Scholarly Demolition - Part 1

SCHOLARLY
DEMOLITION
(Part 1)
Periander A. Esplana
(sciencephilosophyreligion or SPR)
http://thebibleformula.webs.com
SCHOLARLY DEMOLITION (Part 1)

by Periander A. Esplana (sciencephilosophyreligion or SPR)
In a Bible Version Discussion Board http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/48243 an
article of Dr. Peter S. Ruckman and the last chapter of Dr. Gail A. Riplinger new book, which both
mentioned me and the Bible Formula, were hotly discussed in a topic entitled: Ruckman Rides
Rampant. The KJB-infidels ridiculed Ruckman, Riplinger and me including my website. I joined
the forum with the user name sciencephilosophyreligion (SPR) and post my challenge to them.
No one can answer my challenge. They all tremble. They admitted that Im an obviously bright
fellow with my brilliance in answering all their posts. One Christian who commented to a
blogsite of a KJB-infidel wrote: Periander, Thank you for making yourself known. It is indeed a
pleasure and certainly a breath of fresh air to meet someone of your calibre with the spiritual
insight you have displayed and the knowlege of the Textus Receptus and once again God is still
in patience calling a people to Himself through His Holy Word. The Biblical mathematics you have
revealed is astounding, pointing us once more to the only true God who can only be found
through Jesus Christ as revealed through His Sacred Scriptures. During my response to one of
the KJB-infidels in the Bible Version Discussion Board, I post five questions on Bible version
issue. They all tried to answer in unison. Heres my scholarly demolition of their scholarly
answers.
Let me scholarly collate the so-called answers given by KJB-infidels and after that my scholarly
demolition of their answers will follow.
Sciencephilosophyreligion
(SPR) Five Questions
1. Where does God ever

authorize your picking this
or that edition from the
hundreds of New Age
bible versions to play your
contradicting preferences
and imperfect opinions
with?
Attempted Answers from KJBO-Infidels

Bigoted Amarillo
Mr.
Horsefeather
Euthicus
Steelmaker
Euthymius
we don't pick this or
Right nexta
No Answer
that. so u're way off to
where He sez
begin with. we believe;
the KJV is the
we accept.
ONLY
"official"
English
version.
[No Answer
SPR]
Infidel-Lover
McClare
The Bible is
silent on the
question of
Bible versions.
Since God
has not seen
fit to
pronounce
one the
"official"
English Bible
for all
Christians, we
are at liberty
to use our
God-given
wisdom to
decide that for
ourselves.
(We are not at
liberty to bind
others'
consciences
by our
choices, as
the KJV-
onlyists
sinfully
presume to
do.)
SPR comment to KJVOInfidels Answer
Its so clear that

bigoted Amarillo
together with his
cohort blindly
believed and
accepted what Occult
Wescott and Hort
gave them.
2. Where is your perfect

Bible that you can hold in
your hands and study
prayerfully? What is it?
whatever one we have

in our hands whenever
we study prayerfully.
whatever? Really?
Remember, there are
many so-called
bible today which is
NOT Bible at all.
Amarillos answer is
tantamount to
insanity.
Euthicus
Euthymius
never
answered
any of my
questions
but instead
of
answering
he just
parroted
the
question
of bigoted
Amarillo.
He is a
cloned
robot. He
just asked
without
answering
anything.
No Answer
Euthymius
is still
sleeping.
Hey, wake
up,
wheres
your
answer?
Horsefeather
Steelmaker
have the
guts to tell
me in
another
forum that
he had
already
answered
my five
questions
when in fact
he cannot
answer the
very first
question
In short,
Infidel-lover
McClare
admitted that
he was not
authorized by
God but he
just blindly
believed that
he is free to
decide for
himself what
bible version
he would like
to call as the
very words of
God. His
god is his
preference
and opinion.
Any valid
version.
I have my
New
American
Standard
Bible right
here on my
desk.
Are you are a
NASB
Onlyist? or if
not
(obviously)
there are still
many bibles
which you
also believed
as the perfect
bible? What
are they?
But since
you named
NASB better
look its
corruption
here:
http://www.m
aranath.ca/N
ASV.HTM
Who will
determine if
is indeed a
VALID
version of
the Bible?
You? Your
preference
and
opinion?
Occult and
liberal
scholars
whom you
worship?
3. Is your so-called
modern version of the
bible really given by
inspiration of God?
Where's your proof?
2 Tim. 3:16.
No Answer
Same place
YOUR proof
is that He
inspired the
KJV.
Read your modern

versions and you
cannot find there
your proof that ALL
SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN
BY INSPIRATION OF
GOD. Read it
googol times.
Still
sleeping?
How about
a real
answer to
my
questions?
Theres no
SAME
place
between
your corrupt
modern
versions and
the pure
KJB.
4. What is your bible that

you believed to be the
perfect, pure, inerrant
words of God? Name it.
it's called on the cover

The Holy Bible. on
Sunday morning, it's
the KJB (not the PCE
or your numeric
miracle, i don't think). in
the afternoon, it's the
NIV. on weekdays the
CEV. sometimes the
No Answer
Any valid
version.
betcha can't
prove me
wrong.
Refute it if
you can.
2 Timothy
3:16: "All
Scripture is
inspired by
God and
profitable for
teaching, for
reproof, for
correction, for
training in
righteousness.
"
Im not
asking Is
your socalled
modern
version of
the bible
really
INSPIRED by
God? Here
are my
questions: Is
your socalled
modern
version of
the bible
really given
by
inspiration of
God?
Where's your
proof?
Read my
questions
many times
until you
understand.
As Ive said,
dont used
your arrogant
stupidity and
blind bigotry.
Already
answered.
[i.e., NASB Armchair
scholar
commented to
the five
answers of
McClare:
Greek even.
KJB vs. NIV vs. CEV?

Which is which? My
question is: What IS
your bible that you
believed to be the
perfect, pure, inerrant
words of God? Name
it. Your stupid
opinion freely play in
the wonderland of
your blind bigotry.
Read a little
background here:
http://www.maranath.
ca/Niv.htm
Amen,
Scott. I will
insert NKJV
and NASB
into the
answers
(Been
finding the
NKJV to be
God's word
for nearly 20
years now).
- SPR]
Wake up
Euthicus!
Im waiting
for your
answer to
my
questions.
http://av1611.com/kjb
p/charts/themagicmar
ker.html
Any VALID
version?
How can you
know a valid
version by
means of
your invalid
opinion?
Your
answer
refutes
yourself.
Your socalled
answer
proved you
wrong.
p/charts/themagicmar
ker2.html
p/charts/various.html
5. Did God preserved His

