and watch
the Holy Spirit throughout the ENGLISH VER­
SION correct “the original Hebrew” lexicon. A
flood wiped out a population (Job 38:4-11, Psa.
82:1, 5-7) BEFORE Adam (Gen. 1:2), so Adam
was told to “REPLENISH” that earth.
We simply corrected the Hebrew with the En­
glish here, as we similarly just corrected the Greek
with the English in Mark 1:2-3.
And what do you have to say about this? Noth­
ing. All that you can say is “Ruckman teaches the
horrible, dangerous blasphemy that . . . .” Yeah,
you go stick your Hebrew lexicon in your left ear,
you blind guide of the blind. You are about as
impressive as a sick Smurf.
The main objections to the Authorized Version
are its treatment of:
1. Acts 12:4— “ E a s te r ” should have been
“Passover.”
2. Acts 19:37— “ churches” should have been
“temples.”
3. R evelation 22:14— “ do his c o m m a n d ­
m ents” should have been “WASHED their robes.”
4. Hebrews 4:8— “Je su s” should have been
“Joshua.”
5. First John 5 :7 -8 — It should have been
thrown out of the Bible.
6 . Second Kings 8:26— a scribal error in
Ahaziah’s age.
7. Second Chronicles 33:3— “ groves” should
have been “idols.”
 8. Second Kings 23:14— “ groves” should have
been “idols.”
9. Isaiah 3:22— “W im ples, and the crisping
pins” should be “cloaks and money purses.”
10. Isaiah 9:3— “NOT” should not be in the
text (even though it is in ALL HEBREW MANU­
SCRIPTS!).
11. Isaiah 13:21— the “ sa ty rs” should be “he
goats.”
12. Malachi 1:3— the “dragons” should be
“jackals.”
13. Daniel 3:25— “ the son of G od” was only
“like one of the sons of the gods.”
14. Ruth 3:15— “ he” and “ she” contradict in
the Authorized Version editions.
15. Numbers 23:22— since there is no “u n i­
co rn ,” it must have been a “wild ox.”
16. John 9:35— it wasn’t “the Son of G od,”
just, “the son of M an.”
17. Acts 9 :5-6— most of the words should be
thrown out.
18. Job 3:8— “ m ourning” should have never
been translated.
19. Matthew 6:13— the ending on the Lord’s
prayer should be thrown out.
20. Luke 2:14— there will never be permanent
military peace on earth, but only to I N D I V I D U ­
ALS “of good will.”
21. First Timothy 6:10— “the love of m oney”
cannot be “THE ROOT of all evil.”
22. First Timothy 6:5— nobody could think
that “ GA IN” was “ godliness.”
23. First Timothy 6:20— nobody has a right to
 warn a Christian to beware of “ S C IE N C E .”
24. Genesis 24:22— Rebecca never did get an
“e a rrin g ” ; she got a “nose jew el.”
25. Genesis 49:6— nobody “ digged dow n”
any wall: they “hamstrung oxen. “
26. Job 11:8— all is well, there is no “ hell” -
just “Sheol.”
27. First Timothy 3:16— “ G od” had no busi­
ness showing up in the flesh.
28. John 8:1-11— shouldn’t be part of the
Scriptures.
| 29. A cts 2 0 :2 8 — G od d o e s n ’t have any
“ blood,” so the reading is false.
f 30. Acts 17:22— a Greek scholar could not
possibly be “ SU PE R ST IT IO U S” ; actually, he was
very “religious.”
31. John 3:13— Christ could not have been in
heaven while He was talking to Nicodemus.
32. Matthew 10:9— no one in those days knew
what “ b ra ss” was, so it had to be “copper.”
33. First Samuel 13:1— the Authorized Version
had no business inventing a number that w asn’t
given in the Scripture.
34. Revelation 22:12-21— Erasmus borrowed
a spurious passage from the Latin Vulgate.
35. Romans 8:1— half of the verse should be
thrown out because it doesn’t teach eternal secu­
rity.
36. John 4:24— the Authorized Version had no
right to put an article in where there wasn’t any
article.
I 1 37. F irst C o rin th ia n s 11:1— “ f o llo w e rs ”
should have been “im itators.”
 38. Romans 1:18— you are not under the wrath
of God simply because you “ H O LD the tru th in
unrighteousness” ; God doesn’t get upset till you
“suppress” it.
39. Romans 1:25— it is all right to change the
Bible “into a lie” (see the case given in Mark 1:2,
above), as long as you don’t “exchange” it for a
lie.
40. Numbers 33:52— it is all right to spend
time viewing the heathen “PICTURES” on TV, as
this was a mistranslation: it was just a warning
against “stone idols” (see the New Scofield Refer­
ence Bible!).
41. First Thessalonians 5:22— it is all right to
appear evil, as long as you “avoid” evil.
42. Second Timothy 2:15— God never com­
manded anyone to “STUDY” “ the w ord of tru th ” ;
the Authorized Version is in error here.
43. Second Corinthians 2:17— no one corrupts,
or has ever corrupted, the Bible: they just “peddle’
it.
44. Acts 8:37— the verse should be thrown out.
45. Luke 2:33— this verse should have identi­
fied “Joseph” as C hrist’s father: after all, didn’t
Mary do the same?
46. Colossians 1:14—the words “th ro u g h his
blood” should be thrown out.
47. Revelation 11:15— it is a no-no to inti­
mate that Christ will take over the “ KINGDOM S
OF TH IS W O RLD ,” since His kingdom is only
“spiritual” ; therefore, the word should have been
“kingdom” (singular).
48. Romans 8:20— “c re atu re ” should be “cre­
ation.”
 Now, this is about one-forty-ninth of the list,
but these are the main objections to God blessing
and using ONE BOOK above all other books on
the face of this earth and getting it out worldwide
to the tune of 809,000,000 copies before 1980. We
have covered at least three-fourths of the above in
the following publications, which have been avail­
able for more than ten years to anyone EXCEPT
THE STUDENTS AT CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS:
The Bible B eliever’s Commentary on Genesis, The
Bible B eliever’s Commentary on Job, The Bible
B eliever’s Commentary on Revelation, The Bible
B eliever’s Commentary on Acts, and The Bible
Believer’s Commentary on Matthew. Of the remain­
ing one-fourth, more than half of them were an­
swered in The Unknown Bible, The “E rrors” in the
King James Bible, The Christian ’s Handbook o f
Manuscript Evidence, and About the New Scofield
Reference Bible.
So here we address ourselves to the twelve
texts that are associated with manuscript evidence.
M atthew 1:25
The first of these is the statement that Christ
was M ary’s “ FIR ST B O R N ” (Authorized Version).
The Authorized Version wording is obviously
intended to ATTACK the Roman Catholic Church,
which has insisted that Mary had no other children
besides Christ, and therefore the term “ firstb o rn ”
is superfluous. On the basis of this Catholic super­
stition, the Revised Version, the New American Stan­
dard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the
New Revised Standard Version, the New Interna­
tional Version, and others have graciously consented
to thumb their noses at God and obey the pope.
The word “firstb o rn ” is missing from the Living
Bible, the Revised Standard Version, the New Re­
vised Standard Version, the New International Ver­
sion, the American Standard Version, the New
American Standard Version, and all the other Catho­
lic “bibles.”
You don’t have to guess anymore which read­
ing is the Alexandrian. tcpcototokov will be found
in the vast majority of manuscripts and is found in
ALL FOUR “family text types” (C for the Alexan­
drian, D for the Western, syp and syh for the Cae­
sarean— old Metzger cut his own throat wide open,
didn’t he, when he put Syrian documents into the
invented “Caesarean family!” “H E TA K ETH THE
W ISE IN T H E IR OW N CRA FTIN ESS!” [Job
5:13]— and W plus the Majority Text, including
some Old Latin manuscripts). However, Origen-
Custer-Metzger-Hort-Panosian-Eusebius-Hitler-Au-
gustine-Castro-Jerome and Co. read simply exeKev.
Applying the “scientific rules of scientific tex­
tual criticism” (pardon me while I hold my sides!)
to the verse, we should take the “shorter reading
(the popes) and give Vaticanus “the precedence”
(.because it is the p o p e s’). So (!), we are to accept
the two most grossly corrupt and depraved uncials
that Africa ever produced (K and B) and read with
the Sahidic from Africa and the Bohairic from Af­
rica: THAT IS N ESTLE’S TEXT IN 1987.
But we will continue to correct the GREEK
with the English (see Appendix Seven, for after all,
the FINAL AUTHORITY in all matters of faith
and practice is not the corrupt Uncials that came
out of Alexandria.
1. Mary had children (John 2:17; Psa. 69:8-
9). '
2. The children are named (Mark 6:3).
3. They are not “cousins” to Christ, for the
word “cousin” is found where needed (Luke
1:36).
4. They are the SONS OF MARY ACCORD­
ING TO THE HO LY SPIRIT (Psa. 69:8) IN
ANY TRANSLATION FROM ANY LAN­
GUAGE IN ANY EDITION EVER PUB­
LISHED.
Fortunately, we have an English Bible with
which to correct the “original Greek.”
We do not hesitate to do it. It is the God-
honored way of handling such matters.
First Timothy 3:16
Here, we are to construct a sentence which has
a subject and no predicate. We are to translate “he
who did this and that and so forth and so on . . . .”
Is WHAT? Did WHAT? Came to WHAT? Went to
WHERE? Said WHAT? There is no predicate.
However, since I Timothy 3:16 is THE verse
in the New Testament on the first fundam ental o f
the fa ith (the Deity o f Christ by G od’s Incarna­
tion), anything is “fa ir p la y ” if one can get rid o f
the text as it stands in THE BOOK. So it has been
removed from the Revised Version, the Revised
Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Ver­
sion, the New International Version, the American
Standard Version, the New American Standard Ver­
sion, and all other Catholic “bibles” just like them.
Since we have already given the Christian the docu­
mented evidence for this foul play, we will not
attempt to be redundant. The Alexandrian manu­
scripts that attack the Holy Spirit here are C, F, and
G (see Appendix Five), and Sinaiticus. Nestle lied.
THAT’S HOW THEY MAKE THEIR LIVING:
THEY ARE PAID TO DO IT.
Naturally, the New International Version ac­
cepts the AFRICAN corruption.
Naturally, we correct “the oldest and best Greek
manuscripts” with the English Authorized Version.
It has never failed to be right one time in 380
years, and it is not about to err now.
L uke 2:14
This is the showpiece of the New Testament to
show how those who profess to be “objective” and
“scientific” in their approach are faced with an
impossible task when they attempt to deal with the
Bible on neutral grounds, for here is a statement
that the birth of Christ is to usher in “ ON EARTH
PE A C E , GO O D W IL L TOWARD MEN” (AV
1611).
Obviously that is nonsense; that is, if you take
it as it stands, without knowing anything about the
Old Testament. The birth of Christ ushers in two
millenniums o f bloodshed that would put “B.C.
warfare “out o f business. ” If “ T he P rin c e of
Peace” (Isa. 9:6) is “reigning” now and trying to
answer the prayers of fifty Popes who spent their
whole lives “praying for world peace,” we must
admit that he is doing a pretty LOUSY job of it.
(Just be honest. Honesty will get you through where
scholarship will land you in the sewer.) If the wars
of Baibars, Tamerlane, Ghengis Khan, the Thirty
 Years War, the French and American Revolutions,
the Boer War, the Boxer Rebellion, Vietnam, Ko­
rea, plus forty-five wars since 1950 are “ON
e a r t h p e a c e , g o o d w i l l TOWARD M EN,”
you can go burn your Bible in the same rubbish
heap you built out of “Biblical Scholarship.”
So (!), when the backslidden apostates at Al­
exandria got hold of Luke 2:14, they saw that ob­
viously God Almighty could not have MEANT what
the Old Latin or Old Greek texts said He SAID.
“The meaning or original intent of the author was
obscured by careless copyists and common scribes
who did not have access to the blankety, blank,
blank, blank.” You know the line. So! So, the word
eijSoKia (in the nominative case) is slyly altered to
ei)5oKiag (genitive case), thus producing the de­
sired result. (Which I would not dare call by its
right name, as I am now a “new creature in Christ”
and have not availed m yself of such G.I. term inol­
ogy for thirty-nine years.) The “desired result” al­
lowed all Roman Catholics to read “PEACE ON
EARTH TO MEN OF GOOD WILL, ” and so it has
stood in every African bible since: the Revised Ver­
sion, the American Standard Version, the New
American Standard Version, the Revised Standard
Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the
New American Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the
Douay Rheims, the New International Version, the
Challoner, etc.
You get one guess as to which African manu­
scripts backed up the “jungle bunnies.”
The manuscripts were manufactured by A fri­
can Bible scholars so stupid and so inept they
couldn’t discern the fulfillment of prophecies on
the Second Advent where they applied to the First
Advent UNTIL Acts 7. This time, the writers of n
and B were so confused that they put in BOTH
readings: E'uSoKiaq' and £1)8oKia. A second cor­
rector on both manuscripts had suddenly picked up
a second century King James Bible (the Old Latin,
the Old Syriac, or the Byzantine Greek) and had
seen the translation of the nominative ei)8oKla: he
corrected N and B to bring them back into line with
the truth, after Origen, Eusebius, Pamphilus, and
others had perverted the truth. Do we have to guess
who this corrector followed?
ORIGEN IS CITED IN THE CRITICAL AP­
PARATUS AS BEING DIVIDED OVER THE
R E A D IN G : HE IS PARTIALLY (“p t” ) FOR
eijSoKiag AND PARTIALLY FOR e\)8oida. “A
double m inded m an is u nstable in all his ways”
(James 1:8).
Shall we help out this “brilliant Bible scholar,”
whose “vast imagination and keen mind” in “all
fields of philosophy and theology” (see Schaff’s
bootlicking job) established the “epochal Hexapla’
as the blankety, blank, blank, blank, blank? Yes.
Let us help him.
Let us wipe out all o f his Greek texts (extant in
Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, D, W, and the
Sahidic) with a good old ENGLISH KING JAMES
1611 AUTHORIZED VERSION. So said, so done.
By the way, there is a worldwide testimony to
the Authorized Version reading in Luke 2:14, fou n d
in Gaul, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Syria, A n ti­
och, Rome, Cyprus, Greece, Palestine, the Near
 East, AND Alexandria. A contemporary of Sinaiti-
cUs and Vaticanus quotes the King James read­
ing—EUSEBIUS! You are to reject this evidence
and pretend that Burgon’s criteria [THE CONTI­
NUITY OF WITNESSES] is to be ignored. Ignore
it this time, and you will label your own scholar­
ship.”
Acts 8:37
“It doesn’t sound like it belongs in the Bible,”
according to John R. Rice, who, as a Biblical
scholar, would have made a good Ping-Pong player.
But Rice aligned him self with a goodly number
when he took this African stance against the Holy
Spirit. It is absent from all Greek New Testaments
published by the United Bible Societies and the
British and Foreign Bible Society, and it is missing
from the New International Version, the American
Standard Version, the Revised Version, the Revised
Standard Version, and the New Revised Standard
Version. Those who first threw it out were P45 and
P74, followed by the Cult (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus,
“C”, the Sahidic, and the Bohairic; and then the
Harclean and Peshitta Syriac, after Origen messed
with them). It is also missing from cursives 049,
056, 0142, 436, 326, 1241, 1505, 2127, 181, 81,
88, and several others.
To offset this vast array of African scholarship
Produced by half-baked apostates, we have the
verse, in whole or in part, in the works of Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Cyprian, Pacian, Ambrose, uncial manu­
script E, Old Latin manuscripts, Old Syrian manu­
scripts, plus the Armenian and Georgian transla­
t e s . It is also found in cursive 629. By checking
the dates of the Church Fathers listed above, we
find the verse was being quoted 100 to 200 YEARS
BEFORE S1NAITICUS OR VATICANUS WERE
WRITTEN.
So, we quote it 100 years after the Revised
Version of Hort fell to pieces with the British Em­
pire.
(Why give up a good thing just because a de­
structive critic doesn’t like it?)
Acts 9:5-6
Papyrus 74 and our old Alexandrian buddies
(K, A, B, and C) have knocked twenty-four words
out of the text; they omit all the following words:
“it is h a rd for thee to kick against the pricks.
A nd he trem b lin g and astonished said, L ord,
w hat w ilt thou have me to do?” This was done
with the approval of the faculty and staff of Ten­
nessee Temple University, Bob Jones University,
Wheaton, Moody, Fuller, and all other Christian
schools that approved of the American Standard
Version of 1901. It omitted all twenty-four words.
The King Jam es’ reading will be found in the Old
Latin (c, h, 1, p, ph, ar) and the Old Syriac, which
was written 200 years before the manuscripts that
omit the reading. Further, it is found partially in
uncial “E” (see Appendix Two) and the Georgian
translation, in addition to being quoted by August­
ine. The Peshitta from A.D. 210 has it, and it is
found in cursive 431.
As b lith e ly as a b lith e spirit, th e A le x a n d ria n s
join “whom thou persecutest” to “and the Lord
said unto him . . . it shall be TOLD T H E E W H A 1
TH O U M UST DO,” w ith no one asking w h a t to
 do, and no reason for inserting the “and” (ddXa,
given as “but,” which would make even less sense).
In such matters, the believer has to obtain a
little help once or twice from where he should
have been getting his help all the time: FAITH. We
have faith to believe that the passage as preserved
from the Old Latin and the Old Syriac until now is
correct, and the “correctors” at Alexandria, who
were masterful Jehudiates (Jer. 36:23) when it came
to wielding a butcher’s instrument, did here ex­
actly what they did with the ending on Mark 16
and the beginning of John 8. They cut out what
they didn’t like.
Jo h n 8:1-11
This is the famous (infamous?) “Pericope de
Adultera,” the story of the adulteress. The idea
here is that “the best Greek texts” that are behind
the “most accurate English translations” (Nestle,
Aland, Hort, and Metzger behind the Revised Ver­
sion, the Am erican Standard Version, the New
American Standard Version, and the New Interna­
tional Version) should read “out of Galilee a riseth
no p ro p h e t. T hen sp ak e Je su s A G A IN u n to
TH EM .” (You eliminate everything from John 7:53
to John 8:11.)
This ridiculous abortion is still recommended
by Nestle in 1983 and the United Bible Societies
ln 1987. Nestle encloses all the verses in double
brackets, and the United Bible Societies abomina­
tion says, “OMIT 7:53-8:11.” If we obeyed these
sanctified dumbbells, we would have Christ sud-
denly addressing (for the SECOND TIME(!): “Then
sPake Jesu s AGAIN . . .” ) a group of Pharisees
who weren’t even there! (“T hen spake Jesus again
unto T H E M . . .” ) When did He speak to them
BEFORE? W hen they were assem bled in John
7:32-34, trying to get His head?
But such are the ways of sin, death, and mad­
ness, when emaciated egomaniacs take on the Lion
of the English Reformation. Tertullian, Cyprian,
and Origen are the first three Africans to dump the
passage. We don’t have to guess about their celi­
bate, holy opinions on “wicked sinners” who sin in
the flesh. Cyprian and Origen are as tainted with
Gnostic teaching on salvation by purity of flesh as
a Trappist monk in Madison, Georgia. Naturally,
the old spades N and B omit the passage, although
Alexandrinus (“A”) and C only “apparently” omit
it (United Bible Societies, p. 355).
However, the verses are found in whole, or in
part, in manuscript D (Western), uncial manuscripts
U, T, K, n, M, A, and H; they are also found in
cursives 118, 209, 1071, 28, 700, 1010, 264, 13,
69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983,
1689, and 1709, plus fifteen copies of the Bohairic
versions, and the Old Latin codices b, c, e, ff, g, h,
and j, and the Harclean Syriac. Furthermore, the
passage is cited by Jerome (A.D. 385), Ambrose
(A.D. 374), Augustine (A.D. 396), Pacian (A.D.
370), and Faustus (A.D. 400).
You either choose sides with the Authorized
Version and the evidence given above or with Ori­
gen and Vaticanus and the evidence given above.
Considering Burgon’s criteria on determining “TH E
RESPECTABILITY OF W ITNESSES,” we d o n ’t
flip any coins on such matters. We correct H ort,
 Nestle, and Metzger with the King James.
M atthew 6:13
The Alexandrian Cult, being great Scriptural
dumbbells (they are no brighter now after 200 years
of research than they were in Alexandria in A.D.
200-300), never could get the Kingdom of Heaven
segregated from the spiritual Kingdom of God
(Rom. 14:17) any better than Garner Ted Armstrong,
Herbert W. Armstrong, or the faculty and staff at
Liberty University (Lynchburg, Virginia), who had
the same trouble 1,800 years later. The inclusion
of the doxology on the D isciple’s Prayer in M at­
thew 6:13 is a blow to the Catholic City of God
which was going to “bring in the Kingdom” BY
SPRINKLING PEOPLE WITH WATER (Ruckman,
Church History, Vol. I, Chapter Six), so the Jewish,
earthly kingdom which will appear at the Second
Advent (see notes on Luke 2:14, above) was to be
done away with. What right did Matthew, a Jew
writing to Jews about the King of the Jews, have to
take the glory away from the GENTILE CHURCH
to “bring in the kingdom”? Obviously none: so
you will find that all Roman Catholic bibles rec­
ommended by Bob Jones University (the American
Standard Version, the New International Version,
the New American Standard Version, etc.) have
obeyed the Papa and erased Matthew 6:13 from the
Bible. The prayer ends with “THE WICKED ONE”
or “THE EVIL ONE” or “EVIL.”
This obvious attem pt at harmonization was
taken from Luke 11:4, but the way the minds of
these unstable characters work is on a sort of shift-
lng, double-standard, double-tongued, double­
tracked, double-doublet, which allows them to in­
sist that although Acts 9:5-6 was an attempt to
harmonize it with Acts 22:7-10, Matthew 6:13 is
NOT an attempt to harmonize it with Luke 11:4,
which it IS.
You see, with double standards you can prove
anything: if one standard is not expedient, then one
can simply change horses in midstream (at least
that’s how Machiavelli told the popes to handle it,
and that is how they have handled it ever since).
That’s why we stick with ONE final authority. We
don’t have to change horses at anytime to suit any­
one, including ourselves.
Well, what about Matthew 6:13, which Ken­
neth Taylor knocked out of the “Living” (saints
preserve us!) “Bible” to make it match the phony
American Standard Version of 1901, the phony New
International Version of 1973, and the still more
phony New American Standard Version of 1960?
a. The Didache (supposedly written more than
180 years before K or B) has the ending.
b. The Apostolic Constitutions (written more
than 200 years before K and B) has the
ending.
c. Cyril o f Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386) and Gre­
gory o f Nyssa (A.D. 335-395) quote the
ending.
But this is only a handful of the evidence: the
King James ending will be found in the Syriac of
Tatian’s Diatesseron, written more than 150 years
before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were written. It is
found in three versions: the Syriac, the Sahidic,
and the Bohairic; it is found in “k” of the Old
Latin, and IN ALL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS BUT
TEN. That is, it is found in more than 500 manu­
scripts. It is only omitted in N, B, D, S, six minus­
cules, and nine Latin manuscripts that Origen ma­
liciously altered. It is also found in U lfila s’
Gothic translation and the Armenian, plus uncials
K, L, W, A, F, and n . It is Origen and Augustine
who don’t like the passage: both o f them were
amillennial ( “anti-Chiliast,” as it was called in those
days). They were “kingdom builders.” KINGDOM
BUILDERS ARE BLOODY KILLERS.2
If you take the African position, you are to
assume that the earliest citations of the passage are
false, that three branches of ancient Christianity
made the same mistake (Greek, Latin, and Syrian),
and that a reading which occurs in all four “fami­
lies” CBohairic for Alexandrian, Syriac for Caesar­
ean, Majority Text for Receptus, and Old Latin for
Western) is a false reading.
So the American Standard Version, the New
American Standard Version, and the New Interna­
tional Version took it to be.
We take the American Standard Version, the
New American Standard Version, and the New In­
ternational Version to be vicious jokes on the body
of Christ: African jokes.
M a rk 16:9-20
We have already commented on this p a s s a g e
at length. Suffice it to say that no book in the Bible
could end with yap (as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
end), and all o f the Greek manuscript uncials but
TWO (K and B) have the ending. All Latin m a n u ­
scripts but “k” have the ending, and it was cited by
Ju stin (A.D. 150) and Tatian (A.D. 180) between
50 to 150 years before N and B were written.
Erasm us’ “ending” on Revelation
Of the 135 words Erasmus “borrowed,” Nestle,
Aland, and Metzger had to use ONE H U N D RED
INTACT in 1986. So, Erasm us’ scholarship was
certainly equal to theirs, no matter what “sources”
they had. Further, of the thirty-five words which
the United Bible Societies “rag bag” omits (seven­
teen), adds (four), or alters (thirteen), twenty-six
made no difference in the English sense. But that
isn’t all! ALL 135 OF THE “DISPUTED W ORDS”
HAVE SINCE SHOWED UP IN SO M E VERSION
SINCE 1900. Of the remaining nine words (twenty-
six made no difference in English), we find “and,”
“even so ,” “our,” “C h rist,” “you ” “am en ,”
“them,” “scroll,” and “tree.” NO ONE HAS YET
PROVED THAT ERASMUS WASN’T RIGHT ON
ALL NINE O F THOSE. Stewart Custer (Bob Jones
University) simply refused to give you the evi­
dence so you would ridicule Erasm us’ text.
They didn’t give you that at Pacific Coast and
Moody Bible Institute, did they? How about Bap­
tist Bible College of Pennsylvania?
They aren’t about to, either. LIARS CANNOT
a ffo rd to d is s e m in a t e too m uch
TRUTH: it w ould hurt th eir income.
M atthew 5:22
Here, the A m erican S tan dard Version, the N ew
A m erican S tan dard Version, and the N ew Interna-
tlonal Version have piously converted the Lord Jesus
Christ into a sinner in “danger of being judged,”
because He got angry: and He certainly DID get
angry (Mark 3:5), according to any set of manu­
scripts and any edition of any version of any trans­
lation; see John 2:13-16.
By omitting the word e licfj (“causeless”; “with­
out a cause” ), the “good, godly, dedicated spon­
sors” of the “Congress on Fundamentalism” (BJU),
that used the “AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIP­
TURES” for their theme, denied the first funda­
mental of the Fundamentals: a fter professin g the
D eity o f Christ, they a ccu sed Him o f SIN.
Nice folks. I’ve seen better behind bars in the
county jail, and they weren’t all white.
Now, what is one to say about “scientific meth­
ods of textual criticism ,” so-called “epochal dis­
coveries in New Testament researches,” “intrinsic
and transcriptural probabilities,” and “communi­
cating dynamic equivalents to receptors,” when one
had decided to curse Jesus Christ?
Exactly WHAT is the point? “To make a
READABLE translation”?
Is it a cover-up for sin, or just mongrel stupid­
ity? Is it just the usual Catholic blasphemy, or is it
the fact that someone on the N ew International
Version committee doesn’t have the brains God gave
to a brass monkey? If the word elicfj was not in the
text, wouldn’t you have to p u t it in for “dynamic
equivalence” in order to convey “the original in­
tent of the author”? Did Matthew think Jesus Christ
was “ IN DA NGER O F TH E JU D G M E N T ” when
He dumped over the money changers’ tables? “I
TR O W NO T.”
E licfj (“without a cause”) is found in the vast
majority of manuscripts, a ll fo u r text-type “fa m i­
 lies,” the Latin, Syrian, and C optic Churches, the
Gothic, Armenian, and G eorgian Versions, and is
cited in the D iatesseron, written 150 years before
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus had an “original auto­
g ra p h ” on them. Further, it is even quoted by O ri­
gen (A.D. 220) and Cyprian (A.D. 240) before K
and B were written. What then is the BIBLICAL
SCHOLARSHIP behind making Jesus Christ a sin­
ner?
W ell, O rig en , w ith his d o u b le -to n g u e d ,
two-faced, lying methods is again DIVIDED about
the word. One tim e he p u t “c a u s e le s s ” in, an d the
other tim e he took it out. On the “scientific slide
rule” of Semler and Griesbach (neither man ever
professed the new birth), the “shorter reading” was
put into Vaticanus and Sinaiticus; P 67 sided with
them, showing that the corruption took place at the
time Origen was making corrections (third cen­
tury: A.D. 200-254).
What shall we then do? Simple: alw a ys c o r­
rect the G reek with the English. K ing Jam es over
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It is always safe; it is
always the spiritu al w ay to do business; and God
will hon or it every time. It has always proved to be
“SCIENTIFIC” and “OBJECTIVE.”
John 5:4
We have only a short journey to go now. The
reader has had ample time and evidence to get the
drift” of the Alexandrian Cult. Somebody is as
crooked as a dog’s hind leg, and whoever he is, he
is not King James— “G od’s Silly Vassal.” Well,
When we pick up the corrupt African texts of Aland,
M etzger, T ischendorf, Hort, N estle, and their
friends, we find a whole verse in John 5 has van­
ished out of sight. Verse 4 is not in these African
fo rg eries. The silly numbers run 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 . . .
(I knew how to count better than that when I was
three years old!).
The emasculated versions (above) are based
on the fact that K, B, C, P 66, and P 15 omit it, with
the Sahidic African, the Bohairic African, and a
few O ld Latin manuscripts Origen messed with.
Even with the omission, Hengstenberg (1861: not
a Bible-believer) defended the A u th o rized Version
passage, Hilgenfeld (1875: not a Bible believer)
defended the A u th orized Version passage, and R.
Steck (1893: not a Bible believer) defended the
passage.
It is on paper 150 years before Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus were written and at least fifty years b e ­
fo re P 66 and P 15 were written (Taitian’s D iatesse-
ron). As usual, it is found in the vast majority of
Greek manuscripts, both uncial and cursive, plus
the P alestinian Syriac, the O ld Latin, the A rm e­
nian translation, and the church fathers (Cyril, Chry­
sostom, Didymus, Tertullian, Ambrose, etc.).
Hills notes that certain of the church fathers
laid great stress on “the verse that was not there”
(if you are to believe the Alexandrian Cult). Tertul­
lian, speaking 130 years before N and B got off the
w riter’s table, quotes the passage, D idym us (after
A.D. 330) quotes the passage, and it is found piece­
meal in th e Alexandrian manuscripts th e m s e lv e s
(A and C), as well as uncials K, L, X, A, 0 , n , £2,
and the Byzantine Lectionaries.
We know what to do about it. W hen in do ub t,
 punt. Kick the Cult out of the stadium.
The A u th orized Version is right, and they are
wrong: par for the course.
First John 5:7-8
We have finally arrived at the terminus of this
discussion on “objections to the A u th o rized Ver­
sion. ” As we can see above, whoever led the A u­
th orized Version translators led them in such an
“eclectic” way that on rare occasions they did not
even abide by the “Majority Text” or the accepted
“Receptus. ” This selectivity is an ungodly and hell­
ish sin in the sight of “defenders of the R ec e p tu s”
(Waite, Hodges, Farstad, Scrivener, Miller, Bur-
gon, and others) who made the mistake of fixing
their hopes on the sixteenth century Greek, a fter
G od had gone on p a s t it (1611). This mistake is
quite common among educated Christians whose
images and income depend upon knowing some­
thing about “the G reek.” Their idol has to be
dragged along behind them with a cart rope, while
the rest of us are winning people to Christ, com­
forting the afflicted, afflicting the comfortable,
sending out missionaries, teaching young people
the Bible, distributing tracts, marrying and burying
Christians, and BELIEVING THE BOOK.
Obviously, 1 John 5:7-8 has no business being
in the Bible: it is “DOCTRINALLY SUSPECT.”
But we are not going to jum p out of our shoes
every time some educated idiot repeats what some
educated idiot at Alexandria taught him. We re­
member a day in class (1951) when Dr. Barton
Payne said, “There are no G reek m anuscripts for
the reading of 1 John 5:7-8.” We fo u n d out la ter
that he had lied. We remember when F. F. B ru ce
said, “U N F O R T U N A T E L Y , someone found a G reek
manuscript that had the reading.” Our memory is
not as dim as some would have you think. We
remember when it was called to a professor s at­
tention that there was “a” Greek manuscript with
the words in it, he replied “Y E S , B U T O N L Y ONE
M A N U S C R IP T .” We fo u n d out la te r that he lied,
too.
THAT’S HOW THEY MAKE A LIVING (see
Chapter Seven).
Now, since all of us are familiar with the chal­
lenge given to Erasmus and his discovery of manu­
script 61 (fifteenth century) in Dublin and Codex
R avianus (88 and 629)— negative inform ation
against the A u th orized Version has always been
and will always be plentiful and easy to obtain
let us step aside and see what REALLY is going
on. For a moment, we will pretend that the “comma’
of 1 John 5:7— “in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth”—
is NOT part of the Bible and SHOULD be omitted.
(God forbid that we should be so narrow-minded
as to close our minds to such a possibility! Oh,
God forbid!)
Well, having elim inated it, what do we have
now? “For there are three that bear record . . •
the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and
these three agree in one.”
So it stands in every apostate corruption on
the market: the R evised Version, the R evised Stan­
d ard Version, the N ew R evised Standard Version,
the A m erican Stan dard Version, the N ew A m erican
Standard Version, the N ew Intern ational Version,
Today’s English Version, the N ew English Bible,
the N ew W orld Translation, the Living Bible, the
New A m erican Bible, etc.
Problem: What about “The Greek”? At this
time, are all of our Greek scholars going to sud­
denly abandon their calling, leave their guns, and
fail to direct us to “THE ORIGINAL GREEK
TEXT”? Well, w e’ll have to fill in for them. Their
Greek text now says, oxt xpeiq- e i o t v oi )nap-
xupo'uvxeq, xo 7tv£\j|j,a Kai xo u5cop, Kai xo aip.a,
Kai oi xpeiq eiq xo e v e i a t v .
Notice anything peculiar about that mess? Did
you ever study freshman Greek grammar from Ma-
chen or Davis? W hat are three NEUTER W ORDS
doing being represen ted by a M ASCU LIN E A R ­
TICLE “o i”? The Greek words for “spirit,” “wa­
ter,” and “blood” are all NEUTERS. How does a
m a s c u lin e a r tic le get in th e re ? Say, baby!
WEREN’T YOU THE SAME BIRDS who knocked
out the A u th orized Version promise on the preser­
vation of G od’s words from Psalm 12:7 on the
g ro u n d s th a t the g e n d e r o f the a n te c e d e n t
(“WORDS” ) didn’t match? Yes, I think you are
the same birds, if memory serves me correctly (al­
though at seventy-seven that is som etim es a
‘chore” !). Well now, you Alexandrian cow birds,
are you going to let THIS Greek text get by you
where it deals with the D eity o f C hrist? “I trow
not.”
No. “THEY SHALL NOT PASS” (Verdun,
1914), if we have anything to do with it.
 You see, something is missing. Three neuter
subjects do not take a masculine antecedent, and
yet that is exactly how this passage appears in
N estle’s Greek text and the United Bible Societies’
Rom an C atholic texts. How can you put oi
|iapT\)7to\)VTeg (“the ones bearing witness”) on to
three neuter subjects (jive\j|ia, u5cop, and a i|ia)?
The neuter article to occurs in the conclusion: eig
to ev eio iv (literally, “and the three, they are to
the one” or “the three they are in one”— ONE NEU­
TER SUBJECT). How then do you get oi for one
neuter subject? The answer given by the apostates
is that “the spirit, and the water, and the blood”
in the verse have been “personalized.” Why per­
sonalized? The Holy Spirit was just mentioned in
verse 6, and the neuter article t o was used two
times in a row (to 7tve'U|j.d, t o 7tv£'0fid). Observe
further, that in the Receptus’ reading, when you
get to the end of verse 7, it does not say e is to ev
eim v as at the end of verse 8, but ovxoi oi Tpelc
ev eio iv (“these three they are ONE”).
How do you “personalize ” three neuters with­
out a masculine subject or antecedent within fif­
teen words o f them in either direction? Well, we
can tell these ungrammatical Greek grammarians
how to “personalize” the water and the blood, as
well as the spirit. Insert the Receptus reading oti
Tpeiq e i o i v oi p.aprupo'uvTeq', ev too, oijpavco, o
7iaTf|p, o Tioyoq', Kai t o a y io v 7tve\)|ia (but the
“person” of the spirit is MASCULINE: see John
14:26 and 16:13) Kai o u t o i oi Tpeiq. Now you
have grounds for “personalizing” the next set of
three and can write again K ai T p eiq e i a i v oi
H apT u po m eg.
 Isn’t it marvelous how the English text of 1611
can straighten out a lack of manuscript evidence,
bad grammar, bad attitude, and bad heart, where
they deal with the “original Greek text”? Remark­
able, isn’t it? Yes, I think so. When Stewart Custer
(speaking for Bob Jones Jr. and Bob Jones III)
attacked the A u th orized Version here, he again laid
stress on “facts,” and then refused even to mention
the “facts” given above. Typical: absolutely uni­
form for a Cult Funnymentalist.
What should we do in cases such as 1 John
5:7-8? Well, Erasmus “guessed” on the wording in
Revelation 22 and hit it right; the A u th o rized Ver­
sion translators guessed on 1 John 2:23 and got it
right. Why not just exercise a little faith again and
honor their “guess” and see how it comes out at the
Judgment Seat of Christ?
Murphy: when an error has been found and
corrected, it will be discovered that it w as co rrect
in the fir s t place.
After all, the other gang not only cannot “guess
right” (see Matt. 5:22 and comments, above); they
can’t get it right when they don’t even have to
guess (see Mark 1:2-3, above).
(RS. When the three paragraphs above are dis­
cussed in future “answers to Ruckman,” the Cult
wiH not make one mention of the two references
just given: Matt. 5:22 and Mark 1: 2-3. You can
bet your bottom dollar on it.)
Having answered the major objections to the
greatest Book the world has ever seen (or ever will
See), we now address ourselves to that great sub­
ject, “ B iblical i n s p i r a t i o n what it is, and how it
operates. Since the word “inspiration” (2 Tim.
3:16) is never connected with any so-called origi-
nal Scriptures, or with “original autographs,” and
since the term “scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16) itself is
never used in the Scriptures (any Scriptures) as a
reference to “original autographs,” we can certain­
ly have ourselves a ball, playing with the Alexan­
drian Cult about the subject. This is especially so,
since none of them had any final authority to go by
in a lifetime other than their own subjective opin­
ions and personal “preferences.”
 The Plenary,
Verbally Inspired,
Original Thingamajigs
“But there is a spirit in man: and the
INSPIRATION of the Almighty giveth
them understanding.” (Job 32:8)
“The spirit of God hath made me, and
the BREATH of the Almighty hath given
me life.” (Job 33:4)

