AssemblyBoard

Hi Verne and other contributors to this thread!

  Wow!  Quite a bit of back and forth on this topic in the last week!

  I tried reading back over the past discussion and did not see any answers to some of my challenges to the claim of the superority of the TR over all other available data.

  I will try to narrow my argument by asking only one of the questions again:

 Since every single manuscript of the Bzyantine family (the basis for the TR) contain at least 7-8 variant readings per chapter which manuscript from that family is God's preserved version of perfection and absolute purity?

  If the answer is that Erasmus, the translator who prepared the translation that became the KJV, had been annointed to prepare a God authorized version:  how about the addition of verses that Erasmus admitted to making to the text, because of the pressure of the Roman Catholic church at that time, and did not appear in any Greek text at all (Bzyantine, or otherwise) be included in the one true version?

  The above are indisuptable facts of history that cannot be denied and must be answered if a defense for a "KJV only" is to be made.

                                God Bless,  Mark C.

Mark I can try to answer the question if you wish but I am uncertain about how probative that would be. Most debaters on this issue agree that the variations among the Byzantine textual family do not approach the variations of that family with "Aleph", 'B" or "D". We know that the latter manuscripts are those which have given rise to virtually all the new versions as their Greek textual source. The argument revolves around the difference between these manuscripts and the TR and consequently their progeny - modern translations and the KJB respectively. I hope that helps a bit.
Verne

Verne,

"height of irrationality"???

If I were using her ignorance of Greek and Hebrew to argue against her skills at teaching home economics, that would be irrational.

But the ability to read Biblical languages is fundamental to the ability to make judgements about texts.  The entire KJV only position rests upon an argument about the superiority of the Textus Receptus.

The only way to really know is to spend years qualifying yourself to be able to make the best judgement possible.

Gail Riplinger has not done this.  So, she doesn't know!

This is neither irrational nor "elitist".   It is just plain old common sense.

The claimed superiority of the Textus Receptus is the foundation upon which Riplinger's entire position is built.  

She has constructed an elaborate conspiricy theory, indicting virtually the entire world of Evangelical scholarship, upon SOMETHING SHE DOESN'T KNOW!!!!

IMHO, that is a fallacious.



First of all, Zane Hodges has spent many years making informed arguments for his position, in a respectful and scholarly manner, among people who are his peers.

It is through such give and take among scholars that knowledge advances.

Riplinger makes wild accusations against the characters of anyone who dares to work on a translation committee.  Not only are they wrong, but they are part of a vast New Age conspiricy to bring in the kingdom of the Antichrist!!

That, dear brother, is not what her critics, including this one, have done.

Now, I don't know which critics to which you refer, but the ones I have read quote liberally from her writings, with page citations.


I agree.  As I have said repeatedly, the issue is "what did the original text say."   Sure, you can compare the KJV to the NIV and notice differences, but......so what?

That does absolutely nothing to establish what the text ought to say.  And that, dear brother, is what matters.


I will, in my next post

Thomas Maddux

Tom while I understand what you are saying here regarding the importance of training when it comes to making independent judgment on technical matters, your argument ignores a fundamental tenet of the discipline of epistimology. You are arguing that there are things that Gail Riplinger cannot know, unless she has spent decades
of study and training. For that argument to make any sense whatsoever, you are going to have to be far more specific. Remebmer men technically trained and who have all spent years of research on the subject are not unanimous in their judgment so we need to be careful.
If you give it any thought at all Tom. it would be evident to you that a substantial portion of what we know, or at least think we do, is not arrived at by the method your prescribe. This has been the fundamental flaw in much of your argumentation of this issue in my view. Review your epistimology.



Yes the theory is indeed elaborate. She bases much of it on her understanding of what is predicted to happen in the time prior to the return of Christ.
But Tom you have to be aware the view regarding the superiority if the TR is held not only by Gail Riplinger, but also many able men of learning who have argued for that position long before she was born. While I understand your strong feelings about her in particular, she is nothing more than a foot-note in the historty of this debate and you are well-read enough to be fullly aware of that.



I see your point here.
It is certainly true that scientific paradigms do change over time, and with scholarly progress, concepts once accepted as indisputable are shown to be lacking in their ability to explain all the data, or properly predict new findings.
I think it is a grave mistake to in anyway consider textual criticism in the same view we would a hard scientific hypothesis. My own reading suggests this approach is fraught with pitfalls.


I meant that one you quoted in a book commentary.
The exchange between her and her critics has indeed been quite acrimonious and I think quite a poor testimony. I think she was incensed by some of the criticism that was patently unfair. misleading and borderline slanderous. Some of it was indeed legitimate.



No argument here. We have never agreed on the arguments marshalled for advocacy of the idea that the manuscripts underlying modern versions are more accurate than the TR. so far as they resemble the autographs. When I talk about looking at the original languages, that we are looking at some reasonable facsimile of the autographs is presumptive. I also assume that one, without decades of training can make some reliable determination of the quality of the code transfer. If words in the presumed original are missing or different, that can be ascertained without recourse to erudite technical judgments. That is really what the entire discussion is indeed about!
It is evident that the methods of translation is a separate and distinct issue from the source MSS used for the process.
And this is something that we have not really touched on Tom. Even using the TR, it is my opinion that modern translators would not produce anything remotely resembling the KJB.
Times have changed dramatically, and I am not convinced for the better.



Fair enough Tom. I am reading Scrivener and he has some very intersting insight into all this. You should check him out.

Hi Folks:

Hee is a letter from the president of Bob Jones UNiversity who had taken severe umbrage at a few things Waite had said about the book written by a BJU posse, Mind of Man.
Please! Don't read it.
I will post Dr. Waite's reply later.

Dr. D. A. Waite
900 Park Avenue
Collingswood, NJ 08108-3235

Dear Dr. Waite:

Your conference at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Greenville last week was a blatant attack upon BJU, an insult to this institution that your children attended.

In addition to that, someone sent me a copy of your diatribe Fundamentalist Misinformation on Bible Versions dedicated to "all the graduates of Bob Jones University who, though they were indoctrinated in the BJU Greek department to accept as genuine the Westcott and Hort kind of text, have forsaken such a text as corrupt and heretical and . . . have now accepted as genuine the Traditional Textus Receptus Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible . . ." This is not only a slap on the face of Bob Jones University, it is also a blatant misrepresentation of what our students were taught here. They're taught no disrespect for the Textus Receptus and certainly not for the KJV. The KJV is all we preach and teach from here. It would be utter stupidity for our Bible department to demean the Textus Receptus while holding in respect the translation from which it was made.

Dr. Waite, why are you so mean-spirited? Why do you vilify your brothers in Christ who believe the Bible just as fervently and defend it just as militantly as you do. You're creating division in the body of Christ that is unwarranted and hurtful. We know that the Lord hates those who sow discord among the brethren (Proverbs 6:16-19).

I beg you to desist. You are not hurting the University, but you are hurting the good name of Christ, a name that I believe you love as much as we do. My plea does not suggest that you should stop believing anything you believe about the text, but that you should desist in maligning and misrepresenting those who love the Bible as much as you do, but who don't see these things exactly as you do.

Very truly yours,
Bob Jones III
President
BJIII:ser

 The argument revolves around the difference between these manuscripts and the TR and consequently their progeny - modern translations and the KJB respectively. I hope that helps a bit.
Verne

  Hi Verne!

  I guess that I did not phrase my question clearly, because I didn't mean to ask which text family has the fewest errors.

  Jerome was assigned the task in the 4th century of trying to smooth out the differences in the texts available to him from the Bzyantine family, because the Roman Catholic church sought a consistent Bible they could call their "Authorized version."

 My question is:  How did Jerome, and later Erasmus, make their decisions as to what was original autograph and what was not?

  I raised the Bzyantine family variant readings only to show that these translators had to decide from the available manuscript data what to include or exclude based on their scholarship, not on some kind of theological test, or special divine insight.  This shows that textual criticism must be used, because it is the only means to make the decisions necessary in providing us with a Bible.

  As I already stated, Erasmus, with the TR, was forced by the Roman Catholic church to add a verse in I JN. that didn't occur in any Greek text at all!  Unless one believes that the pure Word of God was preserved in the Roman Catholic Church Papal leadership, vs. the Greek text itself, we are forced to conclude that the TR has some flaws.

  As mostly Evangelical Christians here, we with the Reformers believe that the Bible, not the church, is what is authoritative (sola scirptura).

 It is healthy to test a text family, that was first smoothed out by Jerome, officially sanctioned by the Pope, and added to by subsequent Catholic theologians, via other text families available that were not controlled by Papist scholarship.

  So the question above again, but amplified:  Why exactly do you believe that the KJV is superior?  Do you base your belief on an understanding of the facts of history re. how we received the TR, God's providential care and Divine authority in the Roman Catholic church, or Jerome's and Erasmus's special Divine authority to make correct translation decisions?  

                                                        God Bless,  Mark C.



 

O.K Mark, let me try to take this one item at a time.
Do you know what was the result of Jerome's efforts?
(I know this is a very leading question but indulge me :))
Verne

As soon as I am done with this exchange with Mark, I think I will be moving on. I see I did not get any takers on my previous challenge to check the NT use of the word blood. Since so much of Christian theology hinges on the Biblical teaching of propitiation, I had planned on laying out a clear and indisputable case for the systematic assault on this teachng in many new versions. Everything in its own time.
I will cite one final example to illustrate the folly of the  carelessly bandied about notion (obviously by people who do not really know their Bibles) that there are no doctrinal implications to the changes or variant readings we see in some of these versions.

How about the doctrine of inerrancy?


 The KJV -- Mark 1:1-2 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."

If those of you who have read this thread do nothing else, please check your Bible and see how the above verse reads.

If the portion in bold face reads in the prophet Isaiah, you will face the following difficulty.
While it is true that Mark 1:3 does indeed cite Isaiah 40:3, verse two is indisputably a reference to Malachi 3:1!

The post powerful tool for the effective study of the Bible is the Bible itself. Its internal witness is self-consistent. This point is critical!
I will say no more. You figure it out.

I leave this topic with a certain feeling of sadness.


There are none so blind, as those who will not see...
Verne

Experts are in general agreement that the NT was completed by the end of 100 A.D. and the church at that time had in circulation, what was generally recognized at the true Scriptures.
It is important to understand that even in Paul's time there were attempts being made to adulterate the Word of God.
These attempts are easily documented.
Your question Mark, whether intentional or not, has the subtle implication that among the texts traditionally accepted by the church as genuine (namely the Byzantine or Traditional text), that there are substantial differences and/or confusion about what Scriptures were authentic.
That was not the case in Jerome's time, and it is not true today.

The underlying text on which the KJB is based is attested to by the overwhelming majority of extant documents!.

I stand amazed at the song and dance people do around this undeniable fact in trying to explain how those documents have all been summarily rejected for  texts representing 1 % of the data. I recommend that you take a little time and compare the Latin Vulgate with your KJB. Then compare the Vulgate to those versions derived from the Westcott/Hort recensions. The current incarnation is the Nestle/Aland 26th edition.

Kurt Aland does not even know the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Christian academic cummunity has taken complete leave of its spiritual senses

Erasmus had a long church history and tradition to guide him, the writings of the Church fathers, versions of the Scripture in other languages and so on, in addition to the MSS he used in his translation. The notion that all he had were the Greek MSS he used is false.  It is the same mentality that tries to persuade others that the only reliable witness is the  text  that descended from Wescott and Hort. This is incomprehensible in my opinion.  Furthermore, the quantity of probative documents available to shcolars has greatly expanded since the time of the Reformation.  
In short both Jerome and Erasmus were men of extraordinary ability and used that skill along with the available witneses in determining what the text should be.
No one argues that the work of either of these men is perfect.
Some things in the Vulgate Jerome wanted omitted.
To raise an issue about variations in the source MSS they used, while ignoring the fact that what they produced is so fantastically different from what the followers of Westcott and Hort have is in my view to completely confuse the issue.
Erasmus also had the Greek, as well as the Latin stream of history to do his comparison. As you are aware, Jerome also relied on the LXX.



Again you are comparing apples and oranges. B and Aleph and their like are animals of a different species entirely.
You have repeated Carson's serious error that there are not doctrinal implications arising out of the variance in these texts when compared with the TR.
I will say gently to you Mark that that is an argument likely to be repeated only by someone who has done little or no examination of what has been produced by these texts.
The only reason they were accepted is that Hort convinced everyone that older was more accurate and around 1881 made the case that the TR had no ancient witnesses. How strange it is that a theory that has been completely blown out of the water by a plethora of subsequent evidence (older than Aleph and B and supporting the TR) still drives the justification of the perversion of the Scriptures that these men instigated.

 
As I replied in a previous post, this is false and nothing but propaganda;
that passage in 1 John is in many ancient Greek as well as other manuscript and version witnesses. Please check your facts on this Mark.

 
Superior manuscripts, superior men, superior methods!


I had intended to respond by simply having you tell me what you thought of the Vulgate and the reasons for your opinon.
While that excercise would have been far more fruitful, it would probably have taken too long to get to the points I wanted to make. I recommend you do a bit of checking on the history of the Vulgate and its contents as regards the historical stream of the Sacred Scriptures.

howdy,

Big paper about due.

See Y'all in a few days.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Knock 'em dead Tom... :)
Verne

If  you intend to do serious Bible study, you are gonna need a few tools.
I recommend the following as a basic arsenal:

1.The Word Study Concordance

by George V Wigram and Ralph D. Winter

It is published by Tyndale press anad keyed to the following essential works:

Word Study New Testament
Arndt/Gingrich Greek Lexicon
Moulton & Geden Greek Concordance
Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

2.The Word Study New Testament
which is a companion volume to the above

Add to the above three outstanding works by the peerless editor Spiros Zodhiates:

3. The Complete Word Study Old Testament

4.The Complete Word Study New Testament

5The Complete Word Study Dictionary (NT)

Get busy people!
God richly bless and keep y'all, hear?   :)
Verne

 :)Can I qualify for Bible Studying:

I have several translations of the Bible.
I have two handbooks like Haley's Handbook
I have Strong Complete Dictionary
I have IVP Bible Commentary of the NEW Testament
I have Strongs Complete Concordance

I have various other books . A few encycolpedias
trivia books, lists, Study work books.

My desk is my bed.
My classroom is my bedroom.
My teacher is my God.

WIth a few classes in front of the pulpit of place I worship, with a reliable SHepherd.

So am I set for the College of Biblical Life of Study under Professor Lord Jesus Classroom.


 8) ;)

Dr. Bob Jones III
President, BOB JONES UNIVERSITY
Greenville, SC 29614 Tuesday, April 25, 2000

Dear Dr. Jones:

I received your letter to me of March 28, 2000 [See APPENDIX, pp. 20-21, for a copy]. In your letter you have raised a number of issues. I should like to comment on each of them. I hope you have the time to read my comments. I will circulate my response to your letter, along with your letter to me, to as many as would like to read both documents. This document is B.F.T. #2987. Due to the importance of this debate on the topic of Bible texts and translations to all of us Fundamentalists, any future letters to me on this subject must also become Open Public Letters.