pure words? If it is not the
King James Bible, what is
it?
His preservation was

never solely the KJB.
it's in ALL the Bibles
that HE preserved
since Moses. i don't
care what u or GAR or
Ruckie think; if it was
good enuff for Jesus n
Isaiah n Paul, who lived
decades before any
KJB, it's good enuff for
me!
No Answer
Every valid
version, any
language.
There is no
real answer
which you
gave. You
gave FAKE
answer
simply
because you
do NOT
believed that
the NASB is
THE perfect,
pure, inerrant
words of
God. Infidel
armchair
scholar open
your eyes:
http://www.a
vpublications
.com/avnew/
downloads/P
DF/Tracts/N
KJV_tract.pd
f
Of course he
preserved
them, how
else would we
read them? I
have a copy of
his preserved
words in this
same New
American
Standard
Bible, as I
So much talk, so
much nonsense. My
questions are: Did
God preserved His
pure words? If it is
not the King James
Bible, what is it?
You did NOT give any
answer to my
question: IF IT IS NOT
THE KING JAMES
BIBLE, WHAT IS IT?
Moses, Jesus, Isaiah,
and Paul did NOT use
the Hebrew Text and
Greek Text of Modern
Perversions. What
they used were all the
same with what the
true Bible-believing
Christians used
throughout the
history. See the KJB
Chart at
http://www.jesus-issavior.com/Bible/The
%20King%20James%
20Bible/kjb_chartlarge.gif
Read also carefully
Dr. Hills book at
http://www.scribd.co
m/doc/7255829/TheKing-James-VersionDefended-by-DrEdward-F-Hills
Are you
still alive?
Wheres
your
answer to
my
questions?
Jigsaw
puzzle bible.
Solve it. Try
it.
Egomaniac
egotism is
the standard
of modern
perversions.
have already
said.
Do you
remember
the old
saying that
doubletongued,
hypocrite liar
go to hell?
That clearly
applies to
you. My
question is:
Did God
preserved
His PURE
words?
SPR (sciencephilosophyreligion) Five (5) Questions:
1. Where does God ever authorize your picking this or that edition from the hundreds of New Age
bible versions to play your contradicting preferences and imperfect opinions with?
This No.1 question cannot be honestly answered by KJB-infidels because God will never
authorized anyone to use his or her contradicting preferences and imperfect opinions in
picking or choosing an edition from the hundreds of New Age bible versions which
subtract, add and change the very words of God. The King James Bible must be the
ultimate standard and final authority in all that we believed and in all that we do because it
IS the very words of God.
2. Where is your perfect Bible that you can hold in your hands and study prayerfully? What is it?
This No.2 question cannot be honestly answered by KJB-infidels because they do not
believed in a perfect Bible. They just pretend with hypocrisy that they believed in a
perfect bible just to answer my question. But the truth is, they believed that all bibles
today are all imperfect. They cannot face the truth that there is only one perfect Bible for
today and that is the King James Bible. They dont want to submit themselves to God and
His words. They worship their personal preference in the light of their imperfect opinions
and bigotry to judge the word of God and choose among the different corrupt modern
versions or perversions of the Bible.
3. Is your so-called modern version of the bible really given by inspiration of God? Where's your
proof?
This No.3 question cannot be honestly answered by KJB-infidels because in the 2 Tim.
3:16 of modern versions there is no given by inspiration of God in the present tense. All
modern versions used the past tense inspired. Only in KJB where you can find that
ALL Scripture IS GIVEN by inspiration of God as rightly pointed out by Jeffrey
Nachimson (see Appendix A): The usages of the word inspiration in the Bible denote
LINEAR ACTION that is concurrent in time and certainly not confined to the past.
4. What is your bible that you believed to be the perfect, pure, inerrant words of God? Name it.
believe that we have today a perfect, pure, inerrant words of God. What they named is just
a version which they do not believe as perfect as my question strictly demands. You
cannot find the perfect, pure, inerrant words of God in the different opposing modern
perversions of the Bible. Only the King James Bible is the perfect, pure inerrant words of
God today on this earth.
5. Did God preserved His pure words? If it is not the King James Bible, what is it?
believed that God preserved His PURE words today. They just choose among the corrupt
modern bible versions based on their arrogant stupidity and blind bigotry. They make god
out of their personal preference and opinionated opinion in the darkness of their
speculative speculation. They reject the Hebrew Masoretic Text, Greek Received Text and
the King James Bible which were used by true Christians throughout the history before
the advent of confusion produced by the proliferation of modern Bible versions led by
occultist/communist/Romanist/evolutionist/anti-fundamentalist Wescott and Hort. These
two heretics were followed by all modern bible translators and thus by all KJB-infidels.
Therefore, all these Modern Versions advocates are all liars. They are telling that their
preferred version based on their opinion is perfect, given by inspiration of God, pure,
inerrant, preserved words of God but they really do not believed that it is so as clearly
shown by their very answers. They are all coward enough and hypocrite enough to face
the true truth and the real reality: the King James Bible is the only pure, preserved,
inerrant, perfect words of God for today. These nobodies are simply liars through and
through. They are all dishonest in all their answers. Lets see the answers of those
honest scholars whom they worship.
*Modern versions scholars believed that there are no perfect and inspired copies and
translations of the Bible. They believed that all translations are not 100% inerrant:
Copies and translations may be considered inerrant only to the degree they reproduce the
originals. For obvious reasons, none of them do this 100 percent. Nevertheless, an accurate
translation, based as it is upon a 99+ percent original text, virtually reproduces the originals and
the remaining 1 percent is present in the variant readings. Thus we may say without being proven
wrong that we have inerrant originals and virtually inerrant copies. John Ankerberg & John
Weldon, Ready with an Answer, (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1997), p.309.
Second, biblical inspiration does not mean that the translations or editions or versions are
inspired. Only the original manuscripts, the autographa, are. - James T. Draper, Jr. & Kenneth
Keathley, Biblical Authority: The Critical Issue for the Body of Christ, (Makati City: Church
Strengthening Ministry, 2001), p.112.
It is probably true that there is no such thing as poor translation of the Bible, and it is also true
that there is no perfect translation. Clayton Harrop, History of the New Testament in Plain
Language, (Waco: Word Books, 1984), p. 148.
*Modern versions scholars believed that a Bible translation today is not the very Word of
God if it does not corresponds to the original autographs:
Is a Bible translation the inspired Word of God? Yes to the extent that the translation relays to
the reader what God directed the authors to write. No to extent that it misses the meaning of
what God originally communicated. Raymund Elliot, Bible Translation, in the Origin of the
Bible, ed. Philip Wesley Comport, (Wheaton:Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1992), p. 259.
Any translation is entitled to acceptance as the Word of God to the extent that it corresponds to
the original. Roger Nicole, The Nature of Inerrancy, in Inerrancy and Common Sense, ed.
Roger R. Nicole & J. Ramsey Michaels, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), p.79.
*Modern versions scholars believed that the N.T. Greek Text (Textus Receptus) used by
the churches throughout the history must be rejected. Only the textual theory of Wescott
and Hort must be followed in all modern versions:
With the work of Wescott and Hort the T.R. was at last vanguished. In the future, what ever form
an editors text might take, he would be free to construct it with reference to the principles of
textual criticism without being under the domination of the Textus Receptus. The textual theory of
W-H underlies virtually all subsequent work in N.T. textual criticism. J. Harold Greenlee,
Introduction to the New Testament Textual Criticism, (Grant Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1964), pp. 77-78.
*Postmodern textual critics do not believed that there is an original text as interpreted by
traditional textual critics such as Samuel P. Tregelles, Wescott and Hort, B.B. Warfield,
Alexander Souter, J. Harold Greenlee, Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger, and others:
During the past ten years or so, notably in North America and the United Kingdom, a small
number of New Testament textual critics have begun to probe the phrase original text, have
looked afresh at it, and have insisted that we ask ourselves both what we thought we meant by it
and also what we now think we can mean by it. (Eldon Jay Epp, Issues in New Testament
Textual Criticism: Moving from Nineteenth Century to the Twenty-First Century, in Rethinking
New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. David Alan Black, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002,
p.72.)
But both the nobodies (KJB-infidels) and the scholars (KJB-perverters) are all wrong as the Bible
itself testifies:
1. "All scripture IS GIVEN by inspiration of God, and IS profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2Tim.3:16)
2. "The words of the LORD ARE pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times." (Psa.12:6)
3. "Thy word IS very pure: therefore thy servant LOVETH it." (Psa.119:140)
4. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word IS truth." (Jn.17:17)
5. "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Mat.4:4)
6. "Every word of God IS pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." (Prov.30:5)
7. "For the word of God 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, and IS a discerner of
the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb.4:12)
My dear reader, do you have your pure and perfect Bible, the very words of God, which you can
hold in your hand and study to this present time? If you believed that the pure words of God were
already obsolete and "expired" that's why you imaginary hold on to the extinct original
autographs, then the present words of God itself (the King James Bible) will blatantly refute you:
1. "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
(Psa.12:7)
2. "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise
unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." "That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works." (2Tim.3:15, 17)
3. "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." (Psa.119:89)
4. "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Mat.5:18)
5. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Mat.24:35)
6. "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
(Isa.40:8)
7. "But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is
preached unto you." (1Pet.1:25)
Read also the following Scripture passages: Prov.30:6; Psa.18:30; 19:7-9; 105:42; 119:43, 123,
142, 151, 160; 138:2; Jer.33:14; Isa.59:21; Lk.16:17; Jn.5:47; 10:35; 12:49-50; 17:8; Ac.1:16;
8:27-35; 17:11; Rom.3:2; 1Cor.2:12-13; 1Thes.2:13; 4:8; 2Tim.2:14; 1Pet.1:23; 2Pet.1:20-21;
3:2, 15-16; Rev.22:18-19.
If you believed that the King James Bible is not the perfectly preserved word of God, What is it?
What's your perfect Bible? Can you name it? Prove it.
As we have clearly seen previously in the statements of KJB-infidels and KJB-perverters, even
though the nobodies and the scholars do not agree in some points but they all agree in one point:
they judged the Bible by their arrogant stupidity (contradicting preferences) and blind bigotry
(imperfect opinions).
Now, let me thoroughly demolish and totally refute both these answers of nobodies and scholars.
They must confront the following established facts and irrefutable evidences:
1. There are only three options (trilemma) in the Bible versions controversy.
2. The Greek text basis of modern versions is only <1% of all the extant N.T. Greek
manuscripts.
3. Modern versions used dynamic equivalence in translation which is a corruption of
Gods words.
4. Wescott and Hort Greek Text changed almost 10,000 Greek words.
5. Wescott and Hort are Darwinian, communist, occult catholic.
6. The Uncertainty, Inconsistency, Unscientific, and Deceptive Nature of Wescott and
Hort Textual Theory Exposed by Modern Textual Critics.
7. Earliest Manuscripts (papyri) support the KJB.
8. There are factual errors and doctrinal defects in modern versions.
9. KJB translators are incomparable to modern versions translators.
10. Aleph contradicts B and vice versa.
11. Footnotes in modern versions cast doubts to its readers.
12. Mathematical designs in the KJB proved its perfection.
13. No one has yet proved that the KJB is in error textually, grammatically, doctrinally, and
scientifically.
14. The preeminence of Christ in the KJB clearly showed that it is the very word of God.
Each of these irrefutable evidences for the King James Bible and against the Modern Bible
Perversions will be briefly discussed and/or exhibited below.
There are only three options (trilemma) in the Bible versions controversy.
The King James bible is based on the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew O.T. text (Ben Chayyim
Hebrew Text) and Antiochian/Byzantine-Majority N.T. Greek text or Textus Receptus while the
modern versions are based on Biblia Hebraica of Kittel or Stuttgartensia (Ben Asher Hebrew
Text) and Vaticanus/Sinaiticus-Minority text, the basic text of Wescott and Hort, which was
followed by Nestle/Aland Greek Text (edited by two unbelieving scholars, one Roman catholic
cardinal, and one apostate Christian). The underlying Hebrew and Greek Texts of the KJB were
preserved through the usage of Bible-believing churches throughout the history while underlying
Hebrew and Greek texts of New Age Bible Versions were taken from the Vatican library and from
the Roman Catholic Monastery in Sinai. Thus, there are only three options in the Bible version
controversy:
1. All Bibles (King James Version and Modern Bible Versions) are not perfect.
2. All Bibles (Modern Bible Versions), except the King James Bible, are perfect.
3. All Bibles (King James Version only), excluding all Modern Bible Versions, are perfect.
The fourth option (All Bibles, King James Version and Modern Bible Versions, are perfect) is
eliminated because no one believed it and it is obviously illogical in accordance to the two very
different underlying Hebrew Texts and Greek Texts.
If you choose number one, you contradict the Bible testimony that it IS perfectly pure because of
Gods providential preservation as shown in the above scripture passages. If you choose number
two, it is tantamount to insanity since all modern bible versions are contradicting with one
another. They are not exactly the same. And their underlying Hebrew text and Greek text are all
corrupt. There is only one option left for you to choose.
The Greek text basis of modern versions is only <1% of all the extant collated N.T. Greek
manuscripts.
Four Kinds of
Number of Manuscripts
Percentage of Manuscripts
Extant N.T.
Totals
Wescott-Hort
Textus
Wescott-Hort
Textus
Greek
(WH) Greek
Receptus
(WH) Greek
Receptus
Manuscripts
Text
(TR)
Text
(TR)
88
13
75
15%
85%
Papyrus
Fragments
267
9
258
3%
97%
Uncials
2764
23
2741
1%
99%
Cursives
2143
0
2143
0%
100%
Lectionaries
5255
45
5210
1%
99%
TOTALS
nd
Other Evidences that support the Textus Receptus: Ancient versions (Peshitto Syriac 2 cent.,
rd
nd
Curetonian Syriac 3 cent., Old Latin or Vetus Itala 2 cent., etc.) and Church Fathers (approx.
100 Church Fathers: 100 300 A.D., approx. 200 Church Fathers: 300 600 A.D.)
See D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D., Defending the King James Bible, (Collingswood: The Bible for
Today Press, 1995), 307 pp.
Modern versions used dynamic equivalence in translation which is a corruption of Gods

words.
Only the KJB translators did not use dynamic equivalence (adding to Gods words, subtracting to
Gods words and changing of Gods words in some other manner) in translation. They used
formal and verbal equivalence. On the other hand, all modern versions used dynamic
equivalence in translations which include changes in adjectives, conjunctions, adverbs, clauses,
interjections, nouns, nouns for deity, subjective mood, phrases, plurals, prepositional phrases,
prepositions, pronouns, spellings, the subject, theological terms, the verb, and miscellaneous
things.
The New King James Version has over 2,000 dynamic equivalency changes.
The New American Standard Version has over 4,000 dynamic equivalency changes.
The New International Version has over 6,653 dynamic equivalency changes.
Visit the website of Dean Burgon Society to see the scientific evidences:
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/
See also:
http://www.maranath.ca/bible.htm
http://www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.html
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/fourfold.htm
Wescott and Hort Greek Text changed almost 10,000 Greek words.
The N.T. Greek Textual Battleground
TEXTUS RECEPTUS
W-H GR. TEXT CHANGES IN T.R.
Has 140,521 Greek words
Changes 5,604 places in the N.T.
Has 647 pp. in Greek Text
Changes include 9,970 Greek words
Has 217 Greek words per page
Changes 15.4 Greek words per page
Has 100% of the Greek words
Changes 7% of the Greek words
Has all 647 pp. unchanged
Changes total 45.9 pp. in Greek text
http://www.biblebelievers.net/bibleversions/kjckjv1s.htm
Wescott and Hort are Darwinian, communist, occult catholic.