The word “INSPIRATION” occurs only two

times in the Bible: once in the Old Testament and
once in the New Testament. The verse in the Old
Testament (Job 32:8) is usually ignored by those
who write about “verbal, plenary inspired, original
autographs." In the Bible, God breathes into an
army of DEAD men, and they become alive (Ezek.
37). They are present in substance before they have
life. In the Bible, God breathes into the body of a
lifeless man (Psa. 139:15-16), and the body, al­
ready formed, becomes alive (Gen. 2:7). If the word
“inspiration” (New Testament form, 0£O7tv£'uaTog)
means “God-breathed,” then someone has done the
body of Christ a great injustice in not pointing out
all four of these references. Someone has privately
interpreted the term “inspiration” to mean that
some writings were inspired because they were
“God breathed. ” The same class of people forgot
that BREATH was something that came out of a
m an’s MOUTH (2 Pet. 1:21) and had to do with
what someone SPOKE: not w hat he WROTE.
C om puters have shown that Paul did not
WRITE some of the Pauline Epistles, and this was
common knowledge anyway: Paul used an am anu­
ensis when he wrote, and he mentions this matter
in Romans 16:22. We assume that if only what
Paul w rote (2 Pet. 3:15) is “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:16),
and his writings are “Scriptures,” Romans could
not be inspired. This is the Satanic mess that Fun­
damentalists get into when they go charging madly
along through “historic positions” without the wis­
dom of Rehoboam. For 100 years, apostate Con­
servatives have been saying “since the A uth orized
Version translators did not claim to be inspired,
they could not have been inspired,” unaware (just
as blissfully unaware of matters as a speed freak or
a hophead blasted on bombita) that by saying this,
they had erased the m ark o f “inspiration ” from
G enesis, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Esther, E cclesiastes,
M atthew, Mark, John, and a dozen oth er canonical
Scriptures.
Zane Hodges (a champion of the Greek M ajor­
ity text) is not exempt from this demented light­
ning, that strikes without warning on the heads of
the top-heavy and the heady high-minded (Rom.
12:16), who lose their brains while trying to dis­
play them. In a letter to a born-again, soul-win­
ning, Bible-believing ministerial student at Ten­
nessee Temple— who was married only once— the
 “professor of New Testament Literature and Ex­
egesis” at Dallas Theological Seminary says (June
22, 1977): “The position taken by Dr. Ruckman
seems to me to be an obviou s extreme, and also
apparently a reaction against the feeling of uncer­
tainty engendered by textual and translational d if­
feren ces and difficulties.
Translation:
1. Ruckman is an extremist.
2. Ruckman is uncertain of what he believes.
3. Ruckman was upset by “textual difficul­
ties.”
4. Ruckman was upset by “translational dif­
ferences.”
Now, who that knew “Ruckman” would be­
lieve a cock-and-bull story like THAT?
That is how a Dallas Theological professor
THINKS. It is perfectly representative of the A lex ­
andrian m entality found among destructive critics
from Origen to Farstad. It represents 1,800 years
of muddled, confused logic, emitting from the vague
scholastic fantasies that oppress the minds of the
Cult.
I know WHAT I believe, WHOM I believe,
and WHY I believe both and am noted for my
dogmatism in these matters. If I have ever been
guilty of anything, HESITATION has not been one
of them.
You couldn’t upset me with the material that
Zane Hodges studied (listed in Chapters Four and
Seven of this work) long enough to keep me awake
after lunch.
“Translational difficulties” are about as dis­
turbing to me as rubber production in Burma.
But on goes the Professor of New Testament
Literature at Dallas Theological Seminary:
“Why should anyone take Dr. Ruckm an’s
word for it—THAT THE KING JAMES
VERSION IS INERRANT? Not even the
original translators of the Authorized Ver­
sion would have claimed that for their own
translation [THERE IS THAT MENTALI­
TY!] . . . For Dr. Ruckman to ASSERT it
does not make it true. I am surprised that
anyone should be persuaded by such a po­
sition. But I am afraid that if they had
been they are abandoning REASONABLE
DISCUSSION of the issue.”
A in’t Brother Hodges a “bearcat’?
1. The issue was, “Is the Authorized Version
inerrant?”
2. Ruckman asserted it without proof.
3. You are foolish to accept his assertion.
4. If you do, you are not “reasonable.”
That is Zane Hodges. That is the best that mod­
ern Fundamental scholarship can offer the body of
Christ in 1977. Observe that he confesses “THE
POSITION” (see above) is that the Authorized Ver­
sion is inerrant, and that this position is due to
unreasonableness, uncertainty, and “feelings.” Now!
Before you think that a professor who believes in
the Textus Receptus (say Hoskier, Hills, Waite, Bur­
gon, Scrivener, Miller, or Pickering) and has forty
years of formal education as a Conservative Bible
scholar has BREATHING SENSE, go back and
look at what professor Zane Hodges wrote. He in­
dicated that since the A u th orized Version transla­
tors did not profess to be inerrant, they could not
have been inerrant. MATTHEW, M ARK, LUKE, and
J U D E d id not p ro fess to be “in e rra n t” before o r
after w riting w hat they wrote. What does this mean?
John said the “THINGS” were true (John 21:24),
but never professed INERRANCY in his own words
one time. Even if you take C hrist’s statements on
the “words” in John 14:23 as inerrant, you cannot
claim prayer promises (John 15:7) or manifest your
love for Jesus Christ (John 14:23), for He said
“WORDS,” not “things.” Where did you read that
the Apostle John ever said “What I am writing now
in the original is infallible and inerrant in the words
and the letters”? You didn’t. You took the scholars’
word for it because they a sserted it, but you are
not to believe Ruckman’s words if he ASSERTS
something like “the A u th orized Version is inerrant.”
Where was Hodge’s PROOF that the A u th orized
Version was not inerrant? Well, it was in the same
place where C uster’s proof was for “R uckm an’s
p ecu liar te a c h in g s” (Custer, p. 31): in a black hole
in outer space. If the A u th orized Version is iner­
rant, what difference would it make whether “Ruck­
man a sserted it” or not? It would be true anyway.
Why should any reader take Zane H o d g e s ’ w ord
for it that the A u th orized Version has errors? What
is so authoritative about Hodges’ ASSERTION (that
the A u th orized Version does contain e rro rs ) that
makes it superior to R uckm an’s assertion (th at it
does not have e rro rs)?
That is the method of the Spanish Inquisition:
guilty until proven innocent.
 That is what we call “The Alexandrian Men­
tality.”
You'are to reject the H oly B ible as the fin a l
auth ority and take H o d g e s ’ w ord f o r it that it has
m istakes; but none are listed, none are discussed,
and none are proved. You are to rest your soul on
Z ane H o d g e s’ th rea d b are A S S E R T IO N that
R uckm an’s assertion is a “false claim ” (letter to
Paul E. Gregg, June 22, 1977) and assume the
A u th orized Version is guilty until proven innocent:
Ignatius Loyola and Torquemada.
There is not one verse in any translation o f
any edition o f any B ible from any set o f m anu­
scrip ts on this earth where the origin a l author o f
Esther, the P roverbs, Jonah, M ark, 1 Peter, Joshua,
o r 2 S am u el e v e r p r o fe s s e d to be INSPIRED,
INFALLIBLE, or INERRANT. W hen you find the
verses, please produce them: don’t just talk like a
blank fool about “The A u th orized Version transla­
tors did not profess to be inerrant.” The statement
is completely void of ONE piece of rational logic
or spiritual content. It is a trivial concoction that
could only have been incubated and hatched in the
mind of a critic who had lost his senses tempo­
rarily. Sin w ill drive you crazy— Zane Hodges will
be no exception.
These sinners never dreamed that their old na­
tures, yielded to Satan, were the source of their
“callings” and life ministries. They were completely
and totally deceived, and while carrying out an
operation that was disguised as “reasonable” (see
above) and “factual” (see above), they were doing
nothing but making ASSERTIONS that are not found
 in any version of any Bible, in any edition, from
any set of manuscripts that ever showed up on this
earth. Their operation is irrational, groundless, and
absolutely devoid of moral ethics or moral prin­
ciples, and no one has to take this “assertion.” In
Chapters Seven and Eleven of this work, you will
find them digging their own graves and proving
their lack of integrity by their own statements. They
are not engaged in blessing or helping anyone:
they are engaged in the most Satanic work to be
found in the Laodicean Church— setting themselves
up as the fin a l authority in all matters o f fa ith and
practice.
The hypocrisy that has to be practiced while
carrying out such an operation is so monstrous that
the Communists or the Fascists could not have
pulled it off. One has to profess throughout to be
not only a “qualified” expert at “weighing evi­
dence” and handling difficult textual problems, but
one must accept the homage of the body of Christ
as a “godly saviour” who is “raised up by God” to
deliver the masses from “hidden meanings” and
“obscure phrases” that are “meaningless” without
the aid of the “godly scholars.” I have nothing but
the utmost contempt for the entire pack of Phari­
sees from Caiaphas to John MacArthur. (MacArthur,
by the way, was invited to defend his attacks on
the Authorized Version, after making a public ref­
erence over radio to the “fanaticism ” of some fa­
natical preacher in Pensacola, Florida, who believed
the Authorized Version was infallible. The invita­
tion came from Pastor “Chip” Williams of the Bay
View Baptist Church in San Pedro, California [Dec.
1985]. M acA rthur’s valiant and bold answer as a
“good, godly, dedicated soldier of the faith” was
that since neither he nor the “fanatic” would con­
vince the other of his position, he would excuse
himself; whereupon Reverend Williams straight­
ened the child out on his third-grade English and
reminded him that the purpose of the invitation
had nothing to do with anyone “convincing” any­
one. The purpose was for MacArthur to list those
ERRORS IN THE K IN G JAMES BIBLE before a
man he had ridiculed: that was W illiams’ point to
start with. “Mac” never showed. He never “placed. ”
He never “ran. ” M acArthur wasn’t in the race. He
just had a reputation for being on the track. He was
in the bleachers with John R. Rice, Robert Sum­
ner, Stewart Custer, Ed Dobson, Fred Afman, and
Harold W illmington.)
Perhaps the biggest heretics in the bunch were
Panosian, Bob Jones Jr., Custer, Neal, Wisdom,
and Bob Jones III, who, in their effort to get rid of
the B ible’s final authority, stated that since the
Scriptures “nowhere stated that any translation was
inspired that no translation could be inspired. ” As
we noted previously, this put these men on the
steering committee of the Communist NCCC, with
Weigle, Pike, Sockman, Oxnam, Poteat, and the
whole crew; f o r there are dozen s o f verses in the
N ew Testam ent which even in the “o rig in a l a u to ­
g r a p h s ” w ere G reek TRANSLATIONS o f the H e­
brew O ld Testament.
From 1880 to 1980, the Alexandrian Cult (that
is, that segment of it which professed to believe in
the “Fundamentals of the Faith”) went to work
 with gritty gusto to prove that the Bible was “the
inspired word of God.” Loraine Boettner’s In spi­
ration o f the Scriptures (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
1940), Gaussen’s T heopneustia (Chicago, Bible In­
stitute Col. Association, n.c.), Basil M anly’s D o c ­
trine o f Inspiration E xplained an d V indicated (New
York, A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1888), Stone-
house’s and Wooley’s The Infallible Word (Eerd­
mans, 1927), Robert Watts’ Faith an d Inspiration
(London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1885), and James
O rr’s work on R evelation and Inspiration (Eerd­
mans, 1952) all preceded John R. R ice’s highly
publicized book on O ur G od-B reath ed B ook— The
Bible (Sword Publishers). Burgon had written a
work on Inspiration and Interpretation back in 1881
(J. H. and James Parker, London and Oxford).
All of these works suffered from a notable
defect that evidently was not apparent to any of
their readers or their publishers, nor was it appar­
ent to their authors. All of them sought to prove
that “THE BIBLE” was plenary, verbally inspired,
and inerrant, by quoting D EFECTIVE BIBLES that
w ere n eith er inerran t n or inspired, accordin g to
the sam e author. (You get away with it only in
religion; it w on’t pass in a Circuit or District Court
with ANY number of witnesses.)
What these peculiarly warped Conservatives
and Evangelicals did was use some book recog­
nized as a “Bible” as authoritative proof of their
Position when they had spent a lifetime attacking
THAT SAME BOOK. An odder bunch of “Funny-
mentalists” never showed up. While listing “proof
texts” for “every word of God” being “inspired,”
they all removed the w ords'of God from “every
word of God” in the A m erican Stan dard Version,
the N ew A m erica n S ta n d a rd Version, the N ew
International Version, the N ew R evised Standard
Version, the R evised Version, the R evised Standard
Version, etc. (Luke 4:4), and then talked about “ev­
ery word” being “inspired.”
This is the unholy mess that John R. Rice got
into right before the Lord took him home. He had
been using a defective BOOK all his lifetime, but
it was the ONE BOOK that he preached and taught;
so when he wrote about “OUR G od-B reathed B o o k ”
(first person plural), the only Book he could quote
was a B o o k w h ich he d id N O T b e lie v e w as
“G od-breathed. ” Ditto Kutilek, Gaussen, Boettner,
Cornette, M achen, Davis, W arfield, Robertson,
Wuest, Custer, MacRae, Farstad, Williams, Afman,
Price, Martin, Newman, and any other 50,000 mem­
bers of the A lexandrian Cult, saved or lost.
Dr. W ilbur N elson (M oody, 1957), in a
Founder’s Week message in the morning chapel
hour, said:
“THERE is the INSPIRED W ORD OF
GOD! THE BIBLE! The Bible IS the in­
spired word of God! [p. 321] . . . and
when I READ the inspired and stately
W RITINGS of the prophets I hear the
voice of God. We believe it [the Bible] is
BREATHED BY GOD: it is either ALL
TRUE or it should be DISCARDED, AND
THANK GOD IT IS ALL TRUE!”
Don’t kid us, Doc. We’ve checked out profes­
sional liars for over half a century.
 There has not been on the fa c u lty o f M oody
Bible Institute since 1901 any p ro fe sso r who b e ­
lieved A N Y book he READ (see a b o v e ) w as “a ll
true ” an d “breath ed by God. ” They a ll take the
standard A lexandrian positio n , w h ile p ro fessin g
orthodoxy. But after all, this is an old routine. Note:
“The Bible IS inspired by God, thus WE
READ IT AS THE W ORLD’S MOST SA­
CRED and special book. Christian schol­
ars of all faiths are working together, shar­
ing discoveries with one another! They
are in almost unanimous agreement on the
Bible’s translation; they draw together on
its m eaning.”
W ho was that? A speaker at Bob Jones
University’s “Congress on Fundamentalism”? Why,
of course not. That was “ F a th e r ” Anthony Wil­
helm, C.S.P., of the Roman C atholic Church (C hrist
Among Us, nihil obstat, 1972, Paulist Press, pp.
157, 163).
All Catholics believe in the verbal, plenary
inspiration of “THE BIBLE.” It ju s t is n ’t any B ible
that they e ve r saw o r you w ill e ve r see.
We are picking up what we call the “character­
istic speech” of the Alexandrian Cult in the twenti­
eth century. It goes like this:
A. “We believe the Bible IS the word of God.”
(R eservation : I got the verb tense wrong— I meant
it WAS the word of God when f ir s t w ritten .)
B. “The Bible does not contain the word of
God: it IS the word of God! “ (R eservation : not the
Book I am preaching or teaching or reading or
memorizing.)
 C. “ W e b e lie v e the B I B L E IS T H E W O R D O F
G O D in the o rig in a l a u t o g r a p h s .” ( R eserva tio n : o f
c ou rse, th e re n e v e r w a s o n th is ea rth o n e tim e in
6,00 0 y e a rs A N Y B ib le th a t c o n ta in e d “ th e o r ig i­
nal a u t o g r a p h s ,” b u t a f te r all, y o u ’v e g o t to m a k e a
living.)
In Liguori’s works (M oral T h eology), this is
c a lle d “mental reservation.”
No member of the Alexandrian Cult really be­
lieved ANY Bible was the word of God, in the
present tense. The head of the R evised Version
committee never believed any Book on the face of
this earth was the word of God. The head of the
Am erican S tan dard Version committee never be­
lieved any Book on the face of this earth was the
word of God, and neither did the heads of the N ew
Am erican Stan dard Version committee or the N ew
International Version committee. But you have to
lie to sell your books. At least you do if you have
no faith: see Romans 14:23.
So here comes a score of books on “plenary,
verbal inspiration” that actually prove NOTHING.
The poor, deluded fool writing the nonsense thinks
that he is taking a “bold, militant stand for the
Faith” by professing to stand for something NO
one can see, r ea d , feel, to u ch , or
CHECK to see whether or not he is lying. Such an
operation is a liar’s paradise, and it will draw them
like honey draws flies. There is not a lying th ie f on
this earth who would not appreciate a “position”
Where no one could check on him to see what he
has, where he has been, what he is doing, what he
Plans to do, or how he plans to do it. This is the
“m ilitant” position taken by Fundam entalists in
1999 who attack the A u th o rize d Version while
“standing as soldiers of the Cross, bravely resist­
ing the inroads of Modernism by taking a public
stand for the historic position of the ‘godly’ Fun­
damentalists on the full plenary and verbal inspira­
tion o f” a Book that HAS NEVER BEEN ON THIS
EARTH ONE TIM E SIN CE 1000 B.C. (See
“Brownies and Campfire Girls” in The “E rro rs” in
the K ing Jam es Bible, 1978).
Witness:
“We stand up for Christ and THE BIBLE,
and the integrity of the Word of God, and
for obedience to the PLAIN COMMANDS
OF THE BIBLE . . . . the doctrines about
Christ and the commands of Christ are
ALL IN THE INFALLIBLE W ORD OF
GOD.”
1. You can read the Bible.
2. The Bible has commands that you can read.
3. The “infallible Bible” is a book that has
“plain commands” in it.
4. You take a stand for that “infallible Bible”
that you can obey.
5. Those commands are plain in the “INFAL­
LIBLE BIBLE.”
Right? Did I misguide you? Did I misinterpret
the author? Did I “slander” whoever wrote those
words? Am I guilty of vicious hate and “name
calling”? Did I not interpret the gentleman exactly
as he intended to be INTERPRETED?
The gentleman is John R. R ice (Sw ord o f the
Lord), writing in E arnestly Contending f o r the Faith
 (Sword Publishers, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1965,
p. 139).
Did he mean what he said? Was he sincere?
Are you serious?
John R. Rice never believed for five minutes
in his life (a fter going to B a ylo r U niversity) that
a n y b o o k a n y m a n c o u l d r e a d o n t h is
EARTH IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY WAS
INFALLIBLE, LET ALONE THE INFALLIBLE
“BIBLE.” He was just pulling your leg, like C urtis
Hutson continued to do after Rice died.
“Inspired scriptures”? “Inspired originals”?
“We believe the Holy Scriptures to be
VERBALLY INSPIRED by God and iner­
rant in the ORIGINAL writing, and that
THEY ARE of supreme and final author­
ity in faith and life, as stated in our doctri­
nal platform .”
Who is this bragging about his “bold, militant,
Fundamentalist stand for the faith once delivered
to the saints” in the “historic Fundamentalist posi­
tion” of believing in the “verbal, plenary inspira­
tion of the original booger-bears”? It is the Presi­
dent of Wheaton College, Dr. Edman (p. 205), on
November of 1958. B ob Jones U n iversity sa ys
Wheaton is apostate. Why? Their d o ctrin a l p la t­
form is the do ctrin a l platform o f B ob Jones U ni­
versity in 1988. Why aren’t they just as “sound” as
Bob Jones University? They both m ade the sam e
PROFESSION o f faith. They just lost the Bible.
N either one o f them had any B ible to read.
They don’t have one now.
You see, all Bob Jones University and Wheaton
College really believed was the official teaching of
the Roman Catholic Church given in the “nihil
obstat” work by Anthony Gilles (F undam entalism ,
What E very C atholic N eeds to K n o w , 1984). An­
thony Gilles, a resident for sometime of Pensacola,
was appalled by the number of Baptists who went
on “visitation,” so when he wrote his hate-literature
attacking Bible-believers (he calls them “the luna­
tic fringe,” p. 8, and also “sophisticated BIGOTS,”
p. 9), he put a picture on his cover jacket of a
Bible-carrying witness ringing a door bell. And
what does this Roman Catholic say “nihil obstat”
about inspiration? Well, he and John R. Rice, Bob
Jones III, Harold W illmington, Robert Sumner,
Doug Kutilek, and the rest of the Alexandrian Cult
would get along like “seven in a bed.” The Catho­
lic position, as given, is that of C lem ent o f A lexan­
dria (A.D. 150-215), who called God the “author
of Scripture,” P ope G regory the G reat (A.D. 540-
604) who did the same, and Thom as A quinas (A.D.
1225-1274), who also did the same. The Roman
C atholic D ogm atic C onstitution on D ivine R evela­
tion, no. 11 (Gilles, p. 29) says: “The books of the
Old and New Testaments . . . with all their parts,
were written UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE
HOLY SPIRIT, AND AS SUCH, THEY HAVE
GOD AS THEIR AUTHOR.”
Ditto Zane Hodges, A.T. Robertson, Bob Jones
III, John R. Rice, Truman Dollar, J. Gresham Ma-
chen, Rodney Bell, Fred Afman, Harold W illming­
ton, Kenneth Wuest, Pope John Paul II, T h ie sse n ,
Warfield, and the entire Roman Catholic hierarchy-
All Roman Catholics hold to the “historic Fun­
damentalist position” that all apostate Fundamen­
talists hold to: i.e., NO BOOK ON THIS EARTH
IS INSPIRED; NO BOOK ON THIS EARTH IS
INFALLIBLE; NO BOOK ON THIS EARTH IS
INERRANT
For relief, let us open THE BOOK (o pip?iog)!
Here we have it: “ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN
BY INSPIRATION OF GOD” (2 Tim. 3:16). It is
true that even this statement has been aborted in
the grossly corrupt A m erican S tan dard Version of
1901, but since we never imagined the A m erican
Standard Version of 1901 was a “Bible” to start
with, we w on’t waste time on it here. The A u th o­
rized Version says, “ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN
BY INSPIRATION OF GOD.”
Question one: What does the word “scripture”
mean?
Question two: What does “given by inspira­
tion” mean?
Answer (from the A lexandrian Cult): “The
word ‘scripture’ is a reference to the verbally in­
spired original autographs and therefore has no ap­
plication to TRANSLATIONS or COPIES OF THE
ORIGINALS. The word ‘inspiration’ means that
the words written down on a sheet of paper were
‘GOD-BREATHED’ THE FIRST TIME THEY
WERE W RITTEN DOWN: the verse was m is­
translated and should have been ‘All scripture WAS
God-breathed.’”
There. That is the standard “historical posi­
tion" of the Alexandrian Cult.
There are three things wrong with it that label
i t as a Catholic HERESY.
 1. The word “scripture” in the Bible is AL­
WAYS used of co p ies o r tran slation s (Mark 12:10;
Acts 8:32; Acts 17:11, etc.), and n ever once is re­
fe rrin g to “orig in al autographs. ”
Christ read the Scriptures, the Bereans studied
the Scriptures (Acts 17:11), the Ethiopian eunuch
had them open on his lap (Acts 8:32), and Christ
rebuked people for not reading them (Matt. 21:42).
2. The word “scripture’’ was defined in the
context (2 Tim. 3:15) as something that Timothy
had known all of his life, and he didn't have ONE
“original autograph” of Moses, Isaiah, David, Jer­
emiah, Malachi, Zephaniah, Samuel, Asaph, Ezek­
iel, or Daniel to go by. The h eretics T O O K A TEXT
O U T O F THE CONTEXT. Why? Obviously be­
cause of “feelings of uncertainty” engendered by
“textual and translational difficulties” (see Zane
Hodges, above).
3. Paul ascribes FOREK NOW LEDG E and
SPEECH to copies of the scripture (Rom. 9:17;
Gal. 3:8), though he never had an origin al of Exo­
dus 9:16 or Genesis 22:18 a day in his life.
Someone is lying again. They must be pros,
because they never quit (see Chapter Seven). With
them it is not only a vocation, a calling, and a
profession, but a “life-style.” They take it like a
mallard takes to water.
Now, observe, in contrast to all of this, that we
believe the Book we quote and use it to prove what
we believe. There is no tortuous circuit around the
facts or the truth; we aren’t quoting Scriptures to
prove that some lost pieces of paper were “given
by inspiration of God.” We are quoting the S crip­
 tures to prove that the Scriptures (as the Scriptures
use the term) were “given by inspiration of God.”
“ALL SC R IPT U R E .” If it is “ S C R IP T U R E ,”
God gave it; if God gave it, the method He used
was by inspiration: HE BREATHED ON IT.
That is what put LIFE into the Scriptures (see
Gen. 2:7 and Ezek. 37:1-14).
(Missed it, didn’t you, you God-forsaken Fun­
damental Greek scholars and Conservative Hebrew
scholars and Evangelical textual critics— all of you
orthodox Bible teachers. Missed it by a mile, didn’t
you? Do you know why you did? Because God
won’t bless a LIAR.)
Now, this explains why you will not find the
expression “inspired word of God” or the “inspired
words of G od” or the “inspired Bible” anywhere in
this textbook. We took the English translation
“GIVEN BY INSPIRATION” to be the truth.
“God-breathed Scripture” or “inspired Scripture”
is an expression obtained by using the GREEK
form in the verse (0eo7uvei)axocr), instead of the
ENGLISH FORM, but you see, we have had enough
experience with Greek forms and English forms to
correctly determ ine which ones to go by. The
Authorized Version translators, being much more
intelligent than the board that put the New Interna­
tional Version together and the board that put the
New King James Version together, saw the prob­
lem immediately when they hit the “Greek,” be­
cause 2 Peter 1:21 stated that inspiration was con­
nected with SPEAKING: “holy m en of God
SPAKE as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
If you said that the Scriptures were “inspired”
('G od-breath ed ), how would that fit Paul NOT writ­
ing some of them, and Jonah w riting less than ten
pages in a lifetime as a prophet? Is anyone reading
this page stupid enough to believe that the extent
of M icah’s inspiration (HE SPOKE “BY THE
HOLY GHOST”) w as the 1 2 -1 6 p a g e s you fou n d
in the canon? Do you think that Daniel, serving
under five monarchs, was “inspired” only when he
SPOKE what you find recorded in the Book of
Daniel? Is the extent of Joel’s inspiration as “a
holy man of God” confined to what the HOLY
GHOST DECIDED TO PUT IN THE CANON?
(See the article on Harold W illmington in the B ible
B e lie v e rs ’ Bulletin, March, 1986.)
Ah, beloved! The “qualified authorities” in the
S c h o la r’s Union are not just “so stupid they don’t
know nothin’”; they don’t even SUSPECT any­
thing! They thought if you took the course above
you would open the door for every Tom, Dick, and
Harry to be inspired OUTSIDE the canon, so they
invented a n on -B iblical doctrin e that w o u ld pro­
tect their own ignorance. We never said that the
Scriptural canon was missing anything. We never
said the Book o f Jash er should be in it, or the Book
o f Enoch or the E pistle to the L aodiceans: we said
that God excluded from the canon not only thou­
sands of words WHICH “HOLY MEN OF GOD
SPOKE (2 Pet. 1:21), but as sure as God m ade
little green apples, a dozen words and sentences
“given by inspiration” were excluded from the
canon because G O D D ID N ’T WANT THEM IN IT
If you found them and put them in NOW, they
would not be part of the Holy Bible. You have ALL
 the “Scriptures ” G od w ants you to have.
The following are questions for superstitious
egotists like those who work for the United Bible
Societies:
1. Did Paul write an Epistle to Laodicea? Was
it in spired or not? Can you p ro ve it?
2. If you can’t trust God Almighty to preserve
the words He wants you to have in 1988, can you
trust Him to put His New Testament together be­
tween A.D. 40 and A.D. 90 without a slip? Not
even a slip in GRAMMAR?
3. If Moses and Pharaoh spoke in E gyptian,
how come the Holy Spirit “lost something in the
translation” by making Moses WRITE it in H e­
brew? Don’t Egyptian and Hebrew idiom s differ?
4. Was the “original autograph” a perfect,
VERBALLY inspired (word for word) translation
of the E gyptian? Can you prove it? Now, or 6,000
years from now?
5. You say we can be “reasonably sure” we
have the exact words of the Holy Bible, and so
“for all practical purposes” we may say “This is
the Word of God!”. P r o o f text? One verse in either
Testament? You have “an accurate translation” of
the “originals,” do you? According to W HOM ?
Griesbach, Semler, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and
Hort? According to whom? Nestle, Aland, Metzger,
Alford, Wuest, and Robertson? M an’s word for it?
NOT A SO UL WINNER IN THE ENTIRE LOT, A N D
YOU TAKE THEIR W ORD FOR IT? Not one man
the list ever told what he really believed when
he was trying to pass off as a “Bible-believer,” and
you take their word for it? Did they lace your
“bomb” with pop? After studying their work, as
found in Chapter Seven of this book, you will take
THEIR word for it that you have “the word of
God” or the words of God? Are you still there? Did
you leave?
6. Why is it then that every one of these men
speaks in unknown tongues? Not one man among
them speaks like any saint did in either Testament.
The jargon of Biblical scholarship used by the schol­
ars is not found in any edition of any translation of
any version of the Bible under heaven. No Old
Testament saint or New Testament saint mentions
“original manuscripts,” “verbal, plenary inspiration
of the autographs,” “better renderings,” “more ac­
curate translations,” “dittography,” “glosses,” “dy­
namic equivalence,” “formal correspondence,” “eye
wandering,” or “reliable translations.”
L et’s cut the deck and deal, OK?
Som e p e o p le believe THE B O O K, and some
d o n ’t (Acts 28:24). The body of Christ is (and al­
ways has been) split right down the middle: there
are Bible-believers and there are Bible critics. All
of the critics in Fundamental circles wish to be
a c c e p te d as “Bible-believers” WITHOUT PAYING
THE PRICE. The price is ridicule and ostracization,
my good friend. These apostates will not pay the
price (Matt. 16:24). They love this present w orld
(2 Tim. 4: 10); their g o d is their b elly (Rom. 16:18).
They profess what they do not b elieve to make you
THINK they are B ible-believers, so you will co m e
under their wings for shelter and trust in them-
They are as phony as a $4.00 bill, as treacherous as
a mink, as crafty as a fox, as slippery as a polly'
wog, and as CROOKED as the Federal Reserve
S y stem .
James J. Son, a nobody out of nowhere, put
out a monograph on Biblical Scholarship one time
called The B ible Translations Test (Plainview, Texas,
1983). It is the last word on what a real Bible
believer should believe about the Biblical scholar­
ship of Pensacola Christian College, Santa Rose
Schools, Bob Jones University, Tennessee Temple
University, Baptist Bible College (Pennsylvania),
Liberty University, Dallas and Fort Worth, etc.
Brother Son asks the Bible-believer fifty questions
and then shows how EVERYTHING that any Bible
believer is supposed to believe is under attack some­
where in the R evised S tan dard Version, the N ew
R evised S tan dard Version, the N ew Intern ational
Version, the A m erican S tan dard Version, the N ew
A m erican Stan dard Version, and all “reliable trans­
lations'’ recommended by anyone, except the A u ­
thorized Version.
The questions run like this:
1. Do you believe that God is on His throne?
2. Do you believe that God is wiser than man?
3. Do you believe that God is all-sovereign?
4. Do you believe that there are two resurrec­
tions?
5. Do you believe that it is wrong to trust
riches?
6. Do you believe that miracles are recorded
in the Bible?
7. Do you realize that everyone who remains
outside of Christ is lost and will be pun­
ished?
 8. Do you believe that Christ came to save
lost sinners?
9. Do you believe . . . etc.
All fifty of these are answered with direct quo­
tations from the Authorized Version, and then, in
each verse given, Brother Son has UNDERLINED
THOSE WORDS THAT WERE ALTERED OR
OMITTED IN THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VER­
SION AND THE NEW AM ERICAN STANDARD
VERSION on something you believed. (For ex­
ample, on no. 1 above, Rev. 14:4b—5; no. 2, 1 Tim.
1:17 and Jude 25; no. 3, 1 Cor. 10:28b, Acts 15:18,
etc.) James Son proves by documented evidence
from THE FINAL AUTHORITY that every En­
glish version on the market since 1881 (the New
International Version, the New King James Ver­
sion, the American Standard Version and the New
American Standard Version) attacks something a
believer is supposed to believe that is found in the
FINAL AUTHORITY. It is true they cannot and do
not attack every b elief every time it is mentioned,
but they do manage to do it over 100 times: the
average number of verses attacked for the fifty
questions is two verses per question.
W hat these apostate reprobates are doing is
perfectly apparent to a real Bible-believer. They
are saying that because there are variations in the
editions of the Authorized Version that THEIR varia­
tions (found in the New International Version, the
American Standard Version, the New King James
Version, the Revised Version) are just as legitimate
and therefore should be accepted. They are saying
that since the Authorized Version is not a word-for-
word translation of the Receptus Greek text, they
don’t have to give a word-for-word translation of
the Receptus. They are saying that since God used
the Authorized Version translators, that HE HAS
TO USE THEM IN THE SAME FASHION, on the
grounds that:
a. They are just as “godly.”
b. They are just as dedicated.
c. They are twice as smart.
d. They have access to more information.
They are saying that since there were some
misprints in the Authorized Version editions of 1701
(“Printers” in Psa. 119:161), 1711 (Oxford, “shall
profit” in Isa. 47:12), 1807 (Oxford, “place mak­
ers” in Matt. 5:9), and 1807 (Oxford, “from good
works” in Heb. 9:14), etc., (Yes, bunny honey, we
know what you know, and probably a great deal
besides) that the Authorized Version could not be
“inerrant.”
We know exactly what they are saying and
have said, and further, we even know what they are
going to say. They are going to say that because
the Authorized Version changed “grinne” to “grin,”
“flying” to “fleeing,” “Neezed” to “sneezed,”
“saveth” to “and he saveth,” “to be joyful” to
“and to be joyful,” that they are justified in chang­
ing “THE PROPHETS” to “Isaiah the prophet”
(Mark 1:2, see previous material), thereby making
a liar out of God, omitting “FIRSTBORN” (Matt.
1:25, see pp. 313-316) in order to protect the Pope,
and altering “PICTURES” to “idols” (Num. 33:52)
so that they will be able to keep their TV’s.
We know exactly what kind of “Biblical schol­
a r s h ip ” we are dealing with and just how “godly”
it is.
They are going to say that because the Autho­
rized Version changed its text from “flix” to “flux,”
and “upon the h ou se” to “h ou setop ,” and
“unperfect” to “imperfect,” and “have care” to
“have a care,” and “sometimes” to “sometime,”
and “forsom uch” to “forasm uch,” and “such
wrong” to “such wrongs,” and “will fat” to “fat­
ten,” that this constitutes REVISION; therefore,
THEIR REVISIONS will be just as God-honored,
although they revised so as to alter the supernatural
revelation of doctrinal truth in Romans 1:18, 25
(the New King James Version), 1 Timothy 6:5, 10,
and 20 (the New King James Version), 2 Corin­
thians 2:17 (the New King James Version), and so
as to attack the Deity of Christ (Acts 4:27, The
New King James Version). Yes, we know exactly
the moral nature and the principles by which these
men operate. When it comes to FINAL AUTHOR­
ITY, they have the ethical principles of an alley
cat. They don’t impress us, honey. They don’t even
make a dent.
They holler, “22,000 changes between the first
edition of an Authorized Version and the one you
have right now!” in the hopes that you will accept
their 30,000. The 22,000 changes they spoke of
were “northwards” to “northward,” “cheweth
cud” to “the cud,” “noondays” to “noon day,”
“nor scales” to “and scales,” “He asked” to “She
asked” (when BOTH of them asked: see Ruth 3:15,
where BOTH of them “went into the city”), “dis­
allow” to “disallowed,” “I start” to “I started,”
“in pow er” to “ of power,” etc. The 30,000 they
want you to accept are attacks on the Deity of
Christ (1 Tim. 3:16), the Virgin Birth (Luke 2:33),
the Ascension (Luke 24:51-52), the Resurrection
(Acts 1:3), the Bible (Luke 4:4), the command­
ments of God (2 Tim. 2:15), warnings about Bible
perverters (2 Cor. 2:17), warnings on loving money
(1 Tim. 6:5, 10), warnings about science (1 Tim.
6:20), the plan of salvation in the tribulation (Rev.
22:14), the premillennial coming of Christ (John
18:36), the restoration of Israel (1 Thess. 2:16 in
the Lockman Foundation’s “Am plified Version”),
the blood of Christ (Col. 1:14, Acts 20:28), etc.
Do we know the moral character of these
godly, modern Bible translators and revisers? You
je s’ bet your booties we do.
We have the list of the fourteen principle edi­
tions of the Authorized Version right here on the
desk.
ANY ONE OF THEM IS SUPERIOR TO ANY
EDITION OF ANY ENGLISH TRANSLATION
PUBLISHED IN THE LAST 200 YEARS.
You see the Saturnalia these egotistical fools
got into by confining God’s breathing to the indi­
vidual words o f Greek and Hebrew that no one had
seen for 1,800 years? Having done this, they had to
believe that if ONE OF THESE WORDS was al­
tered, “inspiration” ceased. Having adopted this
tactic, they surmised immediately that the Autho­
rized Version couldn’t be “ given by in sp iratio n ,v
fo r the WORDS had changed, and this was a no-no
in “VERBAL, plenary inspiration.” Taking ad­
vantage of the fact that many people worship brains
 and education instead of God, they saw Satan’s
great intention: they could change as many words
as they liked (since NOTHING was inspired) while
professing to believe in some words that were in­
spired That way, they could pass off as Bible-
believers and, EVENTUALLY, REPLACE THE
BOOK WITH THEIR BOOKS. After all, that was
their purpose to start with: GET RID OF THE
BOOK.
In fifty years of studying the history of m an’s
depravity through 30,000 volumes of literature, I
have never seen a more godless operation.
Now, let these things sink down deep into the
heart of the real Bible believer. Let him not be
overwhelmed with these gushing, spouting rivers
of sewage, being passed off as the “waters of life.”
These men are professing what they do not be­
lieve, and even if they believed what they pro­
fessed about the “originals,” their profession would
have no effect on anything else they believed, be­
cause the “originals” could not have any effect on
what ELSE they believed, at all. The originals”
simply are not there. To show you this force of
logic (which is absolutely demonstrable), we present
the Alexandrian system of LOGIC proposed by the
Bible rejectors themselves who PROFESS to be­
lieve in “verbal, plenary, inspired original auto­
graphs.” We cite here directly the specific method
°t logic given by an Alexandrian translator who
served on the New King James Version committee
and the New International Version committee—
Lewis Foster (Selecting a Translation o f the Bible,
Standard Publishing Company, Cincinnati, 1978,
P. 86).
 In trying to prove the “verbal inspiration of
the Scriptures,” this typical apostate Fundamental­
ist, who served on two of the most typically repre­
sentative Alexandrian productions in this century
(the New International Version and the New King
James Version), gives you this:
1. M ajor premise: “No scripture can be bro­
ken” (John 10:34-35).
2. M inor premise: “Psalm 82:6 is scripture.”
3. Conclusion: “Therefore the words ‘I have
said, ye are gods’ cannot be broken . . .
they are ETERNALLY TRUE.”
Now look at that G od-dishonoring mess.
D oesn’t it “BOKE ya?” (William Gornall, 1662-
“nauseate. ”)
Both quotations were from a King James 1611
Authorized Version, which is NOT “SCRIPTURE,'
according to Lewis Foster. “ALL SCRIPTURE
IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD,” so the
Authorized Version was NOT “given by inspira­
tion of God,” according to Lewis Foster, plus ALL
THE M EN ON BOTH COMMITTEES THAT HE
SERVED WITH. Yet the proof he gives for his be­
lief— his deepest and strongest conviction about
the Holy Scriptures— is that, since he is logical
(see above), he has proved the inspiration of the
Scriptures.
W hat Scriptures?
He never even read them, let alone q u o t e d
them. He quoted from an Authorized Version from
1611.
OK, hand-over-fist, baby— last man in is a dead
duck.
 1. M ajor Premise: “The King James Bible says
“ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY IN­
SPIRATION OF GOD” (2 Tim. 3:16).
2. M inor Premise: “The verse I just quoted
was SCRIPTURE” (2 Tim. 3:16).
3. Conclusion: “The King James Bible was
“GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD”
(2 Tim. 3:16).
Now, how does that look? Changed color night,
didn’t it? “Logic” blew up right in your face, didn’t
it? Do you know why? Because HUMANISTIC
RATIONALISM is incapable of any kind of think­
ing but sick thinking. It is sick: sicker than a pig in
a laundromat.
One more time for fun, Okay? Fire for effect!
1. M ajor Premise: “No scripture can be bro­
ken” (John 10:35).
2. M inor Premise: “Timothy knew the scrip­
tures from childhood up” (1 Tim. 3:15).
3. Conclusion: “The copies of translations
Timothy had could not be broken: THEY
WERE ETERNALLY TRUE.”
Lewis Foster (and all of his committeemen on
both committees) would accept the FIRST set up,
and then they would reject both of the others on
the grounds that they were more afraid of ridicule
than DEATH or HELL. A ll three systems are iden­
tical. You see, it is ADAMANTIUS ORIGEN (see
The History o f the New Testament Church, Vol. I,
PP- 75-77) who sets up the “Historic Position for
Militant Fundamentalists” for the twentieth cen­
tury. I quote the old Bible-rejecting heretic verba­
tim: “ALL THE SCRIPTURES ARE INSPIRED
BY THE HOLY SPIRIT” (Harman, p. 20, citing
Commentary Psalmos, p. 527). Note Origen did
not say “GIVEN BY INSPIRATION.” Note: he
made no reference to what he was correcting, re­
vising, perverting, and altering. He simply believed
that he was equipped to correct anything that any­
one called “SCRIPTURES,” while professing (did
you get that word?) to believe that God had in­
spired them.
Shall we continue to “earnestly contend for
the faith in the matter of an inspired Bible"? Let's!
“Dr. Orr wants to emphasize the power of
the Bible to lead men to Christ and does
not want to emphasize THE TRUTH of
the Bible, as did W arfield and Hodge,
[Harman, p. 188]. This is PRACTICALLY
the viewpoint of the Liberal . . . that the
Bible CONTAINS the Word of God and
leads to Christ, but is not necessarily it­
self the infallible word of God.”
Why, the author of that attack on Dr. Orr never
believed any Bible was “in itself the infallible word
o f God. ” ! He was just as liberal as Dr. Orr (or Bob
Jones Jr., Bob Jones III, Jack Van Impe, Harold
W illmington, Chuck Swindoll, Kenneth Wuest, or
Stewart Custer) if you take the author above seri­
ously. The author o f that attack on Dr. Edwin Orr
was John R. Rice.
Note that every apostate Fundam entalist in
America attempted to justify the American Stan­
dard Version, the New International Version, and
the New American Standard Version on the grounds
that you could “get saved” through them: ditto the
 New King James Version. According to John R.
Rice, such men are “practically” RELIGIOUS LIB­
ERALS.
Amen, Doctor. You tell ’em. And then get off
the platform as quick as you can, fo r you have
been sitting with them and nursing them fo r fifty
years by taking exactly the same “historic posi­
tion." I quote: “IN THE ORIGINAL M A NU­
SCRIPTS, all the scriptures were written down in
the VERY WORDS which God gave” (p. 211, cit­
ing 1 Cor. 2:13; Matt. 4:4; and Isa. 51:16). How do
we know this? By what John R. Rice found 1,600
to 2,000 years LATER in an archaic, Elizabethan,
UNINSPIRED “translation.” Rice quotes his proof
text from the King James Bible, not the ORIGI­
NAL MANUSCRIPTS.
Now! How do these “good, godly men” treat
their Bible-believing brethren when no one can
check on them and their donors and supporters
don’t know what they are doing? Well, sir, they
could give “Ruckman” a run for his money any
day in the week. I cite the Chancellor of Bob Jones
University, writing to Jack Van Impe (Sept. 2, 1977).
“Everybody knows that Falwell has NO
SPIRITU AL D ISCERN M ENT when it
comes to his associations and that he will
go along with anything or anybody who
will get him a crowd . . . In a lesser sense,
the situation regarding Lee Roberson is
pretty much the same. He is a charming
man . . . but Lee never took a FIGHTING
FUNDAM ENTALIST position on any­
thing that came up . . . if we had to de-
 pend on Lee [note the first name] to man
the bulwarks and fight the Devil, we would
have all been captured and led into cap­
tivity twenty years ago.”
That came from Bobby, a man whose Chris­
tian museum money was spent on Roman Catholic
paintings, who banned Edward H ills’ books from
the campus (1950-1978), banned David Otis Fuller
from the campus, sold the Revised Standard Ver­
sion of the National Council o f Christian Churches
in his bookstore in 1949-1950, recommended two
Roman Catholic versions o f the Jesuit bible (the
American Standard Version and the New American
Standard Version), justified the heresies of West-
cott and Hort, called them “conservative,” and never
professed to believe A N Y BOOK ON THE FACE
OF THE EARTH TO BE THE INFALLIBLE, IN­
ERRANT WORD OF GOD.
There are more things than space shuttles and
UFO’s “in orbit.”
The same apostate wretch wrote again to Jack
Van Impe (Dec. 14, 1977) and actually said THIS:
“I do not think matters of Biblical inter­
pretation are half as important as Scrip­
tural obedience to THE BIBLE . . . those
who love the Lord and believe THE BOOK
are going to line themselves up with THE
B O O K ___ ”
You never saw anything more comical or m ore
bogus in Disneyworld.
Write Bob Jones Jr. and get him to tell you
what that “BOOK” was that he was talking about.
Even better still, write to Bob Jones University and
 order the tapes that Panosian, Wisdom, Neal, and
Custer made at a student assembly before 2,500
young men and women on the subject of the King
James Version. They were told that there was not
one book on this earth that was “THE BIBLE. ”
You say, what is wrong with these sinners?
Nothing that the Judgment Seat of Christ w on’t
fix.
According to Bernard Ramm of Fuller Theo­
logical Seminary— who is accused by Bob Jones
III, John R. Rice, and all of their associates of
wrecking faith in the Bible— an UNSAVED LIB­
ERAL can be spotted by the fact that he attempts
to correct the words o f God with HUMAN REA­
SON.
Now, go back and read the previous pages,
and tell us where that habit came from (correcting
the word of God by “application” of “human rea­
son”). Now tell us, who picked up the habit and
used it? Now tell us, since Panosian, Custer, Af­
man, Neal, Wisdom, Dollar, Henderson, and all of
their associates have been doing JUST THAT for
nearly half a century, who is the “liberal”?
Did you ever stop to think about what a hilari­
ous riot this thing is? Here are all of these apostate
Fundamentalists calling Bible correctors (the Re­
vised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard
Version, the Living Bible) “liberals,” while cor­
recting it themselves, and “dangerous,” when they,
too, correct the Bible; and here are Liberals and
Fundamentalists calling Bible-believers a “Cult,”
while they themselves cannot even settle on A N Y
PINAL AUTHORITY for giving an authoritative
opinion ABOUT ANYTHING. They have no final
authority (see Appendix One) outside of their own
top-heavy noodles. They actually think when they
quote an “authority” out of a raft of Biblical schol­
ars that this is the last word or the final authority
on the matter. We have shown from this book that
anyone is capable of quoting any authority to prove
anything he wants to prove, including a Bible-be-
liever. The real advantage that we have over these
confused, wandering, blind, blundering apostates
(Fundamentalists included) is not the fact that we
can counter ANY authority they cite with another
authority (which we certainly can do and have done
here and will continue to do) but the fact that we
have ONE ABSOLUTE STANDARD OF FINAL
AUTHORITY by which we can judge THE OPIN­
IONS o f anyone who believes it OR D O ESN ’T BE­
LIEVE IT.
We could have pulled off a contemptible stunt
at the beginning of this book by simply printing
Appendix One on the first page and then binding
the rest of the book with 360 blank sheets of paper.
You see, you have to “land on the strip” finally:
you cannot circle the airport for a week without
refueling— the planes will get “stacked.” If THE
BOOK is not final, WHAT is final? Let our “good,
godly, d edicated, q u alified, recognized, F u n ­
damental scholar” (who swears by the “plenary
inspiration of the verbally inspired original auto­
graphs”) tell you. This is Lewis Foster again. He is
writing a book on Selecting a Translation o f the
Bible (Standard Publishing Company, Cincinnati,
1978). He gives us 130 pages to show us how to
 “select a translation.” Since he was honored with a
place on the New King James Version committee
with Dollar, Farstad, Dobson, Henderson, etc.,
surely we can go by his guidelines!
(You couldn’t, unless you were unconverted
and on your way to hell.)
With 130 pages of material on more than forty
translations, Foster tells us that the determining
factors for a child of God in “selecting a transla­
tion” are: 1. Is it precise? 2. Is it contemporary?
3. Does it instruct? 4. How does it sound, read, and
look? 5. W hat do you expect of it? 6. In what ways
is it accurate? 7. Is a free translation better than a
literal one? After that, he tells us that he recom­
mends the New King James Version to REPLACE
THE ROARING LION OF THE PROTESTANT
REFORMATION (p. 126).
Now! Do you know what is wrong with the
above? Well, there is not one faculty member teach­
ing in one major Christian seminary, institute, col­
lege, or university in America or Europe that could
find what is wrong. They all THINK like unsaved
humanists. Their profession has no hold over their
THINKING. Do you realize at all what Lewis Fos­
ter did after serving on two twentieth-century Bible
revision committees as a representative of Bible-
believing Fundamentalists?
HE R EC O M M EN D ED YOU SE L EC T A
BIBLE W ITHOUT PRAYING ABOUT IT OR
SEEKING GOD’S WILL ON IT.
And there it stinks, just like a dead shrimp in
an outhouse.
Rebels are not in subjection to the King.
 The criteria for final authority in the Alexan­
drian Cult is HUMANISTIC RELATIVISM based
on personal subjective preferences. Will the Alex­
andrian Cult help you to decide which translation
to choose in order to get rid of your Holy Bible?
Of course. Here is F. F. Bruce, William Sanford
Lasor, H erbert H enry E hrenstein, J. Ram sey
Michaels, Robert H. Mounce, John H. Skilton, Ger­
ald R. Studer, and Gerald Hawthorn giving their
opinions in Eternity Magazine. A fter carefully
examining fifteen different twentieth-century En­
glish translations, they tell you what they knew
before anyone said anything: “Some bad, none per­
fect. Some strong here, but weak there; others strong
there, but weak here— it depends on what you are
looking for.” Nobody can say for sure, but if you
follow us, you will do better than PRAYING
WHILE YOU ARE READING THE AUTHORIZED
VERSION.
(See Appendix One) The saved men in this
CULT THINK like unsaved Liberals.
We have THE BOOK: they don’t. “They,” here,
means any recognized, qualified, “godly,” “dedi­
cated” Bible scholar on the face of the earth who
stands by the “plenary, verbally inspired, original
s q u ig g le y -s q u a g g le s .” (C irca 1986: B ra c h ’s
“Twists” for little children in my church.)
 Roman Catholic
Hate Literature
“ T H E M O T H E R O F H A R LO TS AND
A B O M IN A T IO N S O F T H E E A R T H
. . . d ru n k e n w ith the blood of the saints
. . . (Revel at i on 17:5-6)
“ L et him w rite h e r a bill of divorce­
m en t” (Deuteronomy 24:1)