1. The Bible Conference at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina.
We had a wonderful Bible Conference at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Greenville, March 19-22, 2000. That was the same week as your own Bible Conference. Pastor Don Farmer was the other Bible Teacher.

2. "A Blatant Attack upon BJU"?
You wrote that this Bible Conference was a "blatant attack upon BJU." What is your source for this statement? How do you know this? Were you there? I didn’t see you. I assume you have either the audio or video tapes for you to make this statement. Have you heard the audio tapes? Have you seen our video tapes? My main purpose was to give those in attendance and those listening on the radio and on the Internet all over the world a brief summary of my answer to that dreadful book that you have praised so highly, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man (hereafter The Mind of Man). It is true that I mentioned Bob Jones University, some of its teachers, some of its board members, some of its graduates, some of its employees, some of its loyal friends, and even you, Dr. Jones, its president. What I quoted from these individuals, and what I said about them, was factually true. After all, shouldn’t credit be given where credit is due to those who had a hand in producing, printing, publicizing, and recommending this book that is so filled with MIS-INFORMATION?

On other topics, I was very kind to Bob Jones University and on their Fundamental doctrines as a whole. The one subject on which I took decided exception to your position, and that of Bob Jones University, concerned your false and dangerous position on the Bible’s text and translation. As I reminded you in my friendly and commendatory letter to you of March 6, 2000, on recent media attacks on the University, "we differ strongly on the Bible version issue, as we both know." [See APPENDIX, pp. 22-23 for a copy]

In my series, I merely pointed out the truth about the many BJU personnel--including you, the Bob Jones University president--including BJU teachers, BJU board members, BJU graduates, and BJU loyal friends who were responsible for the Fundamentalist MIS-INFORMATION on Bible Versions which is found in The Mind of Man book. Are you still proud of this book written by so many BJU-graduates, board members, teachers, and friends, even with the REVISED STANDARD VERSION on the cover? This is the book you commended highly at the World Congress of Fundamentalists in July, 1999. Here is what one of the copyright holders, committee members, and writers in the book wrote in a letter: "Dr. Bob held up the book and called it ‘the most significant book for Fundamentalism in this decade, no, in this century.’" Is this correctly reported? If so, is this still your opinion of The Mind of Man book ?

On this issue, I believe strongly that Bob Jones University, under the leadership of your grandfather, father, and you, yourself, has been the chief source for Fundamentalists all over the world in the dissemination of many false and erroneous views about the original language texts--especially the Greek New Testament text--as well as the false and erroneous view that Bishop Westcott and Professor Hort were "conservatives," and as Dr. J. B. Williams wrote, are "now with the Lord" in heaven. Bob Jones University is the Fundamentalist fountainhead and source of the exaltation of the heretical Greek Text founded by Westcott and Hort.

If you will look on pages 37-42 of my book which you said someone sent you, Fundamentalist MIS-INFORMATION on Bible Versions, you will see various quotations made by Bishop Westcott and Professor Hort from documented sources, all of which you have in your Bob Jones University library. Do you believe these statements are consistent with Bible believing Fundamentalist theology? Or do you agree with me that these doctrines are not in conformity to the Bible’s teachings? Do you agree with me that these are the views of the apostates of their day and of ours? If so, how can they be "now with the Lord" as your board of trustee member, Dr. J. B. Williams, has written? If you believe these statements (all of which are correctly documented) are in conformity with Fundamental Bible doctrine, then I question your theological judgment as to what is Fundamental Bible doctrine and what is apostate teaching. This false position has infiltrated many of the Fundamentalist institutions around the world. You have lent your influence and name and that of Bob Jones University both to putting Westcott and Hort in heaven and also bowing in worship to their perverted New Testament Greek text.

Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?
 Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? John 7:47-48  


This reminds me of the argument some make with regard to translations made from corrupt Greek texts.

Christian scholars all agree! They all can't be deceived!

Says who?

Thankfully, they all do not agree...
Verne

3. "An Insult to this Institution that your children attended"?
There was no "insult" to Bob Jones University in my messages, unless you call "truth" and "disagreement" about the MIS-INFORMATION found in The Mind of Man book an "insult." Most of my children did not merely "attend" Bob Jones University. Three of them graduated from this institution with either their Bachelor’s or Master’s degree. One was on the teaching staff while working on his Master’s degree. They received a very good education, and were not too greatly influenced by the false teaching of Bob Jones University regarding the Greek New Testament text. I am grateful that they were not so influenced and I am grateful for the good training they received in other areas of study.

In my teaching ministry in the Bible conference, I told the truth about the connections between Bob Jones University and those who contributed in any way to The Mind of Man book. Is telling the truth an "insult"? I do not believe that it is. It seems from past experience that when someone disagrees with you or Bob Jones University, you excoriate them with unfair and untrue epithets such as "insult." That has been your "track record," so it really doesn’t surprise me.

Why did your BJU-graduates, teachers, board members, loyal friends and others who had an influence on the book that you praised permit the text of the apostate-led and apostate-copyrighted REVISED STANDARD VERSION (RSV) to be placed on the cover of The Mind of Man book? Or didn’t you observe this on the cover? What person or persons is/are responsible for this? Is this a sample of how much you, your teachers, your board members, your graduates, and your loyal friends "love" the King James Bible? Is this an example of how you do not "demean" the Textus Receptus? Check the following verses that could come ONLY from the RSV and none other English version (not the KJB, NKJV, ASV, NASV, NIV, NRSV or New Century).

Matthew 19:13-16 (Revised Standard Version)

13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people (RSV);

14 but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

15 And he laid his hands on them and went away.

16 And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" (RSV)

Notice how different the other versions are in Matthew 19:13 as a sample, proving it was the RSV:

1. The King James Bible: "Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them." (KJV)

2. The American Standard Version: "Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them." (ASV)

3. The New King James Version: "Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them." (NKJV)

4. The New American Standard Version: "Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them." (NASV)

5. The New International Version: "Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them." (NIV)

6. The New Revised Standard Version: "Then little children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples spoke sternly to those who brought them;" (NRSV)

7. The New Century Version. "Then the people brought their little children to Jesus so he could put his hands on them and pray for them. His followers told them to stop." (NCV)

As you can see, there is no possible way other than that the Mind of Man book, which you praised so highly, used the REVISED STANDARD VERSION of the modernist apostate NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES on the cover! This apostate version uses the same false Westcott and Hort New Testament Greek text that is used at Bob Jones University and that was used in the New American Standard Version. You think this NASV is all right. You sell this NASV in your Bob Jones University bookstores. I would appreciate knowing why this was used. Do you know? Could you find out for me? Who authorized this to be done? What person or persons was/were involved? Was this done to placate the apostate NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES? Didn’t whoever printed the cover have anything other than the REVISED STANDARD VERSION on hand?

Though Bob Jones University is not mentioned as having anything to do with this book that is loaded with MIS-INFORMATION, as I point out in my book, and in my messages, there are at least ten proofs that show the obvious, clear, (though hidden) influence of Bob Jones University as the most important source for this seriously flawed book. According to the testimony of Dr. J. B. Williams, this book was initiated in your own office with your blessing and choice of three of the men to be on the Committee of Texts and Translations (one of whom refused, and one of whom later disqualified himself from the committee and the pastoral ministry because of his long-standing--though not adulterous-- relationship with a woman not his wife). I said that Bob Jones University was "the most important source" as evidenced by the contributions toward The Mind of Man by you, the BJU president, by BJU teachers, by BJU board members, BJU graduates, and other loyal BJU personnel.

4. My "Diatribe"?
Fundamentalist Mis-information on Bible Versions? This 144-page book of mine is not a "diatribe" [or "bitter, abusive criticism."] It is, rather, a carefully written, truthful and objective analysis of what I consider to be 118 items of MIS-INFORMATION that are contained in The Mind of Man. It is indeed a mystery to me how you could put your endorsement and stamp of approval on such a book by saying that this book is "the most significant book for Fundamentalism in this decade, no, in this century." Perhaps you should read all 144 pages of my book. It might help you understand why so many of us are disappointed at the falsity on the Bible’s texts and translations that is being taught at Bob Jones University and its daughter schools.

5. The "Dedication" of my Book to Some Bob Jones University Graduates?
Here is what I wrote in the "Dedication":

"To all the graduates of Bob Jones University who, though they were indoctrinated in the BJU Greek Department to accept as genuine the Westcott and Hort kind of New Testament Greek text, have forsaken such a text as corrupt and heretical and, through personal study of the subject, and, despite the persecution that has come for this position, have now accepted as genuine the Traditional Textus Receptus Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible. May their numbers increase!"

I have underlined the portions in my "Dedication" that you have omitted from your letter (see APPENDIX). I know quite a few Bob Jones University graduates to whom this applies. I especially know of several whom you, yourself, and Bob Jones University have/has mercilessly and grossly unfairly "persecuted" merely because they differ from you on certain things and also hold the position on the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament text that both they and I hold dear.

You should rejoice that I have dedicated this book to some of your BJU graduates. I don’t find fault with all of them--only those you and your institution have "indoctrinated" with the "corrupt and heretical" "Westcott and Hort kind of New Testament Greek text." Is it not a fact that your Greek department uses "the Westcott and Hort kind of New Testament Greek text" known as the Nestle-Aland text? This is the same text that Dr. Stewart Custer debated me on and defended at the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship meeting in Illinois in the 1980's. You were there and remember this well, I am sure, since you came up to me afterwards and were upset at what I honestly reported about Dr. Sam Schnaiter’s defective position in his doctoral dissertation on "message preservation" rather than "preservation of the Words" of Hebrew and Greek. The Bob Jones University Greek text is the same text which has been adopted by the Roman Catholic leaders, the Modernistic Apostate Protestant leaders, the New Evangelical leaders, and (through your Bob Jones University influence mainly) by altogether too many Fundamentalist leaders.

Do you really know what is being taught in your Greek and Bible departments? One of your graduates told me recently that he doesn’t think you really know what is being taught in those Greek and Bible classes. I have no way of knowing the truth of this matter. If you really knew what was being taught, you would not be making the statements you made in your letter about this issue. Based on what I have been told by many BJU-graduates, your statement that all of the classes use ONLY the King James Bible is false. I have been told by a number of such graduates that some of their teachers have used the NASV repeatedly in their classes. You are not correct in this. Has this been only a recent policy that has been strictly enforced? It has NOT been universally enforced in years past and it is hypocritical of you, as well as false of you, to imply that it has been universally enforced. One student told me the teacher asked her to buy a New American Standard Version for class. She fortunately refused this order by your teacher, and continued to use her King James Bible.

6. The "Dedication" A "Slap on the Face of Bob Jones University"?
 How can a "Dedication" of my book be a "slap on the face of Bob Jones University" when I have merely told the truth about what has gone on in your institution from the beginning, but especially from the days of Dr. Brokenshire (in about 1943) who was trained by Dr. B. B. Warfield at Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey? Bob Jones University has never taken any other position than that of Brokenshire and Warfield who have parroted the positions of apostates Westcott and Hort. Why don’t you admit this as fact? This is what Dr. Panosian believes. This is what Dr. Custer believers. This is what Dr. Wisdom believes. This is what Dr. Schnaiter believes. This is what Dr. Neal believes. This is what you yourself believe, is it not? How is it a "slap on the face" to tell the world that the graduates in the Bible and Greek departments at least (if not in other departments of the university)

" . . . were indoctrinated in the BJU Greek Department to accept as genuine the Westcott and Hort kind of New Testament Greek text. . ."?

This is truthful. Does Bob Jones University instead "indoctrinate" and teach that the Textus Receptus Greek text is the closest to the original autographs? Has the University changed its position since I debated with Dr. Custer in the 1980's? Of course you have not! Why are you so angry because I have told the truth of what has been going on for decades in your Bob Jones University? You should praise me for bringing these facts out to the people all over the world. I have often wondered why you really have not told the whole world that you teach the apostate Westcott and Hort Greek text in your Fundamentalist University. Are you ashamed of this? I think that you are. I challenge you to publicize this fact in all of your catalogs and letters to parents, students and affluent people who are leaving millions of dollars to the University in their wills. Tell them that though you preach from the King James Bible in your chapel services, your Greek and Bible department Greek text undermines the King James Bible’s New Testament text in 5,604 places, thinking that 2,886 Greek words should not be translated by the King James Bible, and that (based on your Westcott and Hort kind of Greek text used in your classes) you believe the King James Bible has 356 passages that contain doctrinal errors. Go ahead and really tell the truth about what is going on in some of the classrooms of Bob Jones University! Don’t get angry with us who are telling the truth about this. Tell people yourself.

7. "A Blatant Misrepresentation of What Our Students Were Taught Here"?
What "misrepresentation" is involved in my "Dedication" statement in my book? Are you saying that the "BJU Greek Department" does not stand for the "Westcott and Hort kind of New Testament Greek text"? Do you mean to say that I was "misrepresenting" the facts about Bob Jones University’s stand for the Westcott and Hort kind of Greek text? Has Bob Jones University now switched over to the true Greek text of the New Testament, that is, the Textus Receptus? Have you at Bob Jones University now renounced your former Nestle-Aland Westcott and Hort kind of Greek text in favor of the Textus Receptus? I would be very happy to correct this alleged "misrepresentation" if you can give me documented and undisputed proof that your school has now switched over from the false Westcott and Hort kind of Greek text to the true Textus Receptus. I will be most happy to make that correction.

8. "They’re Taught No Disrespect for the Textus Receptus"?
To teach that the Westcott and Hort Greek text is to be respected and is true is by this very fact to teach "disrespect for the Textus Receptus." There can be no middle ground in the battle between these two Greek New Testament texts. Either the Textus Receptus is correct, or the Westcott and Hort kind of text is correct. These two texts, according to Dr. Frederick Scrivener’s Annotated Greek New Testament (published in both hardback and leather by the Dean Burgon Society, Box 354, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108), differ one from the other in 5,604 places (by my actual count). Dr. Jack Moorman counted 2,886 Greek words that the Westcott and Hort kind of Greek text has completely eliminated from the Textus Receptus text that underlies the King James Bible. Dr. Moorman, in a book of 100 pages, has also enumerated 356 doctrinal passages where the Westcott and Hort Greek text differs from the Textus Receptus text. In each of these 356 passages, the Westcott and Hort text is in doctrinal error and the Textus Receptus text represents doctrinal orthodoxy. Do you really care about these facts? Your faculty cannot logically continue teaching the Westcott and Hort text without at the same time "disrespecting" the Textus Receptus. If one is true, the other is false. If the other is false, the other is true. You cannot respect and disrespect something at the same time. Your Westcott and Hort text throws out Mark 16:9-20 as spurious, for example, yet the King James Bible and its Textus Receptus honors and believes this passage to be genuine.


p.s remember how frequently the apostate George Geftakys would smugly itone: It reads this way in Nestle's...
and we would all be so impressed...some to the point of ignorantly mimicking such nonsense...

A little learning is a dangerous thing...

