Re:Modern Translations

[Mark C.]

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.

[vernecarty]

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

[Oscar]

Tom it is true that I did misread what Riplinger said about her own training.
However, your contention that her not being fluent in Greek and Hebrew is a basis to invalidate her statements is the height of irrationality.
This is an attitude held by those in academia, which has caused untold damage to others (for example the medical profession) by destroying the credibility of people who told the truth, but were not experts


You are a history teacher, I hardly need review pertinent examples.
What you are attempting to do in the case of Riplinger is the same kind of elitist and academic arrogance Tom. I have been there, done that.
If your point regarding her linguistic skills had any merit what soever, your sources would have actually given you some ammunition.

Why don't you tell us for the record Tom, what has she stated that you have determined to be a fallacy, and is attributable to her not being fluent in Hebrew and Greek, and more importanly, anything that I have stated which is dependent on such a fallacy?

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.

Doing that would have made your point far more effectively, notwithstanding the fact that even able scholars committ errors, Zane Hodges and Von Sunder for example.
What we are now discussing is entirely irrelevant to the topic.
It is amazing how all her critics manage to avoid dealing with what the woman says.  

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.

Please explain to me why it is necessary to be fluent in any language to make a determination of whether words in that language are present or missing when translated to a language that you speak?
Tom this is not nuclear reactor design.

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 do not fluently read either Greek or Hebrew. There are numerous passages of Scripture which if you presented to me, I could in, either language, distinguish the source text. I have not spent nearly as much time, nor done a fraction of the research Riplinger has done on this topic.
There is something remarkably arrogant and dishonest about the way you are impugning her integrity.
I must say your tactic is very effective though Tom.
Here we are wrangling about her qualifications, rather than actually discussion what these translations say, and what Riplinger has stated about them. I must say your mastery of the red herring is impressive.  
As you well know, there are scores of folk who read Hebrew and Greek who agree with her regarding modern translations Tom. How my position represents a committment to Gail Riplinger is a mystery to me my friend. This rambling discussion about Riplinger's views in no way affects the fundamental issue, namely:

The source text for modern translations and the KJB are different.


Verne
p.s It would be nice if you gave your sources Tom. It would help If I could read the author of that book commentary myself. I have read quite a few already including Hunt, White and McCloud. Have you notices that even some of her harshest critics concede that modern versions are corrupt?

I will, in my next post

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Doing that would have made your point far more effectively, notwithstanding the fact that even able scholars committ errors, Zane Hodges and Von Sunder for example.
What we are now discussing is entirely irrelevant to the topic.
It is amazing how all her critics manage to avoid dealing with what the woman says.  

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.

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.

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 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.

Please explain to me why it is necessary to be fluent in any language to make a determination of whether words in that language are present or missing when translated to a language that you speak?
Tom this is not nuclear reactor design.


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.

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.

I do not fluently read either Greek or Hebrew. There are numerous passages of Scripture which if you presented to me, I could in, either language, distinguish the source text. I have not spent nearly as much time, nor done a fraction of the research Riplinger has done on this topic.
There is something remarkably arrogant and dishonest about the way you are impugning her integrity.
I must say your tactic is very effective though Tom.
Here we are wrangling about her qualifications, rather than actually discussion what these translations say, and what Riplinger has stated about them. I must say your mastery of the red herring is impressive.  
As you well know, there are scores of folk who read Hebrew and Greek who agree with her regarding modern translations Tom. How my position represents a committment to Gail Riplinger is a mystery to me my friend. This rambling discussion about Riplinger's views in no way affects the fundamental issue, namely:

The source text for modern translations and the KJB are different.


Verne
p.s It would be nice if you gave your sources Tom. It would help If I could read the author of that book commentary myself. I have read quite a few already including Hunt, White and McCloud. Have you notices that even some of her harshest critics concede that modern versions are corrupt?



I will, in my next post

Thomas Maddux

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

[vernecarty]

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

[Mark C.]

 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.



 

[vernecarty]

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

[vernecarty]

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

[vernecarty]

  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?

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.

 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.

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 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 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.

 

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.
 

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.

[Oscar]

howdy,

Big paper about due.

See Y'all in a few days.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

howdy,

Big paper about due.

See Y'all in a few days.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Knock 'em dead Tom...
Verne

[vernecarty]

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

[lenore]

 :)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.


 

[vernecarty]

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.

[vernecarty]

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