We come at last to the modern “substitutes”

for the King of the Beasts. These “reliable transla­
tions” (properly called goats and pigs) are sup­
posed to have run the King of the M ountain off his
peak and out of his jungle. As we have seen, these
are all basically the product of seven things— re­
gardless of any “talk” or “profession of faith” that
may have accompanied them. (We have learned by
now that “talk” is cheaper than a bean off of a
M esquite tree, and “professions of faith” are about
as sound a charter to go by as an astrological chart
compiled by Jean Dixon.)
1. They are the product of high-sounding non­
sense designed to impress the uninitiated with the
intelligence of the vocabulary expert, though he
may not have enough spiritual discernment to put
in the left eye of a blind mosquito.
2. They are the product of taking the occa­
 sional negative statements about the Authorized Ver­
sion made by men who WERE really “godly” (Tor-
rey, Spurgeon, et al.) and pretending that these
carnal-nature utterances constitute a “CREED OF
CHRISTENDOM” as the “historic position” for all
Christians to take.
3. They are the product of continual lying in
the classrooms (see Chapter Seven) to ministerial
students through a period of 100 years on three
continents. Stewart Custer of Bob Jones University
is a first class exhibit of this kind of pathological,
pious, Bible-quoting LIAR.
4. They are the product of taking Catholic crit­
ics of the Authorized Version seriously and giving
the Vatican and the Jesuits the benefit of the doubt
in a contest over “authoritative texts.”
5. They are the products of listening to un­
saved philosophers and applying D arwin’s theories
on evolution (especially his theory about “DE­
SCENT”) to manuscript evidence, treating the Bible
as if it were no different than the Iliad or the Odys­
sey, or the poems of Virgil and Horace.
6. They are the products of mammoth adver­
tising campaigns using the tried and trusty tech­
niques of Josef Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Pro­
paganda (1933-1945), to sell their products.
7. And finally, they are the product of back­
slidden Christians who do NOT win souls, or have
CEASED to win souls, and have set their own
opinions up as a sacred text with which to attack
the Holy Bible.
The Scripture reference cited in this chapter-
heading from Deuteronomy 24:1 would never ex­
cite the antagonism of a Greek New Testament
scholar, for with all of his blather about “orig­
inals,” there is one “Greek original” Greek schol­
ars never mention. It is the New Testament quota­
tion of Deuteronomy 24:1, found in Matthew 19:7.
The “ w riting of divorcem ent,” here, in ANY Greek
text from ANY Greek manuscript, says “AN APOS­
TATE BOOK” (Greek: PifWuov d7ioaxaaloi)j. Isn’t
that remarkable? When you dump your “WIFE,”
you give her an “apostate B ible”: the word “Bible”
(fhptaK) is “BOOK.” W hat did God do when He
dumped His wife (Hosea 2:2; Jer. 3:1-20; Isa.
54:6)? HE GAVE HER AN APOSTATE BIBLE
FROM ALEXANDRIA, EGYPT— A TYPE OF
THE WORLD INTO WHICH SHE HAD GONE
(Jer. 43-44). There is not one Greek scholar on any
faculty in America who ever found the verses or
got the connections or could understand them if he
saw them. The Apocrypha was put into the Old
Testament with the “ oracles” (Rom. 3:2) given to
the Jews. PHILO, a Jew, approved of it.
Now, Christ’s bride will never be “put away,'
for she is organically part of His Body (Eph. 5:30;
1 Cor. 12:13-27), but, in type, there is no doubt
about the spiritual application typified by Israel.
First Corinthians 10:10-13; 2 Corinthians 11:1-4:
Romans 15:4; and Jude 1-5 make this abundantly
clear. (And if you believe that Heb. 3-6 are to the
Body of Christ, you can add some more!) The rela­
tionship between Christ and the Church in L aod i-
cea is the relationship of a woman who has been
cast off by her husband. She deserves a pip^iov
dTiooTaalo'u— AN APOSTATE BIBLE. Coming
 right up! Two dozen, hot off the griddle!
First, we will take the reader through the Ro-
man Catholic reactionaries who established them ­
selves as “qualified” to get rid of the Authorized
Bible as soon as it came out; one of these “reac­
tionaries” shows up at the time of Martin Luther
when his Receptus came out. Next, we will see the
influence that unsaved infidels had upon the “sci­
ence of textual criticism ” after 1611, working with
the Catholic critics up until A.D. 1800. Then, we
will pick up the “Biblical scholars” between 1700
and 1901 who took this infidelic leaven seriously
and applied its teachings to the Textus Receptus.
Finally, we will review again the products or “fruits”
of such a despicable, non-Biblical, godless, de­
praved operation, which culminates in the Roman
Catholic, African Revised Version of 1881-1885,
followed by two dozen African New Testaments
(,black is beautiful!) that are about as true to the
“verbal, plenary inspired, original m anuscripts” as
Mary Baker Paterson Eddy’s “K ey.”
Well, first of all, there is the Catholic “Father
o f Biblical criticism, ” Father Richard Simon (1638-
1712), the official spokesman for the religious
Whore on Seven Hills, who was about to be run
out of England after the time of King James. Si­
mon was a strict Roman Catholic who “applied the
scientific methods to the textual and literary prob­
lems of the Bible.” 1Translation: he invented “prob­
lems” that didn’t exist or would have no bearing
on anything where TRUTH was concerned and then
showed how the unregenerate principles of unre-
generate men could solve these imaginary “prob­
lems.” To do this, Simon did what every Bible
critic has done since (see The C hristian’s Hand­
book o f Science and Philosophy, 1985, Chapters
1-3, and Col. 2:8 in the Bible B eliever’s Commen­
tary on Galatians-Colossians, 1970): he went to
an unsaved philosopher— this one was a Spanish
apostate Jew (Baruch Spinoza: see Handbook of
Science and Philosophy, pp. 92-94)— and on the
basis of that lost sinner’s rejection of Deuteronomy,
Simon threw out the Mosaic authorship of whole
sections of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy so that Jesus Christ would ap­
pear as a LIAR: see Matthew 5:17-20; John 5:45-
47; and Matthew 19:4-9.
“The application of scientific methods” has
quite a family tree, doesn’t it?
You see, the long arm of “Father” Simon, a
Bible-rejecting Papist, reaches out to 1968 and
seizes one of the editors of the United Bible Soci­
eties’ most up-to-date text (1966); so in 1968, Bruce
M etzger says: “His [Simon’s] works are full of
acute observations [like Mickey Mouse] and rea­
soning [like Pogo] and anticipate in detail many of
the conclusions of scholars TWO AND THREE
CENTURIES LATER” (p. 155, op cit.). That is,
twentieth-century “Biblical scholars” agree with
the Vatican against the Authorized Version.
Metzger is the man who edited A Classified
Bibliography to Literature on the A cts o f the
Apostles, An Index to Periodical Literature on
Christ and the Gospels, chapters in The History of
the New Testament Textual Criticism, An Index to
Periodical Literature o f the Apostle Paul, The Con­
 cordance to the Distinctive Greek Text o f Codex
Bezae, Greek Particles in the New Testament, and
linguistic and Exegetical Studies. I ask you, how
could such a brilliant scholar, with such a thorough
grounding in all fields of Biblical scholarship, be
mistaken about the quality of “Father” Sim on’s
work back in A.D. 1700?
Simple: the bigger the belfry, the more room
fo r the bats.
But Simon has more to “say” (SIMON SAYS
. . . !) than that Jesus Christ was a liar. He also says
that as long as the HISTORIC “FUNDAMENTAL
TRUTHS” REMAIN IN A BIBLICAL TEXT, you
can alter it with words as much as you please (op
cit., p. 310).
THIS IS THE “HISTORIC POSITION” OF
MODERN “HISTORIC FUNDAMENTALISTS” in
1989. It is Roman Catholicism pure and simple, as
defined two centuries ago by a Roman Catholic
priest. “Father” Robert Sumner (1979): “We may
truly say that by G od’s peculiar providence [His
word] has been preserved FROM SERIOUS ER­
ROR” (Sumner, p. 30). You can still find the “fun­
damentals” there. You can also find them in a text­
book on T h eo logy and the R om an C atholic
A postles’ Creed. That leaves the modern Bible
perverters the right to pervert and distort ANY and
ALL Bible teachings and ANYTHING except the
“five fundam entals” outlined by Bob Jones Jr. in
his sermon on the “Fundam entals.” This they have
done.
In 1675 (AFTER the Authorized Version), the
Jesuit scholar Daniel Papebroch denied the au­
thenticity of certain Catholic documents which were
used to justify certain practices and customs of the
Benedictine monks in Benedictine monasteries. To
answ er these charges, a Catholic named Jean
Mabillon (1632-1707: AFTER the Authorized Ver­
sion) published the first treatise on Latin Paleo­
graphy in Official Documents (Roman Catholic
documents: a list of their frauds will be found in
the work by O. C. Lambert, 1965, Catholicism
Against Itself; the Catholic Church MAJORED in
fraudulent documents since A.D. 325). Once “Fa­
ther” Mabillon got his scholarly work out it was
taken and applied to the Greek Receptus manu­
scripts by another Benedictine monk (Bernard de
Monifaucon: 1655-1741). This work was called
Paleographic Gracea and was published in Paris
in 1708.2 It was used by modern Protestant “Bibli­
cal scholars” to aid them in getting rid of the Greek
text of the Protestant Reformation. The application
of these Roman Catholic “findings” appears in the
critical methods by which all classical texts (Latin
and Greek) were edited thereafter. The method was
developed principally by Frederich Wolf (1793—
1851). The latter gentleman, having assimilated the
Roman Catholic nonsense for 100 years, promptly
dropped ALL OF THE BYZANTINE RECEPTUS
GREEK MANUSCRIPTS, including the citations
by Irenaeus and Origen 200 years before Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus were written, and decided that no
“Syrian readings” could be used unless both “West­
ern” manuscripts and “Alexandrian” manuscripts
agreed with them. This successfully wiped out the
“Syrian” family, for the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
 manuscripts disagreed so much between themselves
that they couldn’t agree with ANY family.3
The “family method” (genealogical method)
was invented by Semler, Griesbach, and others (with
Hort as “anchorman”) to get rid of the authority of
the Authorized Version text. Observe (Appendix
Three) how convenient the “Caesarean fam ily” is
for depositing Receptus readings that have been
denied a Byzantine standing. When discussing these
matters, Colwell says (pp. 14-38) that the Caesar­
ean family should never have been called that, and
thus N estle’s use of “THETA” to represent the fam­
ily (see any edition of Nestle for eighty years from
1890 to 1970) was WRONG. Lake “confirmed”
von Soden, and showed that Family 13 (see Appen­
dix Three)— called the “F errar” group— should be
a Pre-Caesarean text, a “Sub-text type” matching
“W ” ( “W ashingtonius”), which is a BYZAN-
TINE-SYRIAN type uncial. Woe be to you if you
were as stupid as A. T. Robertson, J. G. Machen,
Benjamin Warfield, Kenneth Wuest, Philip Schaff,
Bob Jones Jr., and Bob Jones III in accepting as
“reliable” the translations that were built on the
idea that the “Caesarean fam ily” was not full of
Byzantine readings! THE NEW AM ERICAN STAN­
DARD VERSION, FROM NESTLE, WAS TRANS­
LATED ON THAT PREMISE (1960). Streeter had
placed a score of Syrian-Byzantine readings into a
class “midway between” the Western Family (“D”)
and the African Family (“B”), but that is where the
Syrian-Byzantine readings were to start with: the
Syrian “adds” to the Africans who had dissected
and omitted verse after verse, and it “subtracts”
from the Western Roman texts that had ADDED
verse after verse after verse (examples: Matt. 3:16,
20:28; Luke 3:22, 23:48; John 6:56, 11:39; Acts
15:20; etc.). Colwell had enough sense to see that
the definition of a “text” has to be a process (p. 37)
rather than “a homogenous unit.” But we knew that
before Colwell found it out. Any Bible believer
who believed what THE BOOK said about Alexan­
dria, Egypt (see Gen. 50:5; Exod. 13:19; Matt. 2:15;
and Acts 6:9), and what it said about Rome (Matt.
2:16, 27:2, 31; Acts 12:1-6; and 2 Tim. 4:6), and
what it said about Syria (Acts 11:26, 13:1-4) knew
that the one Book that God wrote had been messed
with. “Fam ilies” never existed. There only existed
corrupt additions in the west and corrupt subtrac­
tions in the south (Africa) and subsequent scribes
everywhere copying these corruptions. The “Cae­
sarean fam ily” is nothing but a raft of SYRIAN
BYZANTINE manuscripts that Origen and his fol­
lowers (they followed him in the third and fourth
centuries) messed with. Who would be more inter­
ested, then, in messing with the Authorized Version
of the Protestant Reformation (1611) than Roman
Catholics, whose church originated in AFRICA?
“The founders of the critical movement were
CATHOLICS” (Gore, New Testament Commentary,
Part II, p. 719). Pierre Sabatie, the Benedictine
monk, collected the whole of the pre-Vulgate evi­
dence for the text of the Bible. No one but a mem­
ber of the Scholar’s Union could have failed to see
what was “behind” this new, “scientific, scholarly
research project.” Mama Rome was upset. Her cat
house business had gone down, and her little harlot
 friends (Rev. 17:5) were suffering in America from
“the English menace” (Latourette’s term for Prot­
estant Biblical Christianity overrunning Florida,
Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and M issis­
sippi. (See Ruckman, H istory o f the N ew Testa­
ment Church, Vol. II, pp. 91-93). Who could miss
it? Only the faculty at Bob Jones University, Ten­
nessee Temple University, the broadcasters of the
“Back to the B ible B roadcast” (Theodore Epp),
the “R adio B ible C la ss ” (Richard DeHaan), or Billy
Graham’s yokefellows, or . . . but why go on?
Every sucker who sucked on the A m erican Stan­
dard Version, the N ew A m erican S tan dard Version,
or the N ew Intern ational Version followed the Ro­
man Catholic lead. John M ill (text in 1707) and
Wells (text in 1719) both as far back as 1720 agreed
that the Roman Catholic readings of Jerome in his
V ulgate (w hich ap p eared in V atican u s and
A lexandrinus) w ere SUPERIOR to the Textus R e­
ceptus o f the German and English Reformations.
Nothing was clandestine yet. W hoever was
working was openly dedicated to proving the propo­
sition that the revivals that shook America and the
Reformation that shook Europe were SATANIC
movements because they were anti-C atholic: they
had used a corrupt anti-C atholic “B ible” and
“Bibles.” If the African Alexandrian “bible” of the
popes could be restored, a Golden Age would come
with it (at least that is the type of evolution that
Darwin taught, and everyone who followed him).
It was the Roman C atholic M ohler (1796-1838)
who convinced the Roman Catholic hierarchy they
had more to win by tearing up the Scriptures than
by defending them; that is, he seduced the hierar­
chy into entering a field where they had feared to
enter because of the damage it might do to their
“inspired S e p tu a g in t” and their “inspired Latin Vul­
gate. ” But they did enter, AFTER the A uth orized
Version came out.
Naturally, unsaved infidels contributed tremen­
dously to this pro-Catholic attack on the Holy Bible
and the Holy Spirit. Among them was the famous
French physician Jean A struc (1684-1766), a R o­
man C atholic who dedicated his life to getting rid
of THE BOOK. It was Astruc who set up the base
for the G raf-W ellhausen humpty-dumpty school of
alphabet soup (see The B ible B e lie v e r ’s C om m en­
tary on G enesis, 1970, at Gen. 16:7-10). This Ger­
man school that influenced Renan, Strauss, Eichorn,
and others was proved (by Robert Dick Wilson of
Princeton)4 to be the silliest compilation of trivia
that ever competed with a comic strip for “scholar­
ship.” Astruc never professed to have been saved a
day in his life. His method was called the “Histori­
cal M ethod.” (Translation: I’ve got to make it look
impressive, because it smells terrible— it stinks.)
The unsaved rationalist SEMLER (1752-1781)
carried on for Astruc after that miserable wretch
went to his “just reward.” Semler taught that the
formation of the Biblical canon was entirely a hu­
man process without God having anything to do
with it. Anyone who believed in heaven, hell,
miracles, the Resurrection, or the Virgin Birth was
“prejudiced by dogma.”5 It is this unsaved German
rationalist (called “The F ather o f G erm an R a tio ­
n a lism ”) who invented the theory that is being
taught as CHRISTIAN TRUTH by Robert Sumner
(of the Sw ord o f the Lord and the B ib lica l E van ge­
list). It is called “THE ACCOMODATION” theory
and simply means that it is a ll right to LIE about
w hat you believe, if you are talking to an audience
that d o e s n ’t know the fu ll truth that YOU KNOW.
People like Robert Sumner (and the men who taught
him) call the A u th orized Version “THE BIBLE,”
and when they quote from it, they say that they are
quoting “THE INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURES. ” That
is, it is all right to talk about a verbally inspired
BOOK that the congregation is to read EVEN
TH O U G H YOU K N O W YOU A RE LYING WHEN
YO U TELL THEM THAT.
That is Sem ler’s “Accommodation” theory. He
never professed the new birth.
We are told by the S ch o la r’s Union that Eichorn
(1752-1827) and M ichaelis (1717-179 1) were “the
two greatest exegetical influences in the eighteenth
century.” There is no evidence in the entire library
of volumes written by Eichorn and Michaelis that
either man could “exegete” the first chapter ot the
Gospel of John. If they influenced anyone dumb
enough to listen to them— who were contempora­
neous with them— there were also about 14,000,000
people who ignored them . You see, Eichorn,
Michaelis, Ernesti, Bentley, Semler, Astruc, and
Paulus (the whole eighteenth-century crew includ­
ing DeWette, Lessing, and Herder) had some com­
petition that they didn’t like to talk about. Who
were they? Well sir, bless my soul! They were the
friends of the “King of Beasts.” I will list them:
1. G eorge Fox (1624-1691), the Quaker.
 2. John Eliot (1604-1690), the missionary to
the Indians.
3. Richard Baxter (1615-1691), the Puritan
preacher.
4. Philip Spener (1635-1705), the Pietist
whose work led to the conversion of John
Wesley.
5. Matthew Henry (1662—1714), the commen­
tator.
6. William Penn (1644-1718), the Quaker.
7. Bartholomew Ziegenbalg (1683-1719), the
German missionary to India.
8. Count N icholas Von Z in zen d o rf (1 7 0 0 -
1760), organizer of the Moravian Brethren,
who sent missionaries out worldwide be­
fore William Carey showed up.
9. August Francke (1663-1727), the founder
of the modern Christian day school move­
ment.
10. David Brainerd (1718—1747), missionary
to the Delaware Indians.
11. Isaac Watts (1674-1748), the hymn writer.
12. Heinrich Plutschau (1678-1747), the Ger­
man missionary to India.
13. John Wesley (1703-1791), who saved En­
gland from another French Revolution.
14. William Tennent (1673-1746), who preached
in the Great Awakening.
15. Theodore Frelinghuysen (1691-1747), who
preached in the Great Awakening.
16. Christian David (1690-1751), one of the
founders of the first missionary base in the
world (Herrnhut, Germany).
 17. Hans Egede (1686-1758), the Norwegian
Apostle to Greenland.
18. G eo rg e F rederick H andel (1685-1759),
who turned out the M essiah to the text of
the A u th orized Version.
19. G ilb ert Tennent (1703-1764), who sparked
the Great Awakening.
20. A lexander Cruden (1701-1770), who put
out a concordance for the A u th orized Ver­
sion.
21. D avid Nitschmann (1696-1772), pioneer
missionary to the West Indies, Greenland,
Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and
New York, BEFORE the Revolution.
T h a t’s about HALF o f the list. Stiff competi­
tion for cheap counterfeits like Semler, Simon,
Bentley, Spinoza, Astruc, and their progeny: West-
cott, Hort, Gregory, Aland, Metzger, Zodhiates,
Kenyon, Colwell, Kilpatrick, Streeter, Clark, Ropes,
Lightfoot, Provan, Ellicott, Schaff, Green, and the
faculty and staff of forty conservative and funda­
mentalist “universities” and “colleges. “
W hile these poor, envious (and many times,
lost) reprobates were “laboring” to restore to a Ro­
man Whore her Dark Age textbook, Martin Luther’s
G erm an B ible (see Nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17, and 21,
above) and the King Jam es A uthorized English Bible
(see any of the rest) were accomplishing the con­
version of unsaved sinners to the Lord Jesus Christ
by the THOUSANDS, and eventually, by the hun­
dreds of thousands. Erasm us’ “few and late medi­
eval manuscripts” (to cite the braying of any twen­
tieth-century jackass) evidently had a power and
 authority behind them that the “best and oldest
manuscripts”6 entirely lacked.
In the context of Wesley, Brainerd, Tennent,
Egede, Watts, Spener, Penn, Baxter, and Fox, “BIB­
LICAL SCHOLARSHIP” is a horselaugh. It is as
dependable as a sand rope.
G otth old Lessing (1729-1781) shows up; he is
an unsaved infidel who questioned all of the
miracles of the New Testament, making a liar out
of 500 witnesses who witnessed one of them (Acts
1:3; 1 Cor. 15:4-12), 4,000 witnesses who wit­
nessed another one (Matt. 15:38), and 5,000 who
witnessed another (Matt. 14:21). Lessing’s “eyes”
were better than 9,500 first-hand “eye” witnesses.
(Don’t you know, honey!) Lessing denied the Trin­
ity and said that all of the Pauline Epistles were
just Paul’s ideas about Christ. “The gospel” was
Christ’s earthly ministry to Jews. Johann H erder
(1744-1803) threw out Jonah and Genesis 1-4 as
never having taken place. H erder’s arm of infidel­
ity reaches out 180 years after he is dead and forces
the Catholic head of the Vatican to say “GENESIS
IS A M Y T H ” (Pope John Paul II).7 No, the h ead o f
the Vatican is a myth; just like Herder.
B ratton says that “the scientific age completely
UNDERMINED the traditional world view and
DEMANDED a new formulation of THEOLOGY;
absolutism yielded to relativism . . . dogma to SCI­
ENTIFIC VERIFICATION.” (Man, oh man, don’t
that sound impressive? Man, if you didn’t have
any more sense than a nerd like Einstein, or a Jedi
Knight like Karl Marx, you might even think that
‘cat” had said something!) “Belief in the INFAL-
LIBILITY of scriptures therefore was no longer
tenable.”8 That poor fish who said that applied it to
the times of the soul winners we just listed. Can
you imagine a more ignorant man than that? Talk
about “over simplification” and “dogmatic blind­
ness” and “isolated m entality” ! Here are over
4,000,000 people getting saved, finding God, com­
ing to know a risen Saviour, rejoicing in salvation,
witnessing for Christ, and spreading the Bible all
over the world, and some consummate IDIOT—
and I say that with apologies to every idiot in the
funny farm— says that b e lie f in the Book is no
longer “TENABLE.” W hat a ghastly excuse for
brains. W hat Bratton meant to say was that “with
the advent o f unsaved C atholics and backslidden
apostates who no more abided by SCIENTIFIC
VERIFICATION than any evolu tion ist in America
today, it was no longer ten able to deal with facts, if
you were stupid enough to take a college education
seriously.” (Bratton, as all of the “Yea, Hath God
Said Society,” is quite adept at speaking in “un­
known tongues.”)
Sch leierm ach er shows up (176 8 -1 8 3 4 )— a
poor, lost, depraved sinner who thinks that the
Babylonian Tablets got rid of Genesis 1-10 and
that John’s Gospel was unintelligible apart from
the writings of Philo, an unsaved Alexandrian Jew.1'
Schleiermacher rejected the entire Bible as the
authoritative standard forjudging anything and said
that Christ was a sinner just like anyone else (no
Virgin Birth), so He stayed dead and did not co m e
up from the grave. The next “great name” (I am
citing Bratton10— the next sinner is about as “ great
as Road R unner’s third cousin) was F erdinan d
Christian B auer (1792-1860), a Christ-rejecting
Liberal who founded the “Tubingen School” in Ger­
many. The source for his studies was an unsaved
philosopher: H egel (1770-1831). He explained his­
tory as “dialectical evolution” (MARXISM: M a r­
tin Luther K ing Jr.— “I AM A MARXIST” 11; Jesse
Jackson (1985)— “I AM A M ARXIST” 12). Bauer
was a Marxist.
According to all Bible critics, all other critics
are “in debted” to D a v id Strauss (1880-1874) for
his book called The Life o f Jesus. There is no “life
o f J e su s ” in the “Life o f J e su s ” that Strauss wrote.
First, he separated the Synoptics from John’s Gos­
pel and declared that the Gospel written to give
sinners eternal life (see John 20:31) was not a bi­
ography of anyone. John was just “fantasizing.”
Strauss was the inventor of the “Two Source
Theory,” which later was constructed to get rid of a
Greek “Matthew” and replace it with an ARAMAIC
“MATTHEW” (see Ruckman, The H istory o f the
N ew Testam ent Church, Vol. I, p. 96). After two
cheap punks like Bauer and Strauss, we have
R eim arus (1694-1768), E rnest Renan (1832-1890),
and W illiam Wrede (1859-1906); they decided that
all things written between Romans and Hebrews
were Paul’s personal ideas about establishing a
new religion fashioned after his own opinions.
THIS IS THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH
THE BIBLICAL SCHOLARS COLLATED, CLAS­
SIFIED, AND “W EIG H ED ” THE EVIDENCE
FOR GETTING RID O F THE B O O K AND RE­
STORING A GOOD IMAGE TO ROME.
 This is the environment of the “BIBLICAL
SC HOLARSHIP” that eventually produced the
American Standard Version, the New American
Standard Version, and the New International Ver­
sion.
G raf( 1815-1869) decided that Genesis to Deu­
teronomy were written after Israel went into cap­
tivity (586 B.C.). Kuenen (1828-1891) turned all
five books (Genesis to Deuteronomy) into legend
and falsehood; Wellhausen (1844-1918) decided
Jeremiah and Isaiah were written before Genesis.13
Jehovah was a “tribal god” that evolved with Moses,
and monotheism was the product of evolutionary
ratio n alism . By the tw en tieth century, these
wretched liars— all honored and esteemed by the
Scholar’s Union to some extent— were debating as
to whether or not Christ had even lived on this
earth, whether two men wrote Isaiah, etc., and it
was finally decided that since no one could prove
one way or another whether or not a man named
“Jesus Christ” had even showed up, you might as
well drop the subject.14
Murphy: Once you have exhausted all possi­
bilities and failed, you will find the one simple and
obvious solution which was visible to any fool.
The setting in which the English R e v is e r s
worked (1800-1880) was not an environment ot
ANTI-CATHOLIC EVANGELISM on a worldwide
scale: that was the environment in which the soul-
winning missionaries and Bible teachers w ork ed
who carried Martin L uther’s Bible or a King J a m e s
Bible with them. There is no similarity in associa­
tions or backgrounds whatsoever. You could find
 as many evangelistic soul winners on the R evised
Version committee (1881) and the A m erican Stan­
dard Version committee (1901) as you could find
feathers on a snake. Humanistic rationalism, origi­
nating in Germany, crossed the Channel, following
John Wesley, and produced Bishop Colenso, Sam­
uel D avidson, R obertson Sm ith, Adam Smith,
Cheyne, Driver, and eventually, Hort, who thought
that the Bible was so humanistic that every textual
critic had to treat it rationally as ANY other book.15
THIS IS THE CONSERVATIVE POSITION
OF BOB JONES UNIVERSITY (1986) ACCORD­
ING TO THE HEAD OF THEIR BIBLE DEPART­
M ENT (1981).
In A m erica, Briggs, Harper, Foster, Kent,
Lyman Abbott, Henry Smith, Shailer Matthews,
Peritz, Fosdick, and others were carried off with
this humanistic rationalism after it crossed the At­
lantic. The present National Council of Christian
Churches is made of men who followed the move­
ment from “Father” Simon to Cardinal Spellman in
their attitude toward the KING JAMES BIBLE. Tho­
mas Nelson and Sons, who published the R evised
Standard Version and the N ew R evised Standard
Version o f the N ational C ouncil of C hristian
Churches also published the N ew K ing Jam es Ver­
sion.
And so it came to pass that after 270 years of
complaining about the Lion of the Beasts, the M on­
arch of the Books, the King of the Mountain, that
England (which published the Book to start with)
sat down to rid itself for once and for all (Psa. 2:2—
3) of his Power and Authority (Ecc. 8:4). The
backslidden apostates who followed it (the Ameri­
can Standard Version, the New American Standard
Version, the New International Version, etc.) were
led by such non-evangelistic, non-soul winning,
non-missionary minded, unscriptural, anti-Biblical
people as Edgar Goodspeed (The Making o f the
English New Testament, 1925), Robert Pfeiffer (In­
troduction to the Old Testament, 1941), H. B. Swete
(An Introduction to the Old Testament, 1904), and
Kirsopp Lake (The Text o f the New Testament,
1916).
THERE ISN ’T ENOUGH BIBLICAL MATE­
RIAL IN ALL FIVE AUTHORS TO EQUIP A
MAN TO TEACH DAILY VACATION BIBLE
SCHOOL.
In 1987, this is what the major Christian uni­
versities and colleges call “Biblical Scholarship.”
Well, the Greeks were not the only ones who
“had a word for it.” We had a word for that kind of
“CRAP” in the Infantry (1938-1945); the Dogface
version is m uch better than S c h a ff’s, H o rt’s,
N estle’s, G regory’s, A land’s, M etzger’s, or the
United Bible Societies’, but I cannot quote it.
This vast array of incompetent, Bible-pervert-
ing “Africans” is mustered under the impressive
tide of “textual criticism as a SCHOLARLY disci­
pline.” 16 Interpretation: how to get rid o f the A u­
thorized Version by fogging the landscape. It is a
little known fact that the first real textual critic
was not Origen at all: it was a Byzantine, Syrian,
Bible-believing Christian named Theodotus, who
was marked out as a heretic by “Pope” Victor (A.D.
187-198)— you understand that, technically, the
 name “Pope” applied to no Roman Bishop until
after A.D. 550— for trying to make apostates re­
turn to the Old Latin of A.D. 120-150 instead of
corrupting it with “Apocryphal books” and junk
like Symmachus, Theodotian, and Aquilla had writ­
ten at that time.17 In the days of Origen (A.D. 184—
254), “textual critics with scholarly discipline” were
already ravaging the Old Testament Latin transla­
tions and New Testament Syriac translations. A.D.
198 would catch Aquilla, Symmachus, and Theo­
dotian in full swing, although Origen didn’t “col­
late” their Septuagints until around A.D. 240 (about
A.D. 250 is the sta n d ard t r a d i ti o n ) .18 BUT
THEODOTUS HAD HIS REVISIONS WRITTEN
in 180, BEFORE “POPE VICTOR” began to read
it,19 and AQUILLA HAD HIS GOING IN A.D.
128, more than fifty years before “Pope” Victor
used it to correct the Old Latin that came from
Syria. You see, corruption o f early Latin and Syr­
ian texts by translating the Hebrew Old Testament
into GREEK was going on before Origen was born.
HE WAS N O T THE FIRST TEXTUAL CRITIC.
Eusebius20 actually slanders Theodotus, since
Eusebius was solidly ORIGEN-AFRICAN in his
approach.
And now the apostates are ready to present
their case! After 270 years of attacking the Mon­
arch of the Books, they finally “get together” in
England, and with the aid of Communist Social­
ists, Roman Catholics, Jesuit infiltrators, evolution­
ists, and Bible critics (Ruckman, The History o f
the New Testament Church, Vol. II, Chapters Nine
and Ten) they produce the official “REVISED
STINKING POLECAT” of Biblical scholarship: the
R evised Version (1 8 8 1 -1 8 8 5 ), w hose acronym
m eans “The R eversed V ision.”
On February 10, 1870, in the upper room of
the C onvocation o f Canterbury (see “The Catholic
Connection” in Ruckm an, The H istory o f the New
Testament Church, Vol. I, pp. 136-157), Bishop
W ilberforce and Bishop E llicott (neither one was a
Puritan) proposed and seconded that a new English
version should be published: it was to correct only
“PLA IN AND CLEA R E R R O R S,” and to make
only such em endations in the Authorized Version
text as “NECESSARY.”21
W hereupon they m ade 35,000 changes and in­
serted error (M att. 5:22) after error (M ark 1:2) af­
ter error (John 3:13) after error (1 Tim. 3:16) after
error (Judg. 5:14). The English Com m ittee included
Dr. H ort, A rchdeacon Lee, D ean Stanley, Preben­
dary Hum phrey, Bishop W ordsw orth, Bishop Elli­
cott, A rchbishop Trench, Professor W estcott, Dr.
L ightfoot, Dr. Vance Sm ith, Prebendary Scrivener,
and Dr. Angus. N aturally, the greatest real textual
critic o f that day was excluded from the com m it­
tee, because he was an Authorized Version man
who cham pioned the G reek Textus Receptus of the
E nglish PROTESTA NT R eform ation (Dean Bur-
gon). Also excluded was one o f the greatest colla­
tors o f m anuscripts in England (H oskier), for the
sam e reason. M oulton and M illigan were on the
com m ittee. Not one man on the com m ittee— as far
as all historical records, all autobiographies, all
biographies, and all diaries are concerned— ever
led a soul to Jesus C hrist IN A LIFETIM E.
 They did their work while Dwight L. Moody,
Jerry McAuley, Sam Jones, James Gilmour, Charles
H. Spuigeon, and General William Booth led over
2,000,000 to Christ with a King James Authorized
Version.
(Go on! Toss a coin! See where it will set
you.)
When a native Filipino Pastor wrote to George
Sweeting (Moody Bible Institute) wanting to know
what they believed about the King James Bible
(1985), he got exactly the same runaround, “fog of
verbiage, and kind o f answer you would get from
Russia on Human Rights” or a Pope on “Marx-
ism or from Jesse Jackson on “How Integration
Has Worked in the U .S.A.” or— but why go on?
Sweeting beat every way around the bush you could
beat without hitting the bush one time, and then
told the Filipino Pastor that the reason poor old
Dwight L. Moody (Sweeting is, and has been, the
forem ost leader at M O O D Y Bible Institute for
twenty years) used the Old Authorized Version was
because it was “THE ONLY V E R SIO N ” he had
access to. This left the door open to the possibility
(ALL CATHOLIC HISTORIANS H AND LE H IS­
TORY IN THIS MATTER: see Ruckman, The H is­
tory o f the New Testament Church, Vol. II, pp. 79,
81) that it Dwight Moody could have gotten hold
o! one o f the newer, modern “scientific editions”
based on “better and older m anuscripts” that “up­
dated the archaic English,” he certainly would have
used it. Sweeting didn ’t say he would: they never
say. They just teach lies by not saying. We will
S
" AY” for the deaf and dumb.
 When Dwight Moody (1837-1899) preached,
there were available to him thirty m odern editions
o f VATICANUS A N D SINAITICUS, including the
R evised Version o f 1885. Imagine George Sweeting,
in the typical Bob Jones III and Ed Hindson fash­
ion, trying to deceive a NATIVE FILIPINO PAS­
TOR WHO WROTE ASKING FOR THE TRUTH!
(Nice folks. I ’ve passed out with better in the
back seat of a car in the old days.)
As these deluded African apostates sat down
in England to reinstate the African text of Alexan­
dria, the Afro-Americans sat down with them to
produce the A m erican Standard Version (sometimes
referred to as “A R V ”). These men included Pro­
fessor Riddle, Professor Chase, Bishop Lee, Dr.
Thayer, Dr. Abbot, and President Chase, headed
up by the greatest Roman Catholic Ecumenical
“Protestant” in America— Dr. Philip Schaff, who
believed and taught baby-sprinkling, postmillen-
nialism, and return to the Roman Catholic Church."2
Good old Charles Hodge wound up with this
bunch, thereby salting the assembly with just one
“tad” of a touch of “Conservatives who take a bold
stand for the faith.” He never led a soul to Christ in
his life. Five-point Calvinists in America wait for
God to “quicken” sinners whom He has already
elected: they don’t have to mess with them. Hodge
didn’t; neither did Warfield or Machen.
There are “Fundam entalists,” and there are
“Fundam entalists.”
This time, everything was clandestine. An iron
rule of secrecy prevailed over both committees,
while the Roman Catholic Jesuit Greek text of 1582
 was smuggled back into the committee “under the
table.” According to Hemphill, all discussions, sug­
gestions, and criticisms were closed to the press
- and were done in absolute darkness. No particular
changes on any verse or the wording of any verse
was to be discussed outside of the committees. The
Mafia had met. The “hit” men were being commis­
sioned.
The American Standard Version (with Charles
Hodge aboard!) was adopted by the Federal Coun­
cil of Churches— which was, and is (now called
the National Council) the largest group o f orga­
nized Communists in the United States— as the text
for Sunday School lessons. It went out in Sunday
School literature into 5,000 churches in America as
the replacement for the Authorized Bible of the
Protestant Reformation.
One man in England stood up. His scholarship
was so thorough that not only could no Revised
Version committeeman answer him, but ninety years
later the devotees of Westcott and Hort were actu­
ally convinced that they had erred 465 places in
the New Testament. This is what caused Nestle in
1980 to revert to the Receptus readings in those
places. This man said simply— TRUTH is always
simple (Rom. 16:19; 2 Cor. 11:1-3)— “The revi­
sion of 1881 must come to be universally regarded
for what it most certainly IS: the most astonishing,
as well as the most CALAMITOUS LITERARY
BLUNDER OF THE AGE.”23
Well, almost, Burgon, old buddy! You didn’t
live to read the New American Standard Version,
criminally called “BIBLE” (1960). By “the age,”
you meant the nineteenth century. Things have gone
“forward” a good bit since then. All evolutionists
believe in “PROGRESS.” You ought to see the
N ew Intern ational Version.
In Chapter Five of Coy’s work, you will find
the first hand, documented evidence that shows
that Westcott and Hort inclined to Mariolatry, never
believed in inspired originals, rejected Genesis 1-
3 as history, supported the theories of Charles Dar­
win, messed with spiritism, were anti-American
and anti-Protestant, held Greek philosophy to be
superior to the Bible, supported the Roman sacra­
ments, and were involved in collusion against the
body of Christ behind closed doors.
On the American side, it was Philip Schaff
who set up Kenneth Taylor ( The L iving B ib le ) by
translating M atthew 16:18 as “THOU ART A
ROCK, AND UPON THIS ROCK,” instead of the
A u th orized V ersion’s reading, “thou art Peter, and
upon THIS rock . . (Compare Schaff’s reading
with the similarly corrupt Living B ib le ’s “You are
Peter a stone, and upon . . .”). Schaff had already
decided in 1869 (more than ten years before West­
cott and Hort sat down in committee) that their
“Greek Testament I think will suit me exactly.”24
He knew what the R evised Version New Testament
was, because he visited them, and they sh o w ed it
to him in 1 8 6 9 . IT WAS T H E A F R IC A N -
ORIGENISTIC TEXT OF THE ROM AN CATH O­
LIC C H U RC H FROM ALEXANDRIA.
And how “accurate” and “reliable” were these
two African productions? After all, the A m erican
Stan dard Version was recommended as being su­
perior to the A u th orized Version by every major
Christian school in America from 1901 to 1960
(see the massive correspondences printed in The
“E rr o r s ” in the K ing Jam es Bible, 1980, Appendix
Ten).
I mean, “behold, beloved” ! After 270 years of
GAS and HOT AIR about “scientific methods,”
“textual ev alu atio n ,” “intrinsic p ro b ab ilities,”
“scholarly disciplines,” “weighing the evidence,”
“older and better manuscripts,” “glosses,” “scholia,”
“neumes,” “stichoi,” and “kephalia” (!!), WHAT
CAME OUT OF THE COOP? What incubated?
What was the p ro d u ct of the “vast labors” of these
deluded egomaniacs who didn’t have the spiritual
sense that God gave to Genghis Khan?
Check it out. Buy you an A m erican Standard
Version and check it out. D on’t take my word for it
one minute. Don’t believe ONE word Carson said
in “The D e b a te ” or Lindsell in “The B a ttle ” or
Sumner in “The T ran slation s” or some other Alex­
andrian Muttonhead trying to make a fast buck off
a sucker. C H E C K THE P R O D U C T Pluck the feath­
ers, take out the entrails, clean the skin, fry the
birdie, and then TASTE the meat! “FOR THE EAR
TRIETH WORDS, AS THE MOUTH TASTETH
MEAT” (Job 34:3).
The A m erican S tan dard Version (with the R e­
v ise d Version and the R evised S tan dard Version
and thirty more like them) attacks the Virgin Birth
of the Lord Jesus Christ in Luke 2:33; Acts 4:27;
John 6:69; and Jude 25 and attacks the Deity of
Christ in John 3:13; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Timothy
5:21; Luke 23:42; Luke 24:51-52; Matthew 19:17;
and Luke 2:22. The infallible proofs of the Resur­
rection have been removed from Acts 1:3, the name
“CHRIST” has been removed from John 6:69; Acts
8:37; Acts 9:20; Acts 15:11; Acts 16:31; Romans
1:16; 1 Corinthians 16:23; 2 Corinthians 11:31;
and 1 Corinthians 9:1. The word “science” has
been removed from 1 Timothy 6:20. The greedy,
fleshly, carnal, and covetous Biblical scholars’ sins
have been glossed over by altering 1 Timothy 6:5
and 1 Timothy 6:10. Their vicious corrupting of
the living words of the living God has been glossed
over by altering 2 Corinthians 2:17 and Romans
1:18 and 25. They omitted the blood atonement in
Colossians 1:14.
Ditto the N ew Intern ational Version.
Christ is a sinner in Matthew 5:22, Mary is a
perpetual virgin in Matthew 1:25, “God” has been
graciously knocked out of His Kingdom in M at­
thew 6:33, the “hypocrites” (Biblical scholars)
were removed from Matthew 16:3, “of God” has
gone from Matthew 22:30, the most important
words in Matthew 25:13 have been cut out, Mark
7:16 is missing, nobody has to worry about trust­
ing in riches in Mark 10:24, and “Daniel” failed to
make it in Mark 13:14. “Satan” didn’t have to
leave in Luke 4:8, but the “WORD OF GOD” did
(Luke 4:4— Get out, Bible; Welcome, Devil! In the
name of Charles Hodge, of course! OF COURSE.).
All of Luke 17:36 is missing, and all of John 5:4 is
missing, and all of Acts 8:37 is missing. And you
call this a “Bible?” Was the A m erican Standard
Version a “RELIABLE TRANSLATION?”
Was B arbara W alters a heavyweight wrestler?
 Was Howard Cosell a running back for the
Bears?
Was Hort a “Bible” scholar?
There is no verse 29 in Acts 28; Romans 16:24
is missing; thirty words have disappeared from
Paul’s conversion (Acts 9); “heaven” was annihi­
lated in Hebrews 10:34; half of 1 Corinthians 10:28
has vanished; no one has to love the brethren
“through the Spirit” in 1 Peter 1:22; G od’s
“throne” was toppled in Revelation 14:5; both
“Jesus” and “Lord” (“Jesus IS LORD,” is He?)
have been rem oved from M atthew 13:51; the
“name of the Lord” (IT IS “ABOVE EVERY
NAME,” IS IT?) has been erased from Mark 11:10);
“Christ” got run out of John 4:42; “Christ Jesus”
never made it in Galatians 6:15, nor does “the
Lord Jesus Christ” show up in Colossians 1:2;
you are not “accepted in the beloved” (Eph. 1:6):
you just thought you were; and, violating all of the
“c an o n s” o f the “ scholarly d isc ip lin e ,” THE
STYLES OF THE WRITERS in Acts 4:27 and
John 9:35 have been completely ignored because
both writers (Luke and John) were here magni­
fying C hrist’s Deity.
Ditto the New International Version.
Had enough? Want a ten minute break?
Face it. Face it fair and square like a full grown
man in his right mind.
T H E R E WAS NOT ONE “ B IB L IC A L ”
SCHOLAR ON THE REVISED VERSION COM­
MITTEE.
T H E R E WAS NOT ONE “ B IB L IC A L ”
SCHOLAR ON THE A M E R IC A N STANDARD
VERSION COMMITTEE.
T H E R E WAS NOT ONE “ B IB L IC A L ”
SCHOLAR ON THE REVISED STANDARD VER­
SION COMMITTEE.
T H E R E WAS NOT ONE “ B IB L IC A L ”
SCHOLAR ON THE N E W A M E R IC A N STAN­
D ARD VERSION COMMITTEE.
T H E R E WAS NOT ONE “B IB L IC A L ”
SCHOLAR ON THE N EW INTERNATIONAL VER­
SION COMMITTEE.
Who were there? People like Stewart Custer,
Arthur Farstad, and A. T. Robertson:
1. Greek linguists. 2. Hebrew etymologists. 3.
Destructive critics. 4. Infidels. 5. Catholics. 6. Apos­
tates. 7. Authorities on “word studies.” 8. Lexico­
graphers. 9. E volutionists. 10. S ocialists. 11.
Brownies. 12. Cam pfire girls. 13. Backslidden
Christians. 14. Editors. 15. Collators. 16. Textual
critics. 17. Demons. 18. SATAN (Gen. 3:1).
There w a s n ’t one “B IB LIC A L” (get that word,
and this time get it right) sch o la r on the com m it­
tees. You say, “But so and so professes to believe
. . (see Chapter Seven). Profession is the cheap­
est thing on this earth outside of air. It was John R.
Rice who wrote in the Sw ord o f the L ord that the
N ew A m erican Stan dard Version was “FAITHFUL
TO THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT” (September
17, 1971, p. 9).
No such animal has been on this earth since
Ignatius was “et” by the lions (A.D. 115).
They w ill lie to you as quickly as drink a glass
o f w a te r (see Chapter Seven).
And now it is time to “wrap it up,” for every
English bible since 1880 followed the dictates of
Westcott and Hort, Lightfoot and Ellicott, Moulton
and Milligan, Schaff and Green, Trench and Thayer,
etc. (see above). Not even the “New” King Jimmy
Version could disengage its “comm ittee” from the
deadly coils of Roman Catholic apostasy (see Matt.
13:33). Under the color (see Acts 27:30 in an A u ­
th o rized Version) of giving the body of Christ a
new, genuine “A u th orized V ersion” from the right
Greek text (Syrian-Byzantine), the desperate double-
dealing, double-tongued, double-standard, two-
faced, perambulating, equivocating, twisting, duck­
ing, dodging, “FUNDAMENTALISTS” rein serted
the readings o f the A m erican S tan dard Version and
the N ew A m erican S tan dard Version into the A u ­
th o rized Version text m ore than 100 tim es.25
Having read our chapter on the “Professional
Liars” (Chapter Seven), is there any doubt left in
the reader’s mind as to the real nature of the “New
King Jimmy Version,” published by the company
that put out the R evised Stan dard Version of the
National Council of Christian Churches? Well, if
there is, let us dispel it at once. The Alexandrian
C u lt’s INCOM E, ATTENDANCE, SU BSCR IP­
TIONS, IMAGE, and ENROLLMENT depend upon
lying. Lying is the source of the “godliness and
gain.” So here we have the “Statem ent o f P u r­
p o s e ” given on November of 1978 by Thomas Nel­
son Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee, as to what
they were “up to” in putting out a N ew “King
J a m e s” Version. I quote verbatim.
“Insofar as is humanly and textually pos­
sible, the intention is to clarify this tr^ns-
 lation by the use of current words, gram­
mar, and sentence structure so that this
edition of the K ing Jam es Version will
speak to the individual reader in this final
quarter of the 20th century in a clear,
simple, and accurate manner . . . . this
edition shall not add to, nor take from, nor
ALTER THE COMMUNICATION THAT
WAS THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL
TRANSLATORS . . . . this edition shall
not CORRUPT nor diminish the original
translation, but shall endeavor to speak in
the late 20th century as simply, clearly,
and effectively as possible—ALL WITHIN
THE FORMAT OF THE ORIGINAL 1611
VERSION . . . . so that a reader may fol­
low a lo n g ___ and NOT BE CONFUSED
OR PUZZLED.”
There it is: as blatant a piece of fa lse h o o d and
lying profession as ever cam e from the Josef
G o e b b e l’s propaganda m achine, “ T a ss,” the
Gannett newspapers, or the Peking Press. You n ever
read a b ig g e r LIE in y o u r life.
A. “The intent of the original translators” in 1
Thessalonians 5:22 was to get you to abstain from
the “APPEARANCE of evil.” This “com m unica­
tio n ” w as com pletely altered: it w as annihilated.
The word “appearance” is not in the N ew K ing
Jam es Version.
B. “The intent of the original translators” in 2
Timothy 2:15 was to get you to study the word of
God. It w as co m pletely a lte red in the N ew King
Jam es Version so that no one w as to ld to study
anything.
C. “The intent of the original translators” in 1
Timothy 6:5, 10 was to warn you that “the root of
ALL evil” was “the love of money,” and that
money made people mistake “GAIN FOR GOD­
LINESS.” The “communication” of those messages
has been altered completely so that no tra n sla to r
on the A u th orized Version com m ittee w ou ld reco g ­
nize them if he had a “N ew King Jam es Version. ”
It w asn’t m erely “puzzling or confusing” (see
above), it WAS DELIBERATE PERVERSION OF
THE TRUTH TO COVER UP SIN.
D. “The intent of the original translators” in 2
Corinthians 2:17 was to warn you about people
like the Overview Committee of the N ew King
Jam es Version. It w as com pletely w ip ed out. The
“original intent” cannot be found anywhere in the
verse.
E. “The intent of the original translators” in
Acts 4:27 was to magnify the Deity of the Lord
Jesus Christ as G od’s “CHILD.” This “original
intent” was blotted out, and the words of the R e­
v ise d Standard Version of the National Council of
Christian Churches were inserted instead, denying
the Deity of Christ.
And why go on? Murphy: If the facts do not
conform with the profession, the facts must be
eliminated.
When a sinner has p e rju re d him self under oath
fiv e tim es in a row (“in the name of Christ,” “in the
name of qualified scholarship,” “in the name of the
verbally inspired originals, “ “ in the name of good
men who disagree,” “in the name of historic Chris­
tian positions”), who but A BLANK IDIOT would
waste any more time with him? Answer: only one
other man— a man a fter a f a s t buck (1 Tim. 6:10).
False motive. False profession. Fraudulent ad­
vertising. Causing the blind to stum ble (Deut.
27:18). Falsehood glorified. Falsehood enthroned
in the name of Jesus Christ. Fraud and deceit
preached as “Christian ethics” and “Biblical prin­
ciples.” Fake. Fakey, fakey, fakey, fakey, FAKO!
In other words, “Standard Operating Procedure”
for Biblical scholars in the Alexandrian Cult.
And what is the “sincere” desire of these godly
gentlemen (and if they w en t co m pletely out o f th eir
m inds tom orrow night you c o u ld n ’t p o ssib ly tell
the difference ) in regards to the Monarch of the
Books, the Roaring Lion of the Protestant Refor­
mation? It is perfectly transparent. I quote directly
from the booklet that told you Truman Dollar,
A. V. Henderson, Curtis Hutson, James Price, Clyde
Narramore, Elmer Towns, Duke McCall, Herschel
Hobbs, Wally Criswell, Ed Hinson, James Price,
and Harold Ockenga were on the Overview Com­
mittees: “IT IS OUR SINCERE HOPE THAT THE
N E W KIN G JAM ES VERSION CAN BECOME
THE STANDARD WHICH ENGLISH SPEAKING
CHRISTENDOM HAS LO N G N E E D E D ” (p. 8).
1. They want it to be the standard, not the
A u th orized Version.
2. The A u th orized Version has not been the
standard f o r a long time.
3. They are qualified to replace it with their
own standard.
4. Every English-speaking person in this world
is to accept this as SINCERITY.
Someone must have been born on April 2, one
day too late to qualify. If these gentlemen ever
blow their brains out they better warn somebody:
“Here goes NOTHING!” A sinner who w ou ld m is­
take a N ew King Jam es Version f o r the H oly B ible
w o u ld have to have fo u r rounds in a p is to l to blow
his brains out if he p u t the m uzzle on his fo reh ea d
three times.
Contemptuously and rudely ignoring the life
work of two centuries of Bible scholars, Thomas
Nelson and Sons— in an effort to sell their latest
toy— published the following in The A rch a eo lo g i­
cal Review (Nov.-Dee., 1982, p. 62): “The N ew
K ing Jam es Version: the FIRST REVISION of the
classic Bible in more than 200 years.” That was
printed in view of the facts you find printed in this
book! Can you imagine the m oral character of
such people? These were the men that Truman Dol­
lar, Wally Criswell, Elmer Towns, Ed Hinson, A. V.
Henderson, and Curtis Hutson “cooperated” with.
The N ew King Jam es Version is no more the “fir s t
revision” of the A u th orized Version than it is the
first revision of the Book of the Dead. (“If it don't
make sense, there’s a buck in it” : Ruckman’s Law.)
We close our study of 1900 years of “Biblical’
(oh brother!) scholarship with a gem so typical of
20,000 members now serving as staff and faculty
for eighty “Christian” institutions of higher learn­
ing that it should be set “ in pictures of silver”
(Prov. 25:11) with the inscription: “IF THOU
CANST ANSWER ME, SET THY WORDS IN
ORDER BEFORE ME . . . THOUGH HE UN-
DERSTAND HE WILL NOT ANSWER” (Job
33:5; Prov. 29:19).
What you are about to read will stand as an
exem plar for the correspondence of any 4,000
Christian scholars in America when called upon to
answer the following questions:
1. Do you endorse the N ew K ing Jam es B ible
in any way? Do you believe that Bible-believers
should buy it, read it, study it, and use it?
2. If you DO, then what do you believe about
the A u th orized 1611 K ing Jam es Version? Is it the
preserved, infallible word of God?
3. If it is NOT, then w here can I fin d the p r e ­
served, infallible, INERRANT w ord o f G od?
Those were the questions put to Curtis Hutson
(Sw ord o f the L ord ) and Robert Sumner (The B ib li­
cal E van gelist), who professes to be “spearhead­
ing" the soul winning and evangelism in America.
The author was Don Edwards, publisher of THE
FLAMING TORCH.
Nothing complicated about one question. No
sane man with a fou rth -grade education w ould have
to consult one book in one lib ra ry to a n sw er a ll
three. Not one question would take two m inutes
deliberation to answer (if a man were honest), and
not one question requires any delay (if a man had
GUTS). Lack o f honesty or lack o f courage (or
both) might cause the recipient of these questions
to agonize through considerable doubts, medita­
tion, investigations, forethought, prayer (oh yeah,
man! some of these fakirs are as pious as Jacob:
Gen. 27:20), and careful calculation.
Upon being asked these questions, Curtis Hut­
son (SW ORD OF THE LO R D ) and Robert Sumner
(,BIBLICAL EVANGELIST) refused to answer.
H u tso n ’s reply was, “LET ME ASK YOU
SOME QUESTIONS” (May 12, 1980-August 7,
1980).
S u m n er’s “answer” was a series of articles in
the BIBLICAL (hey man! A in’t we seen DAT word
before!?) EVANGELIST by Doug Kutilek, inform­
ing the believer that the A u th orized Version was
full of errors, and the final authority for believers
should be the opinions of sinners who held “his­
toric positions.”
Since we have already condensed this present
textbook to half a page in Appendix One (which
see), there is no use proceeding further. When a
World War I vintage submarine (B ible b eliever)
was leaving the bay at San Diego at a slow ten
knots, a new destroyer (B iblical sch olarsh ip) out­
side the bay radioed him, “I am leaving at 35
knots— would you like to accompany m e?” To
which the sub answered, “I am about to SUB­
M ERGE— WOULD YOU CARE TO ACCOM ­
PANY ME?” I think not.
We cou ld a n sw er a ll three questions ab o ve in
ten seconds.
1. Read the N ew K ing Jam es Version, and
“use” it, but don’t mistake it for THE BIBLE.
2. The A u th orized Version is the word of God,
containing the words that God wants us to have.
3. You can find that word and those w ords in
ANY EDITION of an A u th orized Version.
I didn’t have to open the cover of one book in
the Library of Congress to answer those questions.
Neither did Hutson or Sumner. N either do YOU-
APPENDICES
 THE CREED OF THE
ALEXANDRIAN CULT
1. There is no fin a l auth ority but God.
2. Since God is a Spirit, there is no fin a l au­
thority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.
3. Since all books are material, there is no
book on this earth that is the fin a l and absolute
auth ority on what is right and what is wrong: what
constitutes truth and what constitutes error.
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 con stitu ted an infallible and fin a l authority
by which to judge truth and error.
5. However, this series of writings was lost,
and the God who inspired them was unable to p r e ­
serve their content through Bible-believing Chris­
tians at Antioch (Syria) where the first Bible teach­
ers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary
trip originated (Acts 13:1-6), and where the word
“C h ristia n ” originated (Acts 11:26).
6. So, God chose to ALMOST p rese rv e them
through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexan­
dria, Egypt, even though God called H is Son OUT
of Egypt (Matt. 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Gen. 49),
Israel OUT of Egypt (Exod. 15), and J o sep h ’s bones
OUT of Egypt (Exod. 13).
7. So, there are two streams of Bibles: the
most accurate— though, of course, there is no f i ­
nal, absolute authority fo r determining truth and
error: it is a matter of “preference”— are the Egyp­
tian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, that are
“almost the originals,” although not quite.
8. The most inaccurate translations were those
that brought about the German Reformation (Luther,
Zwingli, Boehler, Zinzendorf, Spener, et al.) and
the worldwide missionary movement of the En-
glish-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Tor­
rey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, W hitefield, Wesley,
and Chapman used.
9. But we can “tolerate” these, if those who
believe in them will tolerate US. After all, since
there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHOR­
ITY 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, ABSO­
LUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANY­
WHERE ON THIS EARTH.
This is the Creed of the Alexandrian Cult.