He took a strange interest in Mormonism . . procuring and studying the Book of Mormon. (Life
and Letters of B.F. Westcott, 2 vols., 1903, Vol. 1, p. 19)
In the evening I go with Tom to the wizard; but he does not dare perform before us. (Life and
Letters of B.F. Westcott, 2 vols., 1903, Vol. 1, p. 9)
Wescott believed that missionary-minded Christians are dangerous and unsound (Life and
Letters of B.F. Westcott, 2 vols., 1903, Vol. 1, pp. 44-45)
New doubts and old superstitions and rationalism all trouble me . . I cannot determine how much
we must believe, how much in fact is necessarily required of a member of the church. (Life and
Letters of B.F. Westcott, 2 vols., 1903, Vol. 1, pp. 46-47)
So wild, so skeptical am I; I cannot yield. (Life and Letters of B.F. Westcott, 2 vols., 1903, Vol. 1,
p. 52)
The pure Romish view seems to me nearer and more likely to lead to truth than the Evangelical.
(Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, ed. Arthur F. Hort, 2 vols., 1896, Vol. 1, pp. 76-77)
Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary; it will pass away. (Life and Letters of F.J.A.
Hort, ed. Arthur F. Hort, 2 vols., 1896, Vol. 2, p. 31)
I spoke of the gloomy prospect should the Evangelicals carry on their present victory. (Life and
Letters of F.J.A. Hort, ed. Arthur F. Hort, 2 vols., 1896, Vol. 1, p. 160)
Hort believed that the inspiration of the Bible is the common orthodox heresy. (Life and Letters
of F.J.A. Hort, ed. Arthur F. Hort, 2 vols., 1896, Vol. 1, p. 181)
Westcott and Hort started the Ghostly Guild which conducted weekly meetings for spiritualistic
sances.
We avoid giving grave offense to the miscalled orthodoxy of the day. (Life and Letters of F.J.A.
If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the New Testament a sine qua non
for cooperation, I fear I could not join you. (Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, ed. Arthur F. Hort, 2
vols., 1896, Vol. 1, p. 420)
My doubts about infallibility remain. (Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, ed. Arthur F. Hort, 2 vols.,
1896, Vol. 1, p. 422.
The idea of (Marys apparition) La Salett was that of God revealing Himself now, not in one form,
but in many. (Life and Letters of B.F. Westcott, 2 vols., 1903, Vol. 1,
p. 251.
Westcott visited a Catholic shrine in Europe and was greatly amazed.
The more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and
that at present I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truthI reject the word infallibility
of the Holy Scripture overwhelmingly. (Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, ed. Arthur F. Hort, 2 vols.,
1896, Vol. 1, p. 420)
I am glad that you take the same provisional ground as to infallibility that I do. (Life and Letters
of F.J.A. Hort, ed. Arthur F. Hort, 2 vols., 1896, Vol. 1, p. 424)
Have you read Darwin? I should like a talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined
to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book. (Life and Letters of F.J.A.
No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, gives a literal
history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did.
(Life and Letters of B.F. Westcott, 2 vols., 1903, Vol. 2, p. 69)
The principle literary work of these years was the revision of the Greek Text of the New
Testament. All spare hours were devoted to it . . Evangelicals seem to me perverted . . There are,
I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the
authority of the Bible. (Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, ed. Arthur F. Hort, 2 vols., 1896, Vol. 1, p.
400)
I cannot say that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its forms. (Life
and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, ed. Arthur F. Hort, 2 vols., 1896, Vol. 2, p. 34)
I shall aim at what is transcendental in many peoples eyes . . I suppose I am a communist

by nature. (Life and Letters of B.F. Westcott, 2 vols., 1903, Vol. 1, p. 309)
Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Lightfoot started the Eranus Club with Sidgwick and Balfour. They
started the Society for Psychical Research.
After you read all of these heretical confessions of Wescott and Hort, there is only one thing that
must be heavily felt by all KJBO-infidels. Shame on you!!!
Dr. S. H. Tow neatly summarized the heresies of Wescott and Hort:
The Story of Doctors Westcott and Hort
a) Connected with the Hermes Club and Ghostly Guild. At Cambridge Westcott and Hort played
a leading role in the Hermes Club and Ghostly Guild, delving into matters of the occult,
necromancy, spiritism, and communicating with evil spirits abominable activities forbidden by
God.
b) Believers in Evolution. Both men were friends and admirers of Charles Darwin, whose godless
theory of evolution was regarded by them as unanswerable and opens up a new period.
Naturally Westcott and Hort rejected the Genesis Record.
c) Haters of Evangelical Truth. Westcott and Hort pretended to be Christians when at heart they
hated God, hated the Truth, and hated the Evangelical faith. They called Evangelicals
perverted and temporary, their affections being with Rome.
d) Friendly with Romanism. Wescott and Hort, while remaining in the Church of England,
promoted the interests of Rome, saying, Perfect Catholicity has been nowhere since the
Reformation. Both Westcott and Hort were worshippers of the Virgin Mary.
e) Clever Apostates. Wescott and Hort were self-confessed unbelievers, infidels, unregenerate,
strangers to the grace of God. They denied every vital doctrine of the faith which was once
delivered unto the saints (Jude ).
f) Fabricators of a Fictitious Greek Text. Westcott and Hort had worked together for twenty years
on the two corrupt texts, CODEX VATICANUS and CODEX SINAITICUS, scheming to overthrow
the TR and KJB, as the opening blow in their long-term objective of recovering England for Rome.
(S.H. Tow, Beyond Versions: A Biblical Perspective of Modern English Bibles, Singapore: King
James Productions, 1998, p. 114 -115
Read more: http://www.maranath.ca/ttt.htm
The Uncertainty, Inconsistency, Unscientific, and Deceptive Nature of Wescott and Hort
Textual Theory Exposed by Modern Textual Critics.
Modern Textual Critics exposed the deception contrived by Wescott and Hort just to displace the
Textus Receptus and the King James Bible:
"Hort organized his entire argument to depose the Textus Receptus." E. C. Colwell
E C. Colwell, "Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program," Studies in Methodology in Textual
Criticism of the New Testament, E. C. Colwell (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969), p. 158.
"Westcott and Hort wrote with two things constantly in mind; the Textus Receptus and the Codex
Vaticanus. But they did not hold them in mind with that passive objectivity which romanticists
ascribe to the scientific mind." E. C. Colwell
E. C. Colwell, "Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and its Limitations," Journal of Biblical
Literature LXVI (1947), p. 111.
It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the
significance of the evidence. - Bruce Metzger
B.Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 210.
The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what New Testament
writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible.
Therefore we must be content with what Reinhold Niebuhr and others have called, in other
contexts, an impossible possibility." - Robert M. Grant
R. M. Grant, A Historical Introduction of the New Testament (New York: Harper and Rowe, 1963),
p. 51.
. . . the papyrus vividly portrays a fluid state of the text at about A.D.200 (P7s). Such a scribal
freedom suggests that the gospel text was little more stable than the oral tradition, and that we
may be pursuing the retreating mirage of the original text. - Kenneth W. Clark
K. W. Clark "The Testament," Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of
the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXV 966), p. 15.
The eclectic method is, in fact, the 20th century method of NT textual criticism, and anyone who
criticizes it immediately becomes a self-critic, for we all use it, some of us with a certain measure
of reluctance and restraint, others with complete abandon. - Eldon J. Epp
E. J. Epp, "The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism" Journal of
Biblical Literature, XCIII (1974), p. 403.
By means of the letters A, B, C, and D, enclosed within braces at the beginning of each set of
textual variants, the Committee has sought to indicate the relative degree of certainty, arrived at
on the basis of internal considerations as well as of external evidence, for the reading adopted as
the text. The letter A signifies that the text is virtually certain, while B indicates that there is some
degree of doubt. The letter C means that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text
or the apparatus contains the superior reading, while D shows that there is a very high degree of
doubt concerning the reading selected for the text. Introduction, United Bible Societies (UBS),
pp. x-xi (1966)
Today textual criticism turns for its final validation to the appraisal of individual readings, in a way
that involves subjective judgment. The trend has been to emphasize fewer and fewer canons of
criticism. Many moderns emphasize only two. These are: 1) that reading is to be preferred which
best suits the context, and 2) that reading is to be preferred which best explains the origin of all
others. These two rules are nothing less than concentrated formulas of all that the textual critic
must know and bring to bear upon the solution of his problem. The first rule about choosing what
suits the context exhorts the student to know the document he is working on so thoroughly that its
idioms are his idioms, its ideas as well known as a familiar room. The second rule about choosing
what could have caused the other readings requires that the student know everything in Christian
history which could lead to the creation of a variant reading. This involves knowledge of
institutions, doctrines, and events.... This is knowledge of complicated and often conflicting forces
and movements. - E. C. Colwell
E. C. Colwell, "Biblical Criticism," Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New
Testament, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969), pp. 4-5.
By using criteria such as the above the critic may reach a conclusion in discussing textual
variants and be able to say which variant is the original reading. However, it is legitimate to ask:
can a reading be accepted as genuine if it is supported by only one ms.? There is no reason why
an original reading should not have been preserved in only one ms. but obviously a reading can
be accepted with greater confidence, when it has stronger support.... Even Aland with his
reservation about eclecticism says: Theoretically, the original readings can be hidden in a single
ms. thus standing alone against the rest of tradition, and Tasker has a similar comment: The
possibility must be left open that in some cases the true reading may have been preserved in only
a few witnesses or even in a single relatively late witness. - J. K. Elliott
J. K. Elliott, "The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus," ed., Jacob Geerlings, Studies
and Documents, XXXI (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1968), pp. I0-l l. Cf. K. Aland,
"The Significance of the Papyri for Progress in New Testament Research, "The Bible in Modern
Scholarship" ed., J. P. Hyatt (New York: Abingdon Press, 1965) p. 340, and Tasker, p. viii.
In the last generation we have depreciated external evidence of documents and have
appreciated the internal evidence of readings; but we have blithely assumed that we were
rejecting conjectural emendation if our conjectures were supported by some manuscripts. We
need to recognize that the editing of an eclectic text rests upon conjectures. E. C. Colwell
E.C. Colwell, "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A study in the corruption of the Text," The Bible in
Modern Scholarship, ed . J. P. Hyatt (New York: Abingdon Press, 1965), pp. 371-72.
The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. In the early years of this
century Kirsopp Lake described Hort's work as a failure, though a glorious one. But Hort did not
fail to reach his major goal. He dethroned the Textus Receptus. After Hort, the late medieval
Greek Vulgate was not used by serious students, and the text supported by earlier witnesses
became the standard text. This was a sensational achievement, an impressive success. Hort's
success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped, and still shapes, the
thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the NT through the English language. E.
C. Colwell
E. C. Colwell, What is the Best New Testament? (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1952), p. 53.
That Westcott and Hort did not apply this method to the manuscripts of the New Testament is
obvious. Where are the charts which start with the late manuscripts and climb back through
diminishing generations of ancestors to the Neutral and Western texts? The answer is that they
are nowhere. Look again at the first diagram, and you will see that a, b, c, etc. are not actual
manuscripts of the New Testament, but hypothetical manuscripts. The demonstrations or
illustrations of the genealogical method as applied to New Testament manuscripts by the
followers of Hort, the Horticuli as Lake called them, likewise use hypothetical manuscripts, not
actual codices. Note, for example, the diagrams and discussions in Kenyon's most popular work
on textual criticism, including the most recent edition. All the manuscripts referred to are
imaginary manuscripts, and the later of these charts was printed sixty years after Hort."
E. C. Colwell, "Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and its Limitations," Journal of Biblical
Literature LXVI (1947), p. 109.
We have reconstructed text-types and families and subfamilies and in so doing have created
things that never before existed on earth or in heaven. We have assumed that manuscripts
reproduced themselves according to the Mendelian law. But when we have found that a particular
manuscript would not fit into any of our nicely constructed schemes, we have thrown up our
hands and said that it contained a mixed text. - M. M. Parvis
M. M. Parvis, "The Nature and Task of New Testament Textual Criticism," The Journal of
Religion, XXXII (1952), p. 173.
Hort speaks of the almost universal tendency of transcribers to make their text as full as
possible, and to eschew omissions; and infers that copyists would tend to prefer an interpolated
to an uninterpolated text. This may be true of some of the local texts of the second century; it is
the very opposite of the truth where scribes or editors trained in the tradition of Alexandrian
textual criticism are concerned. The Alexandrian editors of Homer were as eagle-eyed to detect
and obelise interpolations in Homer as a modern critic .... That Christian scholars and scribes
were capable of the same critical attitude, we have irrefragable evidence.... The notion is
completely refuted that the regular tendency of scribes was to choose the longer reading, and
that therefore the modern editor is quite safe so long as he steadily rejects .... Now, whoever was
responsible for it, the B text has been edited on the Alexandrian principle. B. H. Streeter
B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (Landon: Macmillan and Co., 1930), pp.
1224.
The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of
newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis. In the effort to construct a congruent history, our
failure suggests that we have lost the way, that we have reached a dead end, and that only a new
and different insight will enable us to break through. - Kenneth W. Clark
K. W. Clark, "The Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament," New Testament Manuscript
Studies, ed. M. M. Parvis and A. P. Wikgren (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1950), p.
12.
To read more, visit: http://blessedquietness.com/journal/resource/hortpapr.htm
See also: http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/dbs2695.htm
Earliest Manuscripts (papyri) support the KJB.

