Corrections From A Conference That Was Designed to Shake Your Faith In Gods Word

Plummet from the KJB Summit

A conference was held on the KJB and the

instructors made errors of fact, in our opinion, when they spoke, or in written comments made by them and distributed on a Summit CD-Rom. Such good men will be happy for the help provided herein, lest the errors remain uncorrected and hence repeated by others. We anticipate and applaud their good spirit in receiving this help.

The following is a refutation of errors put forth at the Summit which could destroy confidence in our Holy Bible.

The context of 2 Tim. 3:16, the verse which says, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, warns:
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be boasters, proudfalse accusersTraitors, heady, highmindedfrom such turn away Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth

But they shall proceed no

further: for their folly shall be

manifest unto all menBut

evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of 2 Tim. 3:1-14

The folly of those who deny the inspiration of our Holy Bible (KJB) is manifest by their numerous errors, which, if uncorrected, could be deceiving good men.

Around 1,600 men and women came from all over America to hear what had been advertised as a King James Bible Summit, where their faith in the KJB would be strengthened.

On the contrary, it appears to me that each of the presentations merely brought out whatever negative evidence the speaker had gleaned from the anti-KJV books listed in their Bibliography.

The halls of Hyles-Anderson College amplified tiny typos by singular printers into an arsenal to dampen faith in the King James Bible, Gods sword to bring 2 billion of the worlds population to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

It cannot be stated too emphatically that the founders of this college stated in writing and in sermons that they believe in the inspiration of the King James Bible. Their good name should not be besmirched. We must remember that many of the secular universities began as seminaries (Harvard, Yale, Brown, Vassar etc.). Many of them were Baptist schools. Slowly, they began denying the inspiration of their Holy Bible and the rest is history.

The Summit speakers gave their sources in their Bibliography, listing the writings of the most rabid anti-KJB men, such as Rick Norris, new version editor Gleason Archer, critical Greek text editor Bruce Metzger, Bible critic William Mounce, and the writings from Mt. Calvary Baptist Church, an off-shoot of critical text proponents at Bob Jones University. Speaker Bob Marshall admitted, much of what we do is not individual research but reading books.

There is evidence which indicates that the current push to say that the KJB is not inspired stems from the use of the same corrupt Greek and Hebrew study tools used by the new version editors.

Lets look at some example of the BAD RESULTS of using corrupt grammars and lexicons:

Romans 10:9 says, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (KJB)

The new versions change this to a works-based Lordship salvation by saying, confess with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord or Jesus as Lord. They are inferring that unless one is obedient to Jesus as Lord over their lives, they are not saved.

IN truth, the Hebrews put the blood on the doorposts, signifying the blood atonement, BEFORE they received the law on Mt. Sinai. Only after one is saved, through the indwelling Holy Ghost, can a Christian have Jesus to be Lord over his life.

Summit Folly Number 1 manifest

At the KJV Summit, a CD-Rom was distributed to attendees. It contained a file entitled, Schaap Modern Missionary Translators. (This is file number one (58.4 kb), not the similarly titled PowerPoint presentation.)

It appears to be the typed original lecture notes of Dr. Darrell Moore and contains material that he did not say at the conference, but was intended to be read by the attendees later. In it Moore cites favorably a statement by missionary to the Ukraine, Yuro Popchenko, suggesting the doctrinally similar reading, Jesus to be the Lord instead of that of the KJB.

The missionary, Yuro Popchenko, mistakenly says,

For example, in Romans 10:9

the Lord Jesus is double accusative, (the phrase meaning if you confess Jesus to be the Lord), and it is obvious only from the Greek

In fact, the GREEK text does not have a double accusative, as he states, since it does not add words, such as as, is, or to be.
KJB and all Greek the Lord Jesus texts in Romans 10:9 say: RV 1881 and Jesus as Lord (see italics!) NASB, TEV say Jesus as Lord (see italics!)

Accusative is the case expressing the goal of an action; in English it is the objective case. Italics were used because the Greek has NO SUCH double accusative!!!!!