The Creed printed above has been printed in

almost every issue of the Bible B eliever’s Bulletin
since its inception nearly twenty-one years ago.
We have never had to change one word in it or one
line of it to meet the demands of ANY scholar
writing ANYTHING during that time or before that
time. The “Creed” is absolutely infallible and stands
(and will stand) as written until the Rapture. Every
faculty m em ber of every recognized Christian
school in America who reads it knows to whom it
refers, and they have no trouble identifying the
CULT members who subscribe to it: “A hit dog
always yells.” At Tennessee Temple, Martin, Af-
man, Price, and other “long tenure” apostates actu­
ally cut this out of a Bulletin and waved it in the
face of a young, soul-winning minister who was
called to preach, screaming, “This is about US! He
wrote this about US!”
We did indeed. And “what we have written,
we have written.”
The Creed above is what the faculty and staff
of W heaton, Moody, BIOLA, Oxford, Princeton,
Maranatha, Xavier, Northwestern, Midwestern, Pa­
cific Coast, Fuller, Bob Jones University, Loyola,
Tennessee Temple, Liberty University, Denver, Dal­
las, Fort Worth, Louisville, and New Orleans ac-
tually BELIEVE. It is their creedal conviction, their
doctrinal “statement of faith.” Their PROFESSION,
of course, may be something entirely different. The
majority of them profess to be “Bible-believers."
As you have seen by examining Chapters Seven
and Ten of this work, their profession is worth
about two cents a ton, providing the value of the
dollar doesn’t drop below five cents on the dollar.
You can sign the following names to the Creed
printed above and then write the individuals and
see if WE ARE LYING or if they are lying. Check
it out: don’t take our word for anything. The list
goes: Truman Dollar (Temple Baptist Church, De­
troit), John M acArthur (California, TV and radio
personality), Chuck Swindoll (Radio “Rapper” on
“co p in g ” with life), J. Vernon M cGee (radio
preacher), Ed Hinson (professor at Lynchburg, Vir­
ginia), Harold Willmington (professor at Lynch­
burg), Afman, Martin, and Price (all at Tennessee
Temple University), Panosian, Custer, and Wisdom
(all at Bob Jones University), Billy Graham, Wally
Criswell, Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts, Alan
MacRae, Newman, Kenneth Wuest, Spiros Zodhi-
ates, Bob Jones Jr., Bob Jones III, Bob Jones IV,
E. S. English, Charles Feinberg, the head of the
Bible department at Baptist Bible College, Spring­
field, Missouri, Robert Sumner (Biblical [!] Evan­
gelist), Doug Kutilek (Biblical Evangelist), the head
of the Bible department at Pacific Coast Baptist
Bible College, Curtis Hutson (Sword o f the Lord),
and ANY OTHER 40,000.
Three hundred eighty years of “Biblical schol­
arship” can be collapsed into one ha lf a page of
sixth-grader truths. Not one man in the bunch had
any purer motive in mind than to get rid of the
Authorized Version as the final authority for the
English-speaking people.
 The Uncial Manuscripts
Sinaiticus (K): in the British Museum. Written
around A.D. 330-340. It contains the Old Testa­
ment and the New Testament, plus the Epistle to
Barnabas and part of the Shepherd o f Hermas: two
books which teach baptism al regeneration and
salvation by works. The manuscript is on 148 leaves
of fine vellum, measuring 15 by \?>Vi inches. It
runs four columns to the page, and leaves a blank
space for Mark 16:9-20 where the scribe refused
to fill it in, as it was pro-Jewish (all apostles were
Jews) and anti-Roman (all the “signs” were to
Jews). The manuscript was found in a wastebasket
in St. Catherine’s Monastery at the foot of Mount
Sinai, and when Tischendorf (the German scholar)
obtained it, he sat up half the night translating a
NON-CANONICALbook in it (the Shepherd o f Her­
mas) that he found in the New Testament. (So much
for Tischendorf’s spirituality!) Its present state is
393 leaves, of which forty-three are at Leipzig,
three fragments in Leningrad, and 347 in the Brit­
ish Museum. M etzger says it came from Egypt;
others guess Italy, Rome, and Caesarea. One is just
as good as another: those are the focal points for
the roots of apostasy in the Church Age, and they
are connected by Origen to Pope John Paul II and
the Catholic priests who now sit on the United
Bible Societies’ Board of Directors.
Alexandrinus (“A”): also in the British Mu-
seum. Written around A.D. 520-540. It contains
the Old Testament with Apocrypha as inspired and
contains two apocryphal books in the New Testa­
ment (1 and 2 Clement). It consists of 733 leaves,
which were probably 820 originally. The leaves
measure 12*4 inches by 10% inches, with two col­
umns to the page. Five scribes did the writing,
according to the markings on it. It contains the
“Eusebian Canons. ” The scholars agree that it came
from the place that was avoided by every single
writer in the New Testament: Egypt, a type of this
world.
Vaticanus (“B”): in the Vatican Library at
Rome. It was formerly denominated by the number
1209— which, by a stroke of fortune, turns out to
be Griesbach’s “Emphatic D iaglot” upon which
the New World Translation of the JEHOVAH’s WIT­
NESSES IS BASED. (Remarkable bedfellows!) It
was written between A.D. 330-340 and contains
Apocryphal books in the Old Testament. It has 759
leaves, about IOV2 inches by 10 inches, with three
columns to the page. The writing is “small and
neat.” There appears to have been two scribes and
two correctors at work on it. The majority of schol­
ars say it came from Alexandria, Egypt, while oth­
ers say ROME, and others, Caesarea. It doesn’t
make any difference. Satan’s footpaths are easy to
follow: we have no trouble following the “Apos­
tolic Succession” of corruption and spiritual filth.
Alexandria goes to Caesarea, Caesarea goes to Italy,
Italy goes to Rome: ROME TAKES OVER AM ER­
ICA: “by th e ir fru its ye shall know th em ” (Matt.
7:20). Hort called it a “neutral text,” since the Neu­
tral View (absolute objectivity, which only God
has) was the scientific “world-view” of all evolu­
tionists and Marxists at that time. In the main, the
manuscript was supported by quotations from Ori­
gen, according to Frederick Kenyon (p. 87, The
Text o f the Greek Bible, Gerald Duckworth and
Co., London, 1937). (Observe how the ignorant
fanatics at most Christian schools in America throw
up their hands in holy horror when you link VATI­
CANUS to Origen: Westcott and Hort authenticated
Vaticanus’ authority WITH CITATIONS FROM
ORIGEN. You are being led astray by a blind bunch
of egotists who would wax toilet paper to “im­
prove” it.) Since the Vatican manuscript omitted
Revelation (for the obvious attack on the Vatican
in Rev. 17:1-9 by the Holy Spirit), the scholars
invented another Codex Vaticanus and pretended
that “B” in the Vatican had Revelation (ibid., p.
88): it d id n ’t. The letter “B” was just stuck on to
codex 046. Nice folks. They could steal A1 Capone’s
stickpin with him looking right at them.
Codex Ephraemi (“C”): a palimpsest (which
simply means a worked-over work that has been
partly erased, with another text written over it) in
Paris, written in the fifth century A.D. It is very
incomplete, containing now only sixty-four Old
Testament leaves and 145 New Testament leaves.
It is 12Vi inches by 9 inches, with writing in a
single column to the page. All New Testament books
are present except for 2 Thessalonians and 2 John.
The “Eusebian Canons” are indicated in the mar­
gins. It contains no Apocryphal books in either
Testament.
 Codex Bezae (“D”): known as “Codex Canta-
brigensis.” It was written around A.D. 550 and
contains most of the four Gospels, Acts, and a small
fragment of 3 John. The text is in Greek and Latin,
with the Greek on the left and the Latin on the
right. Each page has a single column of text. The
Gospels stand in the Western order: Matthew, John,
Luke, and then Mark. It contains the famous West­
ern “additions” (Matt. 3:16, Matt. 20:28; Luke
23:48, Luke 3:22; John 6:56, John 11:39; Luke
23:53, etc.). It also has some notable “om issions”
in Luke 24 (24:3, 6, 12, 36, 40, 51 and 52), which
are evidently due to the influence of Marcion the
Heretic (A.D. 120-170), a Gnostic who didn’t like
the thought of a flesh-and-bones Jesus AFTER the
Resurrection. The power of this Roman manuscript
in the life of Hort and Nestle was so great that both
of these credulous dupes attacked the Deity of
Christ in Luke 24:51-52 on the basis of “D” and
omitted the Ascension of Christ and the disciples’
worship of Him in the passage. Suddenly, in 1983,
Nestle restored the correct reading—the King James
reading of 1611!— in spite of the fact that, all along,
the manuscript which they held in reverence above
ALL manuscripts (B, Vaticanus) had the King James
reading, and so did the oldest papyrus fragment
(P7I) . But such are the ways of sin, hell, and mad­
ness, when travelling under the guise of “brilliant
minds,” “vast learning,” “careful research,” “sci­
entific criticism ,” “qualified scholars,” “trustwor­
thy scribes,” “godly, dedicated linguists,” and “rec­
ognized authorities.” The Mafia takes care of its
own. The Acts of the Apostles in “D” is nearly 10
percent longer than in all other Greek texts. We
gather from this that the “Western family” of manu­
scripts (there is no such thing: we just say it to go
along with the Mafia) tends to ADD to the word of
God. For further particulars, contact the head of
the “Western” church: the Pope.
M anuscript “D” in the Pauline Epistles is not
Cantabrigensis, but Codex “Claromontanus. ” It is
bilingual, written in Greek and Latin and bears the
marks of nine correctors. It was written some time
around A.D. 550.
Codex E is Basiliensis from the eighth cen­
tury. It deals with the Gospels.
Codex Laudianus is also called E or Ea. It
deals with the Book of the Acts.
Codex Sangermanensis, also called E (Ep), has
the Pauline Epistles from the ninth century.
Codex Boreelianus, from the ninth century, has
the four Gospels.
Codex Wolf II (also called Harleianus) of the
tenth century has the Gospels.
Codex W is Freeiianus from the fourth cen­
tury. It contains the Gospels, plus an additional
ending on Mark 16.
Now, there are many others (X-Codex Mona-
censis; Z-Codex Dublinensis; S; T-Codex Borgi-
anus; V-Codex Mosquensis, etc.), but you get the
idea. When they ran out of alphabet capital letters
they used Greek letters (A-Codex Sangallensis,
Q-Codex Koridethi, A-Codex Tischendorkianus III,
etc.) and even bold-faced numbers (046-Codex Vati­
canus: not B; 0171, etc.).
These uncial manuscripts are book-form G re e k
manuscripts (sometimes bilingual), written in block
capital letters. All of the old ones (A, B, C, and K)
have been put arbitrarily into one separate family
(the Alexandrian) to make it appear that all Syrian
readings are “late.” But by the time you have stud­
ied Chapter Eleven in this work, you will no longer
wonder about Biblical scholars trying to make
things APPEAR the way they certainly are N O T
False appearance is as basic and as fundamental a
dogma among Biblical scholars as in a Hollywood
makeup studio.
 The Important Cursives
Von Soden was the one who edited most of
these at the start, and he was the most pro-Receptus
of the apostate Alexandrians who were trying to
get rid of the majority of witnesses. Hence, we find
two numbers given for the nomenclature for the
minuscule manuscripts: the first is von Soden’s
number, and the second is the modern designation.
Many of von Soden’s Receptus manuscripts that
had Byzantine readings were later yanked out of
the Syrian family and put in another family, to
further divest the Textus Receptus of its authority.
(Men who make their living by lying are not to be
trusted as far as you can kick your deep freeze.)
Delta-254 (von Soden)— now numbered as “ 1.”
This is at Basle, Switzerland, and was used by
Erasmus. It is a Syrian Byzantine type text some­
what kin to minuscules 118, 131, and 209. These
manuscripts together, collectively, are called f 1 in
Nestle’s critical apparatus. It was studied by Kirsopp
Lake and violently dissected from the Syrian fam­
ily. It was placed into the “Caesarean family.” 1
Epsilon 1214 (von Soden)— now numbered as
“2.” Also at Basle. This cursive is notable as being
Erasm us’ principle manuscript for the Gospels.
Epsilon 368 (von Soden)— now numbered as
“ 13.” This cursive is now in Paris: it is called the
Ferrar Group(f13), for it includes minuscules 13,
69, 124, and 346. By adding manuscripts 543, 713,
788, 826, 828 and 983 to the group, it was suc­
cessfully removed from the Syrian fam ily and put
into the “Caesarean family, ” the objective being
to deny ALL authoritative witnesses to the Recep­
tus. This is what is known as the “scientific method”
of “Biblical scholarship” used in the “great, criti­
cal, scientific editions” edited by Mad Dog Vin­
cent Cole, Lucky Luciano, Bugs Moran, Jack Legs
Diamond, and Joseph Vallachi.
Epsilon 168 (von Soden)— now “28,” at Paris.
It also is dumped as a Syrian text on the grounds
that since it contains “many” non-Byzantine read­
ings (i.e., “readings,” not verses: verses are Byzan­
tine, but since the whole context of the passage
where they occur is not “Byzantine,” they are elimi­
nated), so it is “akin to the Caesarean Group.”2 To
which may be replied: “AGGGH, SHADDAP!
Delta 48 (von Soden)— now called “33.” This
is the famous “Queen o f the C ursives” that varied
from the Byzantine text so much that the delighted
scholars didn’t even have to invent another “fam­
ily” for it: they just stuck it into the Alexandrian
family (since it was kin to Vaticanus) and promptly,
on the grounds of that “holy” association, called it
a “QUEEN” (see Isa. 47:5-10 and Jer. 13:18). This
“Queenie” was considered by the unsaved sinner
Eichorn and his apostate follower Hort to be the
BEST of the minuscule copies of the Gospel, be­
cause it agreed with the African text o f the Vatican.
Note the prejudiced, bigoted dogmatism involved
in the great “NEUTRAL, OBJECTIVE, SCIEN­
TIFIC” methods used; i.e., Jesse Jackson is the
greatest American of the twentieth century because
 when he was in Havana he shouted “Long live Che
Guevara!” and “Long live the revolution!” There is
nothing like “scientific objectivity, ” is there? If it
had agreed with the Syrian texts, it would have
been transferred to the “Caesarean family.”
Bonkers. The Caesarean family is about as “sci­
entific” as a copy of National Geographic M aga­
zine.
Alpha 603 (von Soden)— now called “61,” is
at Dublin. This is the first Greek manuscript found
containing 1 John 5:7-8, although the passage oc­
curred in the Vulgate since A.D. 420, because it
was taken from the Old Latin, translated by
Antiochan missionaries in North Africa. Another
manuscript (629) has the reading, too.
Delta 505 (von Soden)— now called “69,” it
belongs to the “Family 13.” In spite of the false
Caesarean designation of the manuscript, it came
from CONSTANTINOPLE (BYZANTIUM)— not
Caesarea.3
Alpha 162 (von Soden)— now “81.” It con­
tains Acts only.
Epsilon 346 (von Soden)— now “ 118,” a mem­
ber of “Family 1” (above).
Epsilon 1211 (von Soden)— now “ 124,” found
in Vienna. It is a Byzantine manuscript in Family
13.
Delta 467 (von Soden)— now called “ 131,” in
Family 1.
Epsilon 207 (von Soden)— now called “ 157,”
in the Vatican. It naturally gets special attention
from the Jesuit sympathizer Hort, since it agrees
With his lopsided fantasies about manuscript “B.”
 Delta 457 (von Soden)— now called “209” ; it
is Family 1 and contains a text on Revelation.
Epsilon 1024 (von Soden)— now called 274, ’
and it contains the short ending on Mark.
You will observe that von Soden, being much
more “ scientific” than the modern editors, has
divided the Byzantine manuscripts themselves into
separate families: Alpha, Delta, Epsilon, etc., for
he collated enough Textus Receptus manuscripts to
notice that none were exact reproductions of an­
other. They had “ancestral lines” that did NOT go
to any “archetype” in Egypt. A discussion of the
various kinds of Textus Receptus manuscripts will
be found in H ills’ original work, The King James
Version Defended (Chapter Three, pp. 43-45). Bible
perverters like the committee members of the Re­
vised Version, the American Standard Version, and
the New International Version committees simply
took the manuscripts that varied the farthest from
the Byzantine manuscripts, and pretended they
weren’t Byzantine. This explains the origin of the
“Caesarean Family,” which is no more a “Family”
than D arwin’s monkey farm.
Epsilon 226 (von Soden)— now called “346.”
It is of “Family 13” in Milan, and contains the
Curetonian Syriac reading of Theodotian, which
denied the Virgin Birth of Christ and said “Joseph
gave birth to Jesus, the one called Christ” (Matt.
1:16). Alexandria’s long hand reached out to the
Old Syriac! The “professional scribe” (Origen) cer­
tainly would not blush at denying the Virgin Birth
after making a sinner out of Jesus Christ (Matt.
5:22) and a liar out of God (Mark 1:2).
 Aleph 353 (von Soden)— now called “383.” It
contains the Bezae-type readings in the Book of
Acts.
Epsilon 93 (von Soden)— now called “565,”
has “a good text with ancient readings,” so it is
violently dismembered from the Textus Receptus
family, and is shoved into the newly created “Cae­
sarean” family (p. 107, Frederick Kenyon, The Text
o f the Greek Bible). And you understand, this is the
business that the head of the Bible department at
Bob Jones University told you to keep your nose
out of and leave to the “experts” who wouldn’t
misguide you! “Father Custer,” was it?
Epsilon 77 (von Soden)— now called “566,”
etc.
The other main ones are 579, 614, 700, 826,
828, 1908, 2040, etc. They usually are said to be
“main” ones if they agree with the African Vatica­
nus of the Pope. Minuscule 33 and 81 contain the
most corruptions and redactions from Alexandria;
hence, they are the ones most frequently cited by
Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Hort, and other African
exegetes. “BLACK IS BEAU TIFU L.”
 The Church Fathers
and Patristic Quotations
APOSTOLIC (A.D. 75-150)
Clement of Rome (A.D. 30-100). Barnabas
and Hermas (if either character was real). Ignatius
(A.D. 30-107). Polycarp (A.D. 69-155). Papias
(A.D. 70-155).
ANTE-NICENE (A.D. 150-325)
Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165). Irenaeus (A.D.
120-192). Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-217).
Hippolytus (died A.D. 325). Origen (A.D. 184—
254). Dionysius (A.D. 190-265). Tertullian (A.D.
150-220). Cyprian (A.D. 200-258). Tatian (A.D.
120-180).
POST-NICENE (A.D. 325-500)
Eusebius (A.D. 270-340). Athanasius (A.D.
296-373). Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386). Jer­
ome (A.D. 340-420). Basil the Great (A.D. 329-
379). Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407). Augustine (A.D.
354-430). Ambrose (A.D. 340-397). Hilary (A.D.
305-366). Aphraates (A.D. 350). Ephraem Syrus
(A.D. 373).
Among these men, Justin M artyr cites the
Scriptures 330 times: 228 times from the Gospels,
ten times from Acts, forty-three times from the
Pauline E pistles, six tim es from the G eneral
Epistles, and three times from Revelation. With
this, we have:
 PAULINE GENERAL
GOSPELS ACTS EPISTLES EPISTLES REV TOTAL
Ire n a e u s 1,038 10 43 23 65 1,179
C le m e n t o f 1,017 44 1,127 207 11 2 ,4 0 6
A le x a n d ria
O rig e n 9,231 349 7 ,7 7 8 399 169 17,926
T e rtu llia n 3,8 2 2 502 2,6 0 9 120 205 7,2 5 8
H ip p o ly tu s 734 42 387 27 188 1,378
E u se b iu s 3,2 5 8 211 1,592 88 27 5,1 7 6
TOTALS 19,100 1,158 13,536 864 665 35,323

Note: the Book o f Revelation is quoted nearly

as many times as James, Peter, and John combined
(plus Hebrews), and it is quoted half as much as
the Book of Acts, which runs four chapters longer.
After citing 17,976 verses, Origen can’t find salva­
tion by grace, the proper local church offices, the
states of life after death, the meaning of water bap­
tism, or the doctrines of the Second Coming and
the Kingdom, WHICH ARE THE M AIN THEMES
OF BOTH TESTAMENTS. Eusebius, after citing
the scriptures 5,176 times, declares that Constan­
tine is still reigning after death and that his funeral
surpassed the Temple of Solomon as “a wonder of
the world” and that his sprinkling on his deathbed
gained him an entrance into heaven. “Biblical schol­
ars” are sometimes consummate idiots.
 The Papyrus and the
“Oldest Manuscripts”
Dr. Edward Hills, who held three earned de­
grees from the schools (Yale, Columbia, and Har­
vard) that taught the first faculty members of Dal­
las Theological Sem inary, D enver Theological
Seminary, and Louisville Seminary, calls the fol­
lowing African Alexandrian readings “HERETI­
CAL” (p. 136, The King James Version Defended,
(1956):
1. “ The Son of G od” is omitted in Sinaiticus
in Mark 1:1.
2. The Deity of Christ is eliminated from Luke
23:42 in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and P 75.
3. The omnipresence of Christ is eliminated
in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, P 66, and P15 in John
3:13.
4. “ G od” has been omitted in John 9:35 in
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, P66, and P 75.
5. The worship of Christ has been deleted from
John 9:38-39 in Sinaiticus and P 75.
6. In John 19:5, P 66 omits “Behold the m an.”
7. In Rom ans 14:10, “ C h r is t” has been
knocked out by Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus.
8. “ The Son of the living G od” has been
knocked out of John 6:68-69 by V a tic a n u s,
Sinaiticus, and P 75.
These are all readings from “THE OLDES 1
 AND BEST MANUSCRIPTS” that Bob Jones Uni­
versity promoted through the head of their Bible
department from 1960-1984. You are to believe
that Dr. Edward Hills was a fanatic, while Dr. Custer
is “orthodox.”
9. The phenomenon that accompanied Christ’s
crucifixion was ju st a regular ECLIPSE (Luke
23:45) in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and P 75.
10. “God” has vanished from Luke 12:31 in
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
11. The Father lost his greatness in John 10:29,
for it was given to the Christians! This gross per­
version is found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the
same manuscripts that omitted Mark 16:9-20.
According to Pickering (The Identity o f the
New Testament Text), P 66 has 200 nonsense read­
ings and 400 itacisms, P 45 has twenty careless read­
ings, P 75 has fifty-seven of them, P 66 has 216 (in
addition to the nonsense readings above) plus 482
readings found nowhere in any set of manuscripts,
and P 75 has 257 of these unique readings that match
nothing (and 25 percent of them are nonsense read­
ings).
Vaticanus has 2,877 OMISSIONS in the Gos­
pels alone, and its shorter text is bound to be wrong
at least 66 percent of the time, evidenced by the.
fact that in P 66 the scribe had fifty-four “leaps”
forward and only twenty-two backward, P 75 had
twenty-seven forward and ten backwards, and P 45
has sixteen forward and two backward. The scribes
looking AHEAD lost their places three times as
many times as they looked back and added. There
are 900 clear errors in P 66 in JO H N ’S GOSPEL
ALONE. Not one of the papyri can really be called
“ALEXANDRIAN,” for all of them (P66, P 75, and
P45) agree with the Byzantine text in scores of
places. P 66, for example, agrees with the Textus
Receptus 315 times out of 633 in John 1-14, which
is 47 percent RECEPTUS AGAINST ALL THREE
OF THE OTHER “FAMILIES. ” The other THREE
constitute 53 percent. P 75 agrees with the Textus
Receptus in 280 out of 547 places, which is 51
percent. Even Vaticanus agrees 334 times out of
663, which is 50 percent. Even the corrupt Sinaiti­
cus must agree 295 times out of 309 to pass off as
a “Bible,” and that is more than 95 percent.
In addition to this, 150 “distinctively Byzan­
tine” readings appear BEFORE 300 A.D. to make a
liar AGAIN out of Stewart Custer (The Truth About
the King James Controversy), and 170 Byzantine
readings appear in early papyrus which some West­
ern manuscripts have, plus 170 Byzantine readings
in early papyrus that some Alexandrian manuscripts
have. Five thousand “BYZANTINE READINGS”
called “late” by Bob Jones University and the Na­
tional Council of Churches (and the Revised Stan­
dard Version, the American Standard Version, the
New International Version, and the New American
Standard Version committees) have been vindicated
to be EARLY. Zuntz and Colwell say the Byzan­
tine text originated in the SECOND CENTURY.
That would be 100 years before Sinaiticus and Vati­
canus were written.
You see, “the oldest and best,” or “the most
ancient m anuscripts,” was just one more Madison
Avenue pitch thrown in with all the rest. There was
 not one straight pitch in the whole ball game. “B”
and Aleph have to be in error 3,000 times, or at
least one of them, for they disagree 3,000 times
between themselves in the Gospels alone. All A l­
exandrian Cult members insist that “lack of agree­
ment” between wording in the different editions of
an Authorized Version demands correction of “ER­
ROR.” Then Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are in error
3,000 times in the Gospels. Apply this to the rest
of the New Testament, and they have to be in error
at least 8,000 times: that is better than one per
verse. Not one manuscript (uncial) agrees with an­
other in Mark 14:30, 68, or 72. That is, Aleph, A,
B, C, and D (Alexandrian and Western uncials)
can’t get together one time on a single reading.
Why are Aleph, A, B, and C then a “fam ily”?
P 66 and P 46 have “whole pages . . . left without
any correction, however greatly they were in need
of it.” In one chapter of Mark, either the “Neutral”
(!) Vaticanus B is wrong 34 times in a row, or else
all the rest of the Alexandrian family is wrong, for
all the Alexandrian manuscripts read thirty-four
times against it. Scrivener said of “the great uncial
manuscript B” ( Vaticanus): “One marked feature
characteristic of this copy is the great number of
omissions . . . no small portions of these are mere
oversights of the scribe . . . this same scribe has
repeatedly written words and clauses twice over