Dr. Floyd N. Jones wrote: A.F.J. Klijn catalogs the results of a comparison of a, B, P-45, P-66,
and P-75 in the passages where they are all extant (i.e., John 10:7-25, 10:32-11:10, 11:19-33 and
11:43-56). He considered only those places where a and B disagree and where at least one of
the papyri joins either a or B. Klijn stated the result for the 43 places as follows (to which we have
added figures for the Textus Receptus as given on p. 55 in and by Pickering.):
Number of Agreements with:
Aleph
B
Textus Receptus
P-45
19
24
32
P-66
14
29
33
P-75
9
33
29
P-45,66,75
4
18
20
P-45,66
7
3
8
P-45,75
1
2
2
P-66,75
0
8
5
(FLOYD NOLEN JONES, Th.D., Ph.D., WHICH VERSION IS THE BIBLE? The Woodlands,
KingsWord Press, 1999, p.150)
It is very clear that the Greek text of KJB has earlier attestation than the base Greek text of all
modern bible versions. The so-called theory of later readings of KJB evaporated by the
researches of A.F.J. Klijn and Wilbur Pickering.
There are factual errors and doctrinal defects in modern versions.

The following portions of doctrinal and factual importance (in bold type) from the different verses
in the KJB were omitted in modern versions:
1COR. 15: 47 The first man is the earth earthy, the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1TIM. 3:16 Great is the mystery of godliness God was manifest in the flesh
1JN. 4:3 Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.
MAT. 18:11 For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost.
JN. 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast. I go not up yet unto this feast because my time has not yet full
come.
EPH. 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the
beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.
JN. 3:15 That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
COL 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
MAT 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to
them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
MAT 9:13 for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
1CO 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.
For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
MAT 19:9 Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry
another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit
adultery.
MAT 20:16 So the last shall be first and the first last: for many be called but few chosen.
MAT 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows
houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater
damnation.
MAR 10:21 and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up
the cross, and follow me.
MAR 10:24 Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of
God.
MAR 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive
your trespasses.
JOH 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
1TI 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that
gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
See also the following different portions of 147 verses which were omitted from the NIV and other
modern versions which have a total omission of 1,284 words:
Matthew 5:44; 6:13; 15:6, 8; 19:9; 20:7, 16, 22-23; 25:13; 27:35; 28:9. Mark 1:42; 6:11, 33; 7:8;
8:26; 9:38, 45, 49; 10:21, 24; 11:8, 10, 23; 12:23, 29-30, 33; 13:14; 14:19, 27, 68, 70. Luke 1:28;
4:4, 8, 18; 5:38; 7:31; 8:43, 45, 48, 54; 9:54-56; 11:2, 4, 11, 44, 54; 17:9; 18:24; 19:45; 20:23, 30;
22:64, 68; 23:23, 38; 24:1, 42. John 1:27; 3:13, 15; 5:3, 16; 6:11, 22, 47; 8:9, 10, 59; 10:26;
11:41; 12:1; 16:16; 17:12; 19:16. Acts 2:30; 7:37; 9:5-6; 10:6, 21, 32; 13:42; 15:18, 24; 18:21;
20:15; 21:8, 22, 25; 23:9; 24:6, 8, 26; 26:30; 28:16. Romans 8:1; 9:28; 10:15; 11:6; 13:9; 14:6,
21; 15:24. 1 Corinthians 6:20, 10:28, 11:24. Galatians 3:1. Ephesians 3:14, 5:30. Philippians
3:16. Colossians 1:2, 14; 3:6. 1 Thessalonians 1:1. 1 Timothy 3:3; 6:5, 7. Hebrews 2:7; 3:6;
7:21; 8:12; 10:30; 11:11, 13; 12:20. 1 Peter 4:14. 1 John 4:3, 5:13. Revelation 1:8, 11; 5:14;
11:1, 17; 14:5; 15:2; 21:24. See also Appendix B: Seven Easy Ways by Will Kinney.
KJB translators are incomparable to modern versions translators.
KJB translators are superior to the translators of modern versions. James, the King of England,
will not choose an ordinary translator for the Holy Book. He chose extraordinary geniuses of that
time as Alexander McClure rightly observed: As to the capability of those men, we may say
again, that, by the good providence of God, their work was undertaken in a fortunate time. Not
only had the English language, that singular compound, then ripened to its full perfection, but the
study of Greek, and of the oriental tongues, and of Rabbinical lore, had then been carried to a
greater extent in England than ever before or since. It is confidently expected that the reader of
these pages will yield to the conviction, that all the colleges of Great Britain and America, even in
this proud day of boastings, could not bring together the same number of divines equally qualified
by learning and piety for the great undertaking. (Translators Revived, pp. 63 64) Lets now see
the background of some translators.
Lancelot Andrews Such was his skill in all languages, especially the Oriental, that had he been
present at the confusion of tongues at Babel, he might have served as interpreter-general.
(Translators Revived by Alexander McClure, p. 86)
William Bedwell is an eminent Oriental scholar.
Miles Smith was expert in Hebrew, Greek, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic languages.
Henry Savile was famous for his Greek and mathematical learning.
John Bois was a child prodigy because at age five he had read the Bible in Hebrew.
Robert Tighe was an excellent textuary and profound linguist.
Edward Lively was one of the best linguists in the world.
Lawrence Chaderton was thoroughly skilled in Hebrew, Greek and Latin languages.
Francis Dillingham was called as the Great Grecian because of his knowledge in Greek.
Thomas Holland had a wonderful knowledge of all the learned languages.
To read more on the amazing superiority of KJB translators, visit: http://www.wildernesscry.net/bible_study/translators/
Aleph contradicts B and vice versa.

Dr. Gail A. Riplinger pointed out the following:
1.Metzger says that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not agree with the majority of manuscripts.
2.Not only do they disagree with the Majority of manuscripts, but they do not agree with each
other. The 8000 changes in B and the 9000 changes in Aleph are not the same changes. When
their changes are added together, they alter the Majority text in about 13,000 places. This is two
changes for every verse. Together they omit 4000 words, add 2000, transpose 3500, and modify
2000.
3.They disagree with each other a dozen times on every page.
4.Colwell says they disagree 70% of the time and in almost every verse of the gospels. Burgon
says, It is easier to find two consecutive verses in which these manuscripts differ than two in
which they agree.
(G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, Ohio: AV Publications, 1993, p. 554.)
This is the key word to all modern bible perversions: CONTRADICTION.
In Herman Hoskiers 2-Volume mammoth book entitled Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an
Indictment, he documented thousands of differences that can be found between these two
"oldest and best" manuscripts. These two conflicting authorities of modern bible versions
clearly show their gross corruption.
Read: http://www.maranath.ca/OLDBEST.HTM
Footnotes in modern versions cast doubts to its readers.

Many of KJB-infidels believed that King James Onlyism splits churches, casts doubt to modern
Christians, and cause confusion. Really? Think before you speak.
Here are the facts:
1.Believers in the past used only the underlying texts of KJB (Hebrew Masoretic texts and Greek
Received Texts), the ancestor of KJB (English Versions which used Hebrew Masoretic text and
Greek Received text such as Wycliffe Bible, Tyndale Bible, Matthews Bible, etc.), and the King
James Bible itself.
2. Since the advent of the King James Bible, God used it in the revival during the Reformation
Period by saving millions of sinners.
3.Occultist/Romanist Wescott and Hort came to the scene to split churches, cast doubt to
Christians and cause confusion by producing Greek text and Bible version that radically
contradicted and opposed the King James Bible.
To continually cast doubts to readers, the following footnotes or margins can be found in modern
bible perversions:
Or possibly, The meaning of the Hebrew for this word is uncertain, Samaritan Pentateuch
and Septuagint , Dead Sea Scrolls , An ancient scribal tradition , Hebrew does not
have, Most Hebrew manuscripts do not have this line, The meaning of the Hebrew for this
phrase is uncertain, The meaning of the Hebrew for this clause is uncertain, Or , Targum;
the Masoretic Text has a different division of the consonants, Some manuscripts , Some late
manuscripts , Some manuscripts do not have , Some early manuscripts do not have ,
A few late manuscripts , Many early manuscripts , The two most reliable early
manuscripts do not have , Some manuscripts ; other manuscripts vary widely, Some early
manuscripts do not have this sentence, Some interpreters end the quotation after verse,
Some manuscripts ; some less important manuscripts continue , Two early manuscripts
, Late manuscripts of the Vulgate , etc.
Mathematical designs in the KJB proved its perfection.

Ill post here again the Bible Formula Challenge but at this time I expanded it a little bit. It is still
unanswerable!
THE BIBLE FORMULA CHALLENGE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Do you want to find the Bible Formula with the same mathematical phenomena in other
books? Try it if you can. Ok, here are the odds. Find any book throughout the history
with the following characteristics:
It must be considered as one of the greatest books in the world.
It must be considered as one of the bestselling books of all time.
It must be a book which is considered sacred and holy that points a way or salvation of ultimate
concern.
It must have verses (or lets say numbered sections, marked sentences/phrases, etc.) because
the first verse and last verse of that book must have equal number of letters, vowels and
consonants.
Its verses and chapters must have not been made with manipulation in mind but developed in
thousands of years by different persons in history.
The exact statistical numbers of its first and last verse (words, letters, vowels, and consonants)
must be found in other verses with the precise number that point out the exact chapter and verse
that will correspond with the summation of the statistics of the first and last verse.
The precise statistics of that summation verse (words, letters, vowels, and consonants) must be
found in others verses in which the number will correspond to itself (the summation verse) in its
digit sum and factor.
The number of that statistics must correspond to the chapter and verse parallelism of the first and
last book (or any major divisions of that book) that specify the exact number of those major
divisions/separations.
The summation verse must be the most controversial in the history of textual criticism (by means
of evidential arguments) that must equal the sum of the number of words, letters, vowels, and
consonants of the first verse and of the last verse.
It must have central verses that point out mathematically a doctrine, concept or idea to another
verse which contain the central doctrine, concept or idea of that book as found in the summation
verse.
That doctrine, concept or idea must be controversial in the history in such a way that it has been
discussed and debated by leaders and intellectuals of science, philosophy and religion.
The date of publication of that book must be found in the equations of the first verse and of last
verse.
It must also be found in its longest chapter that deals about itself and in its significant verse that
point its uniqueness.
The three key verses (first, last and summation verses) must correlate with one another in a
matrix of the date of its publication centering on the summation verse with intricate design.
The first and last verse must encode the date of its publication and it must also be found in the
central verses.
It must be a book that have been written within the span of at least 1,400 years by at least 35
writers/authors in two great ancient languages and carefully translated in the span of 7 years
under a king or any highest authority (with the great name that can be found in the same book) by
at least 49 listed translators/linguists with great minds, skills and dignity. They must be governed
by 14 rules and checked their translation by at least 14 times.
It must be a book which is considered as one of the major factors that influence and developed
English language and dictionary (or any language of global importance) and used by God in
saving millions since the Reformation Period.
It must be a book that strongly influenced arts, literatures and technologies.
It must be a book that you can hold now in your hand because it is easily available in many
bookstores and freely available in the Internet (thus, you can download and print it).
It must be a book where there are trillions of books, articles, tracts, displays, quotations, tapes,
CDs, DVDs, preaching, teaching, debates, etc. discussing and explaining its content.
21. It must be a book that can offer solution to the problems of science, answer to the questions of
philosophy and explanation to the mysteries of religion (based on its three key verses that formed
the bible formula that centered on the greatest person in history) with embedded mathematical
designs, advanced scientific facts, profound wisdom, unmistakable prophecies, practical advices
for postmodern life, etc.
Challenge:
Can you give me a book with the same mathematical phenomena? Can you show me your
own "bible formula"? I'll wait for it. If not, don't insult the King James Bible which is the
very word of God because you are insulting God Himself who is the ultimate author of that
holy book.
Note:
If you have any other question on the KJB, please read on-line the book "The Answer
Book" by Dr. Samuel C. Gipp at http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158cont.asp
No one has yet proved that the KJB is in error textually, grammatically, doctrinally, and
scientifically.
All the so-called errors in the King James Bible are just the product of misconceptions,
misunderstanding, misinterpretations, and mistakes of the perverted mind and corrupt heart of
KJB-infidels. NO ONE has yet conclusively proved that the KJB has textual, translational,
doctrinal, and scientific errors.
All the so-called errors were already answered in many books of Bible-believing Christians. See
for example:
Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D., The Answer Book: A Helpbook for Christians, Tennesse: Bible &
Literature Missionary Foundation, 1989, 164 pp.
Peter S. Ruckman, Th.M., Ph.D., Problem Texts, Pensacola: Pensacola Bible Institute Press,
1980, 499 pp.
Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D., The Book of Bible Problems, Cleveland: Association for Biblical
Astronomy, 1997, 265 pp.
See also the debate between Will Kinney and Dr. Jason Gastrich at
http://jcsm.org/1on1/KJVOnlyismDebate.htm
Witness how Kinney proved the inerrancy of the King James Bible. He thoroughly demolished
the fictional and mythical arguments of Dr. Gastrich.
The preeminence of Christ in the KJB clearly showed that it is the very word of God.
Look at the following highlighted word or portion (in bold type) of the KJB if it can be found in your
own bible version:
Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
(Phil. 2: 5-6)
Dost thou believe on the Son of God? (Jn.9: 35)
A virgin shall conceive.. (Isa.7:14)
from everlasting (Mic. 5:2)
We believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (Jn.6:69)
God was manifest in the flesh (Tim.3:16)
the only begotten Son (Jn. 3:16)
Let's Compare Bibles