Later, works-based translators started adding is using NO ITALICS. Remember, the word is, as or to be is not in the Textus Receptus or even the Nestles text.
(Vaticanus adds that, not is. i.e. that Jesus Lord, implying is. Metzger, Textual Commentary.)

Jehovah Witness New World Jesus is Translation, Lord Catholic New American Bible, Catholic Jerusalem Bible, Catholic Confraternity, ASV, NIV, RSV, LB, ESV, HCSB, NEB, etc.

Why did the 1881 Revised Version begin this imaginary double accusative with their italics? The Church of England, like the Catholic Church, teaches works and sacrament-based salvation. Translators Westcott, Hort, Vaughan, Stanley, and Ellicott despised evangelicals who taught salvation by grace through FAITH.

Use of erring dictionaries, such as Vines Expository Dictionary, cited in the Summit Bibliography, may be the source of this error.
By changing the Bible here, W.E. Vine and John MacArthur lean toward Lordship salvation.

Vine says, When he expounds the conditions upon which salvation is to be possessed, he stresses the necessity of acknowledging the Lordship of Christ: If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord

The bibliography file on the same Summit CD-ROM cites Vines and other corrupt lexicons and books, which will encourage readers to: 1.) Think that the KJB is not inspired.
2.) Mistranslate new foreign language editions, thereby matching new versions.

Again Moores lecture notes, citing Yuro Popchenko, fault the common interpretation of the KJB in another verse by quoting Popchenko, who said,
However, in Genesis 22:8 provide himself a lamb is NOT a double accusative but a dative with accusative, in spite of common interpretation (the phrase meaning, God will provide a lamb for Himself) and this is obvious only from the Hebrew. (color emphasis mine in this presentation)

The translator says it is a dative with accusative in spite of common interpretation. He is hereby suggesting that the common KJB translation of Gen. 22: 8 God will provide himself a lamb is WRONG!

The KJB says, God will provide himself a lamb. God becomes the lamb. The Summit lecture notes say the meaning is God will provide a lamb for Himself. This infers: God gets the lamb; he is not the lamb of God. Jesus is not God manifest in the flesh.

John will provide himself a servant. John becomes a servant.

John will provide a servant for himself. John will get someone else to be his servant.

Accusative is usually the fourth case of declinable words corresponding to the objective in English; dative: the doing of something to or for; it follows verbs that express giving. The Websters Encyclopedic Dictionary.

They say, this is obvious only from the Hebrew. The KJB, RV, ASV, and RSV translators must not speak Hebrew, as all of these translated it God will provide himself a lamb
WHY?? The word for is NOT IN THE HEBREW; it must be added to make it a dative with accusative.

Dative is expressed by to, for, or word order; e.g. I did the work for Jack. An indirect object of a verb (Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary).

Gradual falling away..

Genesis 22:8 God himself will provide the lamb. THEY MOVE THE WORD HIMSELF!! But they still know that the word for is not in Hebrew. God will provide for himself the lamb. For is added using no italics to indicate no Hebrew.

Step 1:

Catholic New American Bible, NIV, Holman Christian Standard

Step 2: NASB, NKJV, ESV (Summit CD-ROM: God will provide a lamb for Himself)

Summary
A missionary translator who says he is accessing THE GREEK and THE HEBREW may often really be accessing only corrupt reference books which lead to the liberal interpretations of the modern versions, which used the same corrupt books.

Consequently, we have good church members, supporting good leaders, who are supporting good missionaries, who are creating BAD translations, which teach heresy, just like the NIV, all because they are using BAD TOOLS.

Those who dont believe we have an inspired Holy Bible in the KJB, as the two examples demonstrate, may eventually end up placing the vital and basic doctrines of salvation and the deity of Christ in jeopardy in other language translations.

Corrupt Greek or Hebrew study tools, written by those who tamper with these basic doctrines, will eventually bring heresy. Good men, using bad books, produces bad results.