9. "They’re Taught No Disrespect . . Certainly . . . for the KJV"?
 How can your Greek and Bible departments NOT teach "disrespect" for the King James Bible when your Greek text undermines the King James Bible in 5,604 places? Every time your teachers teach that the critical Westcott and Hort text is correct in a verse of the New Testament, they are "disrespecting" both the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible which is based upon it. They are calling both the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible false and in error in these 5,604 places. I do not understand how you cannot see this as "disrespect" for the Textus Receptus and for the King James Bible. You know some of these differences I am sure, including Mark 16:9-20; 1 Timothy 3:16; John 6:47, and so on. Dr. Jack Moorman has listed all 356 doctrinal differences in his 100-page book published by The Bible For Today. I have included 158 of the major differences in chapter V of my book Defending the King James Bible which has been available for many years, now in its 7th printing.

10. "The KJV is all we preach and teach from here"? I have testimonies from various Bob Jones University students that some of their teachers at times used either the New American Standard Version or New International Version or both in their classes. This doesn’t sound like "all we . . . teach from." You may USE the King James Bible, but you obviously do not DEFEND it. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have so many preacher-boys going out from Bob Jones University and not using and not defending the King James Bible. On the contrary, they are using their NASV’s or their NIV’s because they comport with the false Greek text they were taught at Bob Jones University. Unless you put a date when you started (if you have now started) to make true your statement, "The KJV is all we preach and teach from here," it is a false statement. In times past, this is a false statement you have made (unless, of course, you are of the opinion that all these students who have testified on this point are liars and are giving misinformation).

11. "Utter Stupidity for our Bible Department to Demean the Textus Receptus while Holding in Respect the Translation from which it was Made"?
Truer words were never spoken! You have called your own Bible department (I did not do so) guilty of "utter stupidity." By using and teaching from the Westcott and Hort kind of Greek text, you are ipso facto "demeaning" both the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible from which it was translated--a practice you yourself have characterized as "utter stupidity." I would not be so hard on you and your Greek and Bible departments, I would merely call it inconsistency and hypocrisy. Consistency would demand you use both the King James Bible in the chapel and the Textus Receptus from which it was translated in the Greek and Bible departments. Can you not see how inconsistent you and Bob Jones University are in this matter? Can you not see why so many are calling it hypocrisy? Consistency would demand that you use the New American Standard Version (or New International Version) in the chapel and the Westcott and Hort Greek text in the Greek and Bible departments. My own alma mater, Dallas Theological Seminary, though strongly new evangelical and certainly not Fundamentalist or separated, is at least consistent in this area. They use the New International Version in their chapel and classrooms to go with their Westcott and Hort kind of Greek text in their Greek department.

12. "Dr. Waite, Why Are You so Mean-spirited"?
 I have read many of your own letters both to me and to others in which you have set the highest of "mean-spirited" standards. You are calling me "mean-spirited"? Your letters to those who dare to differ with you would win the prize for "mean-spiritedness." Let me refresh your memory on some of the "mean-spirited" and uncomplimentary words you used in your March 28, 2000 letter to me: (1) "mean-spirited," (2) "blatant attack," (3) "diatribe" (4) "slap on the face,"(5) "blatant misrepresentation,"(6) "vilifying," (7) "creating division," (8) "unwarranted," (9) "hurtful," (10)"maligning,"or (11) "misrepresenting?" You don’t use such terms when writing to your friends do you? Why do you use them when writing to me?

I am not, as you have charged, "mean-spirited." How do you know anything about my messages at this Greenville Bible Conference? I didn’t see you at any of my four meetings. The audio and/or video tapes are available for the whole world to see and hear. Did you listen to my messages over WTBI? Did you listen to them over the Internet? I was just as kind and objective as I could be in these messages, using 100 overhead transparencies for exact quotations for all in the large audience to see for themselves. Can you point out from my messages any examples of what you mean? I was not "blatant" (loud or boisterous) but calm and truthful in my delivery as I pointed out the many MIS-REPRESENTATIONS in The Mind of Man book.

I commended Bob Jones University in many ways, but made it clear of my strong differences with the school on your use of the Westcott and Hort kind of Greek text in your Greek and Bible departments. Can you specify any "mean spirited" remarks in my book, Fundamentalist MIS-INFORMATION on Bible Versions or in the Greenville Bible Conference messages? If you don’t like my Fundamentalist MIS-INFORMATION book, why don’t you answer my illustrations of 118 examples of MIS-INFORMATION. Unless you can specify evidence in either my book or in my Greenville Bible Conference messages, you should withdraw your charge of "mean-spirited."

The book you recommended so highly (The Mind of Man) mentioned my name in a slanderous, libelous, vicious, unchristian, untruthful manner. You should be ashamed for commending this book which contains such libelous untruths about me and others who hold views contrary to those of you and Bob Jones University as the "most significant book for Fundamentalism in this decade, no in this century"! Read once again Acts 20:17-38 and 2 Peter 2:1-3 and ask yourself if this refers (as your board of trustee member, Dr. J. B. Williams, wrote) to Fundamentalist Christian brethren. What kind of wild exegesis is this? Is this what you teach at Bob Jones University--to call such names (rightly referring to unbelievers and apostates) as designations for Fundamentalist Christian brethren? Would you not get upset if someone used those names in reference to you and Bob Jones University?

Speaking of being "mean-spirited," how can you put your stamp of approval on the book assisted by BJU faculty members, BJU board members, BJU graduates, and other loyal BJU friends (The Mind of Man) which contains so many "mean-spirited" words? This is like the pot calling the kettle black. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Let me list the various "mean-spirited" words. The first series comes from the man who teamed up with you to get the Mind of Man book written. He’s on your Bob Jones University board of trustees, Dr. J. B. Williams. He is the general editor of The Mind of Man book. Have you read what he wrote about Fundamentalists who disagree with him on the Greek New Testament text?

I. Dr. James B. Williams’ "mean-spirited" and unkind words. In his opinion, he says of those of us who are strong Fundamentalists who hold to the Textus Receptus Greek text and the King James Bible also (including Dr. D. A. Waite who is named in this book): (1) we have a "lack of theological understanding" (p. 4); (2) we have a "lack of . . . biblical language training" (p. 4); (3) we are "not qualified to speak to the issues" (p. 4); ; (4) we are "disseminators of misinformation" (p. 4); (5) we are "arrogant and abrasive" (p. 6); (6) we are a "parade of misinformers" (p. 7); (7) we are "unqualified opponents" (p. 7); (8) we have "misinformation and heresy" (p. 7); the following epithets (from Acts 20:17-38) given to the apostates and heretics are here alleged and wrongfully applied to your Fundamentalist brethren: (9) we are "grievous wolves" (p. 7); (10) we are those "not sparing the flock" (p. 7); (11) we are "speaking perverse things" (p. 7); (12) we "twist" things (p. 7); (13) we "pervert" things (p. 7); (14) we "distort" things (p. 7); (15) we "exploit the believers by our heresies" (p. 7); the following epithets (from 2 Peter 2:1-3) given to the apostates and heretics are here alleged and wrongly applied to your Fundamentalist brethren: (16) we are "people who . . . deceive" (p. 7); (17) we are "false prophets"; (18) we are "false teachers"; (19) we even are "denying the Lord that bought us" (p. 7) (20) we "bring on ourselves swift destruction" (p. (21) we have "pernicious ways" (p. 7); and (22) our "damnation slumbereth not" (p. 7)

Would you like to be called all or any of those "mean-spirited" words written by your friend and Bob Jones University board of trustees member, Dr. James B. Williams? I am sure you would not. I do not like to be called these false names either.

Here are some other "mean-spirited" words by your Bob Jones University Bible department teacher, Dr. Mark Minnick. He wrote two articles in The Mind of Man book:

II. Dr. Mark Minnick’s "mean-spirited" and unkind words. In his opinion, he says of those of us who are strong Fundamentalists who hold to the Textus Receptus Greek text and the King James Bible also (including Dr. D. A. Waite who is named in this book): (1) we are "unlearned leaders" (p. xii); (2) we are "unscrupulous leaders" (p. xii); (3) we have an "ungracious . . . tone" (p. xii); (4) we have a "divisive tone" (p. xii); and (5) we are guilty of "character assassination."

Would you like to be called all or any of those "mean-spirited" words written by your friend and Bob Jones University graduate and member of your Bible faculty, Dr. Mark Minnick? I am sure you would not. I do not like to be called these false names either.

III. Dr. Ernest Pickering’s "mean-spirited" and unkind words. In his opinion, he says of those of us who are strong Fundamentalists who hold to the Textus Receptus Greek text and the King James Bible also (including Dr. D. A. Waite who is named in this book): (1) we are "acrimonious . . . in tone" (p. ix); (2) we practice "vilification of character" (p. ix); (3) we engage in "personal attacks" (p. ix); (4) we have an "unchristian spirit" (p. ix); and (5) we engage in "attacks on the character of our opponents" (p. ix).

Would you like to be called all or any of those "mean-spirited" words written by your friend and Bob Jones University graduate, Dr. Ernest Pickering? I am sure you would not. I do not like to be called these false names either

p.s. Boy...this sure sounds familiar does it not?  :)

Hi Verne!  :)

  I'm trying to follow your series of posts that apparently involves an argument between 2 parties re. the KJV only position, but am having trouble understanding what is going on.

  In the discussion it is obvious there are a lot of hurt feelings and wild charges being thrown around, but little information that supports any argument in defense or against KJV only.

  If it is an attempt to persuade those who do not accept the contentions of KJV only, I see nothing in the posts that provide any facts that might do so.  You might try to explain what you hope to accomplish by the posting of these.

  I will get back to you later with thoughts on Jerome, etc.

                                       God Bless,  Mark C.

Well Mark, I will say this much. I was at first a bit puzzled by the way both you and Tom accused me of character assasination, cult-like thinking, reviling "faithful" men and the like.
I actually went back and carefully read everything I had posted to see if anything I had stated merited such a charge. I was particularly careful to reconsider whether anything I had sad was not factual.
The reason for my posting these two letters Mark is to illustrate what I think is a serious problem with the "canned" response to  those of us who think and speak about the TR as we do.
Look at what was said about a man like Waite.
More importantly, look at the way he responded.

With Facts!

Now you have stated that you do not find the exchage useful nor instructive.
Fair enough.
I have given to you more that one or two specific examples of what I consider to be erroneous readings in the version you are defending.
You have responded to none of them

 
 I agree that hurt feelings do not an argument make Mark.
I beg to disagree that there is little information in what is being communicated.
If nothing else, it is a signal lesson in how not to respond to questions raised by those whoi argue that the Wescott/Hort type texts are corrupt, and that they were both ungodly men.
The proper way to conduct this discussio is to deal with facts. Not motives or feelings.
Both you and Tom have attempted to make the case that it is not within the purview of the non-scholar to legitimately raise some of the questions that I, as a plain reader of Scripture have been raising.
Well, how about when they are raised by other scholars?
The point is that the response is the same!
Let me ask you a simple question.
Do any of the many examples of clear omission, contradictions or alterations I have so far presented raise any questions whatever in your thinking?
If you do not have immediate answers would you be willing to consult others of your position who might have?
I would much rather talk about the Bible itself.

 
What persuades people are facts Mark. At least they should.
When presented with indisputable fact regarding what modern translations say,
persuasion is a moot point. It has always been my contention that much of the statements made in this regard are borne of either plain ignorance, or commitment to an agenda, regardless of what the facts show.
I can still remember how annoyed I was the first time this issue was presented to me.
It is difficult for me to believe, no offense Mark, that either you or Tom have spent much time in an actual comparison of your KJB and NIV with the dismissive attitude you have toward this matter. If you have indeed and remain of the same opinon, then all I can say is...I am so sorry....






Caw we talk about the 2 %?




Verne

13. "Why Do You Vilify Your Brothers in Christ"?
 On what grounds do you make this untrue charge of "vilification" (slanderous language)? If you have no specifics and proof, why do you repeat this falsehood. I differ strongly with those who hold the wrong view of the Greek text, but I do not attack their person. If you know anything whatever about me, you would know that I deal with facts and ideas, not with personalities except to identify various personalities with various ideas. When I do speak of people, I am respectful of them, regardless of how much I differ with them.

14. "Vilifying My Brothers in Christ Who Believe the Bible Just as Fervently and Defend it Just as Militantly as you do"?
In the first place, I have not "vilified" ["to use abusive or slanderous language about"] my "brothers in Christ." I show respect to those with whose opinions and facts I firmly disagree. I do not vilify my opponents as you have vilified me by your letter. This vilifying of those who disagree with you seems to be the Bob Jones III pattern and policy, copied from your father and grandfather perhaps. I suggest you stop and "desist" from such vilification of me and others with whom you disagree and who disagree with you. It doesn’t become you. You do not use argumentation, or factual data, but only disparagement of people’s character. Can you show me instances where I have "vilified my brothers in Christ"?

As for the "brothers in Christ who believe the Bible just as fervently as I do and defend it just as militantly as I do," which "Bible" are you talking about? You and your Bob Jones University professors, past or present, such as Drs. Brokenshire, Custer, Panosian, Neal, Wisdom, Schnaiter, and many more, are standing "militantly" for quite a different "Bible" from that for which I "militantly" stand. They stand for the false and apostate "Bible" of the Westcott and Hort New Testament Greek text and the modern counterparts of Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society. I stand for the Fundamentalist "Bible" of the Received or Textus Receptus Greek New Testament which has been accepted by the churches for over 1500 years. Your teachers are "defending militantly" the New Testament "Bible" established by the apostates and heretics, Westcott and Hort in 1881, and "defended militantly" by the heretical Roman Catholic pope, priests, and teachers; by the apostate and heretical modernists of the National and World Councils of churches; by the compromising neo-evangelicals; and by altogether too many Fundamentalists like yourselves.

I plan to continue in my "militant defense" of the Textus Receptus that underlies our King James Bible until the Lord calls me home. I plan to continue to expose both your "militant defense" and that of Bob Jones University of your apostate-backed New Testament Greek text so long as you continue standing for this tenet of apostasy. No matter how Fundamentalist and separatist you might be in many other areas of theology (and you know I share such Fundamentalist and separatist beliefs), you and your Bob Jones University are the leading Fundamentalist source in the spreading of this heretical Greek text to your students and then on to Fundamentalist pastors you train, and then on into the Fundamentalist schools, colleges, seminaries, and churches both in this country and around the world on the mission field. You and your Bob Jones University are like a poison spider that has been laying poisonous eggs of untruth in the Greek text area among the Fundamentalist world. You and your Bob Jones University have done more to propagate this falsehood among Fundamentalists than any Roman Catholic source, any modernistic apostate source, any neo-evangelical source, or any other Fundamentalist source. As such, you and your Bob Jones University must be exposed as the major source that it is of this false teaching.

I intend to continue to expose this false teaching in my local church, in my books, in my tape recordings, in my videos, and on my 5' and 30' and 60' radio programs that are now heard all over this country and around the world both by short wave radio and by the Internet. I have been well prepared in this battle against your false teaching on this issue by careful training in pursuit of my five earned academic degrees (A.B., M.A., Ph.D., Th.M. and Th.D.) I am not one of your obedient and subservient students attending your university whom you can order around, nor am I one of your obedient and subservient teachers or staff members who are obligated to take orders from you at penalty of losing their jobs. Instead of belittling my views you should inquire after them.