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/king_james-proofs.htm
Here you will see several good examples of how modern Bible versions are attacking God's word.
We have selected eight modern translations for evaluation. The translations evaluated are as
follows:
NIV....... New International Version
NASB... New American Standard Bible
NRSV... New Revised Standard Version
REB...... Revised English Bible
LB......... Living Bible
NWT..... New World Translation
NAB ..... New American Bible
NKJV.... New King James Version
Although we have limited this study to eight new translations, you will find many of these attacks
manifested in ANY new translation. You will find that some of the most important doctrines of the
Bible are being attacked in the new versions. Whether you have a Living Bible, a New Century
Version, a Revised Standard Version, or any of the other perversions of Scripture, you are going
to see the Devil hard at work on the revision committees of the new translations. The King James
reading will appear first, followed by a brief comment, and then the perverted readings of the
modern perversions.
Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
The above promise from the King James Bible tells us that God intends to preserve His WORDS
forever. Notice how the new versions destroy this promise by making you think the context is
God's PEOPLE rather than His WORDS:
NIV....... you will keep us safe
NASB... Thou wilt preserve him
NRSV... You, O Lord, will protect us
REB...... you are our protector
LB......... you will forever preserve your own
NAB...... You, O Lord, will keep us
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.
Notice how some new versions attack the Virgin Birth of Christ by robbing Mary of her virginity.
As anyone well knows, a young woman or a maiden is NOT necessarily a virgin:
NRSV... young woman
REB...... young woman
NWT..... maiden
Luke 2:33
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Here the new versions attack the Virgin Birth by telling us that Joseph was Christ's father:
NIV....... The child's father
NASB... His father
NRSV... the child's father
REB...... The child's father
NWT..... its father
NAB...... the child's father
I Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified
in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up
into glory.
Notice how the King James is very clear in telling us WHO was manifest in the flesh: GOD was
manifest in the flesh. Now watch the new perversions throw God clear out of the verse:
NIV....... He appeared in a body
NASB... He who was revealed in the flesh
NRSV... He was revealed in flesh
REB...... He was manifested in the flesh
LB......... who came to earth as a man
NWT..... He was made manifest in the flesh
NAB...... He was manifested in the flesh
Micah 5:2
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of
thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from
of old, from everlasting.
This is a prophecy of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the verse tells us that He had no beginning. As
the Second Member of the Trinity, He is ETERNAL, or from everlasting, but not in most modern
translations:
NIV....... from ancient times
NRSV... from ancient days
REB..... in ancient times
NWT.... from the days of time indefinite
NAB..... from ancient times [vs. 1]
Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the
ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Revelation 22:16 tells us that Jesus Christ is the "Morning Star." The King James Bible never
gives this title to anyone else. However, in some new versions, Jesus Christ and Satan are the
same, because some versions have taken the liberty to call Satan the "morning star" in Isaiah
14:12. Although some versions do not go so far as to call Satan the "morning star," they still throw
out the name "Lucifer."
NIV....... morning star NASB... star of the morning
NRSV... Day Star
REB...... Bright morning star
NWT..... you shining one
NAB...... morning star
Daniel 3:25
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no
hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
This is an excellent Old Testament verse which shows that Jesus Christ existed long before He
was born in Bethlehem. Naturally, the new versions will pervert it with pagan foolishness:
NIV....... a son of the gods
NASB... a son of the gods
NRSV... a god
REB..... a god
LB........ a god
NWT.... a son of the gods
NAB..... a son of God [vs. 92]
Colossians 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Satan hates the Atoning Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, so we shouldn't be surprised to find the
blood missing in modern translations:
NIV....... redemption, the forgiveness of sins
NASB... redemption, the forgiveness of sins
NRSV... redemption, the forgiveness of sins
REB..... our release is secured and our sins are forgiven
NWT.... we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of sins
NAB...... redemption, the forgiveness of our sins
Romans 14:10-12
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all
stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee
shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give
account of himself to God. If you'll read the above verses carefully, you will notice how it
magnifies Jesus Christ. According to verse 10, we will stand before the Judgment Seat of
CHRIST, and verse 12 says that when we do we will give account to GOD. When we stand
before Jesus Christ we will be standing before God - an excellent text on the Deity of Christ. Now
watch as the new versions throw Jesus Christ clear out of the passage by replacing the word
"Christ" in verse 10 with "God:"
NIV....... God's judgment seat
NASB... Judgment seat of God
NRSV... judgment seat of God

REB...... God's tribunal
LB......... Judgment Seat of God
NWT..... judgment seat of God
NAB...... judgment seat of God
Acts 8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
This verse is very important because it places a definite condition upon water baptism: one must
first BELIEVE ON CHRIST. Many modern versions throw the entire verse out of the Bible:
NIV....... entire verse missing
NRSV... entire verse missing
REB...... entire verse missing
NWT..... entire verse missing
NAB...... omits entire verse, but re-numbers the verses so you won't miss it
II Corinthians 2:17
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.
You can imagine how this verse must be a thorn in the flesh to the modern translators who are
busy CORRUPTING the word of God day and night. So, do they repent of their sins and get right
with God? Of course not:
NIV....... peddle
NASB... peddling
NRSV... peddlers
REB...... adulterating the word of God for profit
LB......... hucksters
NWT..... peddlers
NAB...... trade on the word of God
NKJV.... peddling
II Timothy 2:15
Studyto shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.
This is the one command in the New Testament to "study" and "rightly divide" God's word, and
the Devil does NOT appreciate it:
NIV....... Do your best...correctly handles
NASB... Be diligent...handling accurately
NRSV... Do your best...rightly explaining
REB...... Try hard...keep strictly to the true gospel
LB......... Work hard...Know what his word says and means
NWT..... Do your utmost...handling the word of truth aright
NAB...... Try hard...following a straight course inpreaching the truth

NKJV.... Be diligent...rightly dividing
I Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and
oppositions of science falsely so called:
Many lies are being propagated today in the name of "science" [evolution for example,] but I
Timothy 6:20 has been warning us about it all along - except in the new perversions:
NIV....... knowledge
NASB... knowledge
NRSV... knowledge
REB...... knowledge
LB......... knowledge
NWT..... knowledge
NAB...... knowledge
NKJV.... knowledge
See also: http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/preeminence.html
You see, my Five Questions on Bible versions controversy are still unanswerable!!! Any new
challenger out there from KJB-infidels? Im waiting for all your answers and Ill demolish them all.
P.S. How about the so-called fallacies posted by Euthymius and McClare backed up by their
fallacious arguments? How about those silly questions posted by Amarillo and Euthymius against
KJB? Easy. That would be answered in the next volume: SCHOLARLY DEMOLITION (Part 2).
Wait, see and tremble
Appendix A
An Inquiry into the Interpretation of Translational Inspiration
By: Jeffrey D. Nachimson
Intently, "The Predestinated Failure" Bob Ross (see Ross bomb out on a Question/Answer
session at the Bible Baptist Church in 1992. The video, "A Predestinated Failure," is
available from the Bible Baptist Bookstore in Pensacola, FL), sent me an email requesting
"my position" on the inspiration of the A.V. 1611. However, I chose not to respond to Mr.
Ross personally because I decided that it was more universally profitable to produce an
article on the subject, then simply forward the material to him.
Blessedly, in June of 2004, I had the distinct privilege of preaching a three-day revival
meeting for the Bible Believer's Baptist Church in Rock Spring, GA. During that meeting I
presented the congregation with a series of messages that centered around the Bible
itself, both conceptually and practically. On the first night, I preached a message entitled,
"The Interpretation of Inspiration," in which we examined the scriptures to see what they
had to say about Inspiration, thus rejecting "historic positions" and the opinions of "the
majority of conservative scholars." Therefore, it is with a more detailed adaptation of that