Summit Folly Number 2 manifest

More Grammatical errors from using corrupt grammars and lexicons:

To support their view that the KJB is not inspired, some good men have misrepresented, perhaps accidentally, what the early English translations said, saying that they match modern corrupt lexicons.

Jack Schaap said: He just showed you how Tyndale,

Wycliffe, Coverdale. He just showed you how all the English Bibles, the ones the King James Bible translators used, all say Godbreathed, God-breathed, Godbreathed, breathed by God, Godbreathed, breathed by God, Godbreathed

None of these early translators said, Godbreathed, the NIV reading. Only lexicographers, exposed as being liberals in the new book, Hazardous Materials, used this NIV term, which leaves out the Holy Spirit (i.e. inspiration).

In an effort to make a case for theopneustos being an adjective, like Godbreathed, Phil Pins, a speaker at the Summit, misrepresented, perhaps accidentally, the early translations as saying, inspired of God.

None used the participial adjective inspired of God. Three use the noun inspiration like the KJB:
Coverdale Great Bible Tyndale Wycliffe geue by inspiration of God geuen by inspiracyon of God geue by inspiracion of god God ynspyrid

We need to be wary of misrepresentations of the words of the early translations and the promotion of the word choices in liberal lexicons, as presented by Phil Pins with the following erring chart:

Coverdale Geisler and Nix Great Bible House Rice Tyndale Vine Warfield Wuest

inspired of God God-breathed inspired of God God-breathed God-breathed inspired of God inspired of God God-breathed God-breathed

Wycliffe
Young Zodhiates

inspired of God
inspired of God divinely breathed

Do these lexicographers, listed by Pins, represent the Historic Baptist Position supposedly touted at the Summit? Lets see how Baptist the lexicographers Pins listed were.

Warfield

Presbyterian Calvinist who was one of the first to say only the originals were inspired. Wuest Methodist Calvinist who uses the corrupt Greek text. He omits through his blood and says Phoebe was a deaconess! Zodhiates Calvinist who uses a corrupt Greek Orthodox text, with 3,358 changes. Zodhiates was sued for copyright infringement by NIV editors for using their NIV words as definitions. He also recommends the bloodless CEV and corrupt NASB.

Giesler

Ph.D. Graduate of Catholic Notre Dame (Our Lady) University (talk about following a woman!) Member of the Brethren denomination, which denies the existence of the office of pastor and deacon. Like MacArthur, Vine denies that the blood saves. Editor of the NKJV Nelson Study Bibles; He is among authors, like Anton LaVey of the Satanic Bible, for HarperCollins and its subsidiary Zondervan, owner of NIV printing rights.

Vine

House

How is private interpretation used to change the scriptures?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable The present tense word is is demanded in Greek grammar in TWO PLACES, both before given and before profitable. The word is is present tense. It means NOW!!!! Scripture IS inspired.

Seven incorrect grammatical impressions were given by Phil Pins at the Summit (Each will be explained in detail): 1.) To divest the Holy Bible of its present tense inspiration, he suggests is given could be once given (like Once upon a time).
2.) He infers that the verb is is not part of the verb phrase is given, so that the Bible no longer uses the present tense, is given by inspiration of God.

3.) He wrongly diagrams 2 Tim. 3:16, making given a mere adjective.

4.) He gives examples, wrongly showing the active voice helper have, instead of the passive voice helper is.

5.) He suggests that given may be from an aorist Greek participle when in truth, the word given is in no Greek text!!!
6.) He suggests that pneustos comes from the verb pneo, (neo), not the noun pneuma.

7.) He wrongly parallels is given with the phrase is written, omitting the fact that one has a singular subject, It is written and the other has a subject described as an aggregate, All scripture is given.

Sadly, Pinss unpublished textbook, Elementary Greek Workbook, is being distributed in his Greek classes. It says, to say is given is the verb phrase seems incorrect.
This is the reading in the KJB!