That is, the omissions were on purpose. See

Jeremiah 36:21-25.
Proof? The Vatican scribe PURPOSELY om it­
ted the Book o f Revelation and the verses on the
one effectual sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Heb. 10).
This is the “oldest and best” with which you
are to correct your King James Bible. You would
have to have rocks for brains even to consider it.
The faculty at Bob Jones University not only con­
sidered it, but swore these manuscripts were the
“oldest” and the “BEST, “ and then, if that were
not enough stupid tomfoolery, declared they were
the most “ACCURATE.” That is why all of them
and all their buddies said the American Standard
Version was the most “accurate” because it was
“true to THE GREEK TEXT.”
Do we take such “scholarship” seriously? Do
we honor it because some lying hypocrite tried to
pass off as a Bible believer by talking about “ver­
bally inspired original autographs”? “ I trow no t.”
 Inconsistencies in the
Use of the “Best and
Oldest Manuscripts”
On the theory that the Alexandrian manuscripts
( Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus) are the
norm by which to judge other manuscripts, and
adopting the theory that all Syriac, Latin, Sahidic,
Boharic, and Greek readings that agree with them
are correct, we would expect a uniform acceptance
of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as “the best and the
oldest,” and their buddies (P66 and P 75) to be right
along with them. However, upon examining Nestle’s
critical apparatus, we find that time and time again
the “norm” has been ARBITRARY CONJECTURE.
This ran rife for eighty years in N estle’s text in
Luke 24:51-52, where (for eighty years) the testi­
mony of P 71 and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus was
thrown out BECAUSE THEY BORE WITNESS
TO THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND THE TEXTUS
RECEPTUS.
At the same time (for eighty cotton pickin’
years: longer than most of you have lived), the
ending on Mark was discarded as not being part of
the “original text” on the basis and authority of the
very two manuscripts just rejected above: Sinaiti­
cus and Vaticanus. It is still rejected in 1987.
When you have two standards, you are “God.”
(Don’t waste our time. We know what you are: you
are worm food just like your ancestors and your
grandchildren.)
I kept a list from 1949 to 1979 of the places
where Nestle time and time again threw out Si­
naiticus or Vaticanus (or both) because they agreed
with the Receptus. This list totaled about 200 verses.
I also kept a list of places where P 45 in Corinthians
was thrown out time and time again because it
agreed with the Receptus. I had to alter these notes
in 1983: Nestle had come over to M Y position 467
times in less than a year. (Strange kind of “scien­
tific scholarship” for a German, you can bet your
booties. Und wiel)
Still, in 1986, you will find that he has re­
jected the oldest papyrus in 1 Corinthians 11:26,
9:13, 7:15; Galatians 1:3; Romans 14:4; 2 Corin­
thians 2:17 (ah, that’s a beauty!); and Luke 16:27.
You will find the “oldest papyrus” agreeing with
the Receptus in Romans 8:34; Luke 16:27; and
Ephesians 3:9. Moreover, you will find that when
Nestle altered his 467 readings to bring them back
into line with the Textus Receptus, the weight he
used as an alibi was the PAPYRI: a bald confes­
sion that the Papyri were RECEPTUS READINGS,
N O T ALEXANDRIAN READINGS, though Stewart
Custer (Bob Jones University) classified all of them
as “Alexandrian.”
How “neutral” and “objective” can one get?
Vaticanus backs up 2 T hessalonians 2:8,
Alexandrinus and Vaticanus back up 2 Thessalo­
nians 2:14, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus back up
Hebrews 12:11, Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus back
up Romans 10:15, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus back
up Romans 11:23, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus back
up Romans 15:7, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus back up
2 Corinthians 1:3, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus back
up 2 Corinthians 1:22, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and
Alexandrinus all back up 2 Corinthians 2:17 (Ah,
THAT ONE IS A BEAUTY!), etc.
But, no, “there are no BYZANTINE READ­
INGS BEFORE A.D. 400.” You mean, you pretend
that they were to be eliminated if you found them
in any readings before A.D. 400, as you had as­
signed all pre-A.D. 400 manuscripts to another
“FAMILY.” We read you, buster. We went to school,
too. (When we went to school [1925-1945], they
taught ENGLISH.)
The term “oldest and best” means “I WILL
NOT TELL YOU WHAT MANUSCRIPTS I HAVE
USED TO CORRECT THE BIBLE WITH, BE­
CAUSE IF YOU ARE “KNOW LEDGEABLE,”
YOU WOULD KNOW IMMEDIATELY THAT
THEY ARE THE M OST C O R R U P T M A N U ­
SCRIPTS THAT BIBLICAL SCHOLARS EVER
FOUND.”
For this reason, the nomenclature “SINAITI­
C U S,” “VATICANUS,” and “ALEXAND RINU S”
suddenly dropped slap outta sight” in 1980 in the
Nestle list o f uncial manuscripts (see op cit., p.
689). It was getting dangerous to walk in broad
daylight where people could see you. We saw all
three clowns before they lost their shirts and hid in
the bushes.
The reader should understand what he is deal­
ing with. Once he enters the field of “recognized
scholars” and “qualified textual authorities,” whose
knowledge of Greek and Hebrew enables them to
pass judgm ent on the Holy Spirit and the Holy
Bible, he enters a ring of authentic criminals,
con-men, shysters, goons, “gunsels,” hit men, and
card sharks who would put the Mafia and the
Unione Sicilone to shame. After all of that pious
talk about “genealogical methods” and “weighing
the evidence,” look what actually HAPPENS in
specific cases. We here give the manuscript evi­
dence for a reading of the Revised Version (West-
cott and Hort: 1881-1885), adopted by the Am eri­
can Standard Version committee for the “bible”
recom m ended by E V E R Y M A JO R FACULTY,
STAFF, AND SCHOLAR CONNECTED WITH
EVERY SCHOOL IN AMERICA between 1901 and
1988.
Matthew 17:21 was omitted in the Revised Ver­
sion and the American Standard Version. On what
grounds?
Well, TWO Alexandrian manuscripts (the Trash
Can Version: Sinaiticus) and the VAT-and-CAN-US
Version (“B”) omit it. W hat stood against these
two grossly corrupt African manuscripts, that dis­
agreed between each other 3,000 times in the Gos­
pels alone? Well, every known cursive but ONE
had the King James reading. The reading is found
in the Old Latin and the Vulgate it is found in the
Coptic versions, the Slavonic versions, the Syriac
versions, the Armenian versions, and the Georgian
versions; it is also cited 120 years before the Trash
Can Version (Sinaiticus) or the wine-VAT-beer-
CAN-with-US (“B”) was written; and it is found in
eleven Church Fathers before A.D. 550. When the
Revised Version threw out Luke 24:40, they did it
with ALEPH (Sinaiticus) and B ( Vaticanus) read­
ing as the King James. Double standard. The two
“oldest and best” were valuable for correcting the
entire testimony of the early church, since that tes­
timony AGREED with the Authorized Version o f
1611, but they were to be thrown out immediately
if THEY agreed with the Authorized Version o f 1611.
This is called THE “SCIENTIFIC METHODS”
OF BIBLICAL “SCHOLARSHIP” BASED UPON
“NEWER DISCOVERIES OF OLDER M ANU­
SCRIPTS” WHICH THE AUTHORIZED VERSION
TRANSLATORS “DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO.”
We call it rank, stinking, non-scientific hypoc­
risy.
The Revised Version threw out half of Luke
24:36 using Hort and Griesbach’s “canons of criti­
cisms” and “scientific genealogical method of Fam­
ily Text types.” On what evidence? Well, certainly
not on the “oldest and best m anuscripts.” You see,
Aleph and B (Trash Can and Wine-Vat-Beer-Can)
read here with the King James, but as far as that
goes, so did eighteen other uncials and every known
cursive extant. All the ancient versions have the
King James reading.
 Correcting
“The” Greek Text and
“The” Hebrew Text With
the Original English
We list here some cases where the English
editions of the Authorized Version (any edition in
any decade) “shed light” on the Hebrew and Greek
texts as published in any edition by anyone. This
appendix will cause literal spasms in the Scholar’s
Union, which makes its living reducing students to
their own level of ignorance by parading knowl­
edge of the “original languages” before them. We
here demonstrate what we have been accused of—
the reader understanding that the terms “ORIGI­
NAL H E B R E W ,” “ORIGINAL T E X T ,” “THE
GREEK TEXT,” and “THE ORIGINAL GREEK
TEXT” are being used here as the professional
liars have used the terms for 100 years (see Chap­
ter Seven).
We will avail ourselves of their terminology,
since they have so graciously availed themselves
of our terminology “BIBLE-BELIEVERS”— in or­
der to deceive and defraud 50,000 young men in
the last eighty years.
1. The tense of the Greek word a'uveaTaimoo-
(iai in Galatians 2:20 in any family of manuscripts
 is a perfect indicative passive (“I have been cruci­
fied”), and so it is translated in the New Interna­
tional Version, the American Standard Version, the
New American Standard Version, the Revised Stan­
dard Version, the Revised Version, the New Re­
vised Standard Version, etc. (To save time and
space, we will hereafter refer to these versions and
others like them simply as “the Laodicean wash­
outs.”) The English Scriptures have quite a com­
ment to make about this “tense.” The comments
w ill be found in S criptures w here Paul dies
“DAILY” (1 Cor. 15:31), where the outward man
is presently perishing (2 Cor. 4:16, not past tense),
in Luke 9:23, where a man is to take up his cross
“DAILY,” not in the past, and where being made
conformable to C hrist’s death on Calvary (Phil.
3:10) is A PRESENT AND FUTURE OPERATION:
not just in the past. The Authorized Version here
has the correct translation, “I AM CRUCIFIED”
(present, not perfect tense), and the Scriptures al­
ready drew judgm ent ON THE GREEK GRAM­
MARS AND LEXICONS. All of the Laodicean wash­
outs missed it, because their authors got down off
the cross and paraded their stinking, fleshly na­
tures in public before the body of Christ.
2. In Judges 5:14, you are told that people
wrote with PENS as far back as B.C. 1300— that
is, you are told that in the “King’s English” (1611).
However, if you were stupid enough to “go to the
Hebrew,” you came out with the “m arshal’s staff’
(the Revised Standard Version) or the “recruiter’s
sta ff’ (the New King Jimmy Version) or some other
piece of claptrap dished up by an infidel who didn’t
believe people wrote with pens that early. Since
1901 (date of the publication of the A m erican Stand­
a rd Version, which reads as all the other wash­
outs), it was found that people d id write with pens.
You had the “advanced revelation” given in 1611
from “older and better manuscripts” that “shed a
wealth of light” on the obscure texts printed 350
years later.
3. In Psalm 74:8, the advanced revelation of
1611 sheds considerable light on the corrupt He­
brew manuscripts used by the Laodicean wash­
outs, for all of them translated “the Hebrew text”
as “meeting places” or “places of assembly.” Using
the highly scientific Elizabethan English of 1611
for light, we find that although “SYNAGOGUES”
(.A uth orized Version) w ere not in operation until
600 yea rs after the author of Psalm 74 was dead
(the Inter-Testamental Period), the author has reach­
ed out into A.D. 2000, where the SYN AG O G U ES
IN JERUSALEM WILL BE BURNED BY THE
ANTICHRIST. Naturally, such a revelation is
greatly obscu red in the “original Hebrew text.”
4. The order o f books in the English is vastly
superior to the order of books in the Hebrew Old
Testament in any set published by anyone, for the
Hebrew “originals” do not preserve the p rem illen ­
nial ord er found in Jeremiah-Lamentations-Ezekiel.
In the A u th o rize d Version, this order produces
Jerusalem ’s destruction by the Antichrist (Jer.), the
Great Tribulation (Lam.), and the Second Advent
(Ezek.). Lam entations has been EXTRACTED from
the order in “the original Hebrew.” Again, the A u­
th o rized Version order of books in 2 Chronicles-
Ezra-Nehemiah-Esther-Job-Psalms has been com­
pletely shattered by Daniel following Esther, Job
following P roverbs, and Chronicles following Ezra.
The A u th orized Version plainly preserved the order
of destruction and dispersion (A.D. 70-1918), re­
turn (A.D. 1918-1948), rebuilding (A.D. 1948-
1988), rapture and replacement of a Gentile Bride
with a Jewish Bride (A.D. 1918-1998), Daniel’s
Seventieth Week (A.D. 1993-2000??), and the Sec­
ond Advent (A.D. 2007). If you had the “origi­
nals,” you would have fa ile d to fin d LIG H T on the
fu tu re o f Israel.
5. The demons are “devils” (Mark 5:12) any­
where you find them in the A u th orized Version.
This gives much advanced light on the “original”
(Greek, 8al|ioveq'), which is so obscure that all of
the Laodicean washouts cannot even translate it.
They leave it untranslated. With “God” (Gen. 1:1)
and “gods” (Ps. 82:1), before them, and “Lord”
(Phil. 2:11) and “lords” (1 Cor. 8:5), and “the
angel of the LORD” (Num. 22:22) and “angels of
God” (Gen. 32:1) before them, and “sons of God”
(Job 1:6) and “The Son of God” (John 5:25) be­
fore them, the poor, blinded GREEK SCHOLARS,
lost in the Stygian darkness of “new light from the
Dead Sea Scrolls” and “new light from more an­
cient manuscripts,” cannot find “the devil” (Mark
5:16) and “devils” (Mark 5:12). This light can only
be found in the original English: it is not fo u n d in
A N Y G reek text.
6. “Leviathan” in Job 41:1 is defined in the
original English but completely obscured in all the
“plenary, verbally inspired, original thingam ajigs”
(see Chapter Ten). In the infallible English, “Le­
viathan” is typified by a WHALE (Psa. 104:26),
as Satan is typified by a “SERPENT” (Gen. 3:1),
and he has more than one head (Ps. 74:14— seven,
to be exact: see Rev. 12:3, 9 and Isa. 27:1).
All of the Laodicean washouts failed to iden­
tify him because all they had were the “verbal,
plenary inspired, etc.” or “ THE HEBREW TEXT,”
or “THE ORIGINAL HEBREW” or some other silly
cliche.
7. “Pictures” are a bad item in Numbers 33:52
and are to be destroyed. Since the commandment
was APPLIED TO N E W TESTAM ENT C H RIS­
TIANS in 1 Corinthians 10:11, we should not be
surprised to find that those who put their faith in
the “plenary inspiration of the original, infallible,
and inerrant autographs” went just as blind as a bat
when they translated “THE HEBREW TEXT” or
“THE ORIGINAL HEBREW” and came out with
“figured stones” (the N ew K ing Jim m y Version ) or
“engraven stones,” so they could keep their own
“pictures” (see The Unknown Bible, 1984). The
Hebrew put out their eyes; too bad they didn’t
have an English Bible in their own language.
8. The word “borrow” in Exodus 11:2 put all
of the Laodicean washouts into orbit; dirty clothes
and all. None of them could find where the “loan”
was paid back. Having no English Bible that was
inerrant or infallible, they couldn’t find Deuter­
onomy 26:6-8; Hosea 12:1; or 2 Chronicles 12:9.
We are more fortunate. When they translated
(Hebrew) as “ask,” “petition,” “request,” etc., we
simply corrected their Hebrew lexicons with the
 infallible English, knowing that ANY translator on
the Authorized Version committee had more spiri­
tual discernment than A N Y HEBREW scholar in
the eighteenth, nineteenth, or twentieth century.
(Smile! God loves you!)
9. Joshua’s “flood” (Josh. 24:15) put so much
light on archaeological findings” that all of the
washouts washed out with it (the New King Jimmy,
“river”; the Revised Standard Version, “river,” etc.).
The Hebrew word “in] came out as a “river or
stream” in Gesenius’ Lexicon (p. 537), so what
right did the Authorized Version translators have in
taking their liberties with the word as they did with
p a o / a in A cts 12:4? (K now w hat I m ean,
Jellybean?)
Well, “the other side of the FLOOD” desig­
nates the east side of the Euphrates geographically,
but it has an ominous import, pointing to “the
other side of the FLOOD” chronologically: Noah’s
flood. These “gods” (Gen. 6:1-6; Psa. 82:6) were
saved by the ancestors of Joshua’s congregation.
Furthermore, the popping up of “Babel” on the
Euphrates (Gen. 11:1-6) as a center of rebellion
immediately following the Flood shows that it was
a center BEFORE the flood. This explains why
Abraham was called out of “Ur of the Chaldees.”
Never mind Gesenius, Keil, or Delitzsch: why con­
sult a rationalistic humanist when the AUTHOR of
The BOOK is at your side?
10. In Acts 19:37, the Authorized Version gives
advanced light on the “original G reek” (iepo-
o-uXouq) which the Laodicean Washouts could not
find in the “great, scientific editions of the Greek
New Testament,” etc. Here, the A u th o rized Ver
sion translators said “CHURCHES,” instead of
TEMPLES. If it had been left as “tem ples,” you
would have lost a valuable reference to the fact
that pagans who worship the “Queen of heaven”
(Jer. 44:19); (see the context of Acts 19) not
only do th e ir w o rsh ip in “te m p le s,” but in
“CHURCHES.” Since all of the Bible translation
committees after 1800 were pro-Catholic, they ab­
horred the translation. The N ew King Jimmy got
rid of it too, with the consent of Truman Dollar,
Wally Criswell, A.V. Henderson, and the faculty at
Tennessee Temple. They put out the light.
11. “EASTER” in Acts 12:4 has caused coro­
naries and blood-clots for years in the S c h o la r’s
Union. These poor, ignorant, depraved, deluded,
apostate humanists didn’t know that Edom and
Babylon were as close as hand in glove (Gen. 14:1 —
4) even b efo re M o se s’ tim e. H erod w as an
ED O M ITE according to all chroniclers. Why
w ouldn’t he observe “EASTER” at the time of the
Passover? “EASTER” (from Ishtar, Ashtoreth, As-
tarte, etc.) is a B abylonian festival. Light. Light to
be found only in the A u th orized Version text. No
o th er bible contains it. No other translation, of any
edition, or in any language (except German) con­
tains this kind of phenomena. If all you have is the
“original Greek” (p aa x a), you LOSE LIGHT.
12. “By one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13) and “with
the Holy Ghost” (Acts 1:5) in the infallible A u­
th o rized Version have been altered to “IN the Holy
Spirit” by the Charismatics and other deluded apos­
tates who followed their blind guides right into the
 ditch. The Greek ev was translated “IN,” when it
was never to be translated as “IN” except in refer­
ence to location. This is called “the L ocative case”
in Greek, and since it matches the INSTRUM EN­
TAL and the DATIVE (in Robertson’s eight point
case system, not M a ch en ’s fiv e p o in t system ), it has
been thrown into the L ocative case, when it stood
in the Instrum ental case. Fortunately, the inerrant
A u th orized Version text (any edition of any de­
cade) preserves the correct case ending, in spite of
the “original Greek.”
13. The reading of the A u th orized Version in
Philippians 1:28 sheds so much light on the “origi­
nal Greek” that the N ew K ing Jim m y had to retain
the reading, although those who sold and recom­
mended the N ew K ing Jam es B ible expounded the
passage as it is found in the R evised Stan dard Ver­
sion of the National Council of Christian Churches.
(See The L iberty B ible Com m entary, published by
Falwell and faculty, who promoted the N ew K ing
Jam es Version to the hilt.) Here, the deceived nov­
ices (going by “the original Greek”) decided that
the Christian’s adversaries accepted th eir own co n ­
dition as a condition deserving condemnation, and
that the “evident token of perdition” was the per­
dition of the adversaries which they recognized as
being a token of th eir own doom . Nothing could be
more pitiful or ridiculous. ALL ADVERSARIES OF
ALL CHRISTIANS ANYW HERE IN THE N E W TES­
TAMENT A C C E PT E D THE PE R SE C U TIO N OF
CHRISTIANS (HEB. 11) AS P R O O F THAT THE
CHRISTIANS WERE BLASPHEM ERS ASSIGNED
TO PERDITION. There is not a fifth-grade student
in America who couldn’t see that in one reading of
Matthew, John and Acts. That is, if they had an
ENGLISH Bible to read, instead of “the Greek.”
14. Mark 1:2. We have commented on this
earlier. The correct reading is not in “the oldest
and best manuscripts.” It is not in THE GREEK
TEXT from which the N ew A m erican Standard Ver­
sion came. It is in the infallible, inerrant A utho­
rized Version of 1611, any edition: one edition is
just as good as another.
15. Matthew 5:22. Here the infallible English,
in line with the purpose and intent of the Holy
Spirit and in agreement with what the Holy Spirit
wrote about the Lord Jesus Christ in many places,
has inserted the phrase “WITHOUT A CAUSE,”
which is not found in “the oldest and best Greek
texts” used by the N ew International Version, the
A m erican Stan dard Version, and the N ew A m eri­
can Stan dard Version to translate “THE GREEK
TEXT.” To blazes with “THE GREEK TEXT.” It is
so inferior to the English text that they are not
worthy of standing on the same shelf. I put Nestle,
Hort, Aland, Metzger, Alford, Souter, Erasmus,
Stephanus, Elzevir, and the rest on a shelf below
my original edition of the A u th orized Version from
1613.
16. In Genesis 24:22 and 30, the Holy Spirit
(Eliezer in the passage is a type of the Holy Spirit)
makes the mistake of giving Rebekah (a type oi
the bride of Christ) an “EARRING,” whereas it
one went by the “verbal, plenary inspired original
Hebrew” he would have given her a “NOSE RING
(New King Jimmy Wimmy) or a “nosejewel” (see
 any Laodicean Washout). Observe how the infal­
lible English corrects these Hebrew scholars in Exo­
dus 32:2-3 and again in Isaiah 3:20-21, where the
“nose jewels” are a separate item from the “ear­
rings.” The scholars’ failure here (due to lack of
intelligence, spiritual insight, common sense, rev­
erence, and ability to read) came from seeing the
word “FACE” in verse 47. Not having an infal­
lible Holy Bible nearby to decide questions of “ab­
solute authority,” they presu m ed that your ear could
not be on your fa c e , but since your NOSE was, that
the “earring” should be converted into a nose jew el.
So it stands in all apostate Laodicean Washouts.
Those of us who have a Holy Bible (not a “Liv-
in g ” Bible) saw that in 24:22, the bracelets were
not for her “W RISTS,” but for her “hands,” so we
reached the Holy Spirit’s conclusion which the Holy
Spirit had preserved in the, A u th orized Version text,
in spite of HEBREW SCHOLARSHIP: o bviou sly
in the B ible, yo u r ea r is p a r t o f y o u r fa c e , and yo u r
w rist is p a r t o f you r hand. Simple, isn’t it? Just
throw BIBLICAL SCH OLARSH IP OUT THE W IN­
DOW, AND, LO AND BEHOLD, THERE IS THE
“MEANING” AND “INTENT” OF THE O RIG I­
NAL WRITER.
17. Joseph’s “coat of many colours” (Gen.
37:3) goes to a dry cleaner who must have been
some kin to Jack the Ripper, if we are to believe
the Laodicean Washouts. The R evised Standard Ver­
sion gives us, instead, “a long robe with sleeves,”
and its twin sisters (the N ew Intern ational Version,
the A m erican Standard Version, and the N ew A m eri­
can S tan dard Version ) return Joseph’s laundry with
“a long garment,” “long sleeved robe,” etc. The
Hebrew (ran?) had to be “a tunic,” an inner gar­
ment” with “sleeves down to the knees,” some­
thing woven,” “linen,” or “from cotton,” etc. Since
this word could apply to any num ber o f kinds o f
a p p arel worn by anyone, the revelation of “MANY
COLOURS” is lost entirely. The R evised Stan­
da rd Version, the A m erican Stan dard Version, the
N ew International Version, and the N ew A m erican
Standard Version are simply meaningless BLANKS.
Now, Joseph is a type of Christ in 152 particulars
(see The B ible B e lie v e r ’s C om m entary on G enesis,
1970). The term ran? occurs twenty-one times in
the Old Testament, but the A u th orized Version in­
sists on translating “MANY CO LO URS” or
“DIVERS CO LO URS” three tim es: once in
Joseph’s case (a type of Christ), once in Tam ar’s
case (a virgin daughter of David, who is a type of
Christ, 2 Sam. 13:19), and once of Sisera (Judg.
5:30), who typifies a victorious king who has con­
quered his enemies. This “light” on the obscure
Hebrew, which Keil, Kittel, Kahle, Gesenius, Del-
itzsch, and Harkavy can’t find with a searchlight,
is illu stra te d in E gyptian in scrip tio n s w here
SHEMITIC rulers come in to Pharaoh. They are
clothed in a p a tch w ork qu ilt-type o f garm en t that
con sists o f different p ieces o f cloth, each one a
different color, sewed together. Thomely Smith (J o ­
seph and H is Times, p. 12) says these were called
“coats o f many colors. ” Thank God we had the
infallible, inerrant A u th orized Version of 1611 to
guide us in these matters and were not left to the
conjectures of “good, godly m en.” The same word
 was used for Aaron and his sons, who typify C hrist
as High P riest and the believers. (See Exod. 2 8 -
29; and Lev. 8.)
18. In Revelation 11:15, the “original Greek
text” must have said “kingdom,” if we are to be­
lieve the ridiculous scholarship that went into the
A m erican S tan dard Version, the N ew A m erican
S tan dard Version, the N ew Intern ational Version,
and other Laodicean Washouts. Fortunately, we have
the highly scientific English text of 1611 whereby
to correct these “accurate translations from THE
ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT” (see Chapter Seven).
The word is “KINGDOM S” in the A u th o rized Ver­
sion, indicating the literal, political governments
of England, the United States of America, Russia,
Israel, China, Japan, Italy, Germany, South America,
and Africa: not just the “kingdom of the world.”
19. The word “creature” has been removed
from 2 Corinthians 5:17 in all Laodicean Wash­
outs, and the word “creation” (Greek, K x i a t g ) has
taken its place. To correct this bungling m istransla­
tion, the Lord endeavored to teach the apostates
some lessons about their own inconsistencies. In
the first place, He allowed them to call Jesus Christ
a “CREATURE” in the A m erican Stan dard Version
of 1901, so that Bob Jones University, Wheaton,
Dallas, Moody, Fuller, etc., (see the list in Ap­
pendix Ten in The “E rr o r s ” in the K ing Jam es
B ible, 1999) could recommend a Jehovah’s W it­
ness’ version. (The note is found on page 1996,
under John 9:38 of the A m erican Stan dard Version
text found in The C ross R eference B ible.) The alibi
for this blasphemy is “THE GREEK WORD DE-
NOTES . . . Correct! “The Greek word.” The
Greek word denotes hell on wheels in this case.
Then the Holy Spirit forced all of these inconsis­
tent, bungling scholars to translate the word
(Kxiaiq) exactly as the A u th orized Version transla­
tors had translated it; this was done in Hebrews
4:13, where they all had to abandon “CREATION”
after translating that w ay in Rom ans 8 and 2 C orin­
thians 5. We had the right word to start with: it was
in the English.
20. None of the Hebrew scholars could find
out who wrote the Book of Job (see The B ible
B e lie v e r ’s C om m entary o f Job, Introduction). Their
“original Hebrew” and “original Hebrew text” and
“THE Hebrew text” gave them about as much light
as a pen flashlight in the center of a typhoon. The
A u th orized Version text simply identifies the au­
thor as ELIHU (see the first and third persons in
Job 32:1-5, and 15-17). You can find the author in
an English Holy Bible: you cannot fin d him in the
“Hebrew. ”
21. Unfortunately, all Hebrew Texts, all He­
brew Bibles, all Hebrew manuscripts, and all He­
brew scholars obscure a great New Testament truth
in Genesis 22:8. The N ew K ing Jim m y Wimmy here
(along with its sister, the R evised Standard Version
o f the lib eral N ational C ouncil o f C hristian
Churches) has erased the English “GOD WILL
PROVIDE HIMSELF A LAMB.” In the “origi­
nal English,” this stated two things:
a. God will get a lamb f o r H im self that will be
a burnt offering (see the text).
b. God “HIMSELF” will BE the “lamb” that
 is provided (see John 1:29).
This blessed Biblical truth is unfortunately ob­
scure in a ll o f the H ebrew manuscripts used for the
“new bibles.” N one o f them have it.
22. The Greek word in 1 Corinthians 11:1 is
ptfirixai, translated “Be ye followers of me.” Un­
fortunately, this is rather obscure in the “original
Greek.” Any “original Greek” would presume it
meant “ im itate , ” as the word “imitate” obviously
is a near tra n slitera tio n of |ii|ie o |ia i; |ii|ir)xal.
Hence, all “good, godly m en” throw out the mean­
ing of the author. Paul wouldn’t think of telling
anyone to im itate him, for he said that those who
DID (see Gal. 3:1-5; 2 Cor. 11:6—15) w ere “FALSE
APOSTLES” (2 Cor. 11:13). Imagine translating
that as “IMITATE,” knowing that the greatest im ­
itation of Jesus Christ in any age is SATAN. Imag­
ine Jesus Christ calling out disciples and hollering,
“IMITATE ME!” instead of “FOLLOW M E.” You
say, “The Greek lexicon said . . . .” Yes. But fortu­
nately, God the Holy Spirit has a reputation for
overruling the Greek lexicons. You would do well
to follow (and we don’t mean “imitate”) HIM.
23. We add to the “original Greek text” of the
A m erican Stan dard Version, the N ew Intern ational
Version, the N ew A m erican Stan dard Version, the
R evised Version, the R evised Standard Version, etc.,
in Colossians 1:14, as we have more light on their
manuscripts than they do. The passages in Hebrews
9:15; Ephesians 1:14; Ephesians 4:30, and Hebrews
9:12 shed much light on “THE” GREEK TEXT
used by the Laodicean Washouts. We know that
there is no such thing as “REDEMPTION” (see
Col. 1:14) without Christ’s blood, for although there
was “forgiveness of sins” (see Heb. 9:22; Exod.
34:7), before Christ’s blood was shed, “REDEMP­
TION” was not complete (see Heb. 10:4) until it
was “THROUGH HIS BLOOD.” Therefore, we
recognize that “the original Greek” of Colossians
1:14 is a blasphem ous m istake committed by some
ca reless hoodlum who didn’t have the “meaning of
the original writer” down anymore than he had
figured out the number of Scrabble boards sold in
New York in 1970.
24. A floodlight comes pouring into Romans
1:18 and Romans 1:25 from the “original auto­
graphs of 1611,” that is evidently completely o b ­
scured in all Textus R eceptus manuscripts and all
A lexandrian m anuscripts. Here, the believer is
warned by the Holy Spirit that two kinds of men
are under the wrath of God: first, those who
“HOLD THE TRUTH IN U N R IG H TEO U S­
NESS” (note the wording: they have it in their
hands— they are holding it), and second, those who
“CHANGED THE TRUTH OF GOD INTO A
LIE” (note the wording: they had the truth, and
they changed it so that it was no longer the truth).
These two monumental advanced revelations, with
a “wealth of material” in them, are obliterated com­
pletely from every bible on the market since 1800.
Going by “the Greek texts,” “the b e st Greek texts,”
and “the eclectic Greek texts,” they came out with
G od thinking very highly o f B O TH religious h yp o ­
crites above. Instead, God was only upset with
someone who “suppressed” the truth or “exchang­
ed” the truth. There is evidently something so ROT-
TEN about the “original Greek” here that you would
be a fool if you went by it; certainly you would be
wherever it contradicted the English text of 1611.
25. Hebrews 9:28 in “THE Greek Text” (see
Chapter Seven) is evidently a real “bummer.” Cov­
ering up the application of the “scapegoat” in Lev­
iticus 16:22, where it shows Christ actually TAK­
ING OUR SINS AWAY (see John 1:29 and 1 Pet.
3:18 where the doctrinal applications are absolute­
ly established) into hell (see Acts 2:27, 31), we
note the word has gone untranslated in all Laodic­
ean Washouts: the new bibles (including Jimmy
Wimmy) have gotten rid of the word “W ITH O U T.”
You are to presume that He still carries your sins,
even though if “apart” from them. Thank God we
have “a more sure word of prophecy” (2 Pet.
1:19) to go by than the corrupt “Greek texts” that
produced the N ew K ing Jam es Version, the N ew
A m erican Stan dard Version, the A m erican Stan­
d a rd Version, the N ew Intern ational Version, the
R evised Stan dard Version, and the N ew R evised
S tan dard Version.
We shall now “knock o f f ’ here (speaking in
the vernacular). We have given twenty-five cases
and docum ented them. You will find another under
1 Timothy 3:16, another under Genesis 1:28, and
another under 2 Timothy 2:15. If you want thirty
more, they are not hard to find. Get a dime store
K ing Jam es Bible, with no copyright or notes, and
read it. There is nothing like a K ing Jam es B ible to
clear up a “World Congress of Fundam entalists” or
a “Theological Sem inar.” Always correct “the
Greek” with the English if any real doubt arises. I
do it regularly and will continue to do so. I find it
edifying, enlightening, and profitable, and God has
always blessed it. Use “the Greek” where it will
magnify, apply, glorify, and explain the infallible
English, and where it doesn’t, pass it like a beer
can on the highway.
ENDNOTES
 PREFACE

1. Custer cites a “Mr. Shehan,” who published

an article in the B ib lical A rch a eo lo g ist (1965) to
the effect that there were “scores of manuscripts in
Greek . . . circulating while the New Testament
was being w ritten” ( The Truth A b o u t the King
Jam es Version C ontroversy, Bob Jones University
Press, 1981, pp. 18-19). Following his usual, dis­
honest way of handling such matters, Custer didn’t
give the name of ONE of these “scores” of manu­
scripts; nor d id Shehan. We assume it is because
either Shehan or Custer lied, and after catching
Custer lying fifteen times in thirty-five pages, we
didn’t flip a coin. Bruce M etzger, in correspon­
dence with Tony Ross (August, 1985), sent as
“p ro o f’ a fragment of Deuteronomy 25 which was
not written in 250 B.C. and w as not qu oted by
anyone in the N ew Testament. He also added the
fragment of Deuteronomy 32:1-7, which was not
even written in 200 B.C. and w as N O T q u oted by
anyone in the N ew Testament. This is what they
call “EVIDENCE” and “FACING THE FACTS” at
Bob Jones University and San Francisco Theologi­
cal Seminary. I’ve seen more evidence for Jim Jones
being a soul winner.
2. When Custer tried to justify the corrupt
bibles he was promoting (the A m erican Standard
Version and the N ew A m erican Stan dard Version ),
he did exactly what all the other apostates did: he
ducked the issue like an 88 was going off over his
head. On pages 7 and 8 of his THE TRUTH, etc.
(too much, man, too much!) he gave John 1:1,
 which is not salient; John 1:18 (where he him self
had accepted the Arian teaching of the Jehovah’s
Witnesses); Romans 9:5, which is not salient; Titus
2:13, which is not salient; and Hebrews 1:8, which
is not salient. Any monkey could see where Custer
went “ape.” He picked one verse from the N ew
W orld Translation (John 1:1) and two from a R e­
v ise d Stan dard Version (Rom. 9:5 and Heb. 1:8),
hoping he would fool someone. He could fool us
about as quick as the Pope could fool Ian Paisley.
He omitted Luke 2:33 in the A m erican Stan dard
Version and the N ew A m erican Stan dard Version,
John 3:13 in the A m erican Stan dard Version and
the N ew A m erican Stan dard Version, Luke 23:42
in the A m erican Stan dard Version and the N ew
A m erican Standard Version, Acts 4:27 in the A m eri­
can Stan dard Version and the N ew A m erican Stan­
da rd Version, and 1 Timothy 3:16 in the A m erican
S tan dard Version and the N ew A m erican Stan dard
Version. The Mafia protects its “hit” men: their
fortunes are bound up together. Once “in,” you
cannot get out.
3. For this humanistic slop, see “Bible Trans­
lations" {B iblical E vangelism , 1979), where the fol­
lowing saved sinners are mustered to convince you
that the Holy Bible CANNOT be the final author­
ity. Instead, you are to abide by the opinions of the
sinners. The men listed are James M. Gray (p. 1),
W. B. Riley (p. 13), R. A. Torrey (pp. 14, 15),
Spurgeon (p. 16), John Rice (p. 17), Louis Talbot
(p. 19), Scroggie (p. 20), and others. I have Riley
and Torrey making statements absolutely co n tra ­
d icto ry to what Sumner recorded, and I have Spur­
geon and John R. Rice stating that the book they
have “in their hands” is the infallible, inerrant word
of God. Sumner just picked manifestations of the
OLD NATURE to establish a humanistic “historic
position.” The Lord took Spurgeon home within
one year after he “used” the R evised Version of
1885 in his pulpit. It finished him (see C. H. Spur­
geon, A utobiography, Vol. 2, Banner of Truth Pub­
lishers, p. 497. He “used” the corrupt R evised Ver­
sion of 1881).
4. The changes that came out in Nestle’s “stan­
dard edition” amounted to 712 in the twenty-sixth
edition (1979). Thom as W hitney of the Bible
Believer’s Church in Mesa, Arizona, tabulated them
and found 465 of them had been readjusted to the
Textus R eceptus of the A u th orized Version, 183 had
been readjusted to oppose the Textus R eceptus of
the A u th orized Version, and there were sixty-two
non-designated changes.
 CHAPTER ONE

1. In C hristianity Today (October 20, 1978),

you will find “A DOZEN BIBLES— A SURVEY”
and an article in their December 5, 1975 issue on
“HOW TO C H O O SE A BIBLE. ”
No writer believes that A N Y BIBLE is the word
of God.
In an article called “GOOD THINKING” (i.e.,
nutty as a fruit cake), published in E ternity M a g a ­
zine, we have Dr. Bruce and Drs. Skilton, Mounce,
Studer, LaSor, Michaels, Hawthorne, Ehrenstein,
et al., coming forward to recommend “a” transla­
tion. They chose from twenty-six and wind up with
anything except the King James, and none of their
own recommendations do anything for them: that
is, they do not accept any of their own recommen­
dations as the final authority. Their opinions re­
main as the final authority.
The A cadem ic Dean of M idw estern (Tom
M alone’s school) “uses” the A u th o rized Version
(April 11, 1978) but never professed to believe for
a minute that it was the word of God or contained
the words of God. Ditto Lehmann Strauss (May
12, 1978), who “used” the N ew A m erican Standard
Version, the R evised S tan dard Version, and the A u­
th o rized Version, but didn’t believe any of them.
There is a “Special Bible Section” in B ib lica l
A rchaeology R eview (November-December, 1982)
by Dewey Beegle (pp. 56-61), where eight ver­
sions are recommended; the A u th orized Version is
not one of them.
When Robert Clark wrote D ayton H obbs (Santa
Rosa Christian Schools, September 12, 1979), he
asked the president (Dayton Hobbs) which Bible
w as G o d ’s “inerrant, holy word, fr e e fro m e rr o r? ”
He n ever heard from H obbs. Instead, a flunky
named Peter Foxx wrote back a two page letter
THAT D ID N ’T G IV E THE NAM E OF ONE
TRANSLATION IN A N Y LANGU AGE FROM THE
FIRST CENTURY to 1979. Patiently, Brother Clark
wrote again and got another two page letter with­
out the mention of ONE TRANSLATION IN ANY
LANGUAGE FOR TWENTY CENTURIES. In­
stead, Foxx included what he called a “clear and
precise” answer from the old liar who wrote The
Truth A bou t the K ing Jam es C ontroversy (Custer);
Custer did not mention one translation. Patiently,
Clarke wrote a third time and got THIS back: “Our
correspondence has deteriorated to the point of sar­
casm and innuendo” !
That is the Cult mentality. The cheap little liar
couldn’t an sw er the question, and he knew his boss
couldn’t answer it (Dayton Hobbs), so he blam ed
th eir cow ardice on a B ap tist pastor. Typical. Stan­
dard Operating Procedure in the Cult.
2. The Second A m erican R evolution, by John
W. W hitehead (David Cook Publishers, Elgin, Illi­
nois, 1982), shows that the Supreme Court con­
fessed that the contemporary fads of a commu­
nity— as established by the News Media— deter­
mined what was “legal” and what was not (Chap.
4, p. 51). With 152 bureaucratic District Court
Judges in power (p. 60), their final authority was
the prevailing opinions of the community, as deter­
mined by TV, magazines, radio, and newspapers
(Chap. 5, p. 69).
3. Thomas Nelson called the RSV “AUTHO­
RIZED” in all of the Madison Avenue promotions
( The N ew Bible, Carl Mclntire, Collingswood, New
Jersey, 1952, p. 10). It was “authorized” by the
National Council of Christian Churches (Sumner,
The N ew B ible, 1963, p. 2, published by the
Laym en’s Commission, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania).
4. Advertising brochures were sent out by Tho­
mas Nelson, with no author or date attached to
them. We cited page 1 of one of them. The other
extravagant pamphlet ran eight pages, full size,
and on it Thomas Nelson justified The N ew K ing
Jam es Version on the grounds that “THE WORDS
OF MAN BEGAN TO OBSCURE THE WORD
OF GOD.” (This, after 371 years! “BEGAN to ob­
scure.” They are som ethin’ else, ain’t they honey?)
In nine points concerning the “guidelines” for revis­
ing, Thomas Nelson and Sons said that the “TRUE
MEANINGS” of the A u th orized Version text have
been PRESERVED.
5. The Naval Intelligence identified them as
pro-Communist in 1935 ( Fifty Counts o f Treason,
Hargis, Christian Crusade, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1961)
with a Socialist-M arxist clergy from Russia, fi­
nanced by Communists, and their general board of
leaders were involved in pushing sixty Communist
projects through the Congress (Victor Sears, H ow
R a d ic a l is the N a tio n a l C o u n c il o f C h ristia n
Churches?, Cantrell Printing Company, Ft. Worth,
1967: pp. 20-22, 8, and 14). They led attacks on
the House Un-American Activities Committee and
all anti-Communists (pp. 20-27); they were affili­
ated with the A m erican Civil Liberties Union
(“ACLU”), and their Executive Secretary, Samuel
McCrae Cavert, said “the supernatural is widely
unfashionable if not unintelligible” (p. 13, Ecu­
m enical F o lly , Archer Weniger, Sword Publishers,
1961).
6. The copyright was given to the Communist
National Council of Churches so that anyone who
bought a version would be contributing to sixty
Communist causes (see footnote 5). Twenty-six hun­
dred rallies were held to push sales, and they ex­
pended $500,000 to sell the first million copies:
that is, they spent half as much to advertise one
book as to make it (see M clntire, The N ew Bible,
pp. 1, 19). The American Bible Society joined this
Communist group in 1950. When trying to sell the
R evised Standard Version, Thomas Nelson and Sons
slyly omitted the connection of the NCC with it
( C hristian Beacon, M clntire, Dec. 13, 1956).
The R evised S tan dard Version used the same
gimmick as the N ew K ing Jam es Version board.
They said “rendering of the COMPLETE TEXT of
the A u th orized Version into the language of today”
(September 30, 1952, Vancouver Sun).
Only Bob Jones University could “outlie” a
crew like that.
7. Rockwood ( G o d ’s Inspired P reserved Bible,
People’s Gospel Hour, Halifax, Nova Scotia) says
that the men who “authorized” it didn’t believe the
Bible literally (p. 17), didn't believe in the Virgin
Birth (p. 16), did not believe in the sacrificial atone­
ment (p. 16), or in the literal history of the Gospels
(pp. 17-18), or the Old Testament.
8. See footnote 1. The term “K ing Jam es Only
people” is found in this correspondence (Sept. 24,
1979). Bobby-Wobby Jonsey-Wonsey, the Three-
sey-Weesy, converts this to A HERESY he calls
“K ing Jam es O nlylSM .” Someone is hard put for a
hearing. I use tw en ty-eigh t English translations,
p lu s fo u r different G reek texts, a Latin text, a G e r­
man translation, an d tw o H ebrew O ld Testaments.
9. The N ew Intern ational Version agrees with
Westcott and Hort on 138 out of 151 corruptions:
that is 91 percent (Norman Ward, P erfected o r P e r ­
verted, Which Bible Society, Grand Rapids, M ichi­
gan, p. 17). Rockwood (A R eview o f the N ew In­
tern ation al Version and the N ew A m erican Stan­
d a rd Version) cited the Wall Street Journal (Nov.
16, 1928) for the money-making gimmick. He was
promptly kicked off the air of WMUU, the Univer­
sity rad io sta tio n o f Bob Jo n es U n iv ersity .
Rockwood says simply, “The primary reason is the
U niversity’s COM PROM ISE STAND ON THE
KING JAMES VERSION. ” Imagine that, after Bob
Jones Jr. telling you that Falwell and Lee Robert­
son were not “m ilitant” !
10. Burgon ( The L a st Twelve Verses o f Mark,
James Parker Company, London, 1871) explains
the omission (pp. 212-239), gives the texts of the
lectionaries for it (pp. 191-209), gives the manu­
script evidence favorable to it (pp. 70-106), gives
the internal evidence favorable to it (pp. 136-175),
and the evidence in the early versions for it (pp.
32-36). To this day (1988), Nestle and the UBS
corruptions still endorse it as “not belonging” to
the “ORIGINAL” TEXT. They do this w ithou t c it­
ing ONE lo g ica l o r S criptu ral argum ent f o r doing
so. It is almost like Stewart Custer saying that the
Alexandrian Family of manuscripts are “orthodox”
(Custer, p. 6).
11. The official position of Bob Jones Univer­
sity is that there is N O BIBLE. We cite Custer and
Neal: “The dominating concern for all BIBLE-re-
lated courses . . . is what THE BIBLE teaches . . .
when we teach the content of THE BIBLE . . .
sometimes we will consult . . . the A m erican Stan­
d a rd Version of 1901, or the N ew A m erican Stan­
dard Version which at times give the most accurate
rendering of the Greek . . . we have no sympathy
with any VERSION o f the BIBLE that is not faith­
ful to THE Greek text . . . today there are TWO
Greek texts available . . . Christians should be free
to choose and use EITHER of these texts and still
work together in harmony . . . .”
The A m e ric a n S ta n d a rd Version, the N ew
A m erican Standard Version, and the R evised Stan­
d a rd Version are from the same text as the N ew
International Version, the N ew R evised Standard
Version, and the N ew English Bible.
In the above, the word “Bible” disappears and
shows up as THREE translations, tw o o f which are
in line w ith the R evised Standard Version text o f
the N ation al C ouncil o f Churches.
12. Custer ( The Truth A bou t the King Jam es
Version C ontroversy, 1981). In this work, you will
find fifteen lies that were documented as Custer
recorded them on pages 1 (Introduction), 3, 5, 6, 9,
10, 13, 23, 26, 35, etc. Four of them are direct and
purposeful misquotations of material written by the
author, and the rest of them range from lies about
the dates of versions and the quality of texts, to the
c h a ra cter o f Jesus Christ, to the orthodoxy of men
who denied that Genesis 1-3 was history.
13. There is no doubt about anyone’s “stand”
at Bob Jones University; Biblically, they are sol­
idly RO M AN CATHOLIC TO THE CORE. Mar­
shal Neal says (Dec. 23, 1963) in a letter to Mr.
Fellure, “The A m erican S tan dard Version IS BY
FAR THE MOST RELIABLE VERSION.” The
A m erican Stan dard Version is the Greek Vaticanus
text of Westcott and Hort published in 1582 in the
Jesuit Bible of Rheims. Bob Jones III says (Aug.
31, 1971), “Our Bible faculty believes the A m eri­
can Stan dard Version is a MORE TRUE and re­
fined translation than the K ing J a m e s.” So, they
d o n ’t use it publicly.
By their own admission, they reject what is
“TRUE.” The A m erican Stan dard Version is the
English translation of the Jesuit Greek Text of the
Dark Ages (1582), as we have stated for thirty-
eight years.
14. Thereby confirming the Jehovah’s Witness
teaching that there were two Gods; one crea ted
and one not created. However, anyone who had
watched the mammoth “aping of peers” that took
place after the A m erican Stan dard Version came
out (see footnote 15) knew what to expect from an
Arian like Stewart Custer, for the A m erican Stan­
d a rd Version (1901) that he and all of his col­
leagues had plugged said, in a comment on John
9:38, that when homage was paid to Jesus Christ, it
was paid to a “CREATURE,” not the “CREATOR. ”
We cite directly from the A m erican Standard Ver­
sion of 1901: “The Greek word denotes an act of
reverence w hether paid to a CREATURE (AS
HERE), or the Creator.” “As here” (John 9:38) was
a reference to a con vert w orshipping Jesus Christ.
(So much for the ORTHODOXY of the Bible de­
partment at Bob Jones University.)
15. The aping job was a mammoth worldwide
“Simon says . . . .” All of the suckers with college
educations fell for it; all the Greek and Hebrew
professors fell for it; it was almost “historic” in its
unparalleled lunacy. None of the “apes” were on
the “lunatic fringe”; they were dead center in the
midst of a shrink’s counseling room. With the
MORAL character of the A m erican Stan dard Ver­
sion set before them (see footnote 14) and the
MORAL accruements that accompanied its com­
mittee and their backgrounds, the Professor of New
Testament Interpretation at Louisville Theological
Seminary said (Dec. 30, 1963) to check all transla­
tions against the A m erican Stan dard Version. Rob­
ert Picrilli of the Free Will Baptist College said
(Jan. 9, 1964) that the A m erican Standard Version
was more accurate, more literal, and better than the
A u th orized Version. Gleason Archer Jr. of Fuller
Theological Seminary said (April 3, 1964) that the
A m erican Stan dard Version was the most accurate
available. Donald Crites, Vice President of the Prai­
rie Bible Institute (Canada) said (Sept. 10, 1964)
that the A m erican Standard Version was the best
translation. Paul Haik of Moody said (Jan. 13, 1969)
it was the best, as did John Walvoord of Dallas
Theological Seminary (Jan. 2, 1969). MASS H YS­
TERIA: emotional panic, mob psychology.
These backslidden apostates were “aping their
peers” as fast as they could slobber, without inves­
tigating ANYTHING. They ignored all of Burgon’s
researches, all of H oskier’s collations, and all of
the God-dishonoring, Christ-defying blasphemies
in the version itself, and repeated the Cult cliches
like they were automatons on a 110-volt circuit.
16. The baton twirler here is William F. Kerr
writing for Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, in
December of 1974. Again, mustering all of the hu­
manistic love for humans that a Bible rejecting
hum anist can m uster (see Sum ner in Preface,
endnote 3, behaving just like any unsaved liberal),
Kerr gives us the recommendations of Dr. Myron
Boyd, a Methodist Bishop, Bill Bright of Campus
Crusade, F. F. Bruce, Rev. Robert Bums (Catholic),
Bill Glass, Vernon Grounds (President, Conserva­
tive Baptist Theological Seminary), Paul Harvey
of ABC Network, Dr. Lloyd Ogilvie (First Holly­
wood Press), Robert Schuller (Garden Grove “Com­
munity” Press), Paul Smith (People’s Church), and
Terry Young of the New Orleans Baptist Seminary.
These men all recommended Kenneth Taylor’s “Liv­
in g ” Bible.
17. We list a few discoveries that were power­
less to throw any real spiritual light on ONE VERSE
IN EITHER TESTAMENT: The Gilgamesh Epic,
The Rosetta Stone, The Moabite Stone, The Tel
A m arna T ablets, The D ead Sea S crolls, The
Megiddo Ivories, The Manual of Discipline, The
Tomb of Tutankhamen, The Tomb of Amenhotep,
Wooley’s Excavations in Ur, The Behistun Inscrip­
tions, The Code of Hammurabi, The Nuzi Tablets,
The Palace of Sargon, The Cemetery under St.
Peter’s, The Nag Hammadi Gnostic Texts, The Si­
naiticus Septuagint, The Babylonian Chronicles,
The Vaticanus Manuscript at Rome, etc., etc.
18. The word “begotten” has been taken out
of John 3:16 to match the R evised Standard Ver­
sion of the NCC. Christ got into a “brawl” at a
friend’s house in Zechariah 13:6, and He is NOT
the “ONE MEDIATOR between God and men”
in 1 Timothy 2:5. The cross reference to new wine
in the communion was removed from Deuteronomy
32:14, all the names of the daughters in Numbers
27:1 have been om itted, Christ only “kept his
bones” by sheer ACCIDENT (Psa. 34:20), and the
word “perfect” has been removed from Genesis
6:9, 17:1; and Luke 6:40, but ADDED to Galatians
6:5.
19. August, 1943, given at Trinity College in
Clearwater.
20. Criswell, cited from his Commentary on
A cts, Vol. 1, pp. 204 and 263.
21. Truman Dollar is cited from pages 226
and 232 of Fires from M any A ltars (a series of
messages preached during a Congress of Funda­
mentalism).
22. Jerry Falwell is cited from page 292 of
Fires fro m M any A ltars.
23. Torrey’s justification of the King James
Bible will be found in the publication by Moody
Press, 1898, called O ur B ible, by Charles Leach,
pp. 114 and 130. Observe that in all cases, the
 “good, godly men” are “caught with their pants
down” when faced with the Alexandrian Cult. Their
old natures cannot stand RIDICULE: they must be
recognized as . . gods, knowing good and evil”
(Gen. 3:5), so they attem pt to qualify for the
S ch o la r’s Union. Note that John R. Rice, after
roundly and soundly denying that A N Y TRANSLA­
TION was perfect, forgot that he had preached the
following on June 12, 1945 in Aurora, Illinois.
(Fortunately, E. L. Bynum recorded him.) Rice,
waving his King James Bible over his head, shouted
to the crowd, “WE HAVE A PERFECT BIBLE.”
(Bynum, King James Fans, Tabernacle Baptist
Church, Lubbock, Texas, 1979, p. 19).
Did he mean it?
Well, if you believed ANYTHING he wrote in
the Sword o f the Lord during the last five years
before he died, you would have to say that he was
lying (the reader should note the “Accommodation
Theory” of Semler as apostates apply it to saying,
“The Bible is the word of God”).
24. These are the words of Charles Haddon
Spurgeon, printed by John R. Rice in his own news­
paper, Sept. 24, 1977. When Herb Evans (Feb. 13,
1973) years ago engaged John R. Rice in a contro­
versy concerning these things, Evans quoted Spur­
geon to Rice. Rice replied that Spurgeon was not
making reference to the King James Bible when he
said what he said. But what Rice printed in 1977
(Sept. 24) was Spurgeon waving a King James Bible
as he preached it, and KNEELING BEFORE IT as
he told his congregation TO TAKE IT HOME AND
READ IT.
 Note that Robert Sumner (Bible Translations)
is as completely unreliable (and as unprincipled)
as the worst religious Liberal who ever lived when
it comes to these matters. He recommends you to
follow the LIAR in the believer instead of the Holy
Spirit in the believer.
25. Lindsell’s work was published by Zonder­
van (NIV) and recommended at Liberty University.
It is more than 100 pages of Cult cliches, term inat­
ing in what we have written in Appendix One. It
carefully ducks all three issues documented in 1970
in The C hristian’s Handbook o f M anuscript Evi­
dence and deals with nothing but arguments about
pieces of paper that no one has seen for eighteen
centuries. Carson’s The King James Version Con­
troversy is even less relevant. He proposes thirteen
theses. The first four are Cult cliches from 1880, as
defined by Westcott and Hort. (All four were “de­
mythologized” more than 100 years ago.) Thesis
six is just a denial of God’s providence. Theses
seven and eight are H ort’s Cult cliches from 1880.
Thesis nine is a denial of the documentary evi­
dence found in manuscripts that we have photo­
static copies of, etc., etc.,
 CHAPTER TWO