sermon with which I purport to defend the inspiration of the A.V. 1611 as a present reality
and a practical application that cannot be ascertained by adhering to a position that
insists only the "original manuscripts" ARE inspired.
In reference to a generic Bible, Dean Burgon preached,
No Sirs! The Bible (be persuaded) IS THE VERY UTTERANCE OF THE ETERNAL;---as
much GOD'S Word, as if high Heaven were open, and we heard GOD speaking to us with
human voice. Every book of it, IS INSPIRED alike; and IS INSPIRED entirely. Inspiration is
not a difference of degree, but of kind. The Apocryphal books are not one atom more
inspired than Bacon's Essays. But the Bible, from the Alpha to the Omega of it, is filled to
overflowing with the Holy Spirit of GOD: the Books of it, and the sentences of it, and the
words of it, and the syllables of it,---aye, and the very letters of it. (Inspiration and
Interpretation, Dean John William Burgon, pg. 76)
The above words are a beautifully concocted example of loquacious excellence. And, on
the surface I certainly couldn't agree more with the learned Dean's words. The statements
are a fantastic demonstration of what every born-again, child of God should strive for, to
actually emulate in word. However, what is most unfortunate, and what will be concretely
demonstrated in the forthcoming paragraphs is that Dean Burgon's dear words are not a
present reality from his perspective, as they are not practically applicable.
There is no question that the works of Dean Burgon are classics at worst and
masterpieces at best. His book on the last twelve verses of Mark is so definitive that no
scholar has sufficiently challenged it since it was released in 1871. As a matter of fact, the
very Greek words that are distributed by modern scholastics in order to prove that the last
twelve verses of Mark's gospel differentiate from the rest of his autograph, are the very
words that John Burgon vindicate in that book. They simply ignore the material like it
never existed (like Bruce M. Metzger for example.) Notwithstanding, his book "The
Revision Revised," is a thorough critique of the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, their textcritical principles, and the subsequent English Revised Version of 1881 based largely on
their work. In this book Dean Burgon states:
Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least undeniable that the
undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious link
which at present binds together ninety millions of English-speaking men scattered over
the earth's surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should
be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more accurately,---here and
there translating a tense with greater precision,---getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be
confidently assumed that no 'Revision' of our Authorized Version, however judiciously
executed, will it ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the
work of the Translators of 1611,---the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language.
We shall in fact never have another 'Authorized Version.' And this single consideration
may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be
brief,---As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book of reference for
critical purposes, especially in respect of difficult and controverted passages:--- we hold
that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with
consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The
method of such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we
forbear to determine. But certainly only as a handmaid is it to be desired. As something
intended to supersede our present English bible, we are thoroughly convinced that the
project of a rival Translation is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we
deprecate it entirely. (The Revision Revised, Dean John William Burgon, pg. 113-114)
Several notable facts can be gleaned from Mr. Burgon's testimony above:
1) If he were alive today, he would take the translation committees of the RSV, NRSV,
NASV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, CEV, ESV, and the Holman's Christian Standard Bible and
repudiate them entirely. He would absolutely despise the utter disdain for the Authorized
text, and protest any amendment to the text that would indicate a REPLACEMENT of it.
2) This means that Doug Kutilek's frivolous hypothesis that Dean Burgon "rejected every
tenet of what is known as 'Ruckmanism' today" is an utter distortion of the facts. Dean
Burgon may not have held the position that the A.V. 1611 is inerrant, but he certainly did
not advocate any new translations. Such facts are plain and clear by reading his
statements above.
3) Even his admission that the A.V. needs a companion guide is confuted in the midst of
his forbearance on the methodology of accomplishing that task.
However, the problem is not with Dean Burgon's attitude towards the Bible generally
speaking. The difficulty with Dean Burgon's position on Biblical inspiration is that it is
destitute of practical attainment. On page 21 of the Revision Revised (a favorite quote for
A.V. critics), Mr. Burgon says:
Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim
perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject.
Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g. at page 107) that the Textus
Receptus needs correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is an incomparably better text than
that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely
preferable to the 'New Greek Text' of the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved, the
Textus Receptus will have to be revised on entirely different 'principles' from those which
are just now in fashion. Men must begin by unlearning the German prejudices of the last
fifty years; and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of facts. (Burgon, ibid, pg.
21,note 2)
After reading all of these words penned by the great Dean of Chichester, what do we make
of it? Well, I would venture to say that the conclusion is abundantly clear. Dean Burgon
believed in the Inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures generically, but when it came to
the practical application of his profession, those Scriptures were nowhere to be found.
Hence, this is the basic error of "originals" only inspiration. It is a great sounding
philosophy in theory, but it cannot be applied in physical and tangible substance.
Secondly, it behooves us to complain of the crucial emphasis that Dean Burgon places on
the present verb tense when discussing Inspiration. As such, in the first quote that I
provided you can see that he employs phraseology like, "IS inspired alike," "IS inspired
entirely," and "IS filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit of GOD." Blatant assertions as
such, certainly call for a specimen with which to be substantiated. BUT, if the Textus
Receptus needs revision (according to Burgon), and the A.V. could be improved (even
though not with a superseding translation), WHERE IS THIS INSPIRED TEXT FILLED WITH
THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD LOCATED? I suppose it hadn't been discovered yet according
to the Dean. Therefore, the hypothesis cracks under the weight of criticism. So, we are
back to the beginning where we have an "accurate" text that is grandiloquently preserved,
but not this "INSPIRED BOOK" of which the Dean so splendidly speaks.
Contemporary examples recapitulating this bizarre phenomenon of inapplicable
inspiration can be seen in variety of institutions. Central Baptist Theological Seminary
adorns their doctrinal statement with:
We believe that the Bible, consisting of a total of sixty-six books in the Old and New
Testaments, is without error in the original manuscripts (1). The author of the Bible was
God the Holy Spirit (2) who guided the human authors (3) so that the writings they
produced were verbally and plenarily inspired (4). We believe that the Bible is the sole
authority for faith and practice (5).
As with Dean Burgon, please notice the present tense assertion placed on the first
sentence. If, "the Bible" IS without error in the original manuscripts, then that implies one
of two factors:
1) The original manuscripts are currently available, or
2) The TEXT of the original manuscripts is available and has been demonstrated to be
original, inerrant, and infallible.
However, upon inquiry into this textual investigation, it has been discovered that certain
faculty members of this institution absolutely DO NOT espouse the notion that we
currently have this "INSPIRED," and "INERRANT" text at our disposal to examine as the
statement above proposes is, "the sole authority for faith and practice."
In conjunction with the above statement about the faculty members of Central Seminary, I
sent an email to Dr. Roy Beacham in September of 2002 requesting an explanation of this
present verb tense assertion that the "originals" are in fact, INERRANT! This is the reply
from Dr. Beacham:
"Dear Jeffrey, Thank you for your inquiries...Yes I can tell you. YOU CAN FIND COPIES OF
THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS IN THE VARIOUS EXTANT COPIES KNOWN TODAY."
Therefore, in plainer words, we have a textual jigsaw puzzle that we must wade through in
order to find this "originally inspired" text. However, if you will notice, the doctrinal
statement said nothing about "various extant copies known today." It said the "original" IS
WITHOUT ERROR, and subsequently IS THE SOLE AUTHORITY so on and so forth. So, as
Dean Burgon, these professional liars seek to create this sort of desert mirage in
proportion to this "INSPIRED" text. They profess to have it and cannot produce it when
asked.
In his book, "The Identity of the New Testament Text," Dr. Wilbur Pickering said it
honestly:
I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Autographs. I believe that God has
providentially preserved the original wording of the text down to our day, and that it is
possible for us to know precisely what it is (though due to our carelessness and laziness
WE DO NOT, AT THIS MOMENT). (The Identity of the New Testament Text, Wilbur
Pickering, pg. 153)
O, how these lexicographical perjurious persons state this belief in inspiration and
inerrancy ad infinitum ad nauseum, BUT IN PRACTICAL APPLICATION IT IS NOTHING
MORE THAN A MYTHOLOGICAL DREAM!
The Baptist Theologian Henry Clarence Thiessen once wrote:
Unfortunately, few people have come to their views on inspiration by an intelligent firsthand investigation of the whole question. The great majority have accepted the views of
their teachers without ever trying to understand just what is meant by the term
"inspiration" and without considering the question of the possibility and probability of the
inspiration of the Scriptures. (Introduction to the New Testament, Dr. Henry Clarence
Thiessen, pg. 78)
Thiessen's statement is both a classic and definitive affirmation of the precise quality
regarding the standard position on "Inspiration" today. However, unwittingly Thiessen
falls into the same rigmarole that he accuses others of doing. Notice what Thiessen says
two pages later:
...the definition ascribes inspiration only to the autographs of Holy Scripture. It does not,
AS SOME IGNORANTLY SUPPOSE, affirm inspiration of any of the existing versions,
either modern or ancient. Nor does it affirm THIS OF OUR PRESENT CRITICAL GREEK
TEXTS in the fullest sense of the term; for there is still a measure of doubt concerning a
small number of words occurring in them. (Thiessen, ibid, pg. 80)
Again, we are presented with this phantom idea of inspiration that once existed
historically, but is now admitted to be nothing more than a gust of wind that blew by many
centuries ago. For if the autographs are all that are inspired, then inspiration ceased to
exist with the disappearance of these sacred "originals." Confirming such a bold doctrine
are James Draper and Kenneth Keathley in their book, "Biblical Authority":
...biblical inspiration does not mean that the translations or editions or versions are
inspired. Only the original manuscripts, the autographa, ARE. This has also caused a lot of
furor today. There are those who are saying that this does not really make sense, that
since we do not have the original manuscripts it makes no difference whether the originals
were inspired or not. It is a cop-out, they say, to claim that scribal errors have been made,
for example, when we do not have the originals to prove it. (Biblical Authority, James T.
Draper and Kenneth Keathley, pg. 91-92)
Naturally, the critics are correct in their complaints IF this "original" text cannot be
produced. The reason for that is simply because there is no way to substantiate the claim
without some form of proof. Without a professing text so to speak to go along with the
claim of "original" inspiration, it is nothing more than a faded idea buried in the sands of
time.
Continuously vacationing in the islands of falsehood, we have Douglas Kutilek attempting
to avoid the practical application of inspiration issue, by stating the following:
First, it must be noted that the existence of variant readings in now-existing Bible
manuscripts has been employed by modernists and apostates such as Harry Emerson
Fosdick (1878-1969) to undermine and ridicule the authority of Scripture in the original
languages and the doctrine of inspiration. Today this argument is used by self-styled
fundamentalists to the same end: to undermine the confidence of Christians in the
authority of the Scriptures in the form they were originally given by God. When you find
yourself using the same arguments as apostates to destroy confidence in the authority of
Scripture, you are in very dangerous company--warming yourself, as it were, by the devil's
fire in the courtyard of Caiaphas (Doug Kutilek, " Final Authority").
Kutilek's errors in this department are two-fold:
1) It is not simply the existence of variant readings that cause the undermining and
ridicule by "modernists" and "apostates." It is the simple fact that these textual hypocrites
profess to have IN THE PRESENT TENSE the words that were "originally inspired" in the
"original autographs," then, when put on the spot, cannot produce them! Crooks and liars,
such as Doug Kutilek and Scott McClare, then backpedal to this ridiculous, ludicrous, and
unscriptural abyss of " accurate texts " and " not one single doctrine is affected by variant
readings." What happened to the text you ARE claiming is inerrant and inspired?
2) Kutilek subtly states that this argument is used today to " undermine the confidence of
Christians in the authority of the Scriptures in the form they were originally given by God."
Do you see what this whitewashed, religious hypocrite has done? He just told you that the
confidence of the Christian has been undermined IN A MYTHOLOGICAL FAIRYTALE! This
is apparent with his tiresome usage of "originally given by God," when he can only give
you MOST of what was given by God originally perhaps. This man is so clueless, so
brainwashed, and so egotistical that he completely contradicts himself between
profession and practice by not being able to produce the "original language text" that he
claims is "INSPIRED."
In this obfuscating realm of inspirational profession and practical ascertaining, only the
A.V. 1611 position can measure up to the demands of the Scripture on the subject of
Inspiration, and the demands of the PRESENT VERB TENSE claim to have the words that
God wants us to have in our very possession. Hence, the profession matches the practical
application.
Therefore, the obvious question arises, what does the Scripture say about matters of
Inspiration? Are only the "originals" inspired according to the verses that deal with the
subject? Are there examples of "inspired" copies and translations in the Bible? Well, given
the fact that these "originals only" advocates never deal with these logical questions, let
us search the scriptures to see whether these things be so.
I. The usages of the word "inspiration" in the Bible denote LINEAR ACTION that is
concurrent in time and certainly not confined to the past.
The word "inspiration" is so rendered twice in the A.V. 1611. One time it is used in Job
32:8, and the other time it is used in II Tim. 3:16. Job 32:8 says:
"But there is a spirit in man: and the INSPIRATION of the Almighty giveth them
understanding."
Then, the first occurrencee and usage of this word in the A.V. 1611 is in direct reference to
the Lord giving a man understand through his spirit. Notice that verse 7 has to do with
Elihu speaking and teaching. Therefore, God can INSPIRE someone to speak and teach
what he wants them to say. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with any "original
manuscripts." It has to do with God speaking through a man's spirit. Has God ever spoken
through your spirit? He has if you are saved according to Romans 8:16. God speaks to
your spirit through his Spirit. That is called "inspiration" in Job 32:8.
The corollary to Job 32:8 is found in the next chapter in Job 33:4. That verse states plainly:
"The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life."
Now, do you perceive why the WORDS of that text are so spectacular and important? It is
of the utmost importance, for it is going to connect you with the word "inspiration" in II
Tim. 3:16. That verse says:
"All scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
The particular Greek word rendered "inspiration" in II Tim. 3:16 is an adjective,