His book wrongly moves inspiration into the past by suggesting the omission of the first usage of the word is and keeping only the second usage of is, before profitable.
His textbook allows changing the KJB saying,

Quote

Given is a past participle used

as an adjective indicating another possible rendering,

All given by inspiration of God scripture is All scripture given by inspiration of God is.
(color mine; pink color indicates place of omission)

Pinss textbook says further: If the participle given is from an aorist Greek participle, the English participle could be possible interpreted as once given. The first part of 2 Tim. 3:16 could then be interpreted as, All scripture once given by inspiration of God is.

In fact, his switch to once given is based on the wrong idea that the Greek word given might be an aorist Greek participle.

In fact, the word given does not appear in any Greek text!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Therefore it CANNOT BE an aorist Greek participle. Pinss wrong alternate reading is based on no Greek text on the planet.

Pins is allowing the reading: All scripture once given by inspiration of God is instead of All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is
Placing the word is only once in the sentence, at a later point, is done by the Jehovah Witness version, early Catholic Bibles, & Thayer & Schaffs ASV. As men waxed worse and worse, God purged this reading from the English Bible early on.

Of this Jehovah Witness type reading, even Strongs Cyclopedia warns that, this rendering is liable to insuperable objections as both [given and profitable] must include a verb [is] if either of them does.

It says that such a reading is at variance with a common rule of Greek syntax, which requiresif there be an ellipsis [omission] of the substantive verb [is] this verb must be supplied
(Cyclopedia, vol 4, pp. 612-613).

Ph.D. Greek classics professor at Louisiana State University, Dr. C. Winsor Wheeler, (full scholarship to Duke; cum laude graduate in Greek) says is must be placed both places, just as it is in the KJB which he says, takes the

wind clean out of Pins sails (and a few others) very nicely.

Dr. Wheeler continues, King Jamess lads put the is in italics because they were painfully scrupulous, but they could just as honestly have kept it in regular type. There is no verb in the sentence; but when there is no verb you put the is in automatically and the KJB guys put it in exactly the right place both times...

Pins presented a sentence diagram which does not correctly diagram the verb phrase is given. It incorrectly
presents given by inspiration of God as a participial phrase, used as a predicate adjective.

A language professor, retired from Clemson University, gives the following correct sentence diagram of 2 Tim. 3:16. It shows that is given is a compound verb phrase, not a predicate adjective, as shown in Pinss erring sentence diagrams.

A parallel construction where a verb phrase (is given) is followed by an adjective (profitable) would be these :

1.) All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable 2.) Many a tale is told by Greek professors and is unprofitable...
is given and is told are verb phrases. Profitable and unprofitable are adjectives.

Those denying inspiration do not take the gender into consideration. Graphe (scriptures) is feminine.
Theopneustos is masculine. To be an adjective that modified graphe (scripture), the ending of theopneustos would normally have to change to eta; then you would have the spirit of a goddess).
(In Greek there are no feminine adjectives which end with omicron sigma).

Pins went to Machens Greek Grammar and showed a sample of a predicate adjective: the word is good
However, this is not a parallel structure, since good IS AN ADJECTIVE, not a verb phrase, such as is given."

Pins pointed to (have) given as a Past Participle. But the words (have) given have nothing to do with 2 Tim. 3:16. It seems to me to be a veiled effort to focus on the word past, as if inspiration is past.

Although given, when used alone, is a Past Participle, have given is actually the

Present Perfect Tense.

To be past perfect, it would have to be had given.

Have given is active voice only (the subject does the acting).
2 Tim. 3:16 is passive voice; the scriptures are acted upon. Therefore a form of the helping verb to be must be used, which in this case is is.

The Greek demands the passive voice present tense as shown in this conjugation: Active Voice
Present tense

Passive Voice Present tense

I am given It is given (KJB) Past tense I was given It was given

I give It gives

Past tense I gave It gave

Not only is given by inspiration of God not an adjective in English or Greek, many think the Greek word theopneustos is a noun, since it is a combination of God (theo) and Spirit (pneustos).

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says theopneustos (is given by inspiration of God) is a noun, not an adjective The Encyclopedia adds,
In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product. (James Sightler, Inspiration: Temporal or Eternal).