I spent the early years of my training at Dallas Theological Seminary believing the Westcott and Hort Greek text error. Since 1971 (over 29 years now), I have seen the serious errors in that text. I would have to guess that I am better prepared for that venture in the Greek language than any of your teachers on your staff, or any writers in The Mind of Man book, or any of its academicians. Can you give me the names of those on your staff who have, as resident degrees, the A.B., the M.A., the Ph.D., the Th.M., and the Th.D.? I would venture to guess that you don’t have any! Please correct me if I am wrong, and supply me with the names of the men and their transcripts. Why are you treating me like a nit-wit? How many of your teachers have had 66 semester hours of classical and/or New Testament Greek combined? Can you give me the names of those on your staff who have taken 66 semester hours of the Greek language? I would venture to guess that there are zero! If you can prove otherwise, I invite you to submit to me their official transcripts of credit and I will compare them to my own.

I am certain you would never invite me to lecture at Bob Jones University and give a defense of the Textus Receptus New Testament Greek text so your students can see the "other side" of this question? I am absolutely certain you would not dare to do this. It would be too fair. The way you work things is to vilify your opponents by your letters, and by getting others to write hateful books about them such as the book you have initiated, The Mind of Man. I have very calmly and carefully pointed out at least 118 pieces of MIS-INFORMATION in that book that you have praised. When are your various BJU-graduates, teachers, board members, and loyal friends going to tell the truth instead of continuing to pass out such MIS-INFORMATION to the unsuspecting and unprepared public all over the world?

15. "Creating Division Within the Body of Christ that is Unwarranted and Hurtful"? Who are the ones creating this "division"? It is you and your Bob Jones University who have departed from the Received Greek text of our King James Bible that has been used and honored in the churches for over 1,500 years. You are asking as did Ahab to Elijah in 1 Kings 18:17, "Art thou he that troubleth Israel?" The answer was then as it is now, "I have not troubled Israel, but thou, and thy father’s house." And as long as you continue creating this "division" I shall continue to point it out to whomever will listen.

I might recommend Bob Jones University for work in nursing, or fine arts, or some other subject, but never would I recommend any young man to go to Bob Jones University who is preparing for the ministry. They would only come out learning to love the errors of the Westcott and Hort Greek text and to despise the Textus Receptus. They would come out like hundreds of pastors all around the country tossing away the King James Bible in favor of the New American Standard and some even the New International Version. Perhaps even some will be attracted to your National Council of Churches Revised Standard Version that is shown on the cover of your Mind of Man book. Who knows. The RSV uses the same Greek text you teach at Bob Jones University.

Tom I must have missed this specific example of yours the first time around as I did not remember your citing it. I honestly do not know the answer to this one and I have never read anything about it.
I find your explanation interesting. Both passages say that calling for Elias is exactly what the bystanders heard, although they give identical interpretatioins of Christ's words.
As I said, I confess my ignorance on this apparent anomaly but I'll do some checking.
Sorry I missed it the first time around...
In some cases spelling differences are inconsequential, in others they are critical, I do not know which applies here...
Verne

Hi Verne! :)

  It is early in the AM, and I don't have the time to respond to your comments now, but will do so some time this wkd.

  One quick comment:  I have never "villified" you in any of my arguments, and have tried to be respectful in my arguments with you on this topic (if there is something that I have said that has offended you please let me know so I can apologize).

                                   God bless,   Mark C.

     The following thoughts are not intended as support nor denigration of any previous posts or posters on this thread, but are posted as honestly and forthrightly as I know how to state them:


     The Truth of God is immutable, unchangeable, eternal.  But there is no such thing as "indisputable fact" in the world as we know it.  The natural mind of man both can and will dispute anything, with or without cause or logic.  It is therefore essential that we make a clear distinction between facts (truths as perceived by the individual) and the Truth of God, which (Who) is a living Person, expressing Himself powerfully and irresistably.

    Jesus saith unto him, I AM the Way, the Truth, and the LIfe: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Jn14:6

    Sanctify them (us-- cf v.20) through thy Truth: thy Word (cf Jn1:1-40 is Truth... And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the Truth. Jn17:17,19

    For the Word of God (the Truth) is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow (cf Eph4:15-16), and is a Discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb4:12

     For this reason, I suggest that "what persuades people," be they sinners or saints, is not statements of "fact," but the very Truth of God, administered by the Holy Spirit.

Sinners:     And when He (the Comforter, v.7; the Holy Ghost, cf 14:26) is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment... Jn16:8

Saints:     But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Jn14:26

  I am not advocating irresponsibility on our part, but pointing out that, whether we plant the Word of God or whether we water, only God Himself can and will give the increase. (cf 1Cor3:6-7)




agenda: an underlying, often ideological plan or program

     Dr. Waite is certainly not to be associated with "plain ignorance," but is this not an agenda?:


     I neither endorse nor demean Dr. Waite and/or his scholarly conclusions.  I merely point out that he clearly has an agenda.  In fact (surely disputable :)), anyone with absolutely no agenda is rather adrift, no?


     So, I conclude these thoughts with the point, which I have attempted twice before on this thread to make, but without apparent impact:  

    So shall my Word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: It shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereunto I sent it. Isa55:11

    For He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God... Jn3:34

    He that is of God heareth God's words... Jn8:47

     There is no promise from God directly addressing translations, manuscripts, autographs, etc.-- only His promise that nothing in heaven or earth can thwart the mission of His Word and, yes, His very words.  We can believe that or not, but God said it, which makes it immutable, unchangeable, eternal.  Why did He say such a thing, and what does it mean?

     He said it for the sake of those like my friend Ben, a man with a high IQ, a mind brilliant at geometrical math, who has severe dyslexia and reads at a third-grade level, which puts his spiritual education largely in the hands of others.  He said it so Ben and others won't be afraid of hearing the wrong thing masquerading as the Truth.  The Lord Himself will protect them from such, according to His promises.  Those promises do not encourage laziness (cf 2Tim2:15), but fearlessness (cf Josh1:5-7), based upon the sure knowledge that it is God Himself, and not our efforts, upon which the success of His purposes hinges (Ph2:13; cf Col1:29).

     This thread has borne testimonies of those whose hearts were opened and won to Jesus Christ and received His redemption through the ministry of various versions of the Bible.  Because we know that ...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Rom10:17), can we deny that God's Word and God's words are performing the very work that He intends?  And that work is being done by His Spirit not because of, but despite or regardless of the works of men.

    For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.  How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?  And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?  And how shall they hear without a preacher?  And how shall they preach, except they be sent?  As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Rom10:13-15  

    For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature (including poor translations or apostate translators) shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom8:38-39

     Fear not, Little Flock-- Our Good Shepherd is with us always, and He has overcome the world!


al Hartman

You are right Mark and I am sorry if I implied that. In fact one of te reasons I posted the letter, as I indicated, was to remind myself of how not to present my own position.
I think we can exchange ideas about this without rancor but that the issue is important enought to warrant very serious discussion. I certainly do not have all the answers Mark, but based on what I have read, it seems impossible to me not to conclude that we as Christians all have a incredibly important decision to make one way or another.
The thing about this that has truly surprised me the most is the totally dismissive attittude so many have when some of these difference are pointed out. All of these versions cannot be right and we should all make an honest effort to determine which ones are not.



Point well-taken Al. I should have qualified (I thought it was implied) with an agenda other than merely the truth!
Al if you are of the opinion that concern about possible corruption of the Bible text is unwarranted that is fine. I happen to think that there is more at stake than you seem to.


Verne

     If my previous post was unclear on this point, I apologize:  I believe that God and His Word are incorruptible, notwithstanding the errors, deliberate or otherwise, of men.

     What is at stake is immeasurably important.  It is the potential fear of text corruption, and its consequences upon the fearful individual that your "concern" may give birth to, that I find troubling...

---

---

    Consider these words of the apostle Paul:

    For Christ sent me... to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.  For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.  For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
    Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?  For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.  For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom.
    But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.  Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
    For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And the base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in His presence.
    But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 1Cor1:17-31

    Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.  And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of the Father abideth for ever.

    No matter which side of the English translations argument you choose, know this:  God has not called you because He needs, or even admires, your mind.  No, He has called you to prove and demonstrate in you His own wisdom and power and glory!  I am not saying this to in any way "dumb down" the Christian walk-- far from it, for we are told to fully employ our minds, all thy mind, in the love (ergo, the worship and service) of God. (Mt22:37;Mk12:30;Lk10:27)

    My point here is not to discourage study, but to caution all to focus faith not on the intensity nor the depth of your study, not even on its results, but on God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit alone.  Use your God-given intelligence to its fullest, but place no hope or confidence in it-- only in the One who gave it to you, on whom you must call and in whom trust to be able to use it rightly.

    Some may wonder why I make these posts on this thread.  Those are likely strong people, self-reliant, who may have never been afraid.  I lived some years of my life in fear, because of which I was blown about by winds of doctrine, chasing after the sense of security I did not have.  What scared me was dogmatic people who seemed to know more than I, who insisted that their way was the right way, and that I would never "get on with the Lord" until I accepted what they proclaimed.  When I tried, and failed to arrive at their conclusions, I feared it was because I wasn't "spiritual" enough.

    I am not saying that such an attitude of dogmatism has been expressed on this thread.  To the fearful it doesn't need to be directly said by anyone:  when the enemy of our souls finds a weakness in us, he can sow the seeds of doubt and fear out of the sheer innocence of others.  Someone reading this thread may be utterly terrorized by the fear that they are reading the "wrong" version of the bible, and the feeling that their intellect is insufficient to resolve the dilemma.  Such a one may dread being led into committing "the unpardonable sin" and being cast into outer darkness, losing everything.  Please don't downplay these fears:  I have known them, and I have known numerous others who have suffered them, some of whom do yet today.

    Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 1Cor10:12

    While the self-confident may ignore this verse as inapplicable to themselves, the weak and the fearful are so constantly "taking heed lest they fall" as to have no remaining time or energy to learn the sufficiency of Christ for them.  So driven by anxiety are they, running pillar-to-post and always looking within, that they do not hear the Good Shepherd's voice saying, "Come... Rest..."

    To such a one I say, The spirit of fear does not come from God, and has no power over you because you are inextricably in Christ-- no one can snatch you away from Him.  So if it is logic or rationale that is upsetting you, sum it up (on paper, if that helps you) and deliver it to your Redeemer:  Tell Him what is troubling you; ask Him what you should do about it; believe that He will do for you what you cannot do for yourself; know that He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them. Heb7:25

God bless us all,
al Hartman



   

Thanks Verne!  :)

  I'm very glad that you shared your reasons for posting the BJU vs. Dr. Waite debacle.  We don't hear the BJU side of the argument, but apparently the two of them have taken their argument public in a most uncharitable fashion.

  Again, this kind of "demonizing" of Christian brethren reminds me of those who stand out in front of Billy Graham crusades with bull horns dissuading those entering with rancorrous statements such as,  "Billy serves the Anti-Christ", due to his attempts to work with Roman Catholics in getting the Gospel out.

  Now, we may think Billy unwise for this, but if our desire for "militant" defense of our "greater knowledge" of the Bible leads to a stone of offense to those coming to hear the Gospel what good is our militancy?

  Paul addressed this in I:Cor. 8:1---
   ---Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.  The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. (NIV  ;))

   The Great commision of Christ supersedes all other sectarian agendas; at least that is what Evangelical Christians say that they believe.  To make the position of the exclusivity of TR, or of Modern Translations a matter of heresy is to join the folks with the bull horns at the crusade.

  Jerome, Erasmus, etc.:

  I cannot read Latin, and so reading the Latin Vulgate would do me no good, but I think that you are missing my point.  I'm not suggesting that we should attempt to discover which text is superior via becoming textual scholars ourselves, but through a simple understanding of history; this everyone can easily do, and once we do it becomes clear that Westcott and Hort are not the boogie men they are portrayed to be.

  The reason I have not taken you up on your word comparsion challenge, and why others probably have not either, is that it misses the point of the discussion.  Tom has said it many times and I think I have a couple:  comparing translations and finding less words in modern ones does not prove which translation is superior.  

   Here is what Jerome did, and maybe this will help illustrate how the study of the history of Bible translation is sufficient to keep us from making the TR, Alexandrian, or any other text type an idol:

  In the 4th century Jerome was given the job by the Pope of taking Greek texts and translating them into Latin.  The Greek was at this point an archaic language and Church leadership sought to "unify" a text and make it the "authorized" version.  This was needed because of the wide variations among the texts being used by the Catholic church.

  These 4th century texts were "secondary" and what this means is they were very distant copies from the originals, having been copied many, many times.

  How do I know that?  These texts' had been "smoothed out" (what appeared rough or difficult syntax) and "harmonized" (harmonization, as an example, would be to take verses from one synoptic Gospel and add it to a similar pericope, as the copyist figured it must have been left out).

 If each text had the same "additions" then one could conclude they were not harmonized versions, but when the changes were all different from one copy to the next, it leads one to suspect that the copyist was trying to "help" in the process of copying. (much more could be said about how this happened, but remember there were not xerox machines in those days and everything had to be copied by hand).

  This becomes obvious when we read the very early writings of the Church Fathers and read their long quotations of scripture therin.  When we read 2nd century quotes they show clearly where the "smoothing out" and "harmonizations" occured.  When we add to this the discovery of very early copies of Scripture that agree with the Fathers this becomes a confirming witness to what is closer to the original autographs.

  From the time of Jerome until Erasmus, the Catholic church continued to translate the Latin and to make mistakes.  Sometimes this happened, as in the I JN verse, by margin comments made by a previous translator being added to the text as original.  This occured with this verse above in the 14th century.  The Catholic church believed, and still does, that their authority for understanding God's mind is equal to the authority of the Word of God, and thus cannozied their own theology via their translating work.

  Textual criticism is called "lower" criticism, vs. "higher criticism."  It is lower because it does not deal in speculative theology (higher), but simply makes the kind of study that I described above, which is to discover what most likely represents the original.

                    God Bless,  Mark C.
   

Fear is not always an undesirable thing.
My Bible tells me that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
As to the corruption of the Biblical text, potential is hardly and appropriate descriptor.

 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.  2 Cor. 2:17

If what I am saying is true, you ought to find the fact that more believers are not aware of this more troubling.
I mis-spoke- a discussion about truth should hardly be relegated to the realm of  "concern"? The  truth sets us free.
Let me allay some of your own fears Al. Most people reading this thread will hardly give the discussion a second thought. A few will probably go do a bit of digging and form their own conclusions. Some agree with my position and need no convincing, in all likelihood because they have themselves taken the time and effort to search the Scriptures. Others may well disagree for similar reasons. I serioiusly doubt that the response of anyone reading this thread will be to be overtaken with an irrational trepidation.   :)
Verne

Verne,

     You misread me.  The fear of the Lord is a marvelous thing.  Tracing the adjective descriptions of it through the Psalms and Proverbs alone is a glorious and encouraging study.

     Neither did I apply "potential" to describe text corruption, which clearly exists.

     My precise phraseology (above) is regarding a potential fear, not of God, but of text corruption, and of the consequences that that fear may have upon less-than-stable souls.


     I hope that we are in agreement that the Truth that sets us free is the person of our Lord Jesus Christ:  I AM... the Truth...  He is that uncorruptible, living Word of God that has been from the beginning.