"
," and it literally means, "God-breathed." Hence, the passages in Job
32:8 and 33:4 have to do with God breathing on a man to illuminate his spirit to
understanding (Job 32:8), and God breathing on a man to impart life to him (Job 33:4).
Hence, comparing scripture with scripture, inspiration is defined as God breathing on
something, thus imparting life to it. Consequently, Jesus Christ said, "the words that I
speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)
Inquiring further into this matter of inspiration brings us to the Biblical examples of
Inspiration in action. We will examine the following four:
1) The Creation of Man- In Gen. 2:7 it says, "And the LORD GOD formed man of the dust of
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul."
Accordingly, the elements of inspiration are present and defined:
a) God formed the substance
b) God breathed on the substance
c) God consequently imparted life to the substance
2) The Construction of the Tabernacle materials and priestly clothing- Exodus 35:30-31
states: "And Moses said unto the children of Israel, See, the LORD hath called by name
Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; And he hath filled him with
the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of
workmanship;"
In this passage you have a similar set up as you do in Job 32, where God is accomplishing
his will by dealing with a man via his Spirit to accomplish his will. This is so strong that
the third example of God breathing (inspiration) is directly connected with God's Spirit in
John 20.
3) The ordination of the disciples by the Lord Jesus Christ to receive the Holy Ghost. John
20:22 states: "And when he had said this, HE BREATHED ON THEM, and saith unto them,
Receive ye the Holy Ghost:" God breathed on these disciples just like he breathed on
Adam and just like he breathed on the Scriptures, thus imparting life and understanding.
This is so strong that "the word of God" is said to be "quick" (alive) in Hebrews 4:12.
However, if these examples weren't enough, you can't forget the example of inspiration in
Ezekiel 37:1-6.
4) The Restoration of Israel via a National Resurrection- Notice verse 5 and 6 carefully:
"Thus saith the LORD GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause BREATH to enter into
you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you,
and cover you with skin, and put BREATH in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that
I am the LORD."
Again, just as with the creation of man, the elements of inspiration are clear and plain:
1) God formed the body
2) God breathed on the body
3) God subsequently imparted life to the body
Therefore, by comparing scripture with scripture we see that IF the scriptures are "given
by inspiration" as they say they are, then the elements of the creation of the Scripture
must be present:
1) God formed the scripture

2) God breathed on the scripture
3) God thus imparted life to the scripture (Heb. 4:12; I Peter 1:23)
Ultimately, the problem with applying these principles to the "original manuscripts" only,
is that it falsifies the plain teaching discovered about inspiration in II Tim. 3! Observe the
following:
1) In II Tim. 3:16, the Scripture is said to be "given by inspiration" in the PRESENT TENSE.
Therefore, it cannot be limited to the past only. This gives us two choices:
a) We still have the "originals" that WERE inspired, which we have demonstrated that we
do not.
b) Given that "a" is false, the scriptures that we currently have are GIVEN BY
INSPIRATION. Hence, God formed them, breathed on them and subsequently gave them
life.
2) When Paul made this statement to Timothy in verse 16 he was discussing the holy
scriptures that Timothy had known from his childhood in verse 15. At this point the reader
should observe that TIMOTHY DID NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS! Hence, the
copies that he did possess are said to be "given by inspiration" by the apostle Paul in
verse 16. Remember, "All scripture IS GIVEN..." - Present Tense.
3) Therefore, in the so said context of II Tim. 3, the inspiration of the scriptures is not only
concurrent, but it is extended to Timothy's COPIES as well.
4) If all scripture is given by the breath of God (inspiration) in the present tense as the
verse says, then that means that only inspired scripture is profitable. The verse says that
all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is PROFITABLE so on and so forth.
Therefore, if you don't have these scriptures given by inspiration, then you don't have
anything that is profitable. The only profitable scriptures are the ones given by inspiration
in this verse, NOT FABRICATED GREEK TEXTS THAT ALMOST GET YOU THERE BUT
NOT QUITE!
II. All References to "Scripture" in the Bible are references to something that a person
currently has in their possession and are not confined to "originals."
a) In Acts 17:11, the Bereans had the scriptures that they searched daily. There were not
originals; only copies. Paul said, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," and the
Bereans had the scriptures. Hence, the Scriptures that they had in their possession were
given by the breath of God. He formed them, breathed on them, and imparted life to them.
b) In John 5:39 Jesus Christ told the Jewish leaders to "Search the scriptures." Now to me
dear reader, if God manifest in the flesh (I Tim. 3:16), gave the imperative to SEARCH THE
SCRIPTURES, then they were available to be searched. Naturally, they were not originals,
or reliable manuscripts. They were and are SCRIPTURE, and thus "given by inspiration."
c) In Acts 8:32 the Ethiopian Eunuch had the scripture, for the Bible says that he opened
to the place "in the scripture." He did not have "eclectic Greek texts," and he did not have
"the manuscript tradition," he had the SCRIPTURES! They were in his possession, and he
had them to review and believe. Paul said that, "All Scripture is GIVEN by inspiration of
God...." Do you have them? I do!
d) Finally, Daniel 10:21 states that "the scripture of truth" was currently present in that
passage. There was absolutely no reference to any "original manuscripts," or "original
language text," etc.; ONLY THE SCRIPTURE! Notwithstanding they were copies at best.
Since absolutely none of the references to the word "scripture" in the Bible apply to any
"originals," this brings up some interesting points in the non-original scriptures about the
"originals only" concept:
1) If only "originals" ARE inspired, then where is the source reference for the passage
found in James 4:5 that states: "Do ye think that THE SCRIPTURE saith in vain, The spirit
that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?"
When you find that please do me the honor of sending the source reference my way.
However, in the meantime, we'll take it as scripture, a substance that is practically
demonstrative along with the profession of it.
2) If only "originals" are inspired, then I suppose that the passage in Proverbs 25:1 was
not "given by inspiration," for it states:
"These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah COPIED
OUT." Here is a verse that clearly states that it is a "copy," and yet Paul still says that it is
"given by inspiration." How can only the "originals" be inspired?
III. Biblical references to "INSPIRED TRANSLATIONS."
a) In Acts 21:40 Paul is said to have spoken in the Hebrew tongue, yet the entire discourse
is recorded in Greek.
b) Isaiah 61:1-2 was written in Hebrew, but Matthew recorded Jesus Christ quoting it in
Hebrew (Luke 4:18), then writing it in Greek.
c) Paul takes the Hebrew in Habakkuk 2:4 and writes it in Greek in Romans 1:17.
d) Joseph spoke in the Egyptian tongue in Gen. 42:23, yet Moses recorded it in Hebrew in
the book of Genesis. Should we deny that these four examples are not instances of
translations "given by inspiration of God"? They're scripture aren't they? Well, you know
the verse by now- "All scripture is given BY INSPIRATION OF GOD..."
Finally, if I am going to take a Biblical position on the Inspiration of the scriptures, then it
must be a position that has a firm profession that can be equally demonstrated in a
present, practical reality. Hence, unlike the Bible correcting, hypocritical skeptics
mentioned above, the King James Bible is the only BOOK that will match up in both
profession and practical application in regards to what the BIBLE says about all Scripture
given by inspiration of God. Therefore, to answer Mr. Ross, it is my position, that the A.V.
1611 was formed by God as he guided the translators through both textual and
translational choices through their spirits, he breathed on the finished product, and
subsequently imparted life to the text. When you can offer me something better than a
scriptural profession and a scriptural practicality on Inspiration, then feel free to contact
me at that time.
Appendix B
Seven Easy Ways