Dr. James Sightler (son of Harold Sightler) writes, When the KJB translators put given by inspiration they were rendering theopneustos as a noun. According to rules of Greek usage, juxtaposing these two nominatives, graphe and theopneustos, implies the equivalence of themThis context is consistent with inspiration as a noun, because inspiration is qualified by being described with the adjective profitable.

Summary Pins erred, inferring that (have) given is a past participle. Pins erred showing an active voice helper (have) instead of a passive voice helper (is) to expound 2 Tim. 3:16. (Scriptures is acted upon). It seems to me that he is trying to give the impression that the inspiration of the scriptures was PAST.

Pins used the example, This picture is painted identifying painted as a past participle.
In truth, in the sentence the past participle joins the helping verb is to become a present tense verb phrase, in the passive voice (not past tense). The inaccurate focus on the word past, by those who deny KJB inspiration, is strange.

Correctly one would parallel:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable All art is painted by inspiration of the artist and is profitable

Pins unwisely tries to parallel the words, It is written, to All scripture is given.
He contends that we do not take is written to mean, Deuteronomy 8:3 is currently being written.

However, one sentence has a singular subject It and the other sentence has a broader scope, using the word ALL. Note the following grammatical parallels:

All copy is written by the oversight of editors. All art is painted by inspiration of the artist.
These are not one-time events, but include all such events, just as All scripture is given.

The phrase is given seen elsewhere in the Bible, demonstrates that it might not describe an historical event (once given), but often refers to a continuing phenomenon or a perpetual promise.

Job 37:10 says, By the breath of God frost is given. Frost is given by God yet today. Rom. 5:5 says, the Holy Ghost which is given unto us The Holy Ghost is still given. Rom. 12:6 says, the grace that is given to us. Grace is given believers daily.

1 Cor. 11:15 says, her hair is given her for a covering.

Are all women now bald? Hair is given repeatedly as it falls out, day by day. God even keeps track of the number of our hairs; how much more would he attend to his very words?

Why are Greek professors reluctant to admit the errors in current printed Greek editions and lexicons?

30 pieces of silver
Pins said at the Summit, Im just trying to justify my job here. This is bread and butter to me.

Pins is a good man and an unparalleled soul winner, with a special gift in working with the Chinese. He has college training in engineering.
God would certainly provide his bread and butter without his compromising and causing doubt in the Holy Bible. The laborer is worthy of his hire. David said he had never seen the righteous begging bread.

Jesus said, ye cannot serve God and mammon

(or is that Hammond?)

Summit Folly Number 3 manifest

On March 4, 2009 Jack Schaap had given a sermon in which the typos of the 1611 were presented as correct and the impression was thereby given that todays KJBs are not correct. (To be documented later in the presentation).

Following in his fathers footsteps Ken Schaap said he was going to show the changes made to the text since 1769. He gave 4 differences between the 1769 and todays KJBs, thereby giving the impression that the Bible keeps changing.

The only problem is, that he, like his father, did not make it clear that the 3 of the 4 differences he was citing
were TYPOs in the 1769 that were picked up in a few other printings. His 4th example was simply another spelling of the same word.

While the typos were in print after 1769, most other printers were printing the correct text and had never picked up these typos. No printers today has them.

Lets examine this first part of his presentation in detail.

If the first four example Ken gives are bald errors, we can have little hope for the remainder of his presentation.

Ken gave the samples in the blue and green columns, but did not show or say that these were typos in the 1769. He did not show that the readings of today match the correct readings of the 1611. In spite of his effort to question, Do I have a 1611 in my hands? - The answer is, Yes.
Verse Exod. 6:21 1611 Zichri 1630, 1638 etc. 1769 Zichri Zithri typo Today Zichri

Judges elders elders 11:7

Children elders typo

Only the erring 1769 and its clones had the wrong words Zithri and children.
Ken was quick to point out that Zithri and Zichri were two different people, giving the listener the impression that perhaps THE Bible, maybe even yours, has errors that are SERIOUS.