1. Karl Barth (The Doctrine o f the Word o f

God, T. and T. Clarke, 1936, pp. 104 and 122)
shows us that the term “Word of God” (capital
“W” on “Word”) is NEVER a reference to “SCRIP­
TURE.” So when Custer— representing the Bible
Department at Bob Jones University— writes, he
uses the term exactly as BARTH uses it (see Custer,
pp. 15-16). C uster’s Neo-Orthodoxy is violently
and plainly presented: “What God has said about
His Word . . . God sends his Word in the form of
translations . . . a good translation can be CALLED
‘G od’s W ord’ . . . the power of G od’s Word . . .
those flawed versions of the Bible some men can
HEAR fragments of G od’s Word . . . use the most
accurate translation that they can find to study
G od’s Word . . . so that they can study God’s word
in the very WORDS in which God inspired His
Word . . . to treat a single translation in a single
language as though it were G od’s sole revelation
of His Word . . . etc.”
Observe that “the Word” to Custer is not A N Y
BOOK THAT HAS WORDS IN IT that you can
read.
You study “the Word” by looking at a library
of books. Barth and Brunner would buy that if it
cost them $50,000 an ounce.
2. Emil Brunner (The Word and the World,
Scribners and Sons, 1931, pp. 90-120, and Chris­
tian Doctrines, Westminster Press, 1946) uses the
“Scriptures” constantly when quoting the proof texts
for his beliefs (note how Custer did the same thing,
citing Isa. 55:11 to prove that only the inspired
words are in the past and not in print), and then
said that the Scriptures he quoted were “errone­
ous” and “inaccurate.” Thus, Custer (Bob Jones
U niversity) said that “the present day believer
should read HIS BIBLE with the faith that it is
God’s Word” (p. 16), but it has “notorious” errors
in it (p. 13) that can only be defended with a “blind
defense,” and it has (p. 14) words that were “cre­
a ted ” and are “spurious” (p. 11).
THIS IS THE DOCTRINAL POSITION OF
BARTH, BRUNNER, ALL N E O -O R TH O D O X
THEOLOGIANS, AND ALL NEO-EVANGELI­
CALS.
3. This is the term that John R. Rice applied
to born-again, soul-winning, Bible-believing people
in the body of Christ (Sword o f the Lord, March
30, 1979). Disobeying his own instructions to use
Christian language, and going against his own con­
victions about the way “Ruckman” talks, Rice pro­
ceeded to call Bible-believers “radicals,” “igno­
rant,” “railing,” “suspicious,” and accused them of
having “bad m otives.” Not content with this vilifi­
cation, the dear, old, sweet, godly saint said that
Ruckman was a “FALSE TEACHER” who split
churches and broke up his “own home,” and “who
I HEAR is in even worse trouble now” (Evans,
Dear Dr. John, Where is My Bible?, Feb. 2, 1973).
E. L. Bynum answered Rice in his own book­
let on the Fans (see footnote 23 in Chapter One).
4. “The Lunatic Fringe” has become a com­
monly used expression for anyone who believes
the Authorized Version is the Holy Bible. The idea
is that those who criticize it, find errors in it, cor­
rect it, and ridicule it are “moderate” Christians
and “well balanced.” It is interesting to note that
the term is not only applied to Bible believers by
such men as Hindson and Dobson (Liberty Univer­
sity), but it is also the name applied to them by the
ROM AN CATHOLIC HIERA RCH Y (A nthony
Giles, F und a m entalism , W hat E very C atholic
Should Know, Nihil Obstat, 1984, p. 8). A “Lunatic
Fringe Protestant,” in this official Roman Catholic
publication bearing the imprimatur of the Bishop
(nihil obstat), is anyone who says that CATHOLI­
CISM is not “Christian.” This would make some
Catholics in California real nuts, for one of them
told me when I asked her about her salvation, “NO,
I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN: I AM A CATHOLIC.”
You will get that answer nine times out of ten
anywhere south of Texas.
 1. Custer, p. 16. “The believer may safely leave
such problems to the discussions of theological
and textual experts.” Having done this, Custer im­
mediately presents himself as a textual expert on
one of the problems and tells Mrs. Gilbert (one o f
my church m em bers) how her Bible SHOULD
READ! Note the following, after telling the “be­
liever” to leave such matters to EXPERTS: “The
most notorious text of this nature is 1 John 5:7 . . .
there are only two [Greek manuscripts] that have
the text of the Authorized Version 1611 . . . there is
no reason to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity.
In this context it distracts from the direction of
thought that John manifested” (p. 14). We have
undertaken to correct Custer in these matters, since
we certainly are as “EXPERT” as him or any of the
liars who follow his lying example (see Chapter
One, footnote 12).
This is what Custer wrote to one of my church
members (Jan. 3, 1978): “There is a verse that
reads in the King James (Acts 3:15) ‘. . . and
K IL L E D TH E PR IN C E O F L IF E .’ This verse
refers to the Jew s’ crucifixion of our Lord Jesus
Christ. The word translated ‘P rince’ is the very
same word that is translated in Hebrews 12:2 ‘a u ­
th o r ’ . . . what gives the King James translators the
right to translate the SAME GREEK WORD ‘a u ­
t h o r ’ in Hebrews, and ‘P rin c e ’ in Acts 3:15
. . . ? this is a thought that you could not get from
the King James which is clearly in the Greek
THE BIBLE CUSTER SAID WAS TRUE “TO
 THE GREEK TEXT” (THE N E W AM ERIC AN
STANDARD VERSIO N ) TRANSLATED oicav-
THREE DIFFERENT WAYS. So much for
the “experts.”
Custer meant what all Alexandrian Cult lead­
ers mean: “LEAVE BIBLE CORRECTING UP TO
US, AND WE WILL CORRECT YOUR BIBLE
FOR YOU, BECAUSE WE KNOW MORE THAN
YOU DO.”
2. This is “moveable type.” The first Bible
was completed about A.D. 1454; it was known as
the Gutenberg Bible or the “Mazarin B ible” or the
“42-Line Bible. ” Gutenberg resided at Mainz, and
his partners were Peter Schoffer and Johann Fust.
3. Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1, Section 31,
cited by Luibheld, The Essential Eusebius (A M en­
tor Omega Book, New York, 1966, pp. 212, 214,
213, and 210). Eusebius’ Life o f Constantine, Eccle­
siastical History, Vol. Ill, section 10.
In these references, Constantine still reigns
“eternally,” after having a funeral that was the
“greatest marvel that appeared on earth” since Gen­
esis 1:1. The dead sinner was a “Saviour,” who,
upon being sprinkled with water (on his death bed),
asserted that he had deserved immortal life and so
could take the SEAL “which gives salvation.”
Credulous dupes, like the faculty at Bob Jones Uni­
versity, took such reporting seriously and used it as
a means of justifying the heresies of Origen. This
was done on the grounds that Eusebius also claimed
that Origen had suffered persecution “for what he
believed.” NEITHER ORIGEN NOR EUSEBIUS
told anyone what these “beliefs” were, who admin­
istered the persecution, or why it was administered.
Custer took Eusebius’ word for it, exactly the way
Zane Hodges wanted his reader to take his word
for it that the Authorized Version was full of mis­
takes.
4. Pamphilus “amplifies” Origen’s manuscripts
at Caesarea (Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 2).
Pamphilus formed the link between Origen and
Eusebius (p. 154). There is “little doubt that the
Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts were amongst the
fruits of the school” (p. 153). “The probability that
Sinaiticus was thus at least in part copied from a
manuscript executed by PAMPHILUS and is es­
tablished by the facts . . . .” (p. 164). St. Jerome
mentions that the manuscripts executed by Origen
“were published by Pamphilus and Eusebius” (p.
164). The Satanic Trinity is in evidence to any
layman: Origen-Pamphilus-Eusebius, to Constan­
tine and Jerome, to Hort, Nestle, Custer, Panosian,
Provan, Schraeder, Sumner, Kutilek, and Cornette.
“A school was organized at Caesarea by Pamphilus
(p. 309), who established also an exegetical library
in which ORIGEN’S HEXAPLA (The “Septua-
g in t”\) was kept” (Fred Bratton, A History o f the
Bible, Beacon Press, Boston, 1959, p. 293). Two
and two is four: the “Hexapla” is a Greek Old
Testament containing the Apocrypha, and an Alex­
andrian text from Africa accompanies it in the New
Testament writings of Origen.
5. C uster’s defense of the gross blasphemies
of Origen (salvation by a mystical kiss, purgatory,
universal salvation, baptismal regeneration, denial
of the fall of Adam in Gen. 1-3, etc.) is on the
 humanistic grounds that if he suffered persecution:
a. It had to be because he was a Christian, b. It had
to be because he was “orthodox.” c. It was proof
that he was “godly.” NOT ONE OF THE THREE
STATEMENTS IS THE LOGIC OF A SANE MAN
who has studied Church History. Christians suffer
for their own faults (1 Pet. 2:20), they suffer for
DENYING Biblical truths (the Jesuits in Japan in
the sixteenth century, for example), and many a
demon-possessed murderer has suffered the ago­
nies of the damned without being the least bit
“godly.” Custer is a religious Liberal in his M EN­
TAL PROCESSES. Ditto Robert Sumner, Bob Jones
Jr., John MacArthur, and Chuck Swindoll.
6. The follow ing Church Fathers were all
Premillennialists (Shirley Case Jackson, The M il­
lennial Hope, University of Chicago Press, 1918,
pp. 1 7 1 -1 7 4 ): Ig n atiu s, P ap ias, H ip p o ly tu s,
Commodian, Justin, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Poly­
carp. It is ORIGEN, JEROME, and AUGUSTINE
who believe in “bringing in the Kingdom” at Rome
by sprinkling babies.
7. See Ruckman, The History o f the New Tes­
tament Church, 1982, Vol. I, Chapter 5, on “Africa’s
Most Unusual University” : This is the origin and
source of the “Alexandrian Cult,” so perfectly de­
scribed in Appendix One. Its foundation is DUAL
AUTHORITIES. The faculty substitute as the Fi­
nal Authority, “God.”
8. Among them: Agrapha, Anaphora, Apodictic
Law, Aretology, Diachronic, Synchronic, Endzeit,
E p in icio n , H apaxlegom enon, H yp o co ristico n ,
Inclusio, Paraenesis, Paradosis, Tropology, and four
dozen more. As in all trades, the DOLLAR BILL
(Mark, Peso, Franc, Pound, whatever) is the main
consideration. The tradesm an cannot properly
charge for his services unless he makes his trade
look IMPRESSIVE and UNUSUAL. All members
of the Alexandrian Cult from Origen to E. S. En­
glish handle matters in this fashion.
9. Bobby-Wobby “the third,” like a Catholic
priest, is always trying to “explain his position.”
His position is crystal clear: he doesn’t believe that
any student who comes to his school can find one
book on this earth that is the infallible word of
God. I cite from two letters (Aug. 31, 1971, and
Nov. 1978), where Bob Jones I ll’s “position” on
the Scriptures was consistent for seven years. “We
also believe God has preserved the INTEGRITY
of His Word down through the centuries . . . the
King James Version is still the most beautiful, the
most POETIC, the most readable, the most majes­
tic. It is the version we USE in all of our services
here . . . I did not say that it is possible to improve
upon the Word of God [not “version,” not “Bible":
note the “Word”] . . . the American Standard Ver­
sion of 1901 is a reliable translation . . . in these
TWO versions we believe God has protected the
INTEGRITY of His Word [the Neo-Orthodox des­
ignation: see Chapter Two, footnote 1]. W hile I
think God has blessed the King James, while 1
personally PREACH from no other version, while
I earnestly contend for the Faith, I do not contend
for HOBBIES.”
“The King James Version has been HISTORI­
CALLY IDENTIFIED with Fundamentalism, and
 we hold it in the highest regard. NEVERTHELESS
. . . that does not mean that I cannot accept other
translations as being good and have certain values
for study purposes . . . where the rendering in those
translations [he publicly said the American Stan­
dard Version and the New American Standard Ver­
sion were the translations] might be more precise
and just as legitimate and true to THE GREEK
ORIGINAL [see Chapter Three on The Professional
Liars— the “Greek O riginal” at Bob Jones Univer­
sity is N estle’s Catholic Greek text] the King James
. . . is perfectly ADEQUATE . . . we do not
PREACH or TEACH from anything other than the
King James . . . but the American Standard also
has its strong points.”
a. No translation is the Holy Bible.
b. He uses, preaches, and teaches what he be­
lieves is NOT the Holy Bible.
c. Two standards of translations (that cross
each other 30,000 times) are “used.”
d. No book is perfect, no Bible is infallible,
no translation is THE WORD OF GOD,
containing the words that God gave or pre­
served: only the “INTEGRITY” has been
“preserved.”
THIS IS THE OFFICIAL CREED OF THE
ALEXANDRIAN CULT PRINTED IN APPENDIX
ONE.
The writer above (Bob Jones III) is the final
authority in all matters of faith and practice, and
he uses what he prefers to be “identified with,”
while freely correcting it and denying what it says
in places to which he objected. Ditto Arthur Farstad,
Zane H odges, R obert Sum ner, Doug K utilek,
Comette, Provan, Schraeder, MacRae, Newman,
Kenneth Brown, Ed Hinson, and all members of
the Alexandrian Cult.
10. You will find the Eusebian canons printed
in all the old editions of Nestle (1898-1969, 1979)
on pages 73-78 of the introduction. There is one
canon through four gospels, three canons through
three gospels, and five canons through two gos­
pels. The last canons are unique readings in each
of the four gospels.
11. There is no doubt about the violently
ANTI-CATHOLIC nature of Erasm us’ “few late
medieval manuscripts.” The editor of the Com-
plutensian Bible (Diego Lopez) states that “it is an
open condemnation on the version of the church”
(W. Schwartz, p. 164). “The version of the church”
here is identified with the Revised Version of 1885,
the American Standard Version of 1901, the New
American Standard Version of 1963, and the New
International Version of 1978. “A correspondent
of Erasmus in 1553 sent that scholar a number of
selected readings from Codex B [Vaticanus] as proof
of its superiority to the Received Greek text”
(Kenyon, Our Bible, p. 133). Erasmus, as any “King
James Onlyism Bible believer” in 1988, rejected
them flatly. He knew a rattlesnake when he saw it.
It is the Roman Catholic Bishop Kenrick (1849)
who states that all R eform ers adopted ANTI-
CATHOLIC VERSIONS, because they came from
Erasmus. The Bishop would call the Revised Ver­
sion, the American Standard Version, the New
American Standard Version, and the New Interna­
 tional Version PRO-CATHOLIC VERSIONS, for
that is exactly what they are.
12. This makes them “neutral,” and Hort words
it as “It is MORALLY certain . . . that their pre­
eminent RELATIVE purity is APPROXIMATELY
absolute” (Burgon, p. 305, The Revision Revised,
citing H ort’s Introduction, p. 296). “Approximate­
ly absolute”? How about “A BSO LU TELY A P ­
PROXIM ATE"? Vaticanus and Sinaiticus represent
a “VERY PURE line of ancient text” (ibid., p. 251)
because they have “the ring of genuineness” (!) (p.
277, cited by Burgon, p. 307). Strangely enough,
this “island of purity” turns out to be the city that
crucified Christ, killed Peter, cut off Paul’s head,
and gave birth to “HARLOTS” (Rev. 17:5). West-
cott and Hort thought that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
were both written in ROME (Scrivener, A Plain
Introduction to the Criticism o f the New Testament,
London, William Clowes and Sons, 1883, p. 121).
13. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus ARE “Septua­
gint” manuscripts according to every Septuagint
concordance in print. Herklott’s How Our Bible
Came To Us (Oxford University Press, 1954) says
on page 119 that the fifth column of O rigen’s
Hexapla written by himself IS the LXX. Affirma­
tive. Roger. The LXX is “a bat out of hell,” and it
was written more than 150 years after the Resur­
rection of Jesus Christ and more than 100 years
after the close of the New Testament canon.
14. Page 147, in any standard edition by
Nestle, with the note (Introduction, p. 44) that the
double brackets mean “. . . are KNOWN not to be
a part of the ORIGINAL TEXT” (see Chapter
Seven, The Professional Liars). Nestle never saw
any “original text” a day in his life. Neither did
Aland or Metzger, who double bracket the same
passage on page 196 of any standard edition of the
United Bible Societies’ (Roman Catholic) edition
of the Greek New Testament.
15. Roman superstitions began to be preached
in England by the clergymen (after 1835) that had
been considered to be Catholic myths for 200 years,
Cranmer and Latimer were converted from saints
to traitors, Charles the First, who tried to get his
countrymen murdered, was canonized, and M ilton’s
name was spoken in horror. In fifty years, 400
Catholic priests multiplied to 2,600 in England,
400 Catholic chapels grew into 1,575, and the 16
convents of 1837 grew into 400, as Westcott and
Hort sat down to restore the Catholic Dark Age
American Standard Version, New International Ver­
sion, and New American Standard Version (Coy,
op cit., pp. 18-20, citing Froude, Short Studies
About Great Subjects, pp. 163-164, and 180; and
Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation, pp. 2 -
3).
16. This humanistic, positivistic, evolutionary
position will be found described on page 41 (Intro­
duction) of any standard edition of N estle’s after
1979. Nestle does not blush to confess that he and
his fellow consorts had replaced the God-honored
Textus Receptus with a “KIND OF NEW TEXTUS
RECEPTUS” (p. 40). We find the “new form ” and
the “new perspective” (p. 41) and C uster’s old
“wealth of information” all present in the stereo­
typed presentation.
 17. The Trinitarian Bible Society’s Quarterly,
October-December 1985, no. 493: “The Bible is
made safe for Roman Catholic use in several dif­
ferent ways; firstly by the inclusion of explanatory
notes approved by Catholic authorities, secondly
by the insertion OF THE APO CRYPH AL BOOKS”
(p. 19). The “notes” reinforce purgatory, the Lord’s
Supper as a sacrifice, the Pope as an infallible
teacher, and Mary as a sinless Queen of Heaven
who can hear the prayers of 500,000,000 people at
the same time (p. 20).
18. The ecumenical projects of Aland-Metzger-
Nestle-Hort-Origen-Eusebius-Jerome and Co. (The
United Bible Societies) included Roman Catholic
Apocryphal “bibles” for Africa, Brazil, Japan, the
Philippines, Egypt, Italy, Malta, Norway, Portugal,
Spain, and Yugoslavia (pp. 25-29) to counteract
the Receptus translations of Ignatius-D onatus-
Polycarp-Chrysostom-Luther-Knox and Co.
19. This material has been available for twenty
years at Pensacola Bible Institute, although no fac­
ulty member at any recognized school had access
to it, evidently. Nestle, Aland, and Metzger, in their
latest Greek editions, can only change thirty-five
words (they omit seventeen, add five, and alter
thirteen), leaving 100 of Erasmus’ “spurious words”
(spurious according to the faculty and staff at Bob
Jones University, see p. 26). Of the thirty-five words
which Aland, Nestle, and M etzger messed with,
none made any difference in English, anyway.
(Note: this is all the standard alibi all CULT mem­
bers use when altering 30,000 words in the A utho­
rized Version: “THE CHANGES DON’T AFFECT
ONE SINGLE FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE. ’)
This leaves NINE words of a doubtful nature. The
remaining nine are “take aw ay,” “ an d ,” “ even so,
“ “our,” “ C h rist,” “ you, “ “A m en,” “book,” and
“them .” Every one of the disputed words which
Stewart Custer called “spurious” has been justified
in some translation since 1880. Custer is spurious:
so are the rascals who hired him.
20. In order to join the ranks of “brilliant schol­
ars,” many twentieth-century “pip squeaks” volun­
teer their services. They know the requirements for
being a “recognized scholar.” No man on earth can
be recognized as a “qualified scholar” UNTIL HE
ATTACKS THE AUTH O RIZED VERSION OF
1611. This is his “entrance fee.” Hence, we find
amateurs like those at the “Bible Truth Institute”
and other schools “earnestly contending for the
recognition once delivered to the apostates.” Among
these are Charles D. Provan, Rick Schraeder (Pro­
fessor at Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College), Ed
Hindson (Liberty University), Robert Sumner (Bib­
lical Evangelist), and Cornette, who turn out little
paperbacks that mouth the Cult cliches intermina­
bly. One of the funniest of these was a tractus by
Provan called The King James Version o f the Bible
vs. Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, 1980. It had nothing to
do with The King James Bible. The work was nine­
teen pages comparing the translators’ opinions with
R uckm an’s opinions. After stating that the basic
issue was “IS THE KING JAMES VERSION TO­
TALLY IN FA LLIBLE,” Provan w ent nineteen
pages (Provan was a humanist) without proving
ONE ERROR in any edition of it. In three pages of
 “LXX” quotations, Provan COULDN’T PRODUCE
ONE GREEK TEXT WRITTEN BEFORE A.D.
150 THAT ANY NEW TESTAMENT WRITER
“QUOTED.”
Provan took four points out of seven to PROVE
that Ruckman was wrong on the “Septuagint” and
then failed to produce ONE verse of ANY Greek
Old Testament written A N Y TIME before A.D. 200.
In an effort to convince you to get rid of your
authority, Provan assembled the opinions of West-
cott and Hort (King James Version vs. Ruckman, p.
5), Samuel Tregelles, Benjamin Warfield, A. T. Rob­
ertson, John Broadus, J. G. Machen, and A. C.
Gaebelein (p. 9). On the humanistic principle that
human sinners are to be believed before you be­
lieve the Holy Bible, you are to take the word of
these sinners that the Roman Catholic Dark Age
African Text from Alexandria can correct the Bible.
21. The Roman Catholic District Court Judge
(Augustine) does not appear to corrupt Christianity
in England until A.D. 596; the British Christians
had him pegged (Stanley, Historic Memorials o f
Canterbury, pp. 33-34, cited in C athcart’s Ancient
British and Irish Churches, p. 12). These early Brit­
ish had Old Latin Bibles (Which Bible?, D. O.
Fuller, p. 199), and they held on to them for 900
years after being exposed to Jerom e’s American
Standard Version and the New International Ver­
sion, etc.— same bible. Von Dobschutz (The Influ­
ence o f the Bible on Civilization, pp. 61-62) testi­
fies to this, and J. N. Andrews and L. R. Conradi
(History o f the Sabbath) cited D ’Aubigne as not­
ing that “PR ECIO U S M A N U SC R IPT S” w ere
brought to Iona by Columba. St. Pat (A.D. 389-
461) finishes his ministry more than 100 years be­
fore any Roman Catholic Baalite hood set foot on
Ireland or England. Isabel Hill Elder (Celt, Druid,
and Culdee, Covenant Publishing House, London,
1947) explains why England was anti-Catholic from
the start, as well as Ireland. Gildas (A.D. 542)
speaks of the Gospel being in England in A.D. 37,
which was before the New Testament was written
(Celt, Druid, and Culdee, p. 90). Origen speaks of
Christians in Britain in A.D. 200 (Celt, Druid, and
Culdee, p. 9 1). WHERE WAS JERO M E’S LATIN
VULGATE AT THIS TIME? Druidism was con­
verted to Christianity as the national religion of the
British Isles in A.D. 156 (Celt, Druid, and Culdee,
p. 93) before Origen wrote the Hexapla, and Dru­
ids believed “St. Pat” and helped him out (Celt,
Druid, and Culdee, p. 96) before Jerome finished
the Vulgate.
22. Wilbur Pickering, The Identity o f the New
Testament Text, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1977,
has by far the most scholarly theory on textual
transmission, and it would put Kenyon, Colwell,
Hort, and Nestle completely out of business. Pages
143-160 of his work describe the theory in detail.
Among much excellent material is the simple testi­
mony of M iller (p. 68), who affirms that the Byz­
antine text not only is to be found in the writings
of the early church fathers, but that in “FACT 77
PREDOMINATES. ” It predominates among all of
the fathers who died BEFORE A.D. 400, the time
at which the Byzantine text was supposed to have
originated, according to the com m ittees who
 slapped the Revised Version, the American Stand­
ard Version, the New International Version, and
the New American Standard Version together.
23. The documented evidence will be found
in Pickering’s The Identity o f the New Testament
Text, pp. 55-56, which the faculty and staff at Ten­
nessee Temple, Bob Jones University, Wheaton,
Fuller, and Moody had no access to between 1977
and 1987, evidently. P45 shows a 38 percent agree­
ment with Codex D and a 40 percent agreement
with the Receptus, 42 percent with B, 59 percent
with f 13, and 68 percent with W. The material shows
that when an ignorant amateur like Custer at Bob
Jones University goes around throwing whole lists
of papyri into the Alexandrian family (he does: pp.
1-2), he is talking like a fool. Epp said that P 45 was
Western. Although P45, P46, and P15 were said to be
“Alexandrian” by others, in actual tabulation and
comparison of readings, all three papyrus manu­
scripts come out of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS (Byz­
antine), over EITHER Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, if
you take either by themselves.
24. Reprints of Burgon 100 years later caused
Aland and M etzger the inconvenience of having to
list them (the United Bible Societies’ project) on
pages xliv and xiv of their Introduction (1966). On
page xxxv will be found Lectm for the majority of
lectionaries in the Menologion where “it differs
from that of the Synaxarion. ” Other individual
lectionaries are listed where they differ from the
majority readings in the Synaxarion. The term l 135m
indicates places where an individual lectionary in
its Menologion differs from other lectionaries;
where the Menologion of a lectionary agrees with
the Synaxarion, we find l76s m. A much more com­
plete discussion will be found in Burgon (The Last
Twelve Verses o f Mark, pp. 192-242), but Aland
and Metzger avoid it like a cobra, for Burgon proved
that the GREEK TEXT OF ALAND, METZGER,
and HORT was a fake, by showing that the last
twelve verses of Mark had been omitted by ALL of
their “authorities” (“the oldest and the best manu­
scripts”— Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) on the grounds
that some stupid scribe confounded the xe^og
(Greek for “end”) placed at M ark 16:9 in the
LECTIONARY for the xe?iog (end) of M ark’s Gos­
pel.
This is the “scholarship” of Aland, Metzger,
Wikgren, Nestle, Hort, and the New International
Version.
 CHAPTER FOUR