to tell the true Bible from the false ones
by Will Kinney
You don't need to be a scholar to tell which Bible is the true one. God never intended His words
of truth to be known or understood only by the so called scholars. They don't agree among
themselves as to which text to follow or how to render it in English once they agree as to the text as it witnessed by the conflicting NAS,NIV and NKJV. Jesus tells us "Beware of the scribes..."
and in 1 Cor. 1:19,20 "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?" There is an easy, accessible
way for every Christian to test the multitude of conflicting Bible versions flooding the market
today. Are they a true or a false witness? Mark 14:56 tells us: "For many bare false witness
against him, but their witness agreed not together." In a court of law a false witness will
sometimes or even usually tell the truth, but he betrays himself as a false witness by saying
something either false, contradictory or absurd. So it is with the NKJ, NAS, NIV and all the other
modern Bible versions competing for your money and your mind. So, Christian friend, I ask you to
sit for a little while in the jury box, listen to the testimonies, and determine which one is telling the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Example #1
What is your righteousness before a holy and just God? Is it your own works or the imputed
righteousness of our precious Lord Jesus Christ? The imputed righteousness of Christ is
illustrated and clearly taught throughout the only true witness in the English language - the King
James Bible of 1611. In the beginning, after Adam and Eve had sinned and hid themselves from
God because they were naked, we are told in Gen. 3:21: "Unto Adam also and to is wife did the
LORD God make coats of skin, and clothed them." An innocent animal was slain, and its coat
was made a covering for the naked, guilty pair. God has to cover us; we cannot cover ourselves
acceptably before Him. Isaiah 61:10 beautifully expresses this truth: "I will greatly rejoice in the
Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he
hath covered me with the robe of righteousness...as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels."
Zechariah 3:1-4 illustrates the same truth. Satan stood at the right hand of Joshua the high priest
to resist him. The Lord rebuked Satan. The Bible tells us that: "Joshua was clothed with filthy
garments." But God said: "Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold,
I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment." In
Matthew 22 our Saviour gives us a parable about a wedding where the guests were bidden to the
feast. But the king saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment. "And he saith unto him,
Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless." Then
the man was bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness. You and I have no righteousness
of our own doing. "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." Isa. 64:6 But praise our God for his
beautiful Son Jesus Christ, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Cor. 5:21. "and be found in him, not having
mine own righteousness,which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the
righteousness which is of God by faith." Phil.3:9.
All the preceding information was given to show the true doctrine so that the false teaching of the
perversions will be seen more clearly. Revelation 19:7-9 tells us again of the wedding feast. V.7
"the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted
that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; FOR THE FINE LINEN IS THE
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS." This last phrase is consistent with the rest of Scripture that it is
not our righteousness that makes us acceptable unto God, but the robe of the imputed
righteousness of Christ. Versions that read just like the KJV are the Tyndale N.T.of 1534, the
Geneva Bible of 1599, Green's interlinear and the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602. But the
NKJ,NAS, and NIV have "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints." If your righteous
acts are going to make up your wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered to be sure.
Surprise! the Catholic Douay, New American Bible (St. Joseph of 1970) and the Jehovah Witness
Bibles read in a similar way to the modern versions. St. Joseph "the linen dress is the virtuous
deeds of Gods saints." That is their doctrine and it is now taught by the NKJ,NIV,NAS too.
(technical notes: The NAS concordance renders the word dikaioma as justification, requirements,
ordinances, regulations and righteous acts. It is from the verb "to declare righteous". The
context and Biblical consistency of doctrine must determine the meaning in a given text. If it be
argued that the word is plural, so, I've been told, is righteousness in Isa. 61;10. There are many
words in the N.T. which are plural but are rendered as singular in English. Mt. 6:1 heaven,
Mt.14:6 birthday, Mt. 16:7 bread, Mt. 22:2 marriage, John 1:13 blood, Acts 13:22 will, Acts. 19:19
price etc. Plus each saint, and there are many, has his own robe, thus many robes composed of
the only one kind of righteousness which is Christ's.)
Example #2
God is sovereign and in control of his universe. Daniel 2:21 "he changeth the times and the
seasons". Acts 1:7 "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put
in his own power,"; Acts 17:31 "he hath appointed a day (already done) in the which he will judge
the world in righteousness"; Rev. 9:15 "And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for
an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men." God alone is in
control of time, even to the very hour. John 7:30: "Then they sought to take him; but no man laid
hands on him, because his hour was not yet come."
The KJV along with Tyndale, Geneva, Douay, ASV of 1901, Young and the Spanish correctly
translate II Pet. 3:11,12 "Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of
persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and HASTING UNTO
the coming of the day of God..." Tyn.,Gen.=KJV, Douay - hasten towards; Young - hasting to;
Span. apresurandoos para la venida, ASV -earnestly desiring. But something has definitely
changed in the new "bibles". The NKJV & NAS have "hastening the coming" and the NIV has
"speed its coming". We cannot hurry up Gods timetable or affect it in any way. The new versions
teach the opposite and contradict the rest of Scripture.
Example #3
In II Sam.14, Joab enlists the help of a wise woman to change David's attitude toward his son
Absalom. David apparently received the woman's message as from the Lord, because he allowed
Absalom to return to Jerusalem. Part of the message is v.14; "For we must needs die, and are as
water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT
ANY PERSON." In other words, we all die, regardless of wealth or social position. The Geneva
Bible, Youngs translation, and the 1917 Jewish Pub. Co. of America Version all agree with the
KJV. However, the NKJV, NAS, & NIV say "God does not take away life." This is a false
statement. It contradicts II Sam. 12:15 just two chapters before where the Lord struck the child
and he died. I Sam. 2:6 says: "The Lord killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave,
and bringeth up..." and God himself testifies in Deut. 32:39; "I kill, and I make alive." This is not a
case of the NKJV or NAS honestly examining the Hebrew, because both have rendered the same
words in other places just as the KJV has them here. Why change what this wise woman said
from the truth into a lie?
Example #4
A false witness can say something so utterly ridiculous that you know he is lying. Let's look at the
NAS - the rapidly fading star of the scholarly types. Is it possible to deceive God? He knows our
every thought and the words before they come out of our mouths. Of course, you say, no one can
deceive God.
Stupid statement #1 . Psalms 78 tells us of Israel's rebellion and sin against their God and of his
continued compassion towards them. One of the people's many recorded sins is found in v.36:
"they did FLATTER him with their mouth, and lied unto him with their tongue." We can flatter God
- say all kinds of nice things about him yet not really mean them. God is not fooled by mans false
words of adoration. The ASV, NIV, NKJV, Darby, Geneva, RSV and NRSV all agree with the KJV
that they flattered God. But the NAS says they DECEIVED him. That my Christian friend is an
impossibility. I hope you aren't deceived into thinking the NAS is the true Bible.
Stupid statement #2. Psalm 10:4 describes a wicked man: "The wicked, through the pride of his
countenance, will not seek after God; GOD IS NOT IN ALL HIS THOUGHTS." In other words, in
everything this man thinks, God never enters the picture. The NKJV, NIV agree with the KJV. But
the NAS has "All his thoughts are 'There is no God.'" Not even the staunchest atheist walks
around all day long thinking; "there is no god, there is no god, there is no god."
Stupid statement #3 Ephesians 5:13 says along with the NKJV, NIV,ASV, Darby, Geneva and
Spanish: "But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light; for WHATSOEVER
DOTH MAKE MANIFEST IS LIGHT." In other words, the light of God's truth shows things for what
they really are. It tells us what sin and unrighteousness are by exposing them. The NAS would
have us believe "everything that becomes visible is light," Oh, really?
Example #5
As a false witness will contradict himself, so too will a false bible. Hebrews 3 tells of the children
of Israel who didn't believe God and hardened their hearts so as not to enter the promised land.
Verse 16 says; "For some, when they had heard, did provoke; howbeit not all that came out of
Egypt by Moses." Tyndale, Geneva, Young and Reina Valera of 1602 agree with the KJV.
However the NKJV,NIV & NAS say: "For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who
came out of Egypt by Moses?" You would naturally answer "Yes, it was all" to the new versions.
But that is a lie, a contradiction and contrary to the whole sense of the passage. Joshua and
Caleb believed God and eventually did enter the promised land along with thousands of the
children of the parents who refused to believe God. The whole point of the passage is to believe
God and enter into his rest. Be like Caleb and Joshua.
Example #6
Who is in control of the world? Is it God or Satan? Jesus Christ said: "All power is given unto
me in heaven and in earth." Mat.28:18. The Lord's prayer in Mat. 6:13 ends with :"For thine is the
kingdom and the power and the glory for ever, Amen." This phrase is in brackets in the NAS and
removed in the NIV. Jesus either said it or he didn't, they can't all be right. In Ephesians 1:20-22 it
is said of Christ that God "raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the
heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name
that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things
under his feet." Daniel 4:17,25,26 tell us that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and
giveth it to whomsoever he will." II Cron. 20:6: "O LORD God of our fathers, art not thou God in
heaven? and rulest not thou over all kingdoms of the heathen? and in thine hand is there not
power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?"
Satan is a liar from the beginning. When he told Jesus, during the temptation, that all the
kingdoms of the world were his and that he gave them to whomsoever he would, he was lying.
His statement directly contradicts Daniel 4:17 and the other Scriptures. But the NIV, NAS and
NKJ have bought Satan's lie and are passing it off on to God's children. In I John 5:19 the KJV
along with the Geneva, Tyndale, Youngs and the Spanish of 1602 say: "And we know that we are
of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIETH IN WICKEDNESS." We live in a fallen world; it lies in
sin; but God is still in control and ruling even though it may not appear that way. But the eye of
faith sees his sovereignty and rejoices in this confidence. However the NIV says: "The whole
world is under the control of the evil one." (Before you rush to your school boy Greek, check out
your own version on the presence or lack of the definite article.) The NAS has "lies in the power
of the evil one." The NKJV tries to strike a medium with its: "lies under the sway of the wicked
one" but it is also wrong when it calls Satan the "ruler of this world" in John 16:11.
Example #7
WORDS and NUMBERS
I believe God is very serious about his words and those who would tamper with them. Deut.4:2:
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it."
Proverbs 30:5,6 "Every word of God is pure...Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee,
and thou be found a liar." Also Rev. 22:18,19.
The NAS and the NIV are both grievously guilty of adding to, diminishing from and changing the
words of God. This is not just my opinion, but documented facts from their own "bibles" and
concordances. I will give just a few of the many examples I have found. In Judges 16:13,14 the
NAS & NIV add 33 extra words to the text, which are not found in any Hebrew manuscripts, but
according to the NIV footnote are found in some Greek copies. In II Sam. 13:34 the NIV adds
another 21 words from the Greek. They are not found in the NAS. And again the NIV adds
another 15 words to Psalm 145:13 from the Syriac - which are not in the NAS. In Gen. 4:8 NIV
adds from the Greek: "let us go out into the field."
I have found about 40 examples in the NAS and around 80 in the NIV where they do not follow
the Hebrew text but go with the Greek, Syriac, Targum etc. II Chron. 22:2 tells us that Ahaziah
was 42 years old when he began to reign. All Hebrew texts, plus the ASV, Geneva,
Darby,Young,Spanish, NKJV, and even the RSV & NRSV say 42. Yet the NAS & NIV change this
number to 22 on the basis of the Syriac and some LXX copies. This information is in a footnote in
the Scofield NIV of 1984. It is recorded in II Kings 8:26 that he was 22 years old. There is a rather
easy solution to this apparent contradiction. Jehu was appointed by God to cut off the house of
Ahab II Cron.22:7. Ahaziah was son in law to Ahab II Kings 8:27. So if you count how long each
king related to Ahab reigned, you come up with exactly the 42nd year as a son of Ahab(related by
marriage) when Ahaziah began to reign, though physically he was only 22. Ahab I Kings 16;29 22 years reigned, Jehoram of Israel 12 years II Kings 3:1 and Jehoram of Judah 8 years II Chron.
21:5. Thus 22 + 12 + 8 =42. The new versions are based on unbelief. They say, "This is a scribal
error." They don't believe God has preserved his word without error. They do not have an
inspired, inerrant Bible in their hands. Ask them and you will see.
A riddle is found within a riddle in Judges 14:12-18. Verse 15 says "it came to pass on the
SEVENTH day". This is in all Hebrew texts, ASV,Geneva, Young, Darby, Douay, NKJ (but with
misleading footnote) and Spanish. The NIV changes this to the FOURTH day with a footnote that
says some LXX, Syriac 4th; Hebrew 7th. NAS also has FOURTH but no footnote. NAS NIV still
have a contradiction because of v.17, 18. Can you solve the riddle? Hints: Could any days
have intervened between v12 and v.15? And what would the first 7th day of v. 15 have meant to
the Jewish Samson? There is no need to doubt God's Holy word. Get the KJV Holy Bible and
stick with it.
One last example dealing with numbers - though I have many more. In I Samuel 13:1 the KJV,
NKJV, Geneva and Spanish say: "Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years
over Israel..." The NAS says: "Saul was 40 years old when he began to reign and he reigned 32
years over Israel." The NIV has: "Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned
over Israel forty two years." Gleason Archer, one of the translators of the NIV, says in his book
Bible Difficulties on page 171 that the Hebrew text here has been lost. How is that for God
preserving his word?! The NAS & NIV not only disagree with each other but contradict Acts 13:21
where we are told that Saul reigned for 40 years. The Hebrew text is not lost. Check out the
concordances of NAS- NIV and you will see they have at times translated the words "one" and
"year" just as the KJV.
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it."
The NIV complete concordance tells us that they have not translated THOUSANDS of Hebrew
and Greek words. Here are just a few examples. Zechariah 1:7 NIV omits "saying". The NIV
number for this word is #606. Their own concordance tells us they have "not translated" this
word 878 times. Zech. 1:11 "Behold" is gone. NIV #2180 not translated 550 times. Zech 1:18
omits "mine eyes" #6524 36 times not translated; "saw" and "behold" also are gone from this
same verse. "Children" #1201 not translated 237 times; Zech. 8:17 omits "in your hearts", Zech.
8:19 omits the word "fast" 3 of the 4 times it occurs in this verse. Zech. 9:1 omits "burden". All of
these words are in the NAS, NKJ, and of course the KJV. The NIV has over 64,000 fewer words
in it than the KJV. It does not translate the words "it came to pass" (also, to be, happen, occur)
#2118 887 times. The words "I pray thee" #5228 in NIV are not translated 297 times out of the
405 times it occurs in the Hebrew text. See how the omission of this simple phrase changes a
request into a demand. In Exodus 33:18 Moses speaks to God: "And he said, I beseech thee,
shew me thy glory." NIV: "Then Moses said, 'Now show me your glory.'" This type of "bible" may
appeal to the blab it and grab it crowd, but it is not the pure word of God. The NAS 95 Update
version omits almost 8000 words from the Greek and Hebrew texts which were previously in the
NAS 1977 edition. Perhaps they reason we don't talk in that old fashioned way any more, so let's
update the language to a more modern usage. But I ask you, if this book is indeed Gods holy
words of truth, and he wrote it in this manner, what or who gives the modern scholars the right to
edit Gods word?
Thank you for your time and attention. May God give you the grace and humility to come to the
correct verdict and the only correct version. Through the electing grace of God, washed in the
blood of the Lamb,
a brother in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Do you want more?

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm

Scholarly Demolition - Part 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scholarly Demolition - Part 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCHOLARLY

SCHOLARLY DEMOLITION (Part 1)

1. Where does God ever

Attempted Answers from KJBO-Infidels

Its so clear that

2. Where is your perfect

whatever one we have

SPR comment to KJVOInfidels Answer

SPR comment to KJVOInfidels Answer

Read your modern

4. What is your bible that

it's called on the cover

SPR comment to KJVOInfidels Answer

KJB vs. NIV vs. CEV?

5. Did God preserved His

His preservation was

SPR comment to KJVOInfidels Answer

SPR (sciencephilosophyreligion) Five (5) Questions:

Modern versions used dynamic equivalence in translation which is a corruption of Gods

Wescott and Hort are Darwinian, communist, occult catholic.

I shall aim at what is transcendental in many peoples eyes . . I suppose I am a communist

Earliest Manuscripts (papyri) support the KJB.

There are factual errors and doctrinal defects in modern versions.

To read more on the amazing superiority of KJB translators, visit: http://www.wildernesscry.net/bible_study/translators/

Aleph contradicts B and vice versa.

Footnotes in modern versions cast doubts to its readers.

Mathematical designs in the KJB proved its perfection.

Let's Compare Bibles

NRSV... judgment seat of God

NAB...... Try hard...following a straight course inpreaching the truth

majority of conservative scholars." Therefore, it is with a more detailed adaptation of that

The particular Greek word rendered "inspiration" in II Tim. 3:16 is an adjective,

1) God formed the scripture

Seven Easy Ways

Do you want more?

You might also like