Unfortunately his 1769 edition, which Ken used for a baseline, picked up one of the 1611 typos (all caps for LORD in Gen. 18:27). Generally, other printers had the correct reading all along and still do. The typo of one (or even several) printers or printings does not nullify the inspiration of the Holy Bible which has been preserved ALL ALONG by other printers or in other editions.

Fixed immediately by the KJB translators and kept until today!

Gen.18:27 1611 1638 1769 Present

LORD Lord
(typo)

LORD
(Copied 1611 typo)

Lord

Kenny Schaap said that the KJB 1611 was very random with their spelling, when in fact they often used spelling varieties to rightjustify the line length to create even lines. They would spell it Son or Sonne to make the line longer or shorter. They did not have computer line justification.

There were other reasons for varieties in spelling. There was little that was random about their spelling, as a careful analysis of the contextual usages and meaning of the phonemes in words proves (e.g. cloke [choke, yoke] and cloak).

Ken gave the impression that some Bibles had an error in them in Numbers 20:14. He does not know that the word differences in this case are two different spellings of the same word.

The word travail has had two spellings, (travail and tra-vel) which could have served for line justification, as each has a different length.

Numb. 1611, 20:14 1630

(London)

1638

1769

present

travaile travel travel travail

Kens fourth mistake was punctuated when he told his listeners that he surely didnt have to tell them the difference between travel and travail, implying that they were two different words, in all usages.

Volume 18 of the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary says of travel, orig. the same word as travail. It gives the first definition of travel as, to tormentsee travail.

These four huge mistakes begin Kens presentation. At the outset he has demonstrated that he appears to me to be no expert on the subject he is presenting.

It is unwise for a Professor of Bible to misrepresent pertinent linguistic and historical facts, thereby giving false impressions about the history of the Holy Bible.

Those viewing his presentation no doubt became unnecessarily insecure as to whether their Bibles were correct at every point.

Ken said, I doubt that they could understand a 1611 if they could read it. A college professors responsibility is to instruct, not deride.

Generally, all one needs to know to be able to read 1611 fonts is to know that the font for S is
elongated , looking a bit like our current f, without the cross-bar. If you know calculus you know that this is the symbol for S as in Sum. That was easy. The r can be a little squashed and backwards. Thats essentially it.

Ken admits that there were typographical errors, but then cites what he calls substantial changes. He says According to D.A. Waite there are 136 substantial changes that have been made to the King James Bible since 1611. That sounds SERIOUS.

Ken gives Gen. 39:16 as his first example of substantial changes. He cites the 1611 reading of her lord and the current reading of his lord.

Ken says, They changed it of course here for us in the 1917 Oxford that we have. This is a retranslationThey went back and changed this

Ken emphasized emphatically and repeatedly that these substantial changes could not be blamed on the printer. My, my, how wrong he was.

What Ken does not know is that her lord was one of the typos in the 1611 that was immediately corrected.
The 1638 edition done by original KJB translators shows the corrected his lord that we have today.

It was not the Oxford 1917 that fixed it.

One can even see the correction listed early on in Scriveners (The Authorized Edition of the
English Bible and its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives, p. 148).

Kens second example of substantial changes is once again only a typo in Ezekiel 3:11 where the words the children of were omitted in the 1611 and were immediately returned to the Bible by 1638 by the translators themselves.

The previous Bishops Bible, which the 1611 translators were charged to follow, has the words the children of, as do all early Bibles. It is not a textually questioned phrase at all and its omission was merely a typo that was fixed immediately. Even Scriveners book identifies that it was fixed by at least 1638 (p. 170).

Ken mentions a baseball team. He must know that after three strikes you are out. He strikes out once again. Kens third attempt to prove substantial changes in the KJB fails again.
He cites the omission of the words of the Damascenes in the 1611.
.

However, even Scrivener, (p. 192) admits that it was returned to its place by 1629 in the Cambridge edition. These words are also seen in the 1638 and have been in the Bible continually.