     Verne, I think that you grossly overestimate the capacities of the many.  Despite the several strong thinkers that post here, the majority are probably predisposed to their viewpoints based upon their confidence in the one from whom they heard that which appeals to them.  There is a ratio of few shepherds to many sheep.  Sheep are fundamentally followers.  You are very intellectual, and you seem to set your personal standard of excellence as that for the multitudes.

     It is not method that we all need to see, but Jesus Christ; not historical details that will show us the right way, but The care of our Father in heaven, the instruction of the Holy Spirit, and the love, redemption, and intercessions of our Lord Jesus Christ that will protect us through the dangers and bring us to the place we need to be.  This God can do through Good News For Modern Man, the Watchtower Society's New World Translation, or any other version, because He is God.  And this is the message we should be preaching: that God is Light, in Whom is no darkness nor shadow of turning.


     I think, my Brother, that you very much sell short the power of irrational fear, and that you would be amazed to learn how many readers are fearful, and how very fearful they are, and of what they are afraid.

     All said, I am not well enough educated to be at odds with your conclusions, but it is your methods that I think may seem threatening to some.  As one who has always to deal with Adult ADD and dyslexia in myself, as well as anxiety and depression, I can attest that unless you constantly place Jesus Christ in the center of your message, you present an insurmountable quest.

     Please just pray about it-- I have no axe to grind, and certainly no desire to quarrel.  I speak out on behalf of others who suffer as I do, but may not be able to state their case.

God bless,
al

Thanks for the encouragement brother.
I have to constantly check my attitude.
Before the Lord got hold of me, I used to worship the god of forces.
Then he gave me two little girls and turned me into a teddy- bear!  :)
I realise that my tone sometimes seems strident Al, but I trust that my heart is in the right place.
I realise that we have to be careful that our zeal be according to knowledge, as the good book instructs us, but I am frankly sometimes surprised at how many of God's people can be so passive and unmoved at some of the sobering matters that have arisen on the BB since its inception. I will pray that God gives wisdom so that my speech be alway seasoned with salt...I do need help in that area I am afraid...
Verne
p.s I think you make a good point about not succumbing to fear on the matter of the corruption of the Biblical text. It seems to me that avoiding that condition has to be predicated on absolute acceptance of God's numerous promises to preserve His Holy Word.
Heaven and earth shall pass away...

This is final three posts  of Waite's response to Bob Jones.  While I regret the tone of acrimony that developed between these two men, it nonetheless is exemplary of the kind of inflammatory and ad hominem language that sometime erupts even among men of stature when dealing with strongly held beliefs.

 16. "The Lord Hates Those Who Sow Discord Among the Brethren"? You and your Bob Jones University have for years been the ones who have "sowed discord among the brethren" by your adamant refusal to use the Greek New Testament text that underlies the King James Bible you profess to love. If the Lord truly "hates" those, He must sincerely "hate" you and your Bob Jones University staff that has been "sowing discord" on this subject of the Bible’s text almost from day one of your existence!


17. "I Beg You to Desist"?
I would be happy to "desist" if you, your teachers, and your former students all around the world would "desist" from your and their loud and clear clamoring for the Westcott and Hort kind of Greek text. Until this is done, I have no intention of "desisting." I intend to carry the defense of every Word the Lord Jesus Christ caused to write through the Hebrew Masoretic text or the Received Greek text underlying the King James Bible until the Lord calls me Home to Glory. Let me quote something from one of my most respected literary friends, Dean John William Burgon:
"If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that ‘to every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun’ : ‘a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing’: a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectively to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard." [Dean John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. vii-viii]

I resonate approvingly with these sentiments. As he, so I refuse to "desist" in what I consider to be the battle for the Bible.
 

18. "Not Hurting the University But Hurting the Good Name of Christ"?
The "good Name of Christ" is exactly what I am seeking to defend. Far from "hurting" His good Name, I am exalting His Name by exalting and holding to all of His Words. The Lord Jesus Christ said:
"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38)
I believe very strongly that the Lord Jesus Christ, your Saviour, will be "ashamed of you" when He comes because you and your Bob Jones University have been "ashamed of His Words." I believe the Lord Jesus Christ is the Author of all of the Old Testament Hebrew Words in our Bible and all of the New Testament Words in our Bible. I believe those Words are to be found in the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Textus Receptus Greek text underlying the King James Bible. Your Hebrew department, with teachers such as Dr. Jaeggli and others, is destroying Christ’s Words by referring to many of them as "scribal errors." Your Greek and Bible department, under Drs. Custer, Schnaiter, Wisdom, and others, are destroying Christ’s New Testament Greek words by using the Westcott and Hort kind of text, whether Nestle-Aland or the United Bible Society text which changes Christ’s Words in the New Testament in 5,604 places. One of the precious phrases that you and Bob Jones University’s Greek text strips away from our Saviour’s Words is found in John 6:47 which says, in the King James Bible and in the Textus Receptus Greek text that underlies it:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (KJV)
The Textus Receptus Greek text says this for this verse:
"ajmhVn ajmhVn levgw uJmi'n, oJ pisteuvwn eij" ejmeV, e[cei zwhVn aijwvnion." (SCR)
Your Westcott and Hort kind of text (the Nestle-Aland) says this for this verse:
"ajmhVn ajmhVn levgw uJmi'n, oJ pisteuvwn . . . e[cei zwhVn aijwvnion." (NA26)
This false Greek text used by Bob Jones University teaches in John 6:47 that you can have "everlasting life" by merely "believing." In that false Greek text of the Gnostics from Egypt you need not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Notice how your favorite New American Standard Version sold in the Bob Jones University bookstores treats this verse:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes . . . has eternal life." (NASB)
The same is true for the New International Version which quite a few of your graduates are using:
"I tell you the truth, he who believes . . . has everlasting life." (NIV)
John 6:47 is just one of the 356 doctrinal passages where your Westcott and Hort kind of text is teaching false and heretical doctrines by altering the Words of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I deem this an outrage against my Lord and Savior’s Words! And you, Dr. Jones, who have the authority and power as President of Bob Jones University to stop this demeaning and doubting of Christ’s Words, have done nothing about it and apparently you do not intend to do anything about it. Instead, you merely rail against and castigate Fundamentalist, separatist Baptist pastors such as I am, and others who continue to defend the Words of the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour. You have been deceived by your teachers at Bob Jones University and others. It is long overdue for you and all of your teachers to take another fresh, hard, careful look at this issue of the Greek New Testament text. You have apparently not taken the time to dig into this subject for yourself as I have been doing for 29 years, or if you have, you have come up on the wrong side of the issue. I was taught the Westcott and Hort actual text at Dallas Theological Seminary from 1948 through 1953. But when I saw the falsity of this text in 1971, I changed. I have been reading, writing, and studying on this subject ever since. Why don’t you do the same?
Have you purchased for yourself and studied thoroughly, for example, each of the five books by Dean John William Burgon? Or have you checked them out of the Mack Library there on your campus and studied them thoroughly? Dean Burgon was a strong Bible conservative, though of the Church of England. The Dean Burgon Society, of which I have been President these past 22 years, has reprinted, all five of these books, namely: (1) Revision Revised; (2) the Last 12 Verses of Mark; (3) the Traditional Text; (4) Causes of Corruption; and (5) Inspiration and Interpretation. I have no reason to believe you have read and studied thoroughly Dean Burgon’s writings. He has completely overthrown the falsities both of the text and of the theories of Westcott and Hort . You love, adore, and teach in your Bob Jones University this false text and these false theories. You probably haven’t even looked into The Life and Letters of Westcott and The Life and Letters of Hort that are in your library (over 1,800 pages) to see by their very letters their apostasy and heresies in doctrine. You, instead, take the word of Dr. Custer and Dr. Schnaiter that these two doctrinal heretics are conservatives. You, instead, take the word of your board of trustees man, Dr. J. B. Williams, that these two apostates are "now with the Lord." You trust these two apostates and allow Dr. Schnaiter to use Westcott’s Commentary on Hebrews as his textbook in your university. You do not stop with using the works of and exalting these two apostates, but you also exalt the editorial work of Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo Martini (one of the nominees for the next Pope of the Roman Catholic Church) on the committee of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament that you permit to be used in your Greek classes. You also do the same thing as you exalt the work of the other apostates on the editorial committee of your Nestle-Aland Greek text like Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger, Matthew Black, and Allen Wikgren. Yet you claim to be a separatist (and I believe that you are)--why, then, are you so inconsistent, if not hypocritical, in the use of such apostates and others in the area of Biblical textual criticism?

19. "My Plea Does Not Suggest That You Should Stop Believing Anything You Believe About the Text"?
I’m glad I have your permission to do this, because I am going to do just that. Part of my "believing anything I believe about the text" is to crusade valiantly, honestly, and truthfully for the truth which I believe in. The second part of this is to crusade valiantly, honestly, and truthfully against the untruth and to expose what I consider to be falsehood. This, quite honestly, means that I will continue my exposure of your own personal false teaching and the false teaching by your teachers at Bob Jones University on the issue of the Bible’s texts and translations.
While, on the one hand, I will continue to recommend Bob Jones University for those who wish to take up nursing, fine arts, business, and other things (for doing this, some will no doubt accuse me of being inconsistent), yet, on the other hand, I will continue to warn men who are preparing for the Lord’s work at home or abroad, to avoid taking their work at Bob Jones University. I wouldn’t want to see them destroyed and ruined in the area of Bible texts and translations by going to your university for this training.
I have talked through the years to numerous pastors and students who have been absolutely ruined by Bob Jones University’s espousal of the heretical and false Westcott and Hort Greek text which brings shame on the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible for which you profess to have "no disrespect." While you may "use" the King James Bible in chapel for "window dressing" and what is known as "protective coloration," you do not defend the King James Bible. This is why you sell the New American Standard Version in your bookstores. This is why countless graduates are using and preaching from that NASV which is based upon the false Westcott and Hort text they were taught at Bob Jones University. This is also why you sell James White’s book (The King James Only Controversy) in your bookstores. The very essence of Biblical Fundamentalism is twofold: (1) stand for all the Biblical truth without apology; and (2) stand against and expose all that is contrary to Biblical truth. In this present instance, your Bob Jones University’s adamant insistence on teaching the Westcott and Hort kind of Greek text which is contrary to Biblical truth paints the following picture: Your Westcott and Hort kind of text differs from the Textus Receptus by my actual count in 5,604 places. It completely omits a total of 2,886 Greek words from the true Biblical text. It teaches false and heretical doctrine in 356 places. That is certainly not a pretty picture so far as I am concerned.
20. "You Should Desist in Maligning and Misrepresenting Those Who . . . Don’t See These Things Exactly as You Do"?
First of all, I am not "maligning" ["to speak evil of, defame, slander"] others. I speak the truth about others who differ with me. If you can find any untruth (not merely a difference of opinion) in my book someone sent you (Fundamentalist MIS-INFORMATION on Bible Versions), I would be happy to correct it in the next printing. I deal in documentation and facts, not in "maligning." If you want a lesson in "maligning" and "slandering" and libeling me and others, you should re-read the article by your co-originator of The Mind of Man book, Dr. James B. Williams. It is the Introduction (The Issue We Face.) It is found on pages 1-11.
In the second place, I don’t deal in "misrepresentation." I deal in facts and truth. I found at least 118 items of "MIS-INFORMATION" in your Mind of Man book. See if you can find that many in my own book or books. In each case, I have quoted the words from The Mind of Man book exactly. I have not "misrepresented" your BJU-graduates, board members, teachers., or loyal friends Exact quotation cannot possibly be considered "misrepresentation." Just because I totally disagree with your friends’ positions does not mean I have "misrepresented" what they have written.
There are many other things I might write to you, but I shall forbear to do so. Any response you might make to this Open Public Letter I shall weigh, and if I deem it necessary, I will answer it publicly as I have done with this response, either by means of the radio waves, including short wave and Internet around the world, or by other means.
Sincerely for God’s Words,
DAW/w Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.
Bible For Today Baptist Church

I just realised that I did not post Bob Jones original letter.
Here it is:


BOB JONES University
GREENVILLE · SOUTH CAROLINA 29614-00111 ·
864-242-5100 · ADMISSIONS 1-800-BJ-AND-ME
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
FAX 864-233-9829
March 28, 2000

Dr. D. A. Waite
900 Park Avenue
Collingswood, NJ 08108-3235

Dear Dr. Waite:

Your conference at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Greenville last week was a blatant attack upon BJU an insult to this institution that your children attended.

In addition to that, someone sent me a copy of your diatribe Fundamentalist Misinformation on Bible Versions dedicated to "all the graduates of Bob Jones University who, though they were indoctrinated in the BJU Greek department to accept as genuine the Westcott and Hort kind of text, have forsaken such a text as corrupt and heretical and . . . have now accepted as genuine the Traditional Textus Receptus Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible . . ." This is not only a slap on the face of Bob Jones University, it is also a blatant misrepresentation of what our students were taught here. They're taught no disrespect for the Textus Receptus and certainly not for the KJV. The KJV is all we preach and teach from here. It would be utter stupidity for our Bible department to demean the Textus Receptus while holding in respect the translation from which it was made.

Dr. Waite, why are you so mean-spirited? Why do you vilify your brothers in Christ who believe the Bible just as fervently and defend it just as militantly as you do. You're creating division in the body of Christ that is unwarranted and hurtful. We know that the Lord hates those who sow discord among the brethren (Proverbs 6:16-19).

I beg you to desist. You are not hurting the University, but you are hurting the good name of Christ, a name that I believe you love as much as we do. My plea does not suggest that you should stop believing anything you believe about the text, but that you should desist in maligning and misrepresenting those who love the Bible as much as you do, but who don't see these things exactly as you do.

Very truly yours,
Bob Jones III
President
BJIII:ser


A previous letter from Dr. Waite:


BFT BAPTIST CHURCH
900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108
Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D. Ph.D.

Dr. Bob Jones III
President, BOB JONES UNIVERSITY
Greenville, SC 29614 Monday, March 6, 2000

Dear Dr. Bob,

Just a hurried note to go along with the many hundreds you probably have received concerning your excellent job you did on the Larry King Live TV show which was seen all over the world! The media attack on Bob Jones University was most unfair, but I think the Lord might use it to bring more students your way. It certainly made Bob Jones University a household word around the globe!

Sorry for your recent hospitalization, and hope you regain full strength soon. You accounted yourself strong for the Lord Jesus Christ and for the way of salvation without compromise. This was unlike the appearances from time to time on Larry King's show of James Bakker, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham and others.

I recorded the entire program on video tape and made nine copies available to the members of our church to circulate on a rotation basis so all could see it. Yesterday, as I expounded Philippians 1:16-30 (By Life or By Death) I made repeated commendable references to your testimony before Larry King and the world.

Though we differ strongly on the Bible version issue, as we both know, I refuse to refrain from commending a brother in Christ and a Christian Fundamentalist leader when he has done a good job for the cause of the gospel and for all of our Bible believing Christians and churches throughout the world.

May God's continued blessings go with you as you stand up for God's Words and His beloved Son who has saved us by His grace.