1. In addition to the famous washing of hands

(and sometimes body) before the writing of certain
proper nouns are: “Between every consonant, the
space of a hair of thread must intervene; between
every parashah, or section, the breadth of nine con­
sonants; between every book, three lines; not be­
gin to write the name of God with a pen newly
dipped in ink;” etc. (See Evidence that Demands a
Verdict, Josh McDowell, Campus Crusade Interna­
tional, 1972, p. 57). Rabbi Ishmael says to a copy­
ist, “My son, be careful in thy work . . . lest thou
err in omitting or in adding ONE JOT, and so cause
the destruction of the whole world” (The Bible in
the Making, Geddes McGregor, Lippincott Co.,
1959, p. 48). The Masoretes accepted the conso­
nantal formation of all Hebrew words (A.D. 500)
as given to them by the Sopherim before them (A
Survey o f the Old Testament, Gleason Archer, Jr.,
Introduction, Moody Press, 1964, p. 56). “It may
be safely said that no other work of antiquity has
been so accurately transm itted” (Green, cited by
McDowell, p. 59). The Hebrew Isaiah scroll of the
Dead Sea Scrolls was word-for-word 95 percent
the Hebrew TEXT USED IN 1611 BY THE KING
JAMES TRANSLATORS (ibid, p. 61).
2. The Scholar’s Union is always hung up on
three words: “Scientific”— “Facts”— “Evidence.”
When Stewart Custer used these terms (see pp.
11, 12, 17, 19, and 22), he never meant anything
real or factual. The terms, as used by 90 percent of
the Alexandrian Cult, mean either a partial truth
designed to mislead or imply a falsehood (see Chap­
ter Seven for confirmation), or a deliberate lie told
intentionally for the purpose of deception (see
Chapter Seven for confirmation).
3. The C hristian’s Handbook o f M anuscript
Evidence, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1970, Chapter
Four. The Authorized Version translators were not
as “hot” on the LXX as the Alexandrian Cult would
have you believe; the translators said the following
of the LXX: “IT IS CERTAIN THE TRANSLA­
TION WAS NOT SO SOUND and so perfect, but
that it needed in many places correction . . . how-
beit the edition of the seventy went away with the
credit and therefore was not only placed in the
midst BY ORIGEN [My stars! They did it again!
That is the fifth accidental, unintentional witness
that the FIFTH column o f the Hexapla was the
Septuagint/] . . . so it is evident the seventy were
INTERPRETERS, they were not prophets, they did
many things well . . . BUT YET AS MEN THEY
STUMBLED AND FELL, one while through over­
sight, another while through ignorance, yea they
may be sometimes noted to ADD TO THE ORIGI­
NAL and sometimes to TAKE FROM IT . . . .”
This is the portion of the Authorized Version Pref­
ace that Provan, Cornette, Kutilek, Schraeder, and
the Cult refused to print. You can understand why.
They were hung up on “FACTS” !
4. We cite Reumann verbatim: “Professor Paul
Kahle (1875-1964), who argues that there never
was any LXX, at least until Christian times, and
that our ‘Letter of A risteas’ is propaganda for a
revision of the Greek Bible which was made in
 Alexandria” (The Romance o f Bible Scripts and
Scholars, Prentice Hall, Englewood, New York,
1965, p. 16). Kahle’s LXX doesn’t show up until
A.D. 130. Reumann tries to justify this mess with
papyri recovered from some trash heaps in Egypt,
but anyone who knew ANY text of ANY Old Tes­
tament would know that the Letter to Aristeas was
PAGAN PHILOSOPHICAL CLAPTRAP: Profes­
sor Paul Anton de Lagarde, of Gottingen, for ex­
ample, didn’t know any Bible (Reumann, p. 16).
5. M iller (General Biblical Introduction, Word
Bearer Press, 1937, p. 229). The fifth column, com­
piled by Origen, has always been MYTHOLOGI­
CALLY connected with the fact that he “found . . .
a number of manuscripts of the Septuagint text
[NO DATE GIVEN] which, having been copied by
hand [NO MANUSCRIPT CITED], differed more
or less from each other [W ITHOUT ONE SINGLE
EXAMPLE BEING GIVEN].” (See Miller, p. 227.)
This is what we call “Cinderella in Disneyworld.”
It is what Bob Jones University would call “THE
FACTS.” The proof that Origen had an LXX was
that he marked with an “obelus” and a “metobelus”
those LXX passages “which were not in the He­
brew Bible.” He marked passages with an “aster­
isk” and a “metobelus” the passages which were in
the Hebrew, but not the LXX. NATURALLY, HE
HAD TH REE SE P TU A G IN TS TO COMPARE:
SYM ACCHUS’, AQUILLA’S, AND THEODO-
TIAN’S, WHICH WERE ALL WRITTEN BEFORE
HE HIMSELF WROTE THE FIFTH COLUMN.
Not one o f them was written until after John
wrote the Book o f Revelation.
 6. Bleek is not alone. The foremost authority
on the Septuagint (Swete, Introduction to the Old
Testament in Greek) gives Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
as Septuagint manuscripts, and the International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, p. 2728, says
that the “chief uncial” Septuagint manuscripts are
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. When Tischendorf found
the TCV (Trash Can Version: Sinaiticus), his host
knew what to say: “I have here a Greek Old Testa­
ment . . . which Tischendorf, to his amazement and
joy, found to contain portions of the SEPTUAGINT
. . . and with them the entire New Testament.”
Some incredible dumbbell at Bob Jones back in
the seventies wrote in The Biblical Viewpoint that
there was no New Testament in the Hexapla, when
he was trying to sanctify Vaticanus. THERE WAS
IF ORIGEN’S FIFTH COLUMN WAS THE “SEP­
TUAGINT, ” FOR BOTH OF THE M AIN SEPTUA­
GINT MANUSCRIPTS CONTAIN THE NEW TES­
TAMENT ACCORDING TO SWETE, BLEEK, AND
ANYONE ELSE. Note that these matters were not
discussed for the purpose of hiding Origen’s con­
nection with the Vaticanus manuscript. To this day,
there are scholars who avow Origen had nothing to
do with the GREEK TEXT of “B.” They are living
in Disneyworld next to Marineland.
7. Custer, in Eusebius’ description of O r ig e n ’s
persecution, writes “for many days his feet were
stretched four spaces in that instrument of torture,
the stocks” (Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXIX, Loeb
Library, 1195). But it is Eusebius who says that the
Bible-believing Cathari must submit to all decrees
of the Roman Catholic Church (Ecclesiastical His-
 tory, Baker Book House, 1955, Canon VIII), that
the L ord’s Supper is the OFFERING OF THE
BODY OF CHRIST (Canon XVM, p. 58), that
deacons are INFERIOR to the presbyters (ibid.),
and it is Eusebius who silently approves of m ock­
ing the Novatians for teaching that forgiveness of
sins came directly from God only (ibid., p. 25) and
accuses them of blasphemy (p. 276). Now, when
Eusebius got through with his panegyric on Origen’s
sufferings, which Custer quoted, he finished with
the following words, which FAIL TO MEET BOB
JONES U N IV ER SITY ’S HANG-UP ON “THE
FACTS” AND “THE EVIDENCE.” We shall finish
Eusebius’ account which Custer did not: . . and
what expressions after these he left behind replete
with benefit to those needing consolation ALL THIS
THE M ANY EPISTLES of the MAIN DETAILS
with no less truth than accuracy.” AFTER his suf­
ferings, Origen “left many details” in “MANY
epistles” of his suffering.
Would any scholar care to cite one ?
One will do just fine.
8. Schwartz, ibid., p. 43. Observe that this is
the opinion of a genuine Roman Catholic African:
Augustine, and it is based on the fifth column of
O rig en ’s Hexapla, copied out at C aesarea by
Pamphilus and Eusebius, which was a Greek Old
Testament “Septuagint, ” including the APO CRY­
PHA. Thus, any simpleton who believed a King
James Bible would be able to spot the ground,
roots, source, sprouting, growth, branching, and
maturing of ALL modern apostate “reliable trans­
lations” which God “uses.” God used the vocal
cords of an ass (Num. 22:28), “ the jaw bone of an
ass” (Judg. 15:16), a demon-possessed high priest
(John 11:49-52), a fool’s advice (1 Kings 12:13-
15), a contentious argument (Acts 15:39), a devil
(John 6:70-71), a false prophet (Num. 22-24; 31:8),
and THE DEVIL (Job 1-2, 41; 2 Thess. 2:9-12) to
accomplish His purposes. The carnal, pragmatic
humanists who put out the American Standard Ver­
sion, the New American Standard Version, and the
New International Version think that because God
can USE their product, that God is BLESSING it.
That is the result of going bananas on humanistic,
materialistic, PRAGMATISM (see The C hristian’s
Handbook on Science and Philosophy, 1985).
9. After writing this, Custer said that anyone
who used the term “crackpot” was making a SAV­
AGE ATTACK on a brother (Custer, p. 34). He had
forgotten that he had used the expression himself!
10. Observe how the Alexandrian Cult con­
stantly tries to liken the Bible-believer’s logic to
the logic of Roman Catholic apostates. Notable
would be the tracts put out by the “pip squeaks”
(see Chapter Three, footnote 20) to the effect that
if you believed the Authorized Version was the stan­
dard you were like a Roman Catholic who believed
that the Vulgate was the standard. The “standard’
here (our text), cited by Schwartz, was NO T A RE­
CEIVED TEXT STANDARD: it was Origen’s cor­
rupt “Septuagint, ” plus his corrupt New Testament,
which had been put together by Pamphilus and
Eusebius.
11. Origen’s speculations were out-and-out de­
nials of the historical validity of Genesis 1-3 (Pope
 John Paul II, 1985, “Genesis is a MYTH”), and his
statement that no serious-m inded Bible student
could possibly take Matthew 4:8 literally. Outside
of this, and teaching that the local pastor was a
“PRIEST,” that the 144,000 Jews in Revelation 7
were all saved GENTILES, that there is no physi­
cal resurrection, and that you get saved by a “MYS­
TICAL KISS,” Origen’s speculations were not too
dangerous (see Ruckman, History o f the New Tes­
tament Church, Vol. I, pp. 75, 85-86).
12. The citation is from Musurillo, Fathers o f
the Primitive Church (Mentor Omega Books, nihil
obstat, New A m erican Library, 1966, p. 195).
Musurillo says that Origen was ordained “AS A
PRIEST.” Did he suffer persecution then for being
a Christian or for being a PRIEST?
13. Custer and the faculty at Bob Jones Uni­
versity strongly object to this act of scholarly
ANALYSIS. They want an oversimplification that
will blithely overlook “the facts” and “the evidence”
that they blabber so much about. So, Custer erects
a non-scholarly classification, in defiance of ALL
the “fa c ts ” know n to all tex tu al c ritic s, all
Bible-believers, all collators of manuscripts, all un­
saved Bible critics, and all historians. He says (op.
cit., p. 6) that all fo u r text types— including the
African Alexandrian Catholic texts of Origen and
Augustine— are “theologically conservative, ” and
that the Catholic versions are just as authoritative
as the Authorized Version (p. 15). Again, the “p ro o f’
has nothing to do with manuscript evidence or his­
tory: it is because you can get “converted” through
“poor translations.” Yes, and the jaw bone of an
ass, the mouth of an ass, etc. (see endnote 8, above).
14. Fred Gladstone Bratton, A History o f the
Bible, Beacon Hill Press, Boston, 1959, p. 310.
15. Ira Price, p. 74, “marked an epoch in the
history of Biblical textual study.”
You understand, while this B ible-rejecting
apostate was engaged in “TEXTUAL STUDY,” he
was denying that the death of Jesus Christ was a
substitutionary atonement for sinners (Bratton, op.
cit., p. 293).
16. All three Septuagint versions were written
AFTER the completion o f the New Testament canon,
and all three Septuagint versions with which Ori­
gen worked to “bring into line with the original”
were written AFTER the completion o f the New
Testament canon, and all of them were available to
him when he sat down, since A quilla’s had been
written before he was born, and Symmachus’ ver­
sion was written before he was old enough to write
such a work. The dates for the other three “LXX”s
are A.D. 120, A.D. 220, and A.D. 188. THERE
NEVER WAS “A N Y SECH A TH ANG ” as a B.C.
Septuagint.
17. Custer calls Westcott and Hort “Conser­
vatives.” To offset such raving, irresponsible mad­
ness, we have listed for us (and documented) The
Heresies o f Westcott and Hort (Donald Waite, Plains
Baptist Challenger Publications, Lubbock, Texas,
1979). Each one is taken directly from the pens of
Westcott and Hort. Among several dozen are:
a. Vague and erroneous positions on inspira­
tion, revelation, and inerrancy.
b. False positions on the principles of Bibli-
 cal interpretation.
c. False and weak views on exegesis of vital
verses.
d. Liberal teaching of the Fatherhood of God.
e. The divinity of men apart from the new
birth.
f. Partial belief in the theory of evolution.
g. Heretical views on m an’s psychology.
h. Refusing to recognize the personality of
the devil.
i. Questioning the Omnipotence and Omni­
presence of Christ.
j. Regeneration by water baptism.
k. Heaven was not a PLACE, but only a
STATE.
THESE ARE THE MEN THAT BOB JONES
UNIVERSITY PRESENTED TO THE BODY OF
CHRIST AS “CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIA NS”
HOLDING “THE CONSERVATIVE P O SITIO N ”
(Custer, pp. 5-15), and on pages 26-28 of his
tractus, Custer sidesteps forty-two pages of docu­
mentation on the “heresies” by simply refusing to
discuss them. (At Bob Jones University, this is
called “facing the facts or “dealing with the evi­
dence.”)
18. The evidence for a pre-fourth-century
Syriac Bible is more conclusive than the evidence
for a pre-Christian LXX (see Burgon, The Tradi­
tional Text, pp. 124-134). At least four gospels
existed before A.D. 180, for Tatian’s Diatesseron
containing them was found all over Syria, long
after his death (Price, op. cit., p. 189). Lamsa, a
Syrian, says, “The ancient Peshitta is still the only
authoritative text . . . because this text was in USE
FOR 400 YEARS before the Christian Church was
divided into several sects” (Lamsa, p. viii). Second
Peter and 2 and 3 John plus Jude and Revelation,
he says, were not in the canon early because THEY
HAD N O T YET BEEN WRITTEN.
The addition of the Apocrypha naturally took
place after Origen’s trip to Caesarea (A.D. 220-
254) to write a “Septuagint. ” Burgon, in The Revi­
sion Revised (footnote, p. 27), “joshes” Westcott
and Hort about their naivete in inventing a Peshitta
that doesn’t show up until Rabulla. He says, “And
pray where is the OLD SYRIAC VERSION of which
you speak?” They came up with a zero.
19. Metzger, The Text o f the New Testament,
Oxford, 1968, p. 69-70. Metzger sluffs off Lam sa’s
statement about a Peshitta existing prior to A.D.
431 by saying “one must conclude that it had at­
tained to some degree of status prior to the split”
(ibid.). Yes, I would say so. Metzger— in true West­
cott and Hort fashion— decapitates the Old Syriac
version from the Syrian Greek type Textus Recep­
tus and decapitates the Palestinian Syrian from the
same also, assigning it to the “Caesarean family.’
Since the family classification was a ludicrous fi­
asco to start with, M etzger’s gyrations don’t prove
anything. “Caesarean” means a BYZANTINE text
that bears the marks of Origen’s corruptions. The
Caesarean is said to be “halfway between the West­
ern and the Alexandrian” (B. H. Streeter), but that
is exactly what Westcott and Hort said THE BYZ­
ANTINE TEXT WAS: A CONFLATION OF BOTH.
The Ferrar Group is NOT “Caesarean” accord­
 ing to Colwell (p. 14).
20. When Origen went to Caesarea to stay
(A.D. 231), he used Old Syriac readings instead of
old Alexandrian readings (Burgon, The Traditional
Text, p. 150). That isn’t all: the heretic had been to
Rome to look at Western texts before he came to
Caesarea (p. 152). Thus, Origen was “collating”
and mixing Old Syrian and Old Latin readings with
Alexandrian readings (p. 153), thereby created a
“Caesarean” text, which was nothing but the Greek
Textus Receptus, the Latin Textus Receptus, and
the Syriac Textus Receptus o f A.D. 120-231, cor­
rupted by his own irrational “speculations. ” “Syria
and Egypt, Egypt— Europe, Asia and A frica—
SEEM TO MEET IN PALESTINE IN ORIGEN”
(ibid., p. 122). Exactly. ORIGEN IS THE ORIGIN
OF 95 PERCENT OF THE CORRUPTIONS IN
EUROPE, ASIA, AFRICA, AND NORTH AND
SOUTH AMERICA (United Bible Societies’ Edi­
tion, N estle’s, H ort’s, the American Standard Ver­
sion, the Revised Version, the New Revised Stan­
dard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the
New American Standard Version, the New Interna­
tional Version, etc.). In colophons attached to Ezra
and Esther in Pamphilus and Sinaiticus, the writer
says that it was “corrected by the hand of the holy
martyr Pamphilus, which itself was written and
CORRECTED after THE HEXAPLA OF ORIGEN”
(Wilhelm Bousset, Texte and Untersuchungen, from
Hamack, Textual Studies in the New Testament,
1894, p. 45). The Syriac Peshitta (notes 18 and 19,
above) did not HAVE THE APOCRYPHA in it,
according to Gleason Archer Jr. (p. 44), for it came
from the second century (ibid.). Origen’s hand is
so manifest in messing with the Old Syriac that we
find a “Syriac Hexapla” which is a translation of
Origen’s fifth column.
21. Fuller (p. 201) says, “for 900 years, we
are told the first Latin translations held their own
after the Vulgate appeared” (citing Jacobus, Catho­
lic and Protestant Bibles, p. 4). The Alexandrian
Cult ignores the obvious fact that Christian mis­
sionaries from Antioch would have made Latin
translations for use in Africa and Italy (Ira Price,
op. cit., p. 84). The “faithfulness of the Old Latin
in some places to the Hebrew text, and its resem ­
blances to Lucian’s readings . . .” would prove this
(“Lucian” means BYZANTINE TEXTUS RECEP­
TUS in H ort’s vocabulary). But we are to reject
th is o b v io u s e x p la n a tio n on O R IG E N IS T IC
grounds. “The version is believed to have origi­
nated in AFRICA, its agreement with Lucian then
being due to the use of pre-Hexaplaric (ORIGEN’S
FIFTH COLUMN) Septuagintal sources by both”
(Price, p. 84). That is, you are to ignore Acts 11:26
and Acts 13:1-6 on the grounds that O rigen’s
Hexapla is the standard for reconstructing texts. It
was Origen who said “THE SCRIPTURES ARE
OF LITTLE USE TO THOSE WHO UNDER­
STAND THEM AS THEY ARE WRITTEN” (Ori­
gen, McClintock and Strong’s Encyclopedia).
Would such a depraved heretic hesitate to cor­
rect anything as he found it “written”?
22. Frederick Kenyon (p. 138), Bruce Metzger
(pp. 73 and 266), M iller (p. 239). Jerome hated the
GREEK VULGATE (the Textus Receptus Majority
 text) and wanted a LATIN Vulgate to replace it
(Fuller, op. cit., p. 219). Helvidius caught Jerom e’s
corruption of Luke 2:33, which in the Catholic and
Protestant bibles (the American Standard Version,
the New American Standard Version, the New In­
ternational Version, etc.) denies the Virgin Birth
(Fuller, p. 220).
23. Note in particular the following places
where the African Vulgate of Jerome is superior to
the African American Standard Version of 1901, or
the African New American Standard Version of
1960, or the African New International Version of
1974: John 9:35; Acts 20:28; Luke 24:52; Coloss-
ians 2:8; 2 Timothy 3:16; Luke 23:42; Luke 9:55;
etc., etc.
24. M etzger (p. 78). Note that “date setting”
is quite variable, the trick being to make all true
witnesses to the true text “late” and all false wit­
nesses to the depraved texts “early.” In this case,
the reader should note that “IRISH tendencies” are
well at work 200 years before Jerome went to
C aesarea to pervert the New Testam ent with
O rigen’s library. There were Irish missionaries (and
Bishops!) in the Black Forest, Fussen, Basel, Ba­
varia, Regensburg in the Bodensee area (Lake Con­
stance), and Salzburg, long before Jerome was born
(Fisher, A History o f the Christian Church, Scribner
and Sons, New York, 1887, p. 145; and Kurtz,
Church History, Vol. I, pp. 457-458, and 464).
25. M iller (p. 237) has the “Ita la ” or “Ita lic”
appearing out of nowhere around A.D. 350. This is
the “traditional text” that the Roman Catholic A fri­
can Augustine wanted to establish. Augustine had
been in NORTH ITALY, according to the tradition
(p. 237). It was supposed to be a revision of the
Old (European) Latin. Burkitt says (Kenyon, Tex­
tual Criticism, second edition, pages 213-215) that
by “ITALA, ” Augustine meant the New Testament
Vulgate, which was published about ten years be­
fore he wrote. According to Fuller (p. 218-221,
citing Swete, Jacobus, Price, and Hort) the Latin
Vulgate was the Bible of the Waldenses, Albig-
enses, and other anti-Catholic Bible-believers, and
their Latin Vulgate was NO T Jerom e’s Latin Vul­
gate. In this system, the Itala is a north Italian
work from the region of the anti-Catholic Vaudois
in north Italy (Fuller, p. 207). This Italic would
have been made around A.D. 157, and it certainly
would N O T be the one that the first real Roman
Catholic (this is Schaff’s designation for Aurelius
Augustine) would have recommended. The stan­
dard work for explaining all this is The Old Latin
and the Itala (Cambridge, Texts and Studies, 1896).
26. Notice again the peculiar subjective BIAS
that apostates have toward any Biblical manuscript
bearing witness to the King James text: they are
diseased with “King Jam esitis” (see Kenyon, pp.
79-80). If the reader would like to examine this
type of mental sickness further, he should study
The C hristian’s Handbook o f Science and Philoso­
phy, 1985, where everything “appears” to be any­
thing anyone wants it to be. Adam “appeared” as
a thirty-year-old man less than five minutes after
he was created and received life.
27. Ira Price (p. 114). The reference works are
The Coptic Version o f the New Testament in the
Northern Dialect, otherwise called Memphitic and
 Bohairic (four volumes, Oxford, 1898-1905), The
Coptic Version o f the New Testament in the South­
ern Dialect, otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic
(seven volumes, Oxford, 1911-1924). Other works
are by H enri H yvem ant, W in ifred K am m er,
Rocolphe Kasser, Elinor Humsselman, etc.
28. Custer, as it has been pointed out, igno­
rantly and arrogantly places eighty-eight papyri into
his favorite African fam ily (black is beautiful), but
this is typical Bob Jones University “scholarship.”
P66 is a witness to many Syrian readings (Colwell,
p. 47), P 46 is a witness to Byzantine readings in the
second century, 200 years before Vaticanus was
written (ibid., p. 48), P41 splits two Alexandrian
manuscripts in two (A and C, ibid., p. 50). “All
witnesses are MIXED in ancestry (ibid., p. 52)—
EX C EPT W HEN REA D IN G SOM E B L O C K ­
HEAD LIKE CUSTER (p. 2-3). “Every reading
found in K existed somewhere in the second cen­
tury; K did not exist in the second century” (ibid.,
p. 52). The “Caesarean” text type is NOT Caesar­
ean, and the Alexandrian text is a PROCESS, not a
fam ily (p. 54). It came about by “philological
know -how ” (p. 54); i.e., CONCEITED IG N O ­
RANCE.
29. P46 with B and the Bohairic shows that
the Bohairic was messed with by someone who
had access to Vaticanus or a manuscript just like it.
The Bohairic reads AGAINST Vaticanus in M at­
thew 6:7, 18, 22, 7:14, 8:3, 9:10, 28, 11:30, 13:35,
14:15, 15:31, 17:10, 18:19, 22, 30, etc. In the
majority of places, it is the Bohairic AGAINST
“B,” but where the Bohairic comes in line with B,
Origen’s name often appears (see Hoskier, Codex
B and Its Allies).
30. When speaking of the possessors of origi­
nal autographs, Pickering (p. 105) says that Asia
Minor is where to look.
Asia M inor is a safe bet for twelve out of
twenty-seven (John, Galatians, Ephesians, Coloss-
ians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1, 2, and
3 John, and Revelation). Greece certainly had six
(1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessa-
lonians, and Titus). The Gospel of Mark, the Epistle
to the Romans, and the rest (Luke, Acts, 2 Peter)
would have been the property of Christians in Asia
Minor; the same may be said for Matthew and
James, with Hebrews possibly belonging to Chris­
tians in Palestine. If we assume that the most reli­
able copies of “the original autographs” would have
been made nearest to where the Christians pos­
sessed them, we are left with THREE unalterable,
Biblical, and rational conclusions:
A. Alexandria, Egypt would be the last place
on this earth to look for a correct copy of ANY
book in the New Testament. None o f the “original
autographs” were written from there.
B. All epistles written IN Rome were written
from inside a Roman jail: why would anyone think
that ROME was a reliable source of Biblical schol­
arship?
C. Asia M inor could claim a minimum of fif­
teen out of twenty-seven New Testament epistles.
Why would anyone look to any location but Anti­
och of Syria, in Asia Minor, for the best “original
Greek text”?
ANSWER: to get rid o f the God-honored Holy
Bible that God gave to the world.
That was the real purpose in the massive “col­
lations,” “investigations,” “scholarly discipline,”
“epochal discoveries,” and “scientific methods” that
went on between 1611 and 1988. We are dealing
with deceived dunces who object to being called
what they are, because in the fancy of their own
deluded imaginations, they believe that they are
intelligent men.
 1. Roland Bainton, Here I Stand, Abingdon
Press, 1950, p. 384; Reumann, pp. 71, 74, and 85;
Schaff, The History o f the Christian Church, Vol.
7, pp. 358-359.
2. Schwartz, Principles and Problems o f B ib­
lical Translation, Cambridge, 1955, pp. 167-211.
Luther takes the Antiochan-Syrian position against
the African position of the New International Ver­
sion, the A m erican Standard Version, the New
American Standard Version, and the Revised Stan­
dard Version (Reumann, p. 78), and unlike the gull­
ible Aurelius Augustine, Luther rejected the “Sev­
enty” (LXX) as ignorant men. He took the same
position that the Authorized Version translators took
on Jerome (ibid., p. 88). Where Jerome lines up
with the Old Latin of the second century, he kept
the readings, and where Jerom e’s Origenistic text
from Caesarea crossed this text, he usually aban­
doned it. Reumann, writing of Luther, classifies
him with Augustine on “the inspirational approach”
but blows his comparison, for Augustine’s “bible”
(The Letter to Aristeas) is put by Reumann into the
“philosophical approach” (ibid., p. 87). Strangely
enough, Reumann classifies Luther with PHILO of
the Alexandrian school after noting (see next
endnote) that Luther was ANTI-ALEXANDRIAN.
We call this sleight of hand “the Pauline Com­
plex,” or the “Pauline Obsession,” and documented
it in 1953 in our thesis at Bob Jones University,
which will be found in The History o f the New
Testament Church (Ruckman, Vol. I, Introduction).
 3. Reumann, p. 78. Martin Luther was ANTI-
African, ANTI-Alexandrian, ANTI-Origen, ANTI-
Philo, and A N TI-A llegorical in his approach.
L uther’s translation would now be called a good
example of “dynamic equivalence” (see Schwartz,
pp. 200-212).
4. Ulfilas has a Bible in Gothic before A.D.
385. Fragments of Matthew were found in Ger­
many dating from A.D. 738.
A Harmony o f the Gospels like Tatian’s was
being circulated in A.D. 850. There were thou­
sands of Biblical manuscripts in Germany before
Luther was born (Reumann, p. 58).
There was a whole Bible in Middle German
dialect before A.D. 1400 (Schaff, p. 342).
5. Reumann, p. 73. Schaff’s comment is in­
teresting (endnote to page 353, Vol. VII). “The
precise origin of the medieval German Bible is still
unknown [Oh no it’s not! I t ’s “unknow n” only if
you are an ignorant agnostic.] “Dr. Luwig Keller
of M unster first suggested . . . that it was made by
Waldenses . . . Dr. Hennan Haupt of Wurzburg took
the same ground.” Schaff (the head of the Am eri­
can Standard Version committee, 1901) is terror­
ized by the evidence of an Authorized Version type
text older than the Westcott and Hort African text,
so, in an emotional panic, he explains: “The argu­
ments for the Waldensian origin are derived from
certain editions to the Codex Teplensis and AL­
LEGED departures from the text of the Vulgate. ”
(!)
Note, “ALLEGED.” He d id n ’t list them.
They never do.
 The Alexandrian Cult never deals with all of
the “facts.”
“. . . The textual variations cannot be traced to
a sectarian bias.” Proof?
D on’t be silly. Schaff was Stewart Custer’s twin
brother.
6. The C hristians in southern France had
“brethren” in Asia M inor to whom they wrote, in­
stead of writing to the Pope (Fuller, p. 203, citing
Cathcart, p. 16). Neander (History o f the Christian
Religion and Church, Vol. 1, pp. 85-86) says the
anti-Roman Catholic, Celtic Christianity of England
(well established 200 years before Augustine ever
got to English soil) came from France. It is the
French translator Olivetan who, in the preface of
his Bible, “recognizes with thanks to God” that the
true Apostolic witness of the New Testament had
been preserved by the Vaudois in southeast France,
and not in Rome (Leger, General History o f the
Vaudois Churches, p. 165).
7. The reason for this will be found in the
work by Isabel Hill Elder (Celt, Druid, and Culdee,
The Covenant Publishing Company, London, 1947).
Another work that established the anti-Catholic na­
ture of early Great Britain beyond the shadow of a
doubt is the book F. R. Webber wrote, A History o f
Preaching in Great Britain and America (North­
western Publishers, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1952).
British history has been “rewritten” (see “Black
History” in American text books AFTER the assas­
sination of the Marxist M. L. King, Jr.) to get rid of
Britain’s anti-Catholic origins (p. 31). In A.D. 356,
Hilary of Poitiers (a Celt from FRANCE) had ac­
 cess to a whole Bible (p. 33), and it certainly was
NOT Jerom e’s Latin Vulgate. Tertullian, writing
before Origen was born, mentions Christianity as
well established in Great Britain (p. 44, citing
Adversus Iudaeos, p. 7).
8. See endnotes above. Also Fuller, pp. 201-
202, citing Von-Dobschutz, The Influence o f the
Bible on Civilization, pp. 61-62. Would the profes­
sional liars (see Chapter Seven) lie to you about
such matters? Of course; that is how they make
their living.
9. St. Pat speaks of baptizing “many thousand
of MEN (Schaff, Vol. IV, p. 46). Pat, unlike your
local Catholic priest in Ireland, was not a “baby
sprinkler.” He never went to Rome, and he never
mentions a Pope in any of his letters or sermons.
St. Pat was a Scotchman, not an Irishman.
10. The quotation is from the articles in the
Trinitarian Bible Society of England, which can be
had upon request (Tyndale House, Dorset Road,
London SW19 3NN).
11. The standard report for Catholic murders
is 50,000,000 between A.D. 314 and 1945. This
will be found in material printed by Chick Publica­
tions of Chino, California, and the source was the
confession of a priest in a debate with a Protestant
minister several years back. The Communist kill­
ings would come to about 30,000,000 if one counted
all of the murders in China and Russia between
1918 and 1980. Some reports give Stalin credit for
30,000,000 in Russia, but this is someone bragging
about their “record.” The 50,000,000 of Catholi­
cism can only be attained by placing the blame for
World War I and World War II right where it should
have been placed on both occasions: THE VATI­
CAN (see Ruckman, The History o f the New Testa­
ment Church, Vol. II). There is no doubt about the
Pope’s culpability in these matters. Austria (WW I)
and Germany (WW II) were bound to Papal con­
cordats through two Austrians: Franz Joseph and
Adolph Hitler. All of H itler’s fellow dictators were
Roman Catholic, and all of his concentration camps
were operated by Catholics (Ruckman, ibid.).
12. The proof of Jesuit infiltration into the
Anglican Church is documented in the writings of
J. A. Froude (Short Studies on Great Subjects,
1881), H.G. Guinness (Romanism and the Refor­
mation, 1891), G. Faber (The Oxford Apostles,
1911), W. Walsh (The Secret History o f the Oxford
Movement, 1897), and the Romeward movement in
the Church of England. You can still obtain de­
tailed reports on this infiltration (which continues
through 1900-1990) in Our Inheritance, published
by the Woman’s Protestant Union and Sentinel’s
Union (130 S. Coast Road, Peacehaven, Newhaven,
Sussex, England).
13. This holds for every staff member of Bob
Jones University, every staff member of Pacific
Coast Bible College, every staff member of Lib­
erty University, every staff member of San Fran­
cisco Theological Seminary, and every staff mem­
ber of Moody Bible Institute, W heaton College,
New Orleans Seminary, Dallas and Denver Semi­
naries.
14. I have real several “autographs” on this,
and the thinking is that since the Rheims transla­
 tors made use of Tyndale for their wording many
times, and the Authorized Version retained this
wording, that the Rheims Jesuits set up the English
format for the Authorized Version. If this had been
true (which it w asn’t), nothing could have helped
the Revised Version-American Standard Version-
New American Standard Version-New International
Version cause, for the Greek text of the Rheims
Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text
used by Nestle, Aland, and Metzger: the African
Alexandrian text of the Roman Catholic popes for
1,500 years. The Greek text of the Authorized Ver­
sion was the greatest ANTI-CATHOLIC Greek text
ever published.
15. See The Spanish Inquisition, Schaff, Vol.
VI, pp. 533-554. Torquemada was especially inter­
ested in burning up Hebrew Old Testaments (ibid.,
p. 552), since they were not O rigen’s Septuagint
(commonly miscalled “H exapla”!). All Lutheran
writings were to be handed over to the Inquisition
and burned (ibid.).
16. F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parch­
ments, p. 229): “The abiding influence of ONE
MAN in particular may be traced throughout great
portions of their work, and that man was William
Tyndale.”
17. This list was com piled in 1969. The
churches were The Akron Baptist Temple (Akron,
Ohio), The Highland Park Baptist Church (Chatta­
nooga, Tennessee), The First Baptist Church (Dal­
las, Texas), The First Baptist Church (Hammond,
Indiana), Canton Baptist Temple (Canton, Ohio),
L andm ark B aptist Tem ple (C incinnati, O hio),
Temple B aptist Church (D etroit), First Baptist
Church (Lynchburg, Virginia), and Calvary Temple
(Denver, Colorado). Nine out of ten were BAP­
TIST churches. This was the fru it o f Erasm us' “few
late medieval manuscripts, dedicated to Pope Leo,
after inventing an ending on Revelation 22, ” plus
“an effeminate King who put out an ‘archaic Eliza­
bethan B ib le’ without access to the ‘Dead Sea
scrolls, ’ etc., etc. ” (And he was an Arminian Epis­
copalian at that!) Strange “FRUIT,” wouldn’t you
say, for a book that was not “up to the standard” of
the Revised Version, the Revised Standard Version,
the New Revised Standard Version, the American
Standard Version, the New American Standard Ver­
sion, and the New International Version, according
to their WIND BAG PROFESSIONS?
18. This will be found in The Mark o f the
Beast (Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1959, 1970) and
The Bible Babel (Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1959,
1970), and, as usual, no one could handle it, so
they played “ring around the rosey” with some
straw dummies on the number 666, which was only
ONE item in over forty listed. To those skeptical
about Triskaidekaphobia and “fives,” let them study
the famous Space Shuttle of February, 1986, that
exploded in mid-air.
19. The destruction of Jerusalem (2 Chron­
icles), the commandment to return (Ezra), the re­
building of the city (Nehemiah), the Rapture and
replacement of the Gentile Bride with a Jewish
Bride (Esther), the great Tribulation (Job), the Sec­
ond Advent (Psalms 1-2). The same order will
also be found in Jeremiah (the destruction of Jerusa­
lem), Lamentations (the great Tribulation), and
Ezekiel (the Second Advent). Names, dates, places,
locations, and other details are given in the pas­
sages. No edition of “the original Hebrew text”
(4445 Pent. Codex, the Leningrad Prophets, the
Cairo codex, The Brescia Bible, the Complutensian
Polyglot, Daniel Bomberg of Venice, Jacob ben
Chayim, the Paris Polyglot, Kennicott, De Rossi,
Kittel, Ginsburg, et al.) has this phenomenon. It is
an “advanced revelation” found in the English
Bibles.
20. Fuller, pp. 200-209, citing G illy’s Walden-
sian Researches, pp. 10-80. The oldest Waldensen
Bibles were called “The Italik” (ibid., citing Nicene
and Post Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 542), which
means they were the Old Latin called “Ita la ” that
compromised the original Latin Vulgate, which Jer­
ome perverted.
 1. Miller, chapter 37.
2. Bruce Metzger, p. 155. The Catholic priest
approaches the Bible as a work of secular litera­
ture, exactly as Westcott and Hort did in 1881. He
“an ticip ates” the views of Hort, according to
Metzger.
3. Jay Robert Nash, Bloodletters and Bad Men,
M. Evans and Company, New York, 1973, p. 98.
4. Et al. This is the FRUIT of collation; this is
the RESULT of Biblical Scholarship for 370 years:
abandonment of the Holy Bible, while professing
to believe in some unknown pieces of paper that
no one ever saw. It is the realm of Satan, and it is
Satanic from start to finish and has proven to be so
by its fruits. No one has blindly accused anyone of
anything of which they are not guilty, and no one
has played the part of a Catholic bigot in opposing
“research.” The truth is, they got rid of absolute
authority and replaced it with AFRICAN HALLU­
CINATIONS.
5. Ruckman, The History o f the New Testa­
ment Church, Volume Two, 1985.
6. In his view on the “plenary, verbally in­
spired originals,” Hort takes the position of all un­
saved Communists in the NEA and all Atheists in
the Communist Party. “The principles of criticism
. . . hold good for all ancient texts . . . In dealing
with the text OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, no new
principle whatever is needed or legitim ate” (Pick­
ering, p. 32, citing H ort’s Introduction, p. 73).
The “principles” referred to here are the Ro­
man Catholic principles set up by Roman Catholic
monks and priests.
7. Jay Robert Nash, p. 387. These are his pi­
ous words after torturing, killing, and mutilating
over 200 women: “My sole object [in calling in the
press] is to vindicate my name from the HOR­
RIBLE ASPERSIONS cast upon it” ! I never read
that statement once without thinking of Bob Jones
III writing to Christians about “being slandered”
and Stewart Custer “defending” Origen and Hort.
 1. Sumner, p. 29: . . the original words of
the God breathed MESSAGE.” Note how the “God
b reathed S crip tu res” suddenly vanished from
Sum ner’s booklet, although that was supposed to
be the main theme of his work. When confronted
with what a man can READ, he reduced the Scrip­
tures (which Peter, James, John, Timothy, Paul,
Matthew, Mark, Jude, and CHRIST READl) to a
“MESSAGE.” Lightfoot (How We Got Our Bible,
p. 109) concurs, with “the original Bible M ES­
SAGE,” not the “ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT,” or
even THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES.
“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”
(1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9). Once you take the “historic
position” of the old nature with Sumner, Willming-
ton, Hindson, Farstad, Torrey, Morgan, Riley, Rice,
et al., the TERMINUS is out-and-out rejection of
ANYTHING IN A N Y BIBLE THAT YOU DO N’T
LIKE.
2. When Rice was asked why he used the Japa­
nese Revised Standard Version (June 17, 1963), he
behaved just as smooth and as slick as Peter Foxx
(see Endnote 1, Chapter One) or Stewart Custer;
he said, “I did not take it upon m yself to decide
what version of the Scriptures is to be used in my
booklet, What M ust I Do To Be Saved? ” . . other
versions have THEIR limitations . . . some others
[Christians] bring reproach on their cause by their
ATTITUDE.”
And there it is like a dead dog on the highway.
After attacking liberals in the National Council o f
 Christian Churches all his life (the same ones who
printed the Revised Standard Version), the good,
old doctor quickly backed off when faced with the
issue and blamed a Japanese national for his “AT­
TITUDE.” Typical. I could quote you a ream of
crap just like it. These are the men who get upset
about “vicious attacks” on their buddies in the M a­
fia.
They think that such a cheap, sorry, immoral,
VICIOUS treatment of Bible-believers should be
overlooked and treated with “objective compas­
sion.”
3. Blakeney’s Popery In Its Social Aspects,
Hope Trust, Edinburgh, n.d., pp. 134-138. No
Catholic is allowed to read the Bible in English
unless the translation is made by a Catholic author,
and then only with the permission of a priest or
Bishop; this is called the Fourth Rule o f the Index
(see The Decrees and Canons o f the Council o f
Trent, Paris Edition, 1832).
4. The Greek text smuggled into the Revised
Version committee of 1880 and adopted by all apos­
tates who recommended the American Standard
Version and the New American Standard Version
received the hearty approval of: Dr. Hundhausen, a
German Catholic, the Catholic Bishop of Erie,
Pennsylvania, Tobias Mullen, Cardinal Wiseman,
Catholic magazines, Father Corcoran in the Quar­
terly Review, and Father Preston of St. Anne’s in
New York (Coy, pp. 220-224). This is the company
that BOB JONES UNIVERSITY joined when they
recommended the American Standard Version and
the New American Standard Version: both bibles
are from the same Greek text as the Revised Ver­
sion, the Revised Standard Version, and the New
Revised Standard Version.
5. Cornelius Stam has authored several books.
He is a five-point Calvinist who believes in limited
atonement, and he freely corrects the Authorized
Version with the Revised Version and the Revised
Standard Version where it doesn’t line up with the
Dry C leaner’s doctrines: Things That Differ, 1951,
Worzalla Publishing Company, Steven’s Point, Wis­
consin; Man, His Nature and Destiny, 1961, Carl
Gore Printing Company, Chicago, Illinois; Acts Dis-
pensationally Considered, four volumes, 1954, Be-
rean Bible Society, Chicago; Our Great Com­
mission, 1974, Worzalla; Moses and Paul, 1956,
Carl Gore. Stam ’s favorite catch word makes you
study a doctrine DISPENSATIONALLY, instead of
BIBLICALLY
6. Lewis Foster (Selecting a Translation o f the
Bible) says that 100 updatings have been made
since 1880. Others say ninety. We have listed over
eighty, if the reader begins in 1663 with Elliot’s
translation and ends with the New King James Ver­
sion in 1982. No translation survives more than
sixty years without the word “NEW ” being stuck
on a revision (Acts 17:21), and most of them fail to
last twenty years.
7. This letter was written to a Bible-believing
missionary named Cimino (Nov. 18, 1976). Afman
justified the American Standard Version and the
New American Standard Version on the grounds ot
pure humanism and ignored all GREEK texts, after
bragging about taking “four years of Greek and
 two years of textual criticism .” Standard. “Right
on the money.” Use the Greek where it is conve­
nient; ignore it if embarrassing. Great “Biblical
scholarship.” (Afman openly denied that Hell had
literal fire in it and forced his students to prove it if
they believed contrary to him [McMullen, Feb. 24
1986, PBI].)
8. This work is by the Pastor of the Bedford
Baptist Temple in Bedford, Ohio, and it is by far
the best condensed work on the King James De­
bate, King James Issue, King James Battle, King
James Onlyism, etc., being a tract on the subject
consisting of only twenty-five pages. It completely
overthrows all of the gas put out by Lindsell (The
Battle fo r the Bible) and Carson (The King James
Debate) and any work by anyone like them.
9. This is a “Cult cliche.” All apostates in the
twentieth century assume they are more intelligent
than any translator in the seventeenth century: DAR­
WIN GUARANTEED IT. See F. F. Bruce, The
Books and the Parchments (Fleming Revell, 1950,
p. 230), where the Authorized Version translators
carried out the matter of italics “to almost RIDICU­
LOUS lengths” ; see also Phillip’s Translators and
Translations (Warner Press, Anderson, Indiana,
1958, p. 98) where we now have a “more adequate
understanding of ancient languages.” Lightfoot (p.
106) says that NOBODY “seriously studied Greek
or Hebrew in the seventeenth century.” We rever­
ently add, “No one should take people like Kenyon,
Custer, Bruce, Lightfoot, Phillips, Hindson, Sum­
ner, or Hodges seriously in the twentieth century.”
After all, they are only engaged in making a living.
A man without a Bible HAS NO REAL CONVIC­
TIONS.
10. The Public Records reproduced in the
Washington Post p. 4, Feb. 17, 1960) in part were
printed by a group called Circuit Riders, out of
Cincinnati, Ohio. They show that 719 officers in
the National Council of Christian Churches had
Communist affiliations; 50 percent of the secretar­
ies had them in 1957, and these people were tied in
with ninety Communist front organizations which
are listed by name, along with their goals and ob­
jectives.
11. This is the man who said that “only the
originals” were inspired (p. 16) and “infallible” (p.
12). THE SAME MAN had accused Ruckman of
calling people “crackpots” (p. 34) when HE HIM ­
SELF HAD USED THE SAME TERM FOR THE
AUTHOR when writing for the Biblical Viewpoint
(April), back in 1971.
A liar has to have a good memory.
Stewart Custer forgot that he had called names
himself: the same names that he piously pretended
were “vicious attacks” (p. 34).
(Match it. I dare you. There is nothing like it
under heaven, outside of a mental ward.)
 1. If the reader would like to see how “accu­
rate” the “oldest and best Greek text” is along these
lines, let him check Matthew 27:17, where Origen
set up the words “Jesus B arabbas”fo r the Vatican
manuscript, and they were stupid enough to copy it
down. These blockheads are described by Metzger,
(p. 150), in this fashion: “Thus there was a fairly
well developed SCHOLARLY discipline of textual
and literary criticism . . . localized chiefly at Alex­
andria.” Bonkers. “Codex B . . . bears traces of
careless transcription in every page . . . the m is­
takes which the original transcriber made are of
perpetual recurrence” (Burgon, The Last Twelve
Verses o f Mark, p. 73). “Disfigured throughout with
repetitions” (ibid., p. 75). According to Burgon,
the stupid, bungling heretic who used Origen’s li­
brary and O rigen’s Hexapla (both from Alexan­
dria) not only wrote the same words twice over but
“failed whenever he did so to take any notice with
his pen of what he had done” (ibid.). This is the
“scholarship” behind the American Standard Ver­
sion, the New International Version, and the New
American Standard Version.
2. In the Gospels alone, B leaves out words or
whole clauses no less than 1,491 times (Scrivener
in Dublin University Magazine, November 1859,
p. 620). Vercellone (Del A ntichissim o Codice
Vaticano Della Biblia Greca; Rome, 1860, p. 21)
said that whole verses are missing, and he could
find a page with three to four such omissions on it
before he could find one page without one. Sinaiti-
cus (K) in regards to interpolations: “There does
not exist in the whole compass of the New Testa­
ment a more monstrous instance of this than . . .
the piercing of our Redeemer’s side from John 19:34
to Matthew 27.” Sinaiticus and Vaticanus intro­
duce it at the end of verse 29, making it nonsense.
Burgon says of the perversions in B and N at John
9:4; Luke 6:48; John 1:18; John 9:11; John 1:4;
John 1:34; Luke 10:1, etc., “THEY CANNOT
HAVE RESULTED FROM CARELESS TRAN­
SCRIPTION” (Burgon, p. 81). So, you have care­
less transcription plus DOCTRINAL HERESY in
the making of the American Standard Version, the
New American Standard Version, and the New Inter­
national Version.
3. Hills, Believing Bible Study, pp. 55-75 has
one of the most interesting and scholarly discus­
sions to be found on the so-called “neutral” world
view which has been adopted by all Socialists, hu­
manists, Communists, atheists, scientists, and Bible
revision committees. In short— and we are always
as blunt as possible— it means “playing God,” so
that your decisions are absolutely UNPREJUDICED
and OBJECTIVE: as impartial as God Himself.
You are “neutral,” with no “axe to grind.” As Dr.
H ills p o in ted out, there is no such thing as
NEUTRALITY in Bible revision or Bible translat­
ing: that is a mirage of the Alexandrian Cult, the
Foxfire of the Scholar’s Union.
4. We cite Nestle verbatim from the standard
edition published for more than eighty years (1927):
“ft: the so-called Hesychian or Egyptian type of
Text, represented above by B, K, and C (THE PRE-
 CEDENCE OF THE VATICANUS WILL BE JUS­
TIFIED . . .)” !
It will? Why will it?
Because in dealing with prejudiced, non-neu­
tral, non-objective, African Catholic bigots, you
have to give the “precedence” to their subjective
opinions (see endnote 3, above).
5. Pickering, p. 31, citing Life and Letters o f
Hort, Vol. I, p. 211. Stewart Custer of Bob Jones
University buries this comment before he begins to
talk about “THE TRUTH.” He just pretends that
Hort never made such a statement— but he did.
6. Pickering, pp. 48-54. “The classic division
can no longer be maintained . . . .” (Klijn, p. 36, A
Survey o f the Researches Into the Western Text o f
the Gospels and Acts, 1949-1969). We never
adopted it to start with. We don’t have to drop
anything. We never “m aintained” that the origina­
tors of the “family system” (Semler, Griesbach,
and Hort) had the spiritual discernment of the fac­
ulty of Liberty University or W heaton College.
7. The Caesarean family is simply Byzantine
manuscripts that Origen messed with, and having
been in Alexandria and Rome, Origen could pro­
duce the first real official “conflated” text by using
all three. He used the Alexandrian to cut out words
and verses from the Syrian-type Greek Receptus,
and the Syrian translations followed him sometimes;
he then altered the Syrian type Greek Receptus to
match the Western wordings and some of the Syr­
ian translations followed him on occasion. The Cae­
sarean Greek texts are the Receptus with some West­
ern readings substituted for Byzantine and some
Alexandrian omissions made to match N and B.
8. Colwell, pp. 14 and 34.
9. Colwell, p. 96.
10. Ibid.
11. Metzger, p. 157.
12. Metzger, p. 158. Notice the peculiar SUB­
JECTIVE approach of the prejudiced bigot in these
matters. This is the “inductive m ethod,” where the
E X C E PT IO N o v erth ro w s the rule (see The
Christian’s Handbook o f Science and Philosophy,
Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1985). The Playboy “situa­
tion ethics” type of mind, having gotten rid of the
Majority text, is now toying with the idea that one
single exception to the entire revealed body of truth
overthrows the entire revealed body of truth.
13. Metzger.
14. Metzger, p. 121.
15. Colwell, p. 63. Hort admitted that mixture
makes the use of genealogical method impossible
(ibid., p. 69), and yet, with this admission before
him, Bruce Metzger of the United Bible Societies
justifies H ort’s ridiculous m ethod as being the
grounds for his triumph over Dean Burgon in the
Revised Version dispute. M etzger says that the
champion of the Receptus, who presented more
than 1,200 pages of documented evidence that Hort
couldn’t discuss, “was unable to comprehend the
force of the genealogical method, by which the
later, conflated text is demonstrated to be second­
ary and corrupt” (Metzger, p. 136). This is what
Custer said about the King Jam es’ Greek text in
his work cited above. Nothing was “demonstrated. ”
H ort’s proof for a “conflated text” was eight verses
 from the Gospels. Metzger says that Burgon’s at­
tacks on H ort’s corrupt text, irrational logic, fan­
tastic reasoning, and irreverent nonsense was largely
“theological and speculative.” To the contrary, Bur­
gon documented everything he said, and Hort docu­
mented NOTHING.
16. This is H ort’s conflation theory that Custer
and M etzger say “demonstrated” that the Protes­
tant Reformation Greek text was corrupt and sec­
ondary (“a derived text”). These verses were Luke
9:10, Luke 11:54, Luke 12:18, and Luke 24:53;
with Mark 6:33, Mark 8:26, Mark 9:38, and Mark
9:49. That was a “demonstration” : eight verses out
o f over 5,000, and all eight o f them from the Gos­
pels. Four of them were found by Bousset to be no
conflations at all— and he wasn’t even saved (Hills,
op. cit., p. 176). Vaticanus “conflates” in Mark
1:28, M ark 1:40; and John 7:38; S in a iticu s
“conflates” in John 13:24; Revelation 6:1, 2, 8,
and 17; and “D “ (Western) “conflates” in John
5:37. H ort’s “demonstration” was a mockery. Of
his “demonstration,” Colwell says, “IT SOUNDED
C O N V IN C IN G A G A IN ST THE APPEA L OF
BURGON AND SCRIVENER” (p. 75). Exactly. It
was no more convincing than Darwin’s theory of
“acquired characteristics.”
17. This is Hort again, shooting off his big,
fat mouth about something he knows nothing about
and steaming down the track with more hot air
than you could compress in a battleship boiler room.
Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Origi­
nal Greek, Cambridge, 1881, pp. 19-32.
18. L. D. Twilley, The Origin and Transmis­
sion o f the New Testament, Wm. Eerdman Publish­
ing Company, 1957, p. 2.
19. Colwell.
20. Here is the old wind bag again. F. J. A.
Hort, selling stock to the suckers whose motive in
acting intelligent was to establish themselves as
authorities. We cite from pages 542-558 in the
back of his New Testament in the Original Greek.
You read the blithering fool, and you wonder why
Colwell still butters him up (p. 148) by saying he
“needs to be brought back to life.” Let the old,
blind, shallow deceiver lie where he is buried, with
Origen, Demas, Augustine, Pope Damasus, Judge
Rutherford, Pastor Russell, Philip Schaff, and other
hot-air artists who appealed to the fallen nature of
the Adamic humus. Colwell says that Hort “can
make a major contribution today.” Yes, he sure
could, the old con artist. He could run on the Demo­
cratic ticket for a platform of social justice and
equal rights.
 1. Burgon, The Traditional Text, pp. 99-101.
These include nineteen citations before Origen be­
gan to pervert the Receptus. In spite of this, apos­
tate corrupters like Stewart Custer, Bruce Metzger,
Westcott, Hort, Nestle, and Aland still insist that
the Receptus (Majority text) is a “late text.” The
nineteen witnesses Burgon cites are from the sec­
ond and third centuries. In the face of this docu­
mented evidence, that is neither “theological” nor
“speculative” (see M etzger’s slander of Dean Bur­
gon in Chapter Eight, endnote 15), Colwell says,
“H ort’s knowledge of manuscripts of the New Tes­
tament was encyclopedic and HIS JUDGMENT
WAS SOUND” (p. 102). Just as sound as a Ger­
man Mark in 1930. (You see, the Mafia “takes care
of its own.” When one makes an atrocious blunder
that drives three nations into international bank­
ruptcy and moral insanity [Germany, England, and
the United States] through the replacement of Luther
and the Authorized Version, another simply says
“Sorry, he was in error.”) Observe: “The Byzantines
did not hit upon these readings by conjecture or
in d ep en d en t error. They R EPRO D U CED AN
OLDER TRADITION . . . ARE ALL BYZAN­
TINE READINGS ANCIENT?” (The citation is
given by Zuntz, The Text o f the Epistles, Oxford,
1953, p. 156). We will answer Zuntz. Yes, they are.
They are at least 200 years older than Sinaiticus or
Vaticanus. Any Byzantine reading preserved in the
King James Bible is more authoritative than any
Alexandrian substitute (Luke 2:33, Luke 23:42,
Luke 24:51-52; Acts 4:27; John 9:35; Acts 9:5-6,
etc.) found in any “Alexandrian text-type.”
2. See Ruckman,The History o f the New Tes­
tament Church, Vol. I, Chapter 12, and Vol. II,
chart on page 250. God Almighty set up the uni­
verse so that if a sinner (any sinner) is self-righ­
teous, he will seek to earn eternal life by WORKS.
These works must be “doing good to your fellow
m an,” so all Socialists, activists, ecologists, Com­
munists, atheists, Catholics, bureaucrats, social
workers, civil rights workers, etc., are what we call
“do gooders”— “little goody two-shoes.” To bring
in their “kingdoms,” they are always forced even­
tually to litigation, arrest, imprisonment, torture,
war, and murder as “the means to justify the end.”
There are no exceptions in 5,900 years of recorded
history.
 1. Notice how nobody is particularly interested
in textual criticism and “scholarly disciplines” un­
til AFTER 1611. Before then, it is perfectly under­
stood that there are two Bibles being circulated:
one from the Reformation Greek texts of Erasmus,
Beza, Stephanus, and Colinaeus, and another from
Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Constantine, and the
popes. No problem. You just get on one side or the
other. But that is the way it always was, and that is
the way it is NOW. The only “doubtful” English
translation on the market since 1987 is the New
King James Version, which went by the right Greek
text, but, in order to please the Origenistic-Eusebian
popes of the American Standard Version, the New
International Version, and the Revised Standard
Version, inserted African readings IN ENGLISH
back into the text (2 Cor. 2:17; Rom. 1:18, 25; Acts
4:27; 1 Tim. 6:10, etc.).
2. M etzg er, p. 157. O b serv e th a t it is
Friederich W b//(1759-1824) who applies these Ro­
man Catholic, naturalistic, critical methods to the
editing of classical texts first; the next step was to
apply them to the WORDS OF GOD IN THE HOLY
BIBLE. No man listed in this group ever professed
to believe any Bible was “holy” or any Bible had
God’s words in it.
3. Pickering, Scrivener, Hoskier, Burgon, et
al. Hoskier documents it for 450 pages, showing
3,000 differences within only two Alexandrian
manuscripts (Pickering, p. 51). It is only H ort’s
“EXTREME CLEVERNESS AS AN ADVOCATE
. . (Salmon, p. 33, cited by Pickering) that puts
his hallucinations over the board as “scholarly re­
searches.” The five oldest uncials (K, A, B, C, and
D) “falsify the Lord’s prayer as given in St. Luke
in no less than forty-five words . . . they throw
themselves into six different combinations in their
departures from the Tradition T e x t. . . and yet they
are NEVER ABLE TO AGREE AMONG THEM ­
SELVES AS TO ONE SINGLE VARIOUS READ­
ING” (Burgon, cited by Pickering, p. 120).
4. Robert Dick Wilson, Is Higher Criticism
Really Scholarly?, pp. 49-85. Dr. Wilson makes a
typical Ruckmanite statement in his work that goes
like this: “The Bible is right. Professor Ewald of
Gottingen, the GREATEST GERMAN Old Testa­
ment scholar of his times, and Professors Driver
and Gray of Oxford, the writers of many books and
many articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica . . .
are PROVED TO BE WRONG” (cited in Fuller, p.
77).
Rephrase it: “THE BIBLE IS RIGHT, and ev­
eryone o f the greatest Hebrew and Greek scholars
in the world, regardless o f their reputations or pro­
fessions, who recommend the American Standard
Version, the Revised Version, the New International
Version, and the New American Standard Version
are PROVED TO BE WRONG. ” Affirmative.
5. The term is a newspaper term meaning “any­
one who doesn’t adopt the news m edia’s personal
convictions about certain things.” The word origi­
nally meant “to judge before having examined the
evidence.” Note that Colwell, the great dead ortho­
dox apostate, thinks that all theologians are preju­
 diced, and that therefore this disqualifies them from
the field of textual criticism, as they are “inca­
pable” (Colwell, p. 151). What a dumbbell like
Colwell doesn’t realize is that no sinner can fool
with any Biblical passage and not come up with a
“THEOLOGY.” “Neutrality”— see Chapter Eight,
Endnote 3— in Biblical studies is a JOKE; Col­
well, M etzger, W ikgren, Hort, Aland, N estle,
Streeter, Clark, Ropes, and Zane Hodges are just as
prejudiced as Jesse Jackson or Coretta King.
6. This is the theme song of Custer, Panosian,
Neal, Wisdom, and Bob Jones III. The “oldest” in
this case are the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts
and the papyri that agree with them.
7. This is a quotation from Pope John Paul II
in Omni Magazine for December, 1984, page 65.
This is also the position of all unsaved liberals, all
atheists, and all Communists.
8. Bratton, p. 313. If a man is an “informed
reader,” according to Bratton (of course, men like
m yself have no access to information!), he “recog­
nizes the Bible for what it said at the time of its
composition and is frank to label a passage as UN­
TRUE, UNWORTHY, and UNINSPIRED” (p. 15).
This is the position of the Vicar of Christ, the Prince
of Apostles, “His H oliness,” Johnny Paul, the
Polack Pimp (“dynamic equivalent” for “working
for a hustler on seven hills,” Rev. 17), in dealing
with Genesis 1-3.
9. Philo was about as saved as Mohammed
and about as intelligent as Dopey (Snow White and
the Seven Dwarfs). According to the historians New­
man and Schaff, Philo was an apostate Jew who
rejected the entire Old Testament because it didn’t
match Plato’s Republic, so he allegorized the en­
tire book. He never accepted any of the New Testa­
ment and never contacted Christ or the Apostles,
although their lives overlapped his (Schaff, Vol. 1,
p. 88). He, as Origen, was a universal-collator and
leaven-mixing amalgamator of random elements
(Newman, Vol. I, p. 61). Philo invents a pseudo
“Son of God” called “the Eldest son,” and the “first
born of G od,” and he is a “High P riest” and
“Paraclete” (ibid., p. 62), but he is not INCAR­
NATE and does not die fo r anyone’s sins, because
there is no such thing as SIN. To Philo, “sin” was
ignorance (see The C hristian’s Handbook o f Sci­
ence and Philosophy, 1985), and salvation was “en­
lightenment.” Philo was an unsaved Gnostic.
10. Bratton, pp. 317-320.
11. See documentation in The Bible B eliever’s
Bulletin, January, 1984. (The FBI and Martin Luther
King Jr., David Garrow, W. W. Norton and Com­
pany, New York, 1981, pp. 194, 212-214, 184—
186).
12. Jesse Jackson on his trip to Cuba hollered,
“Long live Che Gueverra!” and “Long live the
Revolution!”
He “chummed up” to every Communist in Rus­
sia and Cuba he could contact throughout 1985
and 1986.
13. This, in a bundle, is called “Higher Criti­
cism.” Moses knew nothing about one God— his
days were too early. “Jehovah” became a tribal
God; then, much later, He became God of the whole
universe. He kind of “grew up” with Charles Dar­
 win and the Huxleys (Miller, op. cit., p. 77).
14. Now, this is the terminus of science and
philosophy (Ruckman, The C hristian’s Handbook
o f Science and Philosophy, Chapter Eleven, “THE
GREAT GREY MUSH”) and all endeavors by man­
kind to live apart from the written revelation of
God. You spin in a squirrel cage till you beat your­
self to death (Ruckman, ibid.).
15. The stupid Americans and Englishmen who
were dumb enough to try to qualify for the German
school of Higher Criticism were Henry Smith,
Shailer Matthews, Briggs, Harper, Foster, Kent,
Lyman Abbot, Peritz, Fosdick, and the leaders of
the National Council of Churches, plus Samuel
D avidson, B ishop C olenso, R obertson Sm ith,
George Adam Smith, Cheyne Driver, and many
others (Miller, p. 77).
16. This is some more baloney from Metzger
(p. 149) to impress the naive and inexperienced.
Here is a sample: “The classical method of textual
criticism regularly involves . . . the exercise of
textual emendation . . . the removal of anomaly
. . . though some anomalies are the result of cor­
ruption . . . other anomalies may have been either
intended or tolerated . . . the critic must be so
thoroughly acquainted with the style and thought
of his AUTHOR that he cannot but JUDGE a cer­
tain anomaly to be foreign to the AUTHOR’S IN ­
TENTION” (Metzger, p. 182). In this case, GOD.
As to how “disciplined” and how “scholarly”
this blasphemous nonsense is, look at the texts of
the New King James Version, the American Stan­
dard Version, the New International Version, the
New American Standard Version, the Revised Stan­
dard Version, the Revised Version, and the New
Revised Standard Version in Acts 4:27, where “the
author’s style” has been thrown out the window,
and his “intent” perverted to a denial o f Christ’s
Deity.
“Scholarly discipline!
17. Metzger, pp. 150-151.
18. Aquilla (A.D. 128) before Origen is born;
Theodotian (A.D. 180) before Origen is born, ac­
cording to M iller (pp. 226-227). This means that
when Origen talks about “Septuagint manuscripts”
th a t need “p u rif y in g ,” he is ta lk in g about
PO ST-CH RISTIAN “L X X s” m anufactured more
than 100 years after the Resurrection o f Jesus
Christ. Symmachus, Aquilla, and Theodotian, as
well as Origen, have the New Testament on their
writing tables when they conjure up “Septuagints”
out of thin air.
19. Metzger, ibid., p. 150.
20. Note Eusebius’ constant attacks on any­
one who is against the African scholarship of Alex­
andria or the Roman Catholic Church. This cita­
tion is in the Ecclesiastical History, Vol. V, xxviii,
pp. 13-19. Eusebius worshipped Constantine and
was postmillennial.
21. March 24, 1870. This is article three of
the instructions given to the committee (Coy, p.
40). The motion was made by Bishop Wilberforce
and seconded by Bishop Ellicott.
The Professional L iar’s Club had gained two
more “godly” members.
22. Coy, p. 89, citing David Schaff’s Life o f
 Philip Schaff, p. 107. His first address in America
(1884) was “so Romish that when it was translated
into English . . . it produced a storm of criticism
. . . he was finally tried for heresy.” Dr. Schaff
gave his heart endorsement to the writings of the
Merceburg Professors (Merceburg Review), who all
advocated with Cardinal Newman a return to Rome.
C hief among them was Dr. Nevin, who taught
Christ’s presence was in the bread and wine at
Communion (Apple, Life o f John Nevin, pp. 412—
414, cited by Coy, p. 91).
23. Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 65, cited
by Coy, p. 65.
24. For example: Colossians 3:2; Deuteronomy
32:14; 2 Corinthians 2:17; 1 Timothy 6:5, 10; Titus
1:12; Genesis 1:28; Genesis 49:6; Genesis 49:10; 2
Timothy 2:15; Hebrews 2:16; Hebrews 2:10; etc.
The New King “Jimmy” is really a NEW, NEW,
NEW, New American Standard Version.
25. A good example is Stewart Custer, who
published a booklet on THE TRUTH and showed a
m an’s hand on a Bible, taking an oath in court. IN
the booklet, Custer (Bob Jones University) lied f i f ­
teen times in thirty-six pages. Some kind of record
of a “militant Funnym entalist.”
Other Reference and
Source Material
—A—
A H istory o f P reaching in G reat B ritain and Am erica, 514
A H istory o f the Christian Church, 507
A P lain Introduction to the C riticism o f the New Testament, 487
A R eview o f the New International Version and the N ew Am erican Standard
Version, 469
A Survey o f the O ld Testament, 495
A Survey o f the R esearches Into the W estern Text o f the G ospels and Acts,
529
A cts D ispensation ally Considered, 524
A dversus Iudaeos, 515
Am erican Weekly, 6
A ncestry o f Our English Bible, 45, 113
Ancient British and Irish Churches, 491
An Introduction to the O ld Testament, 396
A rch aeological Review, 412
The A uthorized Edition o f the English Bible: Its Subsequent R eprints and
M odern Representatives, 46
Autobiography, 464
— B—
The B attle f o r the Bible, 243, 525
Beginning o f the Christian Church in E arly Church H istory, 102
B elieving B ible Study, 528
Between Earth and H eaven, 194
B eza’s Fifth Edition o f the G reek New Testament, 49
Bible Babel, xvi, 518
B ible B e lie v e rs’ Bulletin, xiv, xvi, 356, 418, 538
B ible B e lie v e r’s Com m entary on Acts, 126
B ible B e lie v e r’s Com m entary on Exodus, 23, 26
Bible B e lie v e r’s Com m entary on G alatian s-C olossian s, 380
B ible B e lie v e r’s Com m entary on Genesis, 125, 386
Bible B e lie v e r’s Com m entary on H ebrews, 2 3 7 -2 3 8
B ible B e lie v e r’s Com m entary on Job, 456
B ible B e lie v e r’s Com m entary on M atthew, 239
The B ible in its Ancient and English Versions, 102
The B ible in the Making, 51, 495
The B ible: Its M eaning and Supremacy, 102
B ible Translations, 32, 476
B ible T ranslations Test, 359
B iblical A rchaeologist, 462
B iblical A rchaeology Review, 465
B iblical Evangelism , 463
B iblical E vangelist, 32, 206
B iblical Introduction, 48
B iblical Viewpoint, 117, 498
B loodletters and Bad Men, 520
The Books and the Parchm ents, 51, 517, 525
B ypaths in the G reek New Testament, 43
 The Byzantine Text and New Testam ent Texual Criticism , 298
—C—
The Canon and Text o f the N ew Testament, 53
C atholic and P rotestan t Bibles, 506
C atholic E nclyclopedia, 175-176, 179
Catholicism A gainst Itself, 382
Causes o f C orruption in the T raditional Text, 48
Celt, Druid, and Culdee, 492, 514
Christ Among Us, 347
Christian Beacon, 468
Christian D octrines, 477
C hristianity Today, 465
C h ristia n ’s H andbook o f B iblical Scholarship, xxii
C h ristia n ’s H andbook o f M anuscript E vidence, x i-x ii, x v -x v i, 132, 135,
198, 476, 496
C h ristian ’s H andbook o f Science and Philosophy, 90, 380, 500, 508, 530
5 3 8 -5 3 9
Church H istory, 507
C odex B and Its Allies, 46, 510
C olom etry and the N ew Testament, 78
The Coming Kingdom , 237
The C optic Version o f the New Testam ent in the Northern D ialect, oth er­
wise c a lled M em phitic and B ohairic, 509
The C optic Version o f the N ew Testam ent in the Southern D ialect, o th er­
w ise c a lled Sahidic and Thebaic, 509
The C ross Reference Bible, 52, 455
C u ster’s Last Stand, xvii, 21 I
— D—
D ead Sea Scrolls, 48
D ecrees and Canons o f the Council o f Trent, 523
D el Antichissim o C odice Vaticano D ella B iblia G reca, 527
D ellantichissim o C odice Vaticano d ella B iblia G reaca, 261
The D octrine o f Inspiration Explained and Vindicated, 345
The D octrine o f the W ord o f God, A l l
D ublin U niversity M agazine, 527
— E—
The E arly C hristian Use o f C odices Instead o f Rolls, 67
E arnestly Contending f o r the Faith, 350
E cclesiastical H istory, 481, 498, 540
Ecum enical Folly, 468
Em phatic D iaglot, 421
The English B ible fro m the KJV to the NIV, 98
The “E rr o rs” in the King Jam es Bible, 245, 403, 455
The E ssential Eusebius, 481
Eternity M agazine, 375, 465
E vidence That D em ands a Verdict, 495
E x p o sito r’s G reek New Testament, 43
— F —