King James Bible translators Ward and Boise worked on the 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions to make certain that the intent of their original translation team was fulfilled.

As has been demonstrated, the so-called substantial changes in the Bible were typos repaired by the translators THEMSELVES in every one of Kens examples.

Ken gives a summative analysis and separates typographical errors from what he and Waite call substantial changes. However all of the substantial changes Ken gives are typos and belong under that heading. Therefore, his separate category of substantial changes is in error!

Therefore his next conclusion is obviously without any merit.

He totals his three paltry and faulty samples and summarizes his discussion of substantial changes stating

Ken says:
Hampton Court 47 words are added later by other men to the King James Bible. Definitely not under the power of inspiration while translating the King James Bible.
(underline added)

The words he showed (her, the children of and of the Damascenes were not added later by other men. They were returned to their place by THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS THEMSELVES, by 1629 and 1638 at the very latest.

Ken erringly concludes, What the King James translators did in 1611 was not complete because it was missing 47 words. Blayney added words 158 years after the King James is complete in 1611. He adds words. These words are added, which means if words had to be added then what they did in 1611 was not complete. If what they did in 1611 was not complete then how were they working under inspiration as many people believe.

The samples he gave were not added by Blayney, 158 years later; they were typos fixed by the translators themselves immediately.
Blayney is the one in 1769 that added those errors shown previously!!!!!! Remember Kens errors about Zithri, children, and all cap LORD.

May I suggest that neither Ken (nor D.A. Waite) have exhaustively studied (using primary sources) the subject of typographical errors in the KJB? Waite merely compared a 1611 to todays Bible and listed his 136 substantial changes. He did not study the intervening English Bibles to determine the cause and quick resolution of the so-called changes. These were in fact inconsequential 1611 typos that were quickly fixed.

We all need a good chuckle by now and Ken gives us one, with an error which Im sure hes already caught.
He notes 100 uses of italics in the book of Matthew in the 1611. He cites 440 uses of italics in todays book of Matthew. He concludes, The inference from the first two numbers is that italicized words have increased nearly 10 fold since 1611.

It is just a 4 fold (100 x 4 = 400) increase.

In his summary at the end Ken concludes, Italicized words have multiplied nearly tenfold.
In fact, the KING JAMES BIBLE TRANSLATORS THEMSELVES in 1629 and 1638 introduced a nearly fourfold increase in italics that are seen in the KJBs of today. I counted them myself!

Even Scrivener admits concerning the increase in the italics that, This close and critical examination was evidently entered upon, with more or less good results, by those who prepared the Cambridge Bibles of 1629 and more especially of 1638 (p. 63).
[T]hose were Ward and Boise, two of the original KJB translators.

The 1611 actually had no italic type. It used a small Roman font to indicate what is now represented by italics.
Even that practice was actually less than a hundred years old (1534) and, as a fairly recent phenomenon, it was not mandated in translation. Today new versions use no italics at all.

Another speaker at the Summit, Bob Marshall, says there were 43 italicized words in Matthew in 1611. Ken Schaap said that there were about 100 in 1611. Marshall says that there are 224 in the 1638 and 352 in the 1769. Ken said there were 440 today. Marshall says that there are 583 today. Bobs chart, showing a steep, lengthy evolution is distorted.

The fact is that Bob and Kens numbers not only do not agree with each other, they may not agree with the facts. They appear to me to have been presented to infer that the KJB is ever changing, when in fact, the italics we have today were, in the main, introduced by the original KJB translators.
(I counted well over 300 in the 1638, done by the translators themselves).

Ken Schaap did not just make a few errors. His entire thesis and his examples were wrong.
Perhaps someone handed the young lad one of the error filled books listed on their bibliography and told him to use this and summarize it.

Perhaps being young and nave, he believed what he read in those anti-KJV books. Im sure he has now learned the hard way that one must do his own research or be the pawn of someone who may be dishonest and have an agenda. Anti-KJV people are very untrustworthy in their presentation of history and its documents.