Sincerely yours in the bonds of Calvary,
DAW/w Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.
1 Corinthians 15:58 Bible For Today Baptist Church
Director, The Bible For Today, Incorporated

Since a  few have asked, here is a small sampling of some of the scholarly
work done by men who love Christ and the Scriptures. I have generally not responded to assertions that only a few scholars agree with men like Waite as the assertion is so clearly borne of ignorance and a failure to truly read widely on the topic. It is generally also true that a cavalier dismissal of the question of the corruption of  N.T texts suggests an absence of any serious study. As I have repeatedly suggested, please do your own reading and study. There are considerably more titles. Reading the work of Burgon alone is in my view quite conclusive.

The King James Version Defended – by Edward F. Hills

The Ancient Text of the New Testament – Jakob van Bruggen

A New Hearing for the Authorized Version by Dr. Theodore Letis

 The New Testament: Which Text? by Pastor William P. Terjesen

 The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind by Dr. Theodore Letis

 Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism by Dr. Gordon H. Clark

 The NIV: Simply a Bad Translation! by Pastor Richard Bacon

 A Creationist's Defense of the King James Bible by Dr. Henry Morris

 Defending the Words of God by SSM Founder

God bless your labor in His mighty Word....
Verne

p.s as soon as I get a bit of time, I would like to begin a discussion of the Christian doctrine of propitiation.  It is an absolute cornerstone of all that Christians believe, and essential to any true understanding of the nature, means, and effects of redemption. Some of you are going to be uncomfortable with what I say about many modern translations vis a vis this specific topic.
How many of you have heard of John Gill?
I stand in absolute amazement at the abundance of spiritual and intellectual pygmies running around today who have the unmitigated gall to hold themselves somehow superior to such stalwarts of the faith as Calvin and Gill. No wonder the church is in the condition it is in. We have become too spiritually dull to anymore digest the meat of God's Word... :(
While I may not agree with everything these men taught and believe, I certainly recognize they are orders of magnitude, in every way, beyond any tallking head alive today...
We ought to show a little respect....
They are now also starting to attack men like A.W. Pink in a concession to godless arminianism...what next?

Hi Verne,

  Since I was off this week I did take the time to search whom these persons were that you recomended re. the KJV only debate and it was very interesting.

  For Dr. Theodore Letis see link at: www.aomin.org/TLetis.html

  The article provides evidence that this man went from calling "fundamentalist Christians a cult" to now earning a living by speaking to these groups.  More importantly, by searching the site one can understand the arguments of the KJV only folks vs. those who believe that our modern translations are an improved text.
 
  At http://pilgrimpub/burgon.htm you can see why the late Dr. Burgon would not join the society that he is named for, and which is now headed by Dr. Waite.  The article shows how Dr. Waite has taken his views out of context, and that he was not in favor of a KJV only view.

   The KJV only view runs into a glaring problem, as I've mentioned before, as Erasmus who prepared the text that it is based on, used the Latin Vulgate in certain areas because he only had a very small amount of manuscripts from the Bzyantine family.  This is historical fact that cannot be denied.

  It seems that there will always be a small number of those who prefer conspiracy theories as it makes them a member of a special elite insiders group.  

  I was impressed by reading most of these "scholars" that they attempt to demonize all those who do not support them.  They are the ones who "love Christ and honor the Scriptures" and those who do not are evil Satanic conspirators whom are supporting Devil inspired translations!  These are not rational scholary discussions of this issue (in the ones that I read) raised by these KJV only authors.

  Read Bruce Metzger and compare his logical and scholarly tone with these other authors and I think you'll see what I mean.

                                      God Bless,  Mark C.

As a current member of the "First KJV Only Church of Glendale" I must heartily disagree with the below post. Just last night, as we walked the streets of Van Nuys Blvd, we happened upon a man who said he had been "saved" by reading a copy of the Living Bible Gospel of John.

We explained to this man most vehemently that he could not possibly have been saved while reading that version, as it is not approved by God. we strongly recommended he immediately repent, read the Gospel of John  in the KJV and be rebaptized. The man loudly protested almost to tears, but alas, thus do many of the enemies of true Christianity when confronted with their error.

We then headed back to KJV Bible Ranch and had a bon fire in which we burned over a thousand copies of the NIV version while praying fervently for those still deceived by the errors in this obviously demonic perversion of the true and holy KJV translation. May God rescue them, and all others who do not hold to the only true version of the Bible, and stray into the errors of the "Biblical Scholars wolf pack" of other versions which lead to the very mouth of hell.




 ;Djust kidding

A good muslim friend of my told me in no uncertain terms that he was "saved". I said Oh, really? How did that happen? He told me he got saved by reading the Koran. I guess that makes it true and pure... :)
Just kidding...
Verne

p.s. Mark I am glad you took a look.  Don't forget to also read the specific Scriptures adduced and what arguments are made about how the Scripture has been rendered. That is what really counts!

warning....warning.....warning...warning

The evil "Biblical Scholars Wolf Pack" has been at it again in their Satan inspired project of corrupting and discrediting the One True Translation.

Look at what these denizens of the depths have done to the True Translation of Proverbs 26:23.   :o

The One True Translation clearly says:

"Burning lips and a wicked heart are like a potsherd  covered with silver dross."  

Now, what could be clearer than that????   The true meaning is there plain for all to see, at least all those who have had  the veil removed from their hearts and minds.

Now these "scholars" have been up to their old tricks.  By studying the Ugaritic script to better understand Biblical Hebrew, they have dared to CHANGE the Holy King James Translation to read:

"Smooth words may hide a wicked heart, just as a pretty glaze covers a common clay pot."

What confusion.  What meaningless poppycock!  Truly, this is an advance of the New Age One World One Religion New World Order.

 ;)

Tom M.

Interesting comparison. Are you then saying that these two passages are saying different things Tom?
It seems to me more useful passages for comparison would be some like the following:


1 Luke 9:56
"For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them ..." (KJV)

Note: In the NIV these words are absent. Why?

2 Matt 18:11
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." (KJV)

Note: In the NIV these words are absent. Why?

3 Col 1:14
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." (KJV)

(NIV) "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."



4 Gal 3:17
"... the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ ..." (KJV)

(NIV) " ... the covenant previously established by God ..."


5 Rom 1:16
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ ..." (KJV)

(NIV) "I am not ashamed of the gospel ..."


6 John 6:47
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (KJV)

(NIV) "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life."



7 Eph 4:6
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (KJV)

(NIV) "One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."



8 Rev 21:24
"And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it ..." (KJV)

(NIV) "The nations will walk by its light ..."


Mic 5:2
"... out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." (KJV)

(NIV) "... out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."



(The Hebrew "olam" means "everlasting". The NIV translators knew it; they correctly translated it "everlasting" in other passages except when it refers to Christ.)



1 1 Tim 3:16
"... God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit ... believed on in the world, received up into glory." (KJV)

(NIV) "He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit ... believed on in the world, was taken up in glory."



2 Phil 2:5,6
" ... Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." (KJV)

(NIV) "... Christ Jesus, Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped."

etc. etc.

I just love comparisons Tom so keep on posting them. Maybe a bit of insight into the Ugaritic could explain some of the above alterations and omissions do you think?
Oops!...these are all NT changes are they not?
Let me see if I can come up with a few pertinent ones from the OT.  ;)
Verne

We now have thousands of manuscripts and fragments today by which we can assess and compare the texts Erasmus used. This is a very weak argument Mark, yet you keep repeating it as if that makes it valid.


This is a legitimate criticism in my view. The tone by many on both sides often becomes strident in the extreme. In defense of those criticising the modern translations, I would argue that the issue, despite the cavalier dismissal of some, is of enough seriousness to warrant some alarm if the concerns expressesd are indeed true. That is, that many modern translatons are based on corrupt greek texts, and that critical and fundamental doctrines of the faith are being undermined, no matter how subtly, by the way the original text has been translated into the English language. It is quite simple.

1. Are the source texts the most reliable?
2. Are the translators faithful to the original language when rendering the words in the English language.
If you have read your modern translations carefully on the second point and are confident that this was done, I wish you all the best.
The first consideration does take a bit more diligent search and study but can be done by the average reader. Christians are responsible to have good and satisfactory answers to both these questions and not leave it up to so-called experts, many of whom are godless and apostate men, to make their decision for them.
If you disagree  this Mark, that is entirely allright with me. I just want to keep talking about the text itself.

 
So as to avoid the charge of an ad hominem attack, I will not say anything about the gentleman you apparently acccept as faithful source.
I would encourage you to post some of his responses to the specific verses that I have cited and then we can engage in a more useful discussion on the issue. Let's talk about the text itself, not what others say about it. I never cease to be amazed at how easily Christians cite other people as some kind of fianal authority without knowing what these folk believe, and equally importantly, how they have lived!
I do not accept the theory that reliable scholarship can be divorced from godliness. That this is true is self-evident- look at the state of affairs!
I could tell you a thing or two about Thayer... :)
Verne

Aaahh...what the heck!... :)


"For early Jewish Christians the Bible consisted of the Old Testament and some Jewish apocryphal literature. Along with this written authority went traditions, chiefly oral, of sayings attributed to Jesus. On the other hand, authors who belonged to the 'Hellenistic Wing' of the Church refer more frequently to writings that later came to be included in the New Testament. At the same time, however, they very rarely regarded such documents as 'Scripture'. (italics mine)

Furthermore, there was as yet no conception of the duty of exact quotation from books that were not yet in the full sense canonical. Consequently, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to ascertain which New Testament books were known to early Christian writers; our evidence does not become clear until the end of second century." [Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development pp. 72-73.]

There is a lot more where that came from...I know, I know...he is indeed a world reknowned expert....

 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.  2 Peter 3:16

Poor Peter, boy was he confused!   :)
Verne

p.s.  please note that I am not attacking the man as his stature in the field is unquestionable. I am asking that you evaluate what he says!

Here are things Metzger says, some of which, I completely agree with (I bet you are sruprised!).
This is from an interview done with Lee Strobel on the reliability of the NT text:

EXAMINING THE ERRORS

"With the similarities in the way Greek letters are written and with the primitive conditions under which the scribes worked, it would seem inevitable that copying errors would creep into the text,' I said. "Quite so," Metzger conceded.

"And in fact, aren't there literally tens of thousands of variations among the ancient manuscripts that we have?" "Quite so."

"Doesn't that therefore mean we can't trust them?" I asked, sounding more accusatory than inquisitive. "No sir, it does not," Metzger replied firmly. "First let me say this: Eyeglasses weren't invented until 1373 in Venice, and I'm sure that astigmatism existed among the ancient scribes. That was compounded by the fact that it was difficult under any circumstances to read faded manuscripts on which some of the ink had flaked away. And there were other hazards - inattentiveness on the part of scribes, for example. So yes, although for the most part scribes were scrupulously careful, errors did creep in.

"But," he was quick to add, "there are factors counteracting that. For example, sometimes the scribe's memory would play tricks on him. Between the time it took for him to look at the text and then to write down the words, the order of words might get shifted. He may write down the right words but in the wrong sequence. This is nothing to be alarmed at, because Greek, unlike English, is an inflected language." "Meaning...," I prompted him.

"Meaning it makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog' - sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence; consequently, the meaning of the sentence isn't distorted if the words are out of what we consider to be the right order. So yes, some variations among manuscripts exist, but generally they're inconsequential variations like that. Differences in spelling would be another example."

Still, the high number of "variants," or differences among manuscripts, was troubling. I had seen estimates as high as two hundred thousand of them. However, Metzger downplayed the significance of that figure.

"The number sounds big, but it's a bit misleading because of the way variants are counted," he said. He explained that if a single word is misspelled in two thousand manuscripts, that's counted as two thousand variants.

I keyed in on the most important issue. "How many doctrines of the church are in jeopardy because of variants?" "I don't know of any doctrine that is in jeopardy," he responded confidently.

"None?" "None," he repeated. "Now, the Jehovah's Witnesses come to our door and say, 'Your Bible is wrong in the King James Version of 1 John 5:7-8, where it talks about "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." They'll say, 'That's not in the earliest manuscripts.'

"And that's true enough. I think that these words are found in only about seven or eight copies, all from the fifteenth or sixteenth century. I acknowledge that is not part of what the author of 1 John was inspired to write.

"But that does not dislodge the firmly witnessed testimony of the Bible to the doctrine of the Trinity. At the baptism of Jesus, the Father speaks, his beloved Son is baptized, and the Holy Spirit descends on him. At the ending of 2 Corinthians Paul says, 'May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.' There are many places where the Trinity is represented."

"So the variations, when they occur, tend to be minor rather than substantive?"

"Yes, yes, that's correct, and scholars work very carefully to try to resolve them by getting back to the original meaning. The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church. Any good Bible will have notes that will alert the reader to variant readings of any consequence. But, again, these are rare." (Strobel, pp. 82-85)

Strobel continues:

THE "UNRIVALED" NEW TESTAMENT

Metzger had been persuasive. No serious doubts lingered concerning whether the New Testament's text had been reliably preserved for us through the centuries. One of Metzger's distinguished predecessors at Princeton Theological Seminary, Benjamin Warfield, who held four doctorates and taught systematic theology, until his death in 1921, put it this way:

If we compare the present state of the New Testament text with that of any other ancient writing, we must... declare it to be marvelously correct. Such has been the care with which the New Testament has been copied- a care which has doubtless grown out of true reverence for its holy words... The New Testament [is] unrivaled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use. (Strobel, p. 91)

Strobel concludes:

As we stood, I thanked Dr. Metzger for his time and expertise. He smiled warmly and offered to walk me downstairs. I didn't want to consume any more of his Saturday afternoon, but my curiosity wouldn't let me leave Princeton without satisfying myself about one remaining issue.

"All these decades of scholarship, of study, of writing textbooks, of delving into the minutiae of the New Testament text - what has all this done to your personal faith?" I asked.

"Oh," he said, sounding happy to discuss the topic, 'it has increased the basis of my personal faith to see the firmness with which these materials have come down to us, with a multiplicity of copies, some of which are very, very ancient."

"So," I started to say, "scholarship has not diluted your faith-"

He jumped in before I could finish my sentence. "On the contrary," he stressed, "it has built it. I've asked questions all my life, I've dug into text, I've studied this thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed."

He paused while his eyes surveyed my face. Then he added, for emphasis, "Very well placed." (Strobel, p. 93)

Strobel interviewed Dr. Mtezger while writing his book The Case for Christ. Sounds entirely reasonable does it not?
As is ususally the case, the devil is in the details.... :)

Hi Verne! :)

  You are proving yourself to be courteous and measured in your responses in the face of some strong disagreement, and for this you are to be commended.

  I keep raising the fact that Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate to fill in missing text in his Greek translation of the small portion of Bzyantine family texts that he had available because I have yet to receive an answer from you other than a denial that says I am not correct.  

  My affirmation that it is true is based in the fact that Erasmus himself tells us this is what he did.  He also includes objections in his work to being forced by the church to include certain verses/words/phrases that he believed were not in the original.

  Your denial that the above is not true is also not sufficient to make the above false.  On what basis do you deny the written record of what Erasmus did?  The only basis for denial is to suggest that Erasmus' comments re. his translation work were forgeries.  Unfortunately this defense won't work, because his hand is evident when compared to his translating work.  