F acsim ilies and D escription s o f M iniscule M anuscripts o f the New T esta­

ment, 76
Facts A bout the Textus Receptus, 252, 255
Faith and Inspiration, 345
Faith f o r the Family, 19, 51, 231, 244
Fathers o f the P rim itive Church, 501
The FBI and M artin Luther King Jr., 538
Fifty Counts o f Treason, 467
Fires From M any Altars, 474
Flaming Torch, 413
From G lory to Glory, 249
Fundam entalism , What Every Catholic N eeds to Know, 352, 479, 479
The F undam entalist Journal, 10, 51
— G —

G eneral B iblical Introduction, 497

G eneral H istory o f the Vaudois Churches, 514
G eneral Introduction to the Study o f the H oly Scriptures, 56
G esenius ’ H ebrew Lexicon, 56
G o d ’s Inspired P reserved Bible, 468
Golden N uggets in the G reek New Testament, 43
G ram m ar o f the Septuagint Greek, 110
— H —

H andbook o f B iblical Criticism , 48

Here I Stand, 512
The H eresies o f W estcott and Hort, 502
H istoric M em orials o f Canterbury, 491
H istory o f the Bible, 48, 482, 502
H istory o f the Christian Church, 114
H istory o f the C hristian R eligion and Church, 514
H istory o f the N ew Testam ent Christian Church, V ol. I, 88, 137, 139-140
228, 367, 393, 483, 501, 512
H istory o f the New Testam ent Christian Church, Vol. II, xviii, 86, 129, 134
178, 223, 230, 302, 397, 516, 520, 534
H istory o f the Sabbath, 491
The H oly B ible from Eastern M anuscripts, 128
How Our B ible Came to Us, 51, 487
How R adical is the N ational Council o f Christian Churches?, 467
H ow We G ot Our Bible, 4 0 -4 1 , 43, 51, 522
— I—
The Identity o f the New Testam ent Text, 95, 435, 4 9 2 -4 9 3
The Infallible Word, 345
The Influence o f the Bible on C ivilization, 491, 515
Inside Story o f the Anglo-Am erican R evised New Testament, 178
Inspiration and Interpretation, 48, 345
Inspiration o f the H oly Scriptures, 102
Inspiration o f the Scriptures, 102, 345
International Standard B ible Encyclopedia, 49, 103, 498
International Theological Library, 56
The In te rp rete r’s Bible, 1 0 2 ,2 0 6
Introduction to the New Testam ent Textual Criticism , 54
Introduction to the O ld Testam ent in Greek, 396, 498
Introduction to the Septuagint, 108
Introduction to the Study o f the H oly Scriptures, 109
Is H igher Criticism R eally Scholarly?, 536
— K —

King Jam es VI o f Scotland and I o f England, 223

King Jam es Fans, 475, 478
King Jam es Unjustly Accused, 223
King Jam es Version C ontroversy, 261, 476
The King Jam es Version D ebate, 51, 525
King Jam es Version Defended, 430, 434
The King Jam es Version o f the B ible vs. Dr. P eter S. Ruckman, 490-491
—L—
The L ast Twelve Verses o f Mark, 469, 494, 527
Latin P aleograph y in O fficial Docum ents, 382
The L iberty B ible Commentary, 238, 451
The Life and L etters o f Hort, 529
Life M agazine, 6
The Life o f Jesus, 393
Life o f John Nevin, 541
The Life o f P hilip Schaff, 541
Light from the Ancient East, 56
—M—
The M aking o f a King, 223
The M aking o f the English New Testament, 396
Man, H is N ature and His D estiny, 249, 524
Mark o f the Beast, 518
M asoretic Text in H ebrew and English, 49
M cC lintock and S tro n g ’s Encyclopedia, 506
The M illennial Hope, 483
M oody Monthly, 51
M oral Theology, 349
M oses and Paul, 524
—N—
N e stle ’s G reek Text, (see Novum Testamentum G raece)
The N ew Bible, 4 6 7 -4 6 8
N ew Testam ent Commentary, 384
N ew Tesam ent in the O riginal Greek, 53, 5 3 1 -5 3 2
N icene and P ost Nicene Fathers, 519
Novum Testamentum Graece, (N e stle ’s G reek T ext) xix, 49, 86, 216, 242,
314, 439
—O—
The O ld Testam ent Text and Versions, 53
Omni M agazine, 537
Origin and Transm ission o f the New Testament, 532
Our Bible, 474, 486
Our G od-B reathed Book, the Bible, 50, 345
Our G reat Com mission, 524
Our Inheritance, 516
The Oxford A postles, 516
—P—
P aleograph ic G racea, 383
P opery In Its Social A spects, 523
The P ractical use o f the G reek New Testament, 236
P reface f o r the G reek New Testament, 292
The P resent Peril, 251
P rinciples and P roblem s o f B iblical Translations, 45, 512
P rinciples o f New Testam ent C riticism with a G raphic Table o f Uncials, 54
The P rin ted English Bible, 158
P roblem Texts, (now titled The “E rr o rs” in the King Jam es B ible), xvi

-Q -
Q uarterly Review, 523
—R—
R eport on the H istory and R ecent C ollation o f the English Versions o f the
Bible, 47
Revelation and Inspiration, 102, 345
Revision R evised, 48, 487, 504, 541
The Rom ance o f B ible Scripts and Scholars, 149, 497
Rom anism and the Reform ation, 488, 516
—S—
Sa ta n ’s M asterpiece— The N ew ASV, 214
Second A m erican Revolution, 466
Secret H istory o f the Oxford M ovement, 516
Securing the True Text, 174
Selecting a Translation o f the Bible, 365, 372
Septuagint Introduction, 111
Septuagint Concordance, 1 0 9-110, 112
Short Studies A bout G reat Subjects, 488, 516
Six Lectures o f the Text o f the New Testament, 47
So M any Versions?, 51
The Spanish Inquisition, 517
Studies in M ethodology in Textual Criticism o f the New Testament, 48, 119
The Study o f the Bible, 53
Sure W ord o f Prophecy, 1
Survey o f Syntax in the O ld Testament, 51
Survey o f the O ld Testament, 113
S w ord o f the Lord, 41, 50, 203, 206, 210, 216, 239, 350, 406, 478
—T—
Text and Canon o f the New Testament, 53, 102
Text and Studies, 508
The Text o f the E pistles, 533
The Text o f the G reek Bible, 44, 422, 431
The Text o f the N ew Testament, 45, 53, 396, 504
Texte and Untersuchungen, 505
Textual Criticism , 508
Textual Studies in the New Testament, 505
The Textus R eceptus and the KJV, 51
T heological W ord Book o f the O ld Testament, 49
Theopneustia, 345
Things That Differ, 524
Thompson Chain Reference Bible, 236
The T raditional Text, 48, 482, 503, 505, 533
The Translation D ebate, 86
T ranslators and Translations, 50, 525
Treasures in the G reek New Testament, 43
The Truth A bout the King Jam es Only Controversy, xviii, 32, 92, 104 112
297, 436, 462, 466, 470
—U—
Unknown Bible, 23, 166, 448
U ntranslatable Riches, 43
—V—
Vancouver Sun, 7, 468
—W—
W aldensian Researches, 519
Wall Street Journal, 15
Washington Post, 526
W estcott and H ort G reet Text, 49
What Is the Best New Testament?, 54
Which Bible?, 123, 158,491
The W isest F ool in Christendom, 224
The W ord and the World, A l l
W ord o f the N ew Testam ent as A ltered and ascertain ed by M odern C riti­
cism, 54
W ord Studies in the N ew Testament, 44
 A blondi, A lberto, 85 A rchbishop N ew com e, 186
A ccom m odation T heory, 35, 388, A rcher, G leason Jr., 113, 472, 495,
475 505
A cts 8:37, 3 1 9 -3 2 0 A ristobulus, 109
A cts 9 :5 -6 , 320-321 A rm enian version, 138
A dler, E .N ., 91 A ssim ilation, 266
A dysh m anuscript, 139 A struc, Jean, 386
A edesius, 137 A thanasius, 432
A elfric, 40, 153 A ugustine, A urelius, 82, 105, 11 8 -
A fm an, Fred, 232, 4 1 8 -4 1 9 , 525 119, 133-134, 287, 432, 483,
A gricola, M ichael, 149 499, 508, 512
A khm im ic, 94 A uthorized V ersion (A V ), 1, 3, 4,
A land, Kurt, 8 4 -8 5 , 258, 488 10, 18, 24, 28, 46, 118, 154,
A lbigenses, 508 160, 164, 174, 224, 228, 234,
A lbright, W illiam , 8 2 3 6 -2 3 8 , 309, 3 6 1 -3 6 2 , 398,
A lcuin, 132 411, 414, 444, 447, 4 5 0 -4 5 1 ,
A ldhelm , 153 496, 517
A ldred, 153 A veritts, R ichard, 51
A leph (see S inaiticus) B ainton, R oland, 512
A lexandrian C ult, 416 B arnabus, 68
A lexandrian fam ily, 264 B arth, K arl, 43, 4 7 7 -4 7 8
A lex an d rin u s, xxii, 82, 1 15, 178, Basil the G reat, 432
420, 440-441 B asiliensis, 424
A lford, H enry, 202 B atton, Fred, 48
A lfred the G reat, 153 Bauer, F erdinand C hristian, 393
A lter, F.K ., 183 Baxter, R ichard, 389
A m brose, 82, 432 B eatty, C hester, 90-91
A m erican B ible S ociety, 47, 84 B eck, W illiam , 191
A m erican S tandard V ersion (A SV ), B ede, “V enerable” , 153
10, 11, 13, 18, 20, 84, 115, 122, B eegle, D ew ey, 465
189, 2 1 0 -2 1 1 , 213, 2 7 0 -2 7 1 , Bel and the D ragon, 108, 116
353, 4 0 0 -4 0 1 , 403, 455, 4 7 1 - B elsham , T hom as, 187
472, 484 B engel, H .J.A ., 179, 271
A m plified Version, 191 Bentley, R ichard, 178, 271
A ndrew s, J.N ., 491 B erkeley, G eorge, 180
A ngus, Joseph, 398 Betus Latina, 1 18
A ntioch o f Syria, 70, 92, 126, 141 Beza, T heodore, 141, 157, 202
A ntw erp P olyglot, 150 B ible, 64, 65
A phraates, 432 B ingham , C aroline, 223
A po cry p h a, 8 0 -8 1 , 85, 102, 115, Bios, 7 6 -7 7
117, 119, 131, 133, 141, 146, Birch, A ndrew , 183
153, 1 5 7 ,2 7 7 ,4 2 1 ,4 8 9 B ishop’s B ible, 101, 154, 158
A pologetic, 95 B lack, M „ 84
A postolic Constitutions, 324 B lakeney, 523
A quilla, xv, 103, 114, 118, 124-125, B leek, 115, 498
397, 540 Bob Jones U niversity, 3, 8, 19, 21,
A quinas, T hom as, 352 39, 205, 207, 211, 213, 216,
A rabic version, 139 232, 241, 244, 247, 297, 305,
 369-370, 395,469-471,512 Cathcart, 491, 514
Bobbiensis, 129 Cavert, Samuel McCrae, 468
Bodmer papyri, 90-91 Challoner version, 162, 191
Boettner, Loraine, 102, 345 Chappel, Dwight, 16
Bohairic, 94, 115, 135-136, 509 Charles the First, 488
Book of Armagh, 132 Chrysostom, John, 64-65, 70, 82,
Bousset, Wilhelm, 505 297, 432
Bowie, Russell, 240 Cimino, David, 524
Bowie, Walter, 8 City o f God, 134
Brainerd, David, 389 Clark, K.W., 177
Bratton, Fred Gladstone, 391-392, Clark, Robert, 465-466
502, 537-538 Clement of Alexandria, 352, 432-
Brewer, Julius, 8 433
Briggs, Charles, 56 Clement of Rome, 432
British and Foreign Bible Society, Codex (codices), 67
84-85 Codex A (see Alexandrinus)
Brokenshire, Charles, 39, Codex Amiatinus, 132
Broughton, Hugh, 41, 102, 166 Codex Argenteus, 137
Brown, Francis, 56 Codex B (see Vaticanus)
Brown, Kenneth, 51 Codex Bezae, 40, 130, 423
Bruce, F.F., 51, 102, 237, 332, 465, Codex Boreelianus, 424
473, 517, 525 Codex C (see Ephraemi Rescriptus)
Brucioli, 150 Codex Cavensis, 132
Brunner, Emil, 43, 477-478 Codex Claromontanus, 178, 424
Brunner, W., xix, 39 Codex Colbertinus, 130
Burgon, Dean John William, 15, 48, Codex Corbiensis, 130
81, 97, 262, 274, 291-292, 298, Codex D (see Cantabregensis)
345, 398, 469, 482, 487, 494, Codex Dublinensis, 132
503-505, 527-528, 530-531, Codex Fuldensis, 132
533, 541 Codex Gigas, 130
Burkitt, xvii, 92, 130, 508 Codex Harleianus, 132
Burrows, Millar, 8 Codex K, 509
Bynum, E.L., 475, 478 Codex Laudianus, 424
Byzantine family, 265 Codex Mediolanensis, 132
Byzantine text, 65 Codex Palantinus, 129
Cadbury, Henry, 8 Codex Sangallensis, 132
Caedmon, 151 Codex Sangermanensis, 424
Caesarea, 68, 127, 482, 499 Codex Teplensis, 513
Caesarean family, 82, 128, 138-139, Codex Theta, 82, 128
265, 272, 279, 314, 383, 428- Codex Vercellensis, 130
431, 509, 529 Codex Veronensis, 130
Callipoli, 151 Codex W, (see Washingtonius)
Campbell, Alexander, 187 Codex Wolf II, 424
Cantabregensis, 82, 264, 424, 432, Cola, 77-78
493 Colet, John, 154
Carson, D.A., 51, 87, 297, 476 Colinaeus, 141
Cartwright, Peter, 163 Collation, 176
Catenae, 77 Colophones, 76
 Columba, 492 D'Almeida, Ferreira, 150
Colwell, Ernest, 48,51, 54, 119-120, Darby, J.N., 188
272-274, 279, 292, 383-384, Darwin, Charles, 402
505, 530-533, 536-537 D’ Aubigne, 491
Commata, 77-78 David, Christian, 389
Commentary, 77 DeGrave, 150
Commodian, 483 Deissmann, Adolph, 55, 70, 71, 72
Common version, 162 Demotic script, 135
Com plutensian Polyglot, 156 DeReina, Casiodoro, 150
Conflation, 266 DeRossi, 133
Confraternity version, 191 Descartes, 179-180
Conjectures, 97, 133, 439 DeValera, Cipriano, 150
Conquest, J.T., 187 Dickinson, Rudolph, 187
Conradi, L.R., 491 D idache, 324
Constantine, 68, 69, 7 1, 94, 104, 229, Didymus, 330
433, 481 Diodati, 93, 150
Constantinople, 70, 136, 429 Dionysius, 432
Conybeare, 110 Dittography, 266
Cooke, 244 Dollar, Truman, 7, 14, 29, 32, 374,
Coptic, 135, 183 411-412, 418, 474
Coston, Stephen, 223 Dollard, W.D., 189
Council of Carthage, 82 Douay-Rheims Version, 17, 101,
Council of Trent, 302 131, 144, 161-162, 218, 236,
Coverdale, Myles, 153-154, 156— 283, 516
157 Driver, S.R., 56
Coy, George H„ 178, 402, 488, 523, Eclectic text, 63, 74
540 Edict of Milan, 229
Coyne, 191 Edman, Dr., 351
Craig, Clarence, 8 Edwards, Don, 413
Cranmer, Thomas, 488 Egede, Hans, 390
Creyk, John, 271 Egpyt, 69, 70, 89, 91, 103, 131, 135,
Crim, Keith, 26 420-421
Criswell, W.A., 14, 29, 32, 411-412, Eichorn, J.G., 388, 428
474 Elder, Isabel Hill, 492, 514
Cromwell, Thomas, 157 Eliot, John, 389
Cruden, Alexander, 390 Eliot Psalms, 186
Cureton, William, 126 Elizabeth Bible, 151
Curetonian Syriac, 430 Ellicott, Charles John, 271, 398
Cursive, 73, 83, 88 Ellison, James, 207
Custer, Stewart, xvi, xviii, 32, 63, Elzevir, 141, 202, 219
77,92, 104, 111-112, 117,207, Em phatic D iaglott, 182
211, 242, 261, 297, 327, 341, England, 160-161
419, 431, 436, 462, 466, 470- Ephraem Syrus, 127, 432
471, 477, 480-482, 490, 498, Ephraemi Rescriptus, xxii, 40, 264,
500-503, 509, 522, 541 268, 422
Cyprian, 134, 432 Epistle to Barnabus, 420
Cyril and Methodius, 139 Epistle to the Laodiceans, 132
Cyril of Jerusalem, 324, 432 Erasmus, 41, 80, 90, 140-141, 144,
 154, “Golden Gospels,” 133
156, 202, 217-218, 311,
327, 332, 486, 489 Good News Bible, 85, 191, 231
Erdosi, Janos, 148 Goodspeed, Edgar, 8, 190, 396
Ethiopic version, 137 Gore, 384
Eusebian Canons, 78, 153, 259, 421— Gothic, 82, 94, 136, 513
422, 486 Gottschalkson’ s Bible, 150
Eusebius, 68, 71, 78-79, 82, 101, Graf, Karl Heinrich, 394
104, 122, 287, 319, 432-433, Graham, Billy, 29
481-482, 498-500, 540 Grant, Frederick, 8, 102
Eusebius of Vercelli, 130 Grant, R.M., 177
Evans, Herb, 41, 475 Gray, James M. 463
Faber, G., 516 Great Bible, 101, 153, 156, 158
Falwell, Jerry, 7, 29-30, 32, 474 Greenlee, J, Harold, 54
Farrar, F.W., 102 Greeven, H., 177
Farstad, Arthur L., 374 Gregg, Paul, 342
Feinberg, Charles Lee, 213-214 Gregory, Casper R., 53, 133, 257
Fell, John, 178 Gregory of Nyssa, 324
Ferrar group, 383, 427, 504 Grenfell, Willfred, 89
Fieldhouse, Marvin, 194 Griesbach, J.J., 82, 179-181, 184,
First John 5:7-8, 331-335 202, 383, 421
First Timothy 3:16, 315-316 Grocyn, 154
Fisher, George Park, 507 Guinness, H.G., 488, 516
Flacius, Matthias, 149 Gutenberg Bible, 481
Flannigan, Robert, 51 Gutenberg, Johann, 140, 481
Fleury Palimpset, 129 Gwatkins, 102
Fosdick, Harry Emerson, 7, 214 Handel, George Frederick, 390
Foster, Lewis, 189, 365, 367, 372, Hanson, J.W., 188
524 Haplography, 266
Fox, George, 388 Harclean Syriac, 128
Foxx, Peter, 466, 522 Harding, Stephen, 132
Francis of Enzina, 150 Hare, R.R., 187
Francke, August, 389 Harman, Henry, 109, 127, 134
Frasier, Antonia, 223 Harris, Rendall, 176
Frelinghuysen, Theodore, 389 Harwood, Edward, 186
Froude, J.A., 488, 516 Hatch, W.P., 74, 76
Frumentius, 137 Haupt, Hennan, 513
Fuller, David Otis, 123, 370, 491, Haweis, Thomas, 186
506-508, 513, 515, 519 Hawthorne, 238
Fust, Johann, 481 Hegel, George, 393
Gardner, Frederick, 54 Hegesippus, 127
Gaussen, 345 Helvidius, 507
G eneva B ib le, 101, 154-155, 157— Henderson, A.V., 14, 374, 411-412
158, 163, 224, 236 Hengstenberg, Ernst W., 330
Georgian version, 138-139 Henry, Matthew, 389
Gildas, 492 Herder, Johann, 391
Gilles, Anthony, 352, 479 Herklotts, H.G.G., 50, 114, 487
Glassman, Eugene, 86 Hexapla, 93, 103-104, 113, 114,
Glosses, 77 116, 118-119, 123-124, 127,
 487 Jones III, Bob, 3, 77, 211, 471, 484-
Hieroglyphics, 135 485
Hilary of Poitiers, 432, 514 Joseph, Franz, 56
Hilgenfeld, 330 Josephus, xiv, xv, 125
Hills, Edward, 370, 430, 434, 528 Justin Martyr, 82, 432, 483
Hindson, Ed, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 4 11- Kahle, 1 12, 496-497
412, 419, 479, 490 Kakiagraphy, 293
Hippolytus, 82, 134, 432-433, 483 Kant, Immanuel, 180
Hitler, Adolph, 516 Katz, Peter, 67
Hobbs, Dayton. 465-466 Keller, Luwig, 513
Hobbs, Herschel, 41 I Kenrick, Bishop Francis P., 486
Hodge, Charles, 400-401 Kenyon, Frederick, 44, 177, 422,
Hodges, Zane, 338-342 431, 486, 506, 508
Homoioteleuton, 266 Kephalia, 76, 259
Hort, F.J.A., xviii, 20, 53, 71, 80- Kerr, William, 26, 473
81, 83, 85, 178-179, 183, 265, King James, 4, 22, 23, 41, 144, 166,
273, 280, 292, 398, 402, 428- 219-225, 387
429, 487, 508, 530-533, 535 King James Version (KJV), 6, 11,
Hoskier, H.C., 46, 262, 133, 398, 16, 17, 40, 43, 78, 102, 142,
510, 535 162, 209-212, 216, 229, 240,
Huish, 271 252-253, 340, 409, 474, 484
Hume, Cardinal Basil, 85 Kircher, Conrad, 109
Hume, David, 180 Kleist, 78
Hundhausen, 523 Klijn, 529
Hunt, 89 Knox, John, 157
Huss, John, 151 Koine Greek, 70, 71, 73, 172
Hutson, Curtis, 14, 351, 411-414, Kubo, Sakae, 51
419 Kuenen, 394
Hypothesis, 76-77 Kurtz, Johann Heinrich, 507
Ignatius, 432, 483 Kutilek, Doug, 32, 419
Impe, Jack Van, 369-340 Lachmann, Karl, 183, 202
Index, 217 Lactantius, 68
Irenaeus, 68, 82, 134, 184, 432-433, Lake, Kirsopp, 53, 176, 279, 396
483 Lambert, O.C., 382
Irwin, William, 8, 45 Lamsa, George, 128, 503-504
Itala, 133-134, 265, 507-508, 519 Lanfranc, 132
Jackson, Shirley Case, 483 LaSor, William, 48,, 237
Jacobus, 82, 506, 508 Latimer, Hugh, 488
James, Fleming, 8, 240 Latourette, Kenneth, 385
Jerome, 82, 92, 94, 101, 116, 126, Leach, Charles, 474
130-132, 287, 133-134, 139, Lectionary, 79-80, 97, 493
432, 482-483, 506-508, 512 Lee, William, 102
Jerusalem Bible, 162, 191,218 Lefevre, 150
Jesus, the son o f Sirach, 108, 110— Leger, 514
111 Leitzsmann, 102
John 5:4, 329-331 Lessing, Gotthold, 391
John 8:1-11, 321-323 Letter to Aristeas, xiv, 105-106, 108,
Jones Jr., Bob, 7, 214, 216, 231 496, 512
Lewis, Agnes, 126, 189 Melito, 127
Lewis, Jack, 98 Menologion, 80, 493-494
Liberty University, 239 Merk, xix
Liebnitz, G.W., 179 Mesrob, 138-139
Lightfoot, Joseph, 50, 398, 522, 525 Methodius, 483
Liguori, Alfonso Maria de\ 349 Metzger, Bruce, 45, 68, 69, 84, 128,
Linacre, 154 257, 272, 274-276, 380, 420,
Lindisfarne G osp els, 153 462, 488, 504, 506-507, 520,
Lindsell, Harold, 476 530-531, 533, 535, 539-540
Literary, 89 Michaelis, 240, 388
Living Bible, 4, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, Mill, John, 178, 257, 271, 385
191, 231, 473 Miller, H.S., 48, 113, 174, 492, 497,
Locke, John, 180 506-507, 520, 539-540
Lockman Foundation, 21 Milligan, George, 54, 398
Lopez, Diego, 486 Minuscule, 74
Lovett, 158 Moffat, James, 8, 190
Lowe, E.A., 133 Mohler, Johann Adam, 385
Lucian, 130, 506 Monifaucon, Bernard de, 382
Luibheld, 481 Montgomery, Helen, 190
Luke 2:14, 316-319 Moody Bible Institute, 347, 399-400
Luther, Martin, 142,146, 148-149, Moody Colportage Association, 67
154,512-513 Moody M onthly, 222-223, 240
Mabillon, Jean, 382 Moody Press, 236
MacArthur, John, 343-344, 418 Morgan, G. Campbell, 32
Mace, Daniel, 186 Morgan, Jonathan, 187
Machen, J. Gresham, 451 Moulton, James Hope, 398
MacRae, Allan, 51, 218, 252-255 Mullen, Tobias, 523
Majority text, xix, xxii, 95, 135, 219, Murdock, James, 187
338 Musselman, Jr., Bruce, 232
Majuscule, 74 Musurillo, 501
Manly, Basil, 345 Narramore, Clyde, 411
Mark 16:9-20, 326-327,420 Nash collection, 90
Martin, 150 Nash, Jay Robert, 520-521
Martin, Roger, 418-419 National C ou n cil o f Christian
Martini, Bishop Carlo, 86 Churches (NCCC), 6, 7, 395,
Masoretes, 495 468
Matthae, C.F., 182 Neal, Marshall, 117, 213, 216, 471
Matthew 1:25, 313-315 Neander, Johann August Wilhelm,
Matthew 5:22, 327-329 514
Matthew 6:13, 323-326 Nelson, Wilbur, 346
M atthew ’s Bible, 153, 155 Neumas, 77-78
Maurice, J.F.D., 177 Nestle, Aland, Metzger, 83, 241, 284
McCall, Duke, 14, 411 Nestle, Eberhard, 71, 74, 81, 83, 85,
McElwee, William, 224 89, 139, 202, 293, 401, 440,
McDowell, Josh, 495 488, 528
McGee, J. Vernon, 419 Nevin, John, 541
McGregor, Geddes, 51, 495 New American Bible (NAB), 162,
Mclntire, Carl, 467-468 191, 218
 New American Standard Version Orthography, 73
(NASV), 6, 8, 21, 77, 190, 214, Ostervald, 150
406 Ostraca, 65
New Berkeley Version, 190 Ostrong Bible, 151
New English Bible, 191,231 Oxford Press, 45
New International Version (NIV), 6, Oxford Movement, 177
15, 16, 17, 233, 236, 365, 469 P45, 435-436
New Jerusalem Bible, 162 p« 434-437
New King James Version (NKJV), P” , 434-436
6, 10, 11, 12, 21, 32, 248, 363,
Paisley, Ian, 244
365, 374, 407, 410-413 Palestinian Syriac, 128
New S cofield Reference B ible Palimpsest, 422
(NSRB), 18, 77, 312 Pamphilus, 68, 104, 122, 482, 499-
New World Translation (NWT), 421 500
Newman, Albert Henry, 537-538 Panosian, Edward, 244, 419
Newman, Cardinal, 177 Papebroch, Daniel, 381
Newman, Robert, 51, 218, 252-255 Papias, 68, 82, 432, 483
Nida, Eugene A., 84, 86, 191 Papyrus (papyri), 65, 67, 69, 71, 89,
Niebuhr, Reinhold, 43 91, 95, 268
Nisibenus, 82 Parchment, 65, 67, 68
Nitschmann, David, 390 Patrick, Saint, 93, 492, 515
Non-literary, 90 “Pauline Obsession” , 512
Norlie, Olaf, 190 Paulus, Bishop of Mesopotamia, 113
Norton, Andrews, 187 Peale, Norman Vincent, 7
Noyes, G.R., 1-88 Pearson, Bishop, 271
Ockenga, Harold, 14, 4 1 1 Pedersen, Christian, 149
Old African, 129 Penn, William, 389
Old Latin, 82, 90, 92-93, 101, 115- People’s Gospel Hour, 8
116-119, 127, 129, 130-131, Peshitta, xvii, 82, 92, 127-128, 130,
133-134, 168, 174, 178, 183, 178, 503-505
230, 429, 508, 519 Peter the Great, 151
Old Syriac, 82, 92, 94, 114-116, Petri, Olaus, 149
126-127, 172, 504504, Petrie, Flinders, 89
Olivetan, 93, 150, 514 Pfeiffer, Robert, 396
Oltramere, 150 Philadelphus, Ptolemy, 109
Omissions, 267 Phillips, Harold, 50, 525
Onomastica, 77 Phillips version, 190
Opiza manuscript, 139 Philo, xiv, xv, 103, 125, 378, 392,
Origen, Adamantius, 68, 69, 91, 93- 512,537-538
94, 103-104, 113, 114 -116 , Philoxenian Version, 127
118-120, 122-125, 127, 134, Philoxenus, Bishop, 128
175, 183, 287, 292, 329, 367, Pickering, Wilbur, 95, 292-293, 435,
397, 430, 432-433, 482-483, 492-493, 510, 529, 535-536
487, 492, 496-497, 500, 505- Picrilli, Robert, 472
506, 510, 527 Plummer, Alfred, 56
Orin, 153 Plutschau, Heinrich, 389
Orr, Edwin, 368 Polemic, 95
Orr, James, 345 Polycarp, 432, 483
Pope Damasus, 131 Routh, Martin Joseph, 127
Pope Gregory the Great, 352 Sabatie, Pierre, 175, 384
Pope John Paul II, 391, 537 Sahidic, 83, 94, 115, 135-136
Pope Victor, 396-397 Salmon, Stewart D.F., 56
Price, Ira, 45, 113, 502-503, 508 Savonarola, 154
Price, James, 7, 14, 411, 418-419 Sawyer, L.A., 188
Provan, Charles D., 490-491 Sayings of Jesus, 90
Pseudepigrapha, 137 Scarlett, Nathaniel, 186
Ptolemy, 106, 108 Schaff, David, 540
Purver, Anthony, 186 Schaff, Philip, 20, 114 -115 , 118,
Pusey, Edward, 177 122, 400, 402, 512-513, 515,
Pyle, Howard, 207 537-538, 541
Queen Elizabeth, 158, 163 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 392
Queen of the Cursives, 89 Schleusner, John Friedrich, 110
Rabulla, Bishop, 116, 128 Schoffer, Peter, 481
Ramm, Bernard, 371 Scholia, 77
Rasmussen, Roland, 205 Scholtz, J.M.A., 183, 257
Ray, J.M., 186 Schraeder, Rick, 490
Reach Out, 26 Schwartz, W., 45, 116, 118, 486,
Recension, 92, 135 499, 512
Reimarus, 393 Science, 23, 41
Renan, Ernest, 393 Scofield Reference Bible, 18, 81,
Repetitions, 266 249
Reumann, John, 149, 496-497, 512- Scrivener, F.H.A., 45, 47, 258, 262,
513 398, 437, 487, 527, 531
Revised Standard Version (RSV), 6, Scroggie, 463
7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 27, 214-216, Sears, Victor, 467
231, 237, 240, 248, 370, 410, Segond, 150
445, 468 Semler, J.S., 35, 82, 179, 383, 386,
Revised Version (RV), 7, 22, 81, 84, 388
189, 258, 292, 442-443 Septuagint (LXX), xiv, 48, 81, 104,
Rice, John R„ 7, 41, 43, 50, 203, 105-106, 108-119, 123-126,
210, 212, 214-216, 236-237, 141, 487
239, 319, 345-346, 350-351, Sharpe, Samuel, 187
368-369, 406, 463-464, 475, Shenan, 462
478, 522 Shepherd of Hermas, 420
Riley, W.B., 463 Shoreham, 153
Roberts, 53, 54 Simon, Richard, 123, 175-176, 179,
Robertson, A.T., 40, 451 379-381
Robinson, H. Wheeler, 102 Sinaitic Syriac, 126
Rockwood, Perry, 8, 468-469 Sinaiticus, xxii, 40, 68, 69, 81-82,
Rogers, Adrian, 14 92, 94, 103-104, 112, 118, 131,
Rogers, John, 155 136, 168, 184, 259, 287, 293,
Rolle, 153 420, 434-435, 437, 440-441,
Roloff, Lester, 39 527-528
Rome, 69 Skehan, Patrick W., 112
Ross, Tony, 462 Slavic version, 139
Rotherham, Joseph, 188 Smith, Joseph, 188
 Smith, Julia, 188 32, 232, 418
Smith, Oswald, J., 243 Tertullian, 68, 134, 229, 330, 432-
Smith, Vance, 398 433, 515
Smyth, J. Patterson, 40, 43 Tetrapla, 114
Son, James J., 359 Textus Receptus, xx, 82, 93, 95,
Soter, Ptolemy, 109 140 -141,179 ,20 9,212, 2 1 7 -
Soulen, Richard, 48 219, 258,261,267-268 ,398,
Souter, Alexander, 53, 102, 202 427, 430-431, 440, 493
Spain, 160-161 Theodotian, xv, 114, 118, 124-125,
Spanish Armada, 158, 161, 169 430, 540
Specht, Walter, 51 Theodotus, 396-397
Speculum , 130 Theodulf, 132
Spener, Philip, 389 Thet manuscript, 139
Sperry, Willard, 8 Thiessen, H.C., 257
Spinoza, Baruch, 179, 380 Thomas Nelson and Sons, 11, 40,
Spurgeon, Charles Haddon, 30, 31, 395, 407, 467-468
32, 463-464, 475 Thompson, Charles, 187
Stam, Cornelius, 249, 251, 524 Thorn, Leonard, 188
Stanley, 491 Tillich, Paul, 43
Steck, R., 330 Tischendorf, K., xviii, 71, 184, 202,
Stephanus, 141, 202, 257, 258 420, 498
Stichos, 74 Titloy, 76
Stock, 110 Titus, xv
Stonehouse and Wooley, 345 Tobit, 93, 108
Strauss, David, 393 Torquemada, 517
Streeter, Burnett H., 279, 281, 504 Torrey, R. A., 30, 3 1, 32, 463, 474
Sturz, H.A., 298 Towns, Elmer, 7, 14, 411-412
Sumner, Robert, 32, 206, 368, 381, Townsend, George, 187
413-414, 419, 463-464, 467, Trammius, Abraham, 110
476, 490, 522 Transpositions, 267
Sweeting, George, 399 Trench, Richard Chenevix, 398
Swete, H.B., 396, 498, 508 Trinitarian Bible Society, 15, 27,
Swindoll, Chuck, 418 182,489,515
Symmachus, xv, 103, 114, 118, 124— Twilley, L.D., 531
125 Tyndale Bible, 101, 517
Synaxaria, 80, 493-494 Tyndale House, 26
Syrian family, 268 Tyndale, William, 40, 153-156, 158,
Talbot, Louis, 463 517
Tatian, 259, 432, 513 Ulfilas, 82, 94, 136-138, 513
Tatian’ s D iatesseron, 94, 127, 138, Uncial, 73, 74, 80, 83, 135, 179, 420
324, 503 United Bible Societies, xix, 45, 83-
Tausen, Hans, 149 84-85, 175, 242, 258, 274, 277,
Taverner, Richard, 153, 156-157 321-322, 380, 530
Taylor, Kenneth, 4, 25, 27, 28, 191, United Brethren, 150
324, 402, 473 Vasa, Gustaf, 149
Tennent, Gilbert, 390 Vaticanus, xxii, 46, 68, 69, 80, 82,
Tennent, William, 389 85, 88, 90, 92, 94, 103, 112,
Tennessee Temple University, 21, 115, 118, 130-131, 136, 138,
 168, 259, 261, 268, 276, 286- Westminster version, 191
287, 293, 421-422, 428, 434- Wettstein, J.J., 179, 257
435, 437, 440-441, 486, 509, Weymouth, 189, 202
527 Whitehead, John W., 466
Vaudois, 514 Whiting, Nathan, 187
Vellum, 67, 71 Whitney, Thomas, 464
Vercellone, 261, 527 Whitson, William, 186
Verkuyl, 190 Wikgren, Allen, 45, 113, 84-85
Victor of Antioch, 82 Wilberforce, Bishop, 398
Vincent, Marvin, 44 Wilhelm, “Father” Anthony, 347
Visoly Bible, 150 Wilkinson, Benjamin, 123, 158
Vogels, H.J., xix Williams, Charles, 190
Von Dobschutz, 491, 515 Williams, “Chip”, 343
Von Soden, Hermann, 202, 427-431 Williams, J.B., 244
Vulgate, 11, 82, 93, 126, 129-133, Williams, W „ 187
140-141, 144, 150, 153, 156, Willmington, Harold, 356, 419
162, 178, 184, 236, 265, 311, Wilson, Robert Dick, 386, 536
429, 506-508 Wisdom, Thurman W., 248, 419
Waite, Donald, 502 Wiseman, Cardinal, 523
Wakefield, Gilbert, 186 WMUU, 469
Waldensians, 93, 508, 513 Woide, 271
Walsh, W „ 516 Wolf, Frederich, 382, 535
Walton, Brian, 178 Woodruff, Hezekiah, 187
Ward, Norman, 469 Wordsworth, Christopher
Warfield, Benjamin, 102 Wrede, William, 393
Washingtonius, 83, 383 Wuest, Kenneth, 43, 191
Wattenbach, 133 Wycliffe, John, 40, 140, 153
Watterman, Leroy, 240 Ximenes, Cardinal, 80, 156
Watts, Isaac, 389 Yanagita-San, Tomonobu, 215-216
Watts, Robert, 345 Young, Patrick, 271
Webber, F.R., 514 Young, Robert, 188
Webster, Noah, 187 Ziegenbalg, Bartholomew, 389
Weeks, R.W., 189 Zimmerman, Thomas, 14
Weigle, Dean Luther, 12 Zinzendorf, Nicholas, Count von,
Weiss, B., xix, 71, 202 389
Weiss, Christian, 235 Zondervan, 15, 16, 51, 107-108,
Weldon, Anthony, 222 110, 476
Wellhausen, Julius, 394 Zuntz, 533
Wells, 385
Weniger, Archer, 468
Wenxzel, 150
Wesley, John, 389
Westcott and Hort Theory, 258, 260,
297
Westcott, B.F., xviii, 20, 53, 71, 80-
81, 83, 177, 398, 402
Western family, 127, 136, 264, 268,
383, 436