How To Be A Bible Believing Dispensationalist (KJV Info)
From Peter S Ruckman
The modern Christian educator and scholar can be located in relation to the SOURCE and CAUSE of apostasy. The modern Christian educator or scholar (“godly” and “separated” of course) inherits 1,850 years of infidelity preserved through “Christian” scholarship and passed faithfully on from one generation to another through what we call the “Scholars Union,” or more accurately, “THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT.” Cult members can be spotted easily by the fact that they repeat in their generation three or more of the following lies.
1. The original Greek text says … .
2. THE Greek text says … .
3. The BEST manuscripts say … .
4. Second Timothy 3:16 applies only to the “original manuscripts.”
5. Erasmus’ Greek text is a Roman Catholic Greek text.
6. Westcott and Hort were brilliant Biblical scholars.
7. If “good men” correct the Bible, you may correct it too, providing you do it “reverently” and “prayerfully.”
These are used by members of the Alexandrian Cult to put doubt into the Christian’s mind about the authority of the AUTHORIZED VERSION. DIRECT LYING and innuendo are the means of inculcating UNBELIEF into the mind of the born-again, soul-winning, separated Christian. Any reader of Genesis 3 could have spotted the source and origin of all apostasy without half trying.
And the Best of Sam Gipp's masterpiece 'The Answer Book'
QUESTION: Where was the Bible before 1611?
ANSWER: In the available Antiochian manuscripts.
EXPLANATION: Critics of the perfect Bible like to throw out this question as though it will "stun" Bible believers. It doesn't. The overwhelming majority of Bible manuscripts existent throughout history have been the text found in Antioch. They have always been available in some form, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 AD, (NOT to be confused with Jerome's corrupt "Vulgate") or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD. That it would be difficult indeed to gather all of these sources together and place them in the hands of the common man gives credence to God's reasoning for the collation and translation of the King James Bible.
QUESTION: Aren't today's scholars better equipped to translate the Bible than the King James translators were?
EXPLANATION: The answer to the question is "No" for two reasons. First is that, the scholarship of the men who translated the King James Bible is literally unsurpassable by today's scholars. Two books available best illustrate this and should be read by anyone who wants to seriously study the subject. They are Translators Revived , by Alexander McClure, Maranatha Publications, and The Men Behind the King James Version, by Gustavus Paine, Baker Book House. The men of the King James translation committee were scholars of unparalleled ability. A brief description of their several abilities is found under a previous section. Secondly, it would be foolish and contradictory to believe that today's scholars ever could equal or surpass those of the Authorized Version. Most Christians agree that the world, with time, degenerates. Morals have degenerated since 1611. Character has degenerated since 1611. Even our atmosphere has degenerated. Are we then to believe that education has gotten better? Only a worshiper of education could pretend to believe such a fairy tale.
QUESTION: If King James didn't authorize the Bible for use in churches, who was it translated for?
ANSWER: The common man.
EXPLANATION: There is so much made of the perfection, or supposed imperfection, of the Bible that one element in the equation is often overlooked. That is, the reason for having a perfect Bible in the first place, the common man. If there was no common man, there would be no need for a Bible in the common language. Let us remember that the church (any religious organization in this case) has always had access to scripture. The result of their having the Bible has generally tended toward pride and a sense of "lording" over the flock. But put the Bible in the hands of the common man and it is a different story. It has been said, "Put a beggar on horseback and he'll ride off at a gallop." This best describes a common man's reaction to being given a perfect Bible.
QUESTION: Aren't King James Bible believers a cult?
EXPLANATION: The charge that King James Bible believers are a cult is similar to the charge that they worship the Bible. It is a result of the same frustration and born of the same malice. Sadly, when facts do not prove them right, character assassination is in order. Cults are somewhat difficult to define, although there are two outstanding characteristics evident in all cults. First, a cult has a central body that makes decisions for all of its disciples. Most King James Bible believers are fiercely independent and many times disagree about other doctrines, even with one another. Their only central authority is the Bible, not a college or university. Secondly, most cults fear that their disciples will investigate their opposition's beliefs and then be converted by the truth. Therefore they make strict rules disallowing books and materials that disagree with their doctrine. Again, since the facts support the Authorized Version, King James Bible believers are not afraid to study the charges of their critics. In fact, this book attempts to confront all of the Bible critic's charges with complete candor. Now, it will be noted that, there are some Bible colleges and universities which have a policy of confiscating books which support the view of a perfect Bible. In fact, this book may be on that list someday. It makes one wonder just who is the "cult" and who isn't.
QUESTION: Is it "heresy" to believe, that the King James Bible is perfect?
EXPLANATION: It is amusing yet appalling that a King James Bible believer, who BELIEVES the Bible to be inerrant, is called a "heretic" by people who claim to believe that the Bible is inerrant. "Heresy", according to Webster, is "an opinion or doctrine contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs." It is "generally accepted" that the Bible is the perfect word of God. I have often told people, "I don't believe that the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God. I believe that the BIBLE is the inerrant word of God. But if you ask me to give you a copy of that Bible, I'll hand you a King James Bible." Critics of the King James Bible believe that the "Bible" is the inerrant word of God. BUT, ask them to hand you a copy of that inerrant Bible that they "believe" in, and you will find that it doesn't exist anywhere on this earth! We King James Bible believers simply believe what they CLAIM to believe. And for that we are called "heretics." Actually the "heretic" label is designed more to scare young adherents away from the inerrant Bible, than to honestly define the name callers feelings. It is hoped by the Bible critic that the fear of being labeled a "heretic" will discourage zealous Christians from REALLY believing what Bible critics claim to believe. In fact, if it is generally accepted by fundamentalists that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God" and the Bible critic can find a mistake in every Bible that you put in his hand, then... who really is the heretic?