   Re. Bruce Metzger:  The quotes offered seem to be in error in your estimation, but I am unable to notice anything in them that would cause me concern.  You will have to explain your objections to these words of Dr. Metzger in order for me to understand the point you are trying to make.

  Re. verse comparison:  Erasmus made textual choices when he compared the Bzyantine Greek texts that he had.  All ancient and modern translators have done exactly the same, because there is not just one text.

  To compare English translations today, with an eye toward discerning what is the true original, is an excersize in futility.  I'm surprised that you keep raising this issue as it must be apparent that it is the Greek manuscripts themselves that must be read first , and then choices must be made from them as to what is most likely original.

  Again, every translator has to make a choice, since no two copies of any family are exactly the same, and this means critical thinking must be applied.  

   The only other option is to use a "spiritual" method and to lay out all extant copies and pray that God would give one discernement as to which is the original.  It seems that this is the type of "scholarship" you might be hinting at.  Like George, God would provide the true meaning to "godly and spiritual men," and all who oppose our annointed wisdom would be rejected as heretical thinkers decevied by Satan into accepting "modernist German rationalism."

  Lower criticism (this phrase is used to describe the opposite of modernist speculative theology) has to do with making choices from among the variant readings in the texts we have available.  To critically think is to make decisions based on what we understand in re. to the ancient languages in question and why they might vary.  

  Often the differences are obvious, such as spelling errors that present words that make no sense in the passage, and when compared with other texts show up as such.  

Praying and godly life, while necessary for living the Christian life, do not necessarily lead to good scholarship.  A wild man from Borneo who is illiterate, but understands enough to receive Christ, does not now become more able at Bible translating work because he is more spiritual than an unsaved greek scholar.  The scholar's decisions are judged not by his theology, but on the basis of his thinking re. the text he is translating.

   This may sound like a side issue from the context of this BB, but it does raise a crucial difference in the way we consider what is "spiritual" and what is "worldly," or of the "devil."   GG asserted that a "godly surrendered life to Christ" led to an elevated "vision and a true spirituality" and that reading the Bible with the "natural mind" led to Christians being banished to Outer Darkness!

   The wedding, that I talked about on another thread, re. present Assembly members in WLA and Pasadena illustrates this point.  The couple met with some former members, before extending an invitation to come to the wedding, in order to make sure that the former members, if they decided to come, would not "raise any controversial issues at the wedding."

  When the invited asked "what this might mean?", they were told to keep all discussions with individuals solely based on scripture.  The invited were not sure what that was supposed to mean, but I can guess what it might mean: "Don't use critical thinking skills to evaluate what we believe or think as this is worldly."  This is done because in the Assembly, as in all Bible based cults, the Bible is actually used as a shield against honest evaluation.

  "Wait Mark, what are you saying here?  You think that sticking solely to a scriptural thought pattern is cultic?  It can be, if the verses are just thrown out there as a means to avoid facing honest critical evaluation, and make no mistake that's what these Assembly folks were worried about in re. to this wedding.

  When Andrew Gunther from the Valley, a former leader, contacted me he used all kinds of biblical language about desiring "to have no issues between him and a brother in Christ", but when I raised the practial issues he instantly stopped our conversation, changed his phone number, and blocked any email from my address!

  In his mind he is justified because, "I left quoting scripture and became negative by critically thinking about Assembly teaching and practices."  There are no Bible verses that directly mention GG, the Assembly, etc. and as such there has to be a process whereby we think about the Bible and apply it honestly to a situation.

  With GG you could be "intellectually correct, but spiritually wrong."  This means one must learn to think in what GG called " the mind of Christ".  As with the Moonies, International Churches of Christ, etc. all negative evaluations of the group's conduct is demonic.

  This applies to some of the KJV only folks I have read as they assert all intellectual challenges to their position is negated because it comes from the "ungodly."   Their view that "spiritual thought is rooted in faith in what most supports an orthodox theological view," i.e., the use of the full name "Lord Jesus Christ" is superior to a translation that only includes the name "Jesus" because somehow the first sounds better.  

   The fact that the text of the NT contains clear teaching in other portions that Jesus is indeed God of very God matters not to them because the basis for their thinking is a "higher and more spiritual method" than examination of the varaint extant texts.

   It is very important that former members of the Assembly, and groups like them, understand and reject the notion I describe above as "spiritual thought" vs. "natural thought" lest we fall into the same kind of elitism and self righteousness that controlled our former lives.

                                  God Bless,  Mark C.  

   

 

The argument that because Erasmus had a limited number of MSS means his work was suspect is the specific charge I was addressing Mark. I am simply saying that the discovery of numerous additional documents confirm the accuracy of the ones he actually worked with. There is no dispute that Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus disagree with over 95%  of extant MSS. That was the simple point I was making.
In a larger sense, the fact that there is so much agreement does indeed speak favorably for the preservation of the Scriptures, a point made well by Metzger. Where differences from the KJV occur in modern translations, I believe they are important enough to warrant further inquiry, the above fact notwithstanding.
I simply believe that the texts used for many modern translations are not the most faithful to the originals and that this is attested to by the fact that the vast majority of extant documents disagree with them. I hope that clarifies my point somewhat.

  The point on which I strongly disagee with Metzger is his contention that the early believers were somehow confused as to what was "Scripture" and this was stated in his first quote.
This is a view held my many textual critics and explains the remarkable liberties they often take with God's word in espousing so-called "dynamic equivalency".

The interview has few things (the passage in John being one such item) that I disagree with and that is why I posted it, in a spirit of fairness. I also wanted to illustrate that despite Metzger's stated position on the reliability of the process of textual criticsim as practiced by modern day scholars, one cannot escape the fact that the product of the two family of texts undeniably are at odds in many places and they cannot both be correct.
This is why I think it is much more critical to actually talk about what our various versions say, rather than trying to navigate the incredibly difficult and erudite field of modern textual criticims and scholastic opinion.
It seems to me that if we can explain satisfactorily to ourselves and others the basis for all these variant readings and omissions, it becomes far easier to show how they were arrived at via textual criticism. This is what in my view has been missing in the entire discussion of those defending the modern versions- namely, why do they say the things they do??!!

 Not necessarily Mark. The comparison of English translations does indeed presume that one would be willing to expend some little effort to obtain at least a working knowledge of the original Greek text. It does not take much to determine if words used in the english translation are truly found in the original text.
The vast mahority of variant readings that I have cited are amenable to this kind of inquiry. I know there are other matters that would indeed take considerably training for one to be able to render an informed judgment but a determination of what words were or were not present in the source text is not one of them. I would be happy to provide examples if that would be useful.
There are countless examples of modern translations using language that is not supported by any source text - even the ones  I consider corrupt!
Verne

Dear Friends,

May we continue our worship by singing number 782 in our Hymms To Lousy Melodies Hymbook?  Let us sing slowly, reverently as unto Him.

Did we beat this thread to death?
Still there's more to follow
Can't we give it all a rest?
Still there's more to follow

Chorus:
More and more
More and more
Always more to follow
Oh, the matchless, verbal wit
Still there's more to follow

Round in circles here we go
Still there's more to follow
Covr'n ground walked here'to'fore
Still there's more to follow (Chorus)

Will this maddness ever end?
Still there's more to follow
We debate, but we're still friends
Still there's more to follow (Chorus)


 ;D ;D ;DSorry, I couldn't resist . . . ;D

Not so! by Jove, there's still life here
So let's not be so shallow
While the endless moderns dare
Spew forth more to swallow

Debate! brave lads, and make your case
Lest minds become too narrow
Present your facts, with all due haste
And truth's sharp piercing arrow.

Now Dave, see what you have provoked?  :)
Verne
p.s you'd better be careful, there's more where that came from... ;D

Verne,

In your last reply to Mark C. you said:

"There are countless examples of modern translations using language that is not supported by any source text - even the ones  I consider corrupt!"

You have said you have a working knowledge of Spanish, so here's an example of what you are talking about.

Yesterday I was doing some reading for a paper in a local MacDonald's.  A Mexican lady walked past where I was sitting and entered the ladies room.  Her daughter, however, did not follow her but rather made a turn into an area that holds a brightly colored cube about four feet tall  with funny pictures on it.

The mother, who could not see her from the door of the restroom called her to "come right now."  The child responded, "Ya voy."   That literally means, "I go now" or "I am going now."

But what the child meant, and then acted out, was, "I am coming right now."

What she meant was not contained in the verb she chose to use.   She said, colloquially, "Ya voy."  Literally she meant, "Ya vengo."   This is quite common, and good translators know all about these things.

When I took Spanish in college I would not have understood what the child meant. My literal understanding of what she said would have confused me.  After several years of interacting with Spanish speaking students, I got it.

I think the method you describe as "a working knowledge of greek" is inadequate to acheive your goal.

Thomas Maddux

Perhaps it's short for, "Ya voy a venir."

One problem that I've found in my attempts at translating Russian into English is that their system of declining nouns provides a means of cross reference between remote parts of the sentence, such that extra words in English are needed in order to fill in connections implicit in the declensions.  Unlike Spanish, the syntax of Russian is very similar to English so that a lot of it can be translated nearly word for word, but there are some semantic quirks such that some sentences have to be completely rephrased.

The quote of Proverbs 26:23 raises the issue of the NIV being called a translation, when it is actually more like a paraphrase.  This seems slightly dishonest to me.

Proverbs 22:28
Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

As for the question of which manuscripts are better, I think that neither side of the debate has conclusively decided the matter.  It is best to ensure that all the evidence is preserved for evaluation by anyone in the years to come who may be more enlightened.  Art restoration is done on the principle of causing minimal damage so that future restorers who have more skill will not be disappointed.  I wonder whether all of the newly discovered manuscript evidence is in the hands of trustworthy people?

On trust, I agree with Verne that those doing the work need to be above reproach.

Jeremiah 35:13-14,19
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Go and tell the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not receive instruction to hearken to my words? saith the LORD.  The words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons not to drink wine, are performed; for unto this day they drink none, but obey their father's commandment: notwithstanding I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking; but ye hearkened not unto me. ...  Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.

I don't think that it is reasonable to call people who consider the King James Version better than the NIV extremists.  The sons of Jonadab might be considered extreme in their abstinence from wine, but the Lord honored them for keeping their father's tradition in resisting the moral decay of their time.  Our own time is marked by significant moral decay in like manner.  Those who resist this decay should not be belittled.

I sometimes wonder whether a few of those with the most extreme arguments are fakers intending to discredit the cause they seem to be defending.

Beware of the illusion created by the big-money propaganda campaign to promote the NIV.  Remember the way lawyers successfully defended O.J. even though the evidence against him was overwhelming.

Tom you make some good points and I certainly know my own limitations when it comes to linguistics. There are however certain things that I do understand and which no one on your side of the argument has been able to answer to my satisfaction.
I will give a simple example.
The denial that Jesus Christ was God incarnate is a gnostic heresy. On that you and I will readily agree. We would also agree that there are numerous passages in the NT (despite the claim of a man like Edwin Palmer) that clearly attest to this fact. In fact ALL of scripture is intended to display and disclose who Christ is.
One of the ways in which the deity of Christ is presented in the Scripture is in the manner in which he addresses God. He calls Him  Father and He uses the genetive case.
The Scripture clearly tells us that the Jews fully understood what he was implying in this and attempted to stone him for what they considered blasphemy.

But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. John 5:17-18  

Tom I am directing this query to you and to Mark perticularly.

Please sit down with as many English Bibles as you have, any copy of the Greek NT you care to work with, and the Bible in any other language you have even a minimal working knowledge of, then please explain to me the following.

On what linguistic, manuscript, or literary basis do some modern translations of the Bible systematically replace the genetive case in Christ's reference to God as Father, with the definite article?
This is an honest query and I realise that there may be a good answer.
I sat down with my Bibles and took a long hard look. I consulted no expert. I invite you to do the same and please tell me what you conclude and if you think this is important.
Believe it or not, I greatly appreciate you guys and continue to learn a lot from your sharp counters,  I trust that in eveything Christ alone will be magnified.
Verne

It seems to me that the theory on which Westcott and Hort predicated their rejection of the TR (older is necessarily more accurate) has been thoroughly (and with good reason) rejected by modern scholarship, yet that consideration alone in the minds of many justify their contention that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts are superior.
While this position is in no way probative, I find it truly astonishing that despite the clear history of transmission of the Scriptures of God via the church, some readily accept the fact that we were without an accurate copy of the Sciptures for some fifteen hundred years of church history and that this situation was only remedied with the coming of the RSV in 1881.

This is in my view the only really useful lesson I took from my Geftakys experience. When it comes to people representing themselves as God's servants, I am ruthless. The standard is impeccability. If the standard is not met, get the h-e-double toothpicks out...(pardon my french but I feel that strongly.) God demands holiness in those bearing the vessels of the sanctuary.


Stephen I could not agree more. I recognize the danger of becoming strident exactly because some of us this feel this is so critically important. I have had the opportunity to particpate in exchanges between very able scholars on both sides of the discussion and have been quite instructed by the gracious manner of so many on both sides. There are very good men on both sides of the argument and I have learned a lot from these men.
I have been very much discouraged by how few Christians seem to have any interest whatsover in the topic, and how fewer yet are even aware of the many differences that exist among Bibles today.
Verne

Stephen,

     By omitting verses 15-18 of Jer 35 from your quotation, you obscure the point that God, through Jeremiah, was holding up the sons of Jonadab as an example to disobedient Israel and Judah:  God rewarded the house of Jonadab because they had obeyed the word of their father, while He (God) was bringing judgement against His people who had disobeyed His word, even though He had promised Himself to be a Father to them if they obeyed Him.  The issue addressed is obedience to the word of the Father, irrespective of men's assessments of what constitutes moral decay.

     Anyone who has suggested on this thread that some KJV advocates are extreme has done so, not on the grounds that they "consider" one translation "better than" another, but that some insist upon the KJV over all others, and that they belittle all who disagree with their findings/opinions.  I have personally held in my hand a KJV bible in which the first several pages were dedicated to discrediting each and every other English translation in current use, as if the Word of God itself is not sufficient to speak for itself, or the Holy Spirit unable to convict of the truth without the help of critics.

---

     Excellent points, both, and well worthy of consideration.

---

---

     Amen, Brother!  It is He and He alone that we must never lose sight of; Who must never be less than the very Center of our attention and focus...

al

Hello Everyone! :)

  I know that trying to engage in this kind of conversation will be boring for many, and possibly appear off point for this BB, but I do think that it can be relevant.

  I understand that many who read may think the arguments of the KJV only people are silly, and in some instances I would agree, but most of these people are serious committed Christians.

  What is the value of this discussion then?  IMHO, it is not that we would become great Bible students, but that we might learn what it means to think in spiritual terms.

  In this argument we are having there are two decided views on what it means to hear God speaking to us today.  

  One side views that God is concerned with a very strict precision re. what we believe about him, and this means God demands of us purity of theological knowledge.  This is of course why the KJV only folks must believe that God has preserved an exact represenatation of the original autographs for us today.  Without the orignal words to learn as a basis for faith there is left some gray area that must be filled by our own thinking processes.

