This article is brought to you compliments of:
HIS BOARD -- (805) 652-1478
Sysop: Bob Harris
On the last excursion into "cloud land" (to cite Dean
Burgon) it was discovered that all members of the Alexandrian
Cult resort to little statements of "fact" that are designed
to lead to a falsehood--by IMPLICATION. The thirteen that
have been prevalent since the publication of the AV may vary
from the set used by the Popes in 1,000 or by Augustine in
450 or by Eusebius in 330 or by ORIGEN in 230, but the modus
operandi is the same: Two authorities are given "first
place" (quite a trick if you can do it), and then where they
contradict (which they will sooner or later), the third
intervening authority plays "god" (Genesis 3:1-4) and decides
which is right, thus proving that the THIRD party is the
final authority.
ERA, Gay Liberation, the NAACP, and the Communist Party
are all built on this simple principle. There are TWO
AUTHORITIES (ERA: men and women; Gay Liberation: "heteros"
and "homos"; NAACP: black and white; the Communist Party: the
Comintern and "THE PEOPLE") which will sooner or later
conflict. At Bob Jones and Hyles-Anderson it is more subtle:
The AV is "reliable"--so also is the New ASV. Or the AV is
reliable, as is the ASV. What happens when they conflict (as
they do in Luke 2:33, Acts 1:3, Luke 24:50,51, II Timothy
3:16, Acts 9:5,6; 8:37, John 9:35, etc., etc.)? Simple: THE
SCHOOL PLAYS GOD AND TELLS THE STUDENT WHICH TO GOBY OR "GO
BY BOTH," when they don't match.
The first of the thirteen "boo-boos" runs like this:
"King James was egotistical; therefore..." From this one is
to presume that God could not have protected the translating
committee from James' domination. The "proof" produced for
this remarkable conjecture is that BAPTISM should have been
IMMERSION and CHURCH should have been ASSEMBLY. The white-
washed cult members who project this nonsense on the student
keep right on calling themselves "BAPTISTS," and they have
the word stuck in over the CHURCH bulletin and the front of
their schools! Strange interlude! Many of them also fail to
tell the student that the apostates who translated the New
ASV failed to translate HADES. They transliterated it. What
"Egotistical Monarch" had the pressure on them in 1959?
The second fun story is: "Erasmus was a Catholic;
therefore..." From this piece of partial information the
student is to PRESUME that the TEXTUS RECEPTUS of the King
James committee was a PRO-ROMAN CATHOLIC TEXT. Nothing could
be more deceptive and misleading. Erasmus' text is THE text
that no Catholic will recommend to anyone. The only other
translations recommended by Catholics today besides their own
(Douay, Challoner, Jerusalem, American, etc.) are the ones
that come from the Westcott and Hort text used by Aland and
Metzger. The statement that "Erasmus wanted to dedicate his
Greek New Testament to a pope" has no bearing whatsoever on
ONE WORD IN THAT TEXT. That Greek text has been
anathematized by every pope since its publication, and the
Vatican text has been substituted for it and adopted by
Robertson, Warfield, Schaff, Machen, and Wuest.
The third funny bunny runs like this: "Editions of the
AV vary in spelling and punctuation and in one or two words;
therefore..." It is to be presumed from this that if there
is ANY variation between editions, they CONTRADICT, and,
therefore both cannot be INFALLIBLE. The sick thinking
behind this is that if ANY WORDS differ, they must
CONTRADICT. This is the liberal theory of 1850 used to prove
that the inscriptions on the cross contradict or that God
could not write two infallible records if they disagreed in
SPELLING. The silly billies who project this kind of
nonsense never tell the student the glaring and horrible fact
that Moses and Pharaoh did not converse in Hebrew, yet the
"VERBALLY INSPIRED ORIGINAL" (cult cliche) reports their
words only in Hebrew idiom. [Surely something must have been
"lost in the translation." Failure to inform the student
that TWO INSPIRED ACCOUNTS CAN DIFFER (Jeremiah 36:32) is
never mentioned in cult circles. Cultists are not BIBLICAL
SCHOLARS.]
The fourth alibi for sin runs as follows: "The AV has
archaic words that need to be updated; therefore..." From
this, one is to presume that the MOTIVE for altering the text
in 31,000 places (ASV, New ASV, or International) was to help
poor dumb folks to understand the Bible. Skulldrudgery is
afoot. All translations since 1611 have used this alibi.