QUESTION: What is the difference between a "Textus Receptus Man" and a "King James Man?"
ANSWER: A "TR Man" gets his manuscripts from Antioch and his philosophy from Egypt.
EXPLANATION: Under Question #8 concerning Alexandria and Antioch it was pointed out that we derive two things from each of these locations. We derive manuscripts and an ideology through which we judge those manuscripts. From Alexandria we receive corrupted manuscripts, tainted by the critical hand of Origen. We also receive an ideology that believes the Bible to be divine, but not perfect, not without error. From Antioch we receive the pure line of manuscripts culminating in what is known as the "Received Text" or Textus Receptus. We also receive the ideology that the Bible is not only Divine, but perfect, without error. 1. Most Bible critics do not believe that the Bible is perfect (The Alexandrian Ideology). They usually also accept the Alexandrian manuscripts as superior to those of Antioch. 2. A King James Bible believer accepts the Antiochian manuscripts or Textus Receptus as superior to the Alexandrian. They also accept the Antiochian Ideology in that they accept the Bible as infallible and do not believe it contains any errors or mistranslations and that it cannot be improved. 3. A Textus Receptus man also accepts the Antiochian manuscripts or Textus Receptus as superior to the Alexandrian. But a Textus Receptus man accepts the Antiochian manuscripts yet he views them with the Alexandrian Ideology. He does not accept any translation as perfect and without error. He generally feels that the King James is the best translation but can be improved. He usually stumbles at Acts 12:4 and states that it is a mistranslation. This contradiction is NOT the result of a bad or dishonest heart so much as it is the result of a bad education.
QUESTION: Can a translation be inspired?
ANSWER: Yes, God has inspired several.
EXPLANATION: In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23. "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." It is, of course, an accepted fact that no translation can be "word perfect". Therefore we know that the Hebrew translation of Joseph's Egyptian statements as found in the Old Testament manuscripts cannot be an exact word for word copy. We are left with quite a dilemma. WHOM did God inspire? Did He inspire Joseph's Egyptian statements, the Egyptian interpreter's verbal translation, or Moses' written translation as found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament? If God inspired Joseph, was his "original" statement marred by his Egyptian interpreter, or by Moses' translation? Or did God inspire Moses to pen an "inspired translation" which would fly in the face of many Fundamentalist's charges of "progressive inspiration?" This same question arises in Exodus chapters 4-14 in Moses' contest with Pharaoh. Moses, though speaking for God to an Egyptian king in the king's native Egyptian tongue, translates both his and Pharaoh's statements into Hebrew when he records the account in writing. Which did God inspire? The verbal statement made in Egyptian, a copy of which NO ONE ON EARTH HAS? Or did He inspire Moses' Hebrew translation? The problem of inspired translations refuses to go away. In Acts 22 Paul speaks to his Jewish tormentors in the Hebrew language (Acts 21:40, 22:2). The testimony found in verses 1 through 21 is all given orally in Hebrew. Yet there is NO manuscript extant of Acts 22 which records Paul's statement in Hebrew. Luke wrote it all out in Greek. Which did God inspire? Paul's verbal statement or Luke's "progressive inspiration"? The answer is simple and is found in II Timothy 3:16. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." The word "scripture" by its very root, "script" is a term for written words. Therefore, we can rest assured that the various translations (there are more than the few I have pointed out) we have in our Bible are the inspired words of God. If a fundamentalist chooses not to believe in inspired translations, he will have to do it contrary to the Bible practice.
QUESTION: What should I do where my Bible and my Greek Lexicon contradict?
ANSWER: Throw out the Lexicon.
EXPLANATION: Oftimes a critic of God's Bible will point to a Lexicon or Greek grammar book for authority in an effort to prove that a word has been mistranslated in the Bible. This is rather foolhardy, and flies in the face of their purported claim to accept the Bible as their final authority in all matters of faith and practice. It must be remembered that God never claimed that He would provide us with a perfect lexicon or an inerrant Greek grammar. He said that He would provide us with a perfect Bible. Thus, on the weight of our own acceptance of the Bible as our "final authority in all matters of faith and practice" we must all accept its rendering of the Greek as more accurate and authoritative than the opinion of the fallible human authors of our Greek study guides.
QUESTION: If the King James is really perfect, how can so many preachers and scholars be wrong about it?
ANSWER: The majority is ALWAYS wrong.
EXPLANATION: In Matthew 7:13, 14 Jesus points out a great Bible truth. The majority of the population will not get saved. "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." This passage teaches us that the majority of people on the earth at any given time will wrongly reject Christ and go to Hell. Even a casual look at the Bible will show that the majority is always going to be wrong. The majority of people rejected Noah's preaching and died in the flood. The majority of people perished in Sodom and Gomorrah. The majority of Israel worshipped Aaron's calf in Exodus 32. The majority of Israel rejected the ministry of the prophets such as Jeremiah. The majority of people rejected Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. The majority of people alive today reject Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world. It would seem that throughout history, it has always been a small group of people who have had a heart soft enough to accept God's revealed truth. The fact that the majority of Bible "scholars" and preachers reject the King James Bible is entirely scriptural. And WRONG.