   Any deviation from perfection means, in their view, that God has somehow given man room to kind of fill in the gaps out of their own natural minds.  This is very dangerous to them because there is no room for human intellect when it comes to God's perfect purpose.  God only communicates to us via perfectly preserved exact doctinres and dictums, which we must first learn precisely to adhere to without question.

  If the above paragraph is what it means to be a Christian than salvation is based on a person's perfect education and just as perfect adherence to that indoctrination.

 It is my belief that salvation is based in the love of God and that is revealed in the simple Gospel message.  That does not mean that we should not learn, and be faithful to, the essential doctrines of the faith, rather that we should not make perfect knowledge an idol in our lives; God is perfect, but we will always be very far from perfect in our knowledge of God and His purposes.

   The other side believes that God has given man intelligence, and this ability to think is able to understand what God intends to communicate in a broader sense then just fidelity to a catechism.   What I mean by "the broader sense" is not the seeing of Scripture as "myth," or in any other speculative modernist sense, but understanding that the words of the Bible themselves are meant to present to us Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  

  Take for example the Pharisees:  They were notriously strict in their preservation of the tradiition of Scripture.  They found security in their faithfulness to every jot and tittle of the Word of God, but this led to totally missing the Spirit of the message as revealed in the coming of the Messiah.  These Pharisees only had the pure message of God and yet it was folks like heretical Samaritans, illiterate prostitutes, Gentiles, and the like, who recognized and recieved Jesus!

  We see through a glass darkly, and that would be true if we even had the original autographs and understood all the nuances of the original languages.  Metzger understood this, in re. to the quote that Verne provided, in his recognition that the early church probably was not perfect in their understanding of what was cannonical vs. just a letter sent to their church from a minister of Christ in many cases.

  There is no threat in discovering that Erasmus did the best he could with what he had, but fell short of providing a "Textus Receptus" that preserved the original autographs because God adequately preserved what we need to know to find Him and His redemption.

  What ministers Christ to the world more?  Having the original autographs and memorizing them backward and forward, or having only a Gospel of John from the New English Bible and sharing the Gospel with others from it?  This, IMHO, is the difference between thinking in a literal religious sense vs thinking in a spiritual sense.

                                      God Bless,  Mark C.  

I would also pose the question:
Is there an attack of the enemy on the Word of God today, and if there were, what form would it take?
Verne

Good question Verne!

  I believe the enemy's best course of action to defeat the Bible would be to develop pseudo religions that are based on what portends to be a bible believing point of view.

  Paul battles largely were against those, like in the book of Galatians, who argued for a need for believers to augment their faith with a reliance on their own merits.

   John's epistles appear to face the beginnings of the Gnostic error.  These false teachers used the Bible and pretended an allegiance to God, but their interpretations of the Bible were twisted to lead people away from the Gospel of God.

  Satan, in the two above examples, transformed himself into "an angel of light," and "a minister of righteousness."  Apparently these ministers preached from the Bible, and not from spurious unknown texts, as they were received into Christian gatherings.

  The Devil is great at accurately quoting scripture (out of context and with an erroneous interpreation), and what this shows is that his most effective means to combat the Bible is not to attempt to offer spurious translations, but to take God's words themselves and then say, "hath God said?," and then go on to a twisted interpretation that makes God into someone who is less than the loving and liberty giving God that He is.

  The Apostolic church had the teaching of the Apostles, the Gospel tradition, and the OT, and Satan seemed to work by twisiting these God ordained witnesses into something other than what they were intended for.  

   The ability of Satan to take what Christians considered God's authoritative message and to twist it was such a powerful deception that those following this thought they were actually serving God, while doing the opposite.

   If the Devil had tried to get Christians to follow what was questioned as being authoritative, such as an altered Gospel of Mark, they would have seen right through it because they had copies to compare it to and it was well established in their minds what was in the Gospel.

                                         God Bless,  Mark C.











                                                                                     

 

   

I agree. The devil is going to find some means to rally the world around a common theology. I think one can make a credible case that some of the chages we are seeing in some modern versions opens the door for debate on matters Christians have long thought settled.
There are now some "ministers" claiming that the Bible does not explicty forbid sex outside the marriage covenant.
Why is that?
You cannot find the word "fornication" in many modern versions.
Verne

Hi Verne,

  I really don't think that people will rally around any kind of theology, in the sense that they will be drawn to certain kinds of ideas.

  The kind of deception that leads "ministers" to twist morality would go on even if every other word in the Bible warned against fornication.   This, IMHO, is not the problem, nor have I ever heard of anyone making a decision like this based on a modern translation.

  We make immoral choices because we desire them, not because some minister tells us that it is okay.  People will pick churches with ministers that support what they want to hear ("ears that tickle").

  GG's preference for the KJV, and his very strict ministry re. morality, did not prevent his own pursuit of clear violations of even what most of the world would consider bad.  I remember GG remarking in his ministry how he corrected a waitress because she called him "honey" once.  His remarks continued, " nobody calls me honey but my wife!" ::)

  I think the Elmer Gantry styled minister, who is also very orthodox in his doctrine, is far more destructive to Christian witness than a modernist who believes that the Bible is myth.  Not that the latter is correct, but at least he honestly proclaims his disdain for the Bible as authoritative.

 Even a poorly educated born again Christian will instantly reject the modernist, but the same Christian might get involved in a group like the Assembly and follow an individual like GG, because he proclaims such a high Christian standard.

  That was why I was attracted to the Assembly.  They had a much higher level of moral and spiritual desire than I noticed in the "worldly churches."  When GG preached that we must have purity of heart and absolute commitment to Jesus Christ, from the depth of my heart I prayed that God might make me as perfect as GG was.  He would stare down at us as he preached and I felt like he could see into my heart and knew all my secret sins.

  What the "One World Religion" will find orientation around could look more like radical fundamental Islam than some kind of liberal Christian theology.  If strict laws against adultery and sex outside of marriage is what we think is of the greatest concern then the Moslem faith is closest here to what God wants.

  The Devil is fine with us teaching strict morality, as in Islam, as his main goal is to obfuscate the message of salvation through grace.

  The world's hope is in hearing that their best attempts at achieving morality are in vain and that God has provided all the righteousness we need in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  Also, the Christian life must be lived on this strong foundation of a gift based relationship, vs. self improvement methodologies.  

  Whatever the "One World Religion" will be it will not have the paragraph above in it.  Rather, it will probably promote a high degree of allegiance to a strong moral code, and a commitment to charitable social actions that are designed to serve the one world government.

         -----The Gospel,---- is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.--- For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last---. Rom. 1:16-17 NIV.

                                             God Bless,  Mark C.

                                     

By theology I mean a unifying concept regarding that which is spiritual. I believe we already see this in nascent form in all false religions, namely the achievement of some sort of "Christ-consciousness" by virtue of subscription to some method or mentor.
For this kind of ecumenical transformation to be effective, the most difficult task will be to dislodge the Lord Jesus Christ from the unique positin he holds in this regard.

He alone is the Christ!

I thinnk it is critically important to not only have the right message, we must also be crystally clear about the messenger.
Any diminishment, no matter how seemingly trivial, when it comes to the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ is call for immediate alarm.
In this regard you are far more gracious to modern versions than I am prepared to be.
You and I have both seen those boasting in their own spiritual erudtion as self-procalimed "ministers" who do not see their own poverty and are clearly not holding the head.

I have never met a true servant of Jesus Christ that had to tell that to you.


Being able to point to an ambiguous verse in the Bible can and is indeed used to ensnare the unwary. I have had a supposed believer try to tell me that there is no such person in the Scriptures as Lucifer. Based on what his NIV teaches, he is absolutely right.


The level of the man's ignorance is amazing. I find it hard to believe that he did indeed prefer the KJV when I so oftern heard him correct it with his superior:

It reads this way in Nestle's


I have to say a hearty amen to this.
I have learned to pay little attention anymore to what people say. I want to know all about their manner of life.
Some people most loudly trumpeting their own holiness, if the truth were known, would run for cover...

 
The advent of the new world religion will be accmpanied by a display of amazing signs and wonders. It will no longer be possible for anyone on either side to fake it.
Today many of us can and do.
Verne

Hi Verne,

  I trust you had a good Sunday.

   I think that you do have it correct when you state that the religion that will eventually unify the world behind the Anti-Christ will be a phony version of Christ.

 But, and maybe, that pseudo Jesus would look more like what Paul warns about in his epistles as Christ as an example and moral teacher only, but without the message of salvation through grace.

  Whether I believe that the Devil's name is Lucifer, Diablo, or any other name does not lead to salvation, nor lead me away from the same.

 The Modern translations (with the exception of the JW Bible and the like) clearly present Jesus as God (JN. 1 and etc.) and the message of redemption through this same Jesus is accurately presented.

  Choosing which scholar to believe based on their character has some difficulties.  How do we really know someones real character?  If, as Paul stated, false teachers can transform themselves into angels of Light, they may appear to be godly and good family men.  With a scholar we may never get a chance to meet or know more about them than their work.

   Where I do think we must be careful about character is in regard to those who interpret God's word and bring it to us, because that is a spiritual endeavor, vs. a solely scholastic one.  

   It could be a reaction to my Assembly days, but my interpretation of godliness in a teacher is far different than it used to be.  Just because a man has an outwardly clean life (no divorces, bankruptcy, or possibly a struggle with alcohol in the past) it doesn't mean that I'm ready to accept what he teaches.

  Mormans and JW teachers would qualify as godly if good clean living were what approved their teaching.

   If I hear a preacher get up and talk about how deeply he struggles with sin, and than goes on to talk about how grace has helped him, I am more likely to believe that is message is inspired of The Spirit.

                                           God Bless,  Mark C.

 

   

   

Hi all,

I just had to revive this thread when I read the following:

A ten-year old, under the tutelage of her grandmother, was becoming quite knowledgeable about the Bible.
Then one day she floored her grandmother by asking, "Which Virgin was the mother of Jesus? The Virgin Mary or the King James Virgin?"

al ;)

I bought a new calf-skin Bible today and it is a thing of beauty!
Believe it or not it is the NKJV!
Some folk think it qualifies as a "modern" translation and there are a few changes that catch the alert eye, but so long as you know... :)
I am going to try and read the entire thing in a month.
I like to read all my Bibles through from cover to cover at least once.
Have you ever noticed as you are reading the Word of God how many things you accepted as fact are actually myth?
Tom Maddux a few months back mentioned that teaching believers to tithe was false teaching.
I was always a bit uncomfortable with that but until he called it for what it was, I never could put my finger on it. Of course Tom was right on the money Biblically.
As I was reading the account of the Flood, I remembered images presented to me as a child of Noah preaching the gospel to folk and imploring them to get into the ark with him so they would not perish.
Anybody else taught the story of the flood that way?
Well, when you actually read what happened, you certainly come away with a different sense of what really went down don't you?  :)
Verne

p.s one huge prinicple that I see is that the key to saving society is teaching men to save their own households...no wonder so many black kids are in so much hot water...we men are really screwing things up royally...

Carson is frequently referenced by many believers as a source of authority during the course of discussions about theology. It is quite revealing how little so many Christians know about some folk wearing the the garb of Christianity, espcially those in academic circles, and whom they cite as support for their position on Biblical issues. Here is an interesting article put out by the  Fundamental Babtist Information Service about Carson.


BEWARE OF D.A. CARSON


Distributed by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 2001.
 

D.A. Carson is a professor of New Testament at the New Evangelical Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and is the author of several influential books. One of these is “The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism,” which is often promoted by fundamentalists who defend textual criticism and the modern versions. (By Carson’s standard, the only “realism” is to abandon the defense of the King James Bible and to accept the findings of unbelieving textual criticism.)

D.A. Carson is not a man that fundamentalists should be following. He walks in the most radical of New Evangelical circles, being associated with organizations such as Christianity Today and the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), both of which are deeply compromised theologically. Christianity Today has been one of the chief voices for New Evangelicalism for 50 years. It has promoted everything from Billy Graham to Fuller Theological Seminary to Robert Schuller to Karl Barth.

As for the Evangelical Theological Society (Carson spoke at the ETS conference in 1999) its members voted in November 2003 NOT to expel two members (Clark Pinnock and John Sanders) who espouse the heresy of open theology. Open theism denies the foreknowledge and omniscience of God, claiming that He does not know the future perfectly. Open theist Gregory Boyd says, “God can’t foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He creates these people and they in turn create their decisions.” In The Battle for the Bible, Harold Lindsell gave examples of members of the Evangelical Theological Society who deny the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. One was Richard Bube, a professor at Stanford University. In his book The Encounter Between Christianity and Society, Bube claimed that Christians are not required to believe that there was a real “man by the name of Adam who experienced the events of Genesis in a natural historical sense.” Bube also claimed (falsely) that “there is no information in the Bible that is ... opposed to theories of organic evolution” (The Battle for the Bible, pp. 128-129).

No man who is associated with the Christianity Today or the Evangelical Theological Society takes Biblical separation seriously.




Verne

As many are aware there are areas in the King James Version of the Bible which are in italics. These are areas where the translation is questionable--the areas may have been added by over-zealous scribes or others. 1 John 5:7 is one such verse. There is one area of Mark, near the end of chapter 5, that has recently come into dispute, as a document was recently found which added several verses to the original manuscript that are not found in the translation of the King James Version we have at the present time. Below are verses 11 through 17 of chapter 5, and then the section which is not found in our modern translation:

11A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them." 13He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.

 14Those tending the pigs ran off and reported this in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened. 15When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. 16Those who had seen it told the people what had happened to the demon-possessed man—and told about the pigs as well. 17Then the people began to plead with Jesus to leave their region.

Inserted in the recently found manuscript after verse 17 was the following (these verses are not numbered as the original languages did not have any numerical separation):

Then Emeril, Julia's child, son of Jacob, said loudly "Who is this man, and from whence did he come?" (Now Emeril was of them who prepare the feasts). And Emeril raised his knife, and he took of the meat of the swine which had run into the lake, and then he declared "This is the finest swine I have ever tasted--it is completely cooked, with the sweetest savor imaginable. I shall call it deviled ham."  Now Emeril took of the deviled ham and prepared a feast. He stuffed the deviled ham with figs. These were  figs which did come from a tree which had been recently cursed, on which fruit was declared to never grow again, but which caused the figs that did grow on that tree to immediately dry, retaining an amazing sweetness. And thus it was so.
 
Emeril, Julia's child, took of these sweet, dried figs, and added a multitude of spices, a mixture of his own invention, which he did sprinkle on every meal he he did prepare. He did use bread and fish left over from a hillside feast attended by about 5000 people a week before also. He then served a wine from Cana of Galilee, which  had been miraculously made from water. And it came to pass that the multitude shouted with joy, as the ham and the figs and the wine had filled them, and given them great happiness. And they went home proclaming the miracle which they had seen, and the meal that they had eaten. And many determined to follow the man who had done these things, and to write down the instructions for preparing the meal that Emeril, Julia's child had served them. (James Whitcomb, Joseph Smith Jr., translators. From the original Greek.)

Again, this part of the manuscript is questionable and most likely will not be added to the versions that we have today. But it does give a rather historical perspective of the eating habits of the people who lived at that time, and the fact that they even used "recipes" in their food preparation. Another apocryphal document makes reference to another event involving eggs which had been "deviled" also, but it is believed this is a work of pure fiction.