None profess to update each other. All the "archaic words"
could be listed in the margin and given the modern
equivalents, and the entire list would not come to even one
hundred words. Someone is lying about MOTIVE.
The fifth Alexandrian Cult line states: "The TEXTUS
RECEPTUS was printed after the AV; therefore the AV could not
have come from the TEXTUS RECEPTUS." This Disneyland logic
is put out daily in two dozen Christian colleges and Bible
seminaries. The Mickey Mouse logic behind it is that if
Elzevir CALLED the received text (received by the church from
God and preserved in the Antiochan Syrian Church, Acts 11,
13, 16) by a Latin name in 1633 that there could not have
been any real "received text" BEFORE THAT TIME. Suckers are
supposed to buy this just like they buy the beer that has
"gusto." By such inane bungling one would presume that no
Alexandrian text existed until Griesbach (1800) because no
one referred to the Roman Catholic Vatican Greek text BY THAT
NAME until THAT TIME.
From the sixth partial truth that goes, "The AV
translators did not claim inspiration; therefore..." one is
to assume that God could not inspire scripture after the
original manuscripts were written although the proof text for
this premise (II Timothy 3:16) is NOT A REFERENCE TO ORIGINAL
MANUSCRIPTS. Paul was referring to a Bible that Timothy READ
(II Timothy 3:15). If the AV translators did not claim
inspiration what would this mean? The verse used to prove
that the ORIGINALS were inspired is NOT QUOTED FROM THE
ORIGINALS. It is quoted from Greek texts (never "THE" Greek
text) or from an English translation. Try that one in court
and see if the "third authority" (the judge) will buy it.
The seventh shaft comes in like this: "We have found
older manuscripts; therefore..." The sucker is to presume
from this bare statement that manuscripts have to be closer
to the original in CONTENT and QUALITY merely because they
are closer in TIME. The manuscripts referred to are
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and payrus fragments (usually P66,
P46, P75, etc.) although many cult members will refuse to
LIST THE MANUSCRIPTS in the fear that the student will check
them out to see if they are lying: They are. The CONTENT
and QUALITY of the "oldest manuscripts" are a shameful
disgrace to the science of textual criticism and a mockery of
Biblical orthodoxy. (See "The Christian's Handbook of
Manuscript Evidence" and Burgon's Last Twelve Verses of Mark
Sixteen.) No more grossly corrupt and heterodox manuscripts
are known in the history of Biblical literature.
The eighth dodge is: "Westcott and Hort were
conservatives; therefore..." One is to deduct from this that
THE TEXT WHICH THEY PUBLISHED had to be a CONSERVATIVE TEXT.
It was the most radically heretical text published since the
writing of Vaticanus and Sinaticus (330 A.D.). The two
grossly corrupt uncials on which the New ASV is based differ
between themselves 3,000 times in the Gospels alone; and B
differs with the Receptus 7,587 times; and Aleph, 8,972
times. There are more variations between the two "oldest"
manuscripts than there are between THE COMPLETE PRINTED GREEK
TEXTS OF STEPHANUS, ERASMUS, AND ELZEVIR. (See Hill's
"Believing Bible Study.")
Number nine: "The Russians and the Chinese had no AV
until 1800; therefore..." The nasty implication of this
Satanic alibi is that since they didn't, the AV couldn't be
the infallible authority, otherwise the Russians and the
Chinese wouldn't have been without one. Notice how
Ingersoll, Paine, Voltaire, and Celsus all used the SAME
ARGUMENT in regard to the "heathen's" not having ANY Bible.
More serious thinkers will observe that the "originals" could
not have been infallible or inspired either, BECAUSE THE
RUSSIANS AND THE CHINESE DIDN'T HAVE THEM EITHER. It is
amazing how a little common sense will dissect a professional
liar when he attacks the authority of the Bible.
The next article will take up the last four "appetizers"
put forth by the Alexandrian Cult to talk the believer out of
his faith in the King James Bible. All of these cute little
"facts" bear the same stamp: They are designed to DESTROY
faith in the written authority of God ALMIGHTY. Every one is
a half- or quarter-truth (or in some cases only an eighth of
the truth), and every one is given out of context where the
student cannot CHECK the background of the statement or the
facts that are relative to it.