Re:Modern Translations

[vernecarty]

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.

[vernecarty]

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...

[vernecarty]

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.

[vernecarty]

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," ( "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); ( 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?  

[Mark C.]

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.

[vernecarty]

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.

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

 

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.

 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.

 

 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.

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....

Verne, this is so sad.  You may not realize it, bu you are on a road that leads back to ugly sectarianism and even cultish behavior.

 The KJV only position is not based on scholarship at all.  It is based on fear of change, distrust of scholarship, and a false mysticism.

The Critical Text, upon which the NASV and NIV are based varies from the Byzantine, (Majority) text in 6577 places.  A little arithmetic will show you that that comes down to 2%.  In other words, they agree 98% of the time.

Caw we talk about the 2 %?




Verne

[vernecarty]

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.

[vernecarty]

Howdy,

In the past two years a textual critic used the methods of textual analysis in order to evaluate the manuscript evidence for variant readings from the four Gospels.

1200 variant readings were evaluated by comparing readings from the Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, and Caesarean textual families.  They were examined for evidence of being secondary readings.

Now, what does "secondary readings" mean?

Take your KJV and look up Jesus' words when he cried out to the Father in his anguish on the cross.

Matthew 27:46 says, "Eli Eli, lama sabacthani." Which means, "Elijah, Elijah, why have you forsaken me?"

Mark 15:34 says, "Eloi Eloi, lama sabachthani."  Which means, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

So, we are forced to choose between two alternatives.  1. Christ cried out twice on the cross, once to Elijah and once to the Father, or 2. The Matthew reading does not accurately reflect Christ's words, but is based on some type of error in an underlying manuscript.  In this case, the Textus Receptus which belongs to the Byzantine family.

The first alternative makes no sense.  We know what Christ said since it was predicted in Psalm 22:1.  Therefore, the Matthew reading is "secondary", not original.


God bless,

Thomas Maddux

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

[Mark C.]

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.

[al Hartman]

     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:

What persuades people are facts... At least they should.

When presented with indisputable fact regarding what modern translations say, persuasion is a moot point.

     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)

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.

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 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...
 ...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...
 ...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.  [emphases added]

     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

[vernecarty]

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.

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.

     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?

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

[al Hartman]

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



   

[Mark C.]

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.
   

[vernecarty]

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...
   

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

[al Hartman]

     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...
   

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.

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.

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.

     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.

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.

     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 serioiusly doubt that the response of anyone reading this thread will be to be overtaken with an irrational trepidation.  

     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