Summit Folly Number 4 manifest

Bob Marshall gave a lengthy lecture giving spelling standardization and insignificant typos by various printers throughout the 400 year history of the KJB as revisions and editions. Such, he alleged, prove a lack of inspiration of the English Bible.

To support the Summits position that the King James Bible is not inspired, Bob Marshall said that if God could inspire the translators, why couldnt he control the printers from making typesetting errors.

The inference to be drawn is that since he did not control the typesetters, the Spirit of God could not lead the translators into all truth.

That would be like asking, The Spirit of God must not be leading me to go to church, I might catch flu germs there. Marshalls example tries to merge the spiritual and the natural. Charismatics do that.

A typo by one printer does not

disannul the inspiration of the Holy Bible. To present his case, it was necessary for Marshall to re-write and misrepresent the history of the text of the Bible, as we shall see.

Marshall spoke out of ignorance, in my opinion, just like the other speakers, none of whom, it appears, including Marshall, have spent any serious or focused time studying the history of the text using primary, that is, original sources. The charge of naivety is preferable to a charge of dishonesty.
However, the Bible warns of greater condemnation for those who claim to be masters of a subject, when they truly are not.

Marshall wrongly states that the typo in the 1638 (I am the way, and the truth, and the life) was not fixed until 1769 by Benjamin Blayney. That is 131 years later!.

In fact, it was corrected immediately. It had been correct in the 1630 edition (London: Bonham Norton and John Bill) and is seen as correct in the 1672. Both says, I am the way, the truth, and the life.

Marshall presents a chart which reveals the typesetters of the 1638 accidentally remembering and typesetting the old reading of the Bishops Bible (and). However, with no historical documentation, Marshall gives his own revisionist history of the event.

Marshalls two errors:

1.) Marshall infers that in 1638 Boise and Ward fixed John 14:6 to the original intent of the translators. He cannot produce historical evidence that these men believed that this was the correct reading, particularly given the history of the 1611 reading and its use by Tyndale and Wycliffe, and as still seen in 1630 Bibles. Scholars record other 1638 typos.

2.) Marshall then wrongly states that it wasnt changed to the reading we now have until 1769 by Benjamin Blayney.

Marshall says in reference to John 14:6, I sat and collated these Bibles out by myselfIn 1611 said, No were gonna change. Its gonna be, I am the way, the truthBoise comes along and Ward says, ok no that should be, I am the way and the truth1769 Blayney, a one man editor, comes along and by the way what you have here is not a 1611. You have a 1769. And in here Benjamin Blayney, were gonna find out in a little bit, he began to make some changes. And one of the things is were gonna take out the word and and just leave it as the way, the truth. So the 1769, the Oxford by the way, Benjamin Blayney worked for Oxford University and so they adopted his changes and Cambridge kept those changes.

The 1638 edition had some of its own typos. The addition of the word and is just one of them.
Such typos cannot all be ascribed to the choices of Boise and Ward, because

1.) This typo was soon fixed by

1672 (that is the oldest edition I

have after 1638; it was likely fixed well before that since it is a popular New Testament verse). Blayney was not the first
to fix it in 1769!

2.) There is a logical reason for the typo.

John 14:6 is an example of the evolution of English usage. Today we say, I have a pencil, paper, and a book. The Greek, Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, and Early English language would have said, I have a pencil, and paper, and a book.

Wycliffe began using the modern usage, I am weye, treuthe, and lyf (1384).
Tyndale followed in like manner with: I am the waye, the truthe, and the life. Erasmus Paraphrases in 1548 did not use and saying, I am the way, the trueth,

However, Coverdale (1535) and his Great Bible (1540) still retained the old English usage, which was brought forward into the Bishops Bible (1568). The King James Bible translators however followed the earliest English Bibles with way, the truth. They did not invent or introduce the reading.

Mr. Marshall has just added false fuel to his thesis that the English Bible is unstable and that one man over one-hundred and thirty years after 1611 could add a word to the Bible.
The 1611 was identical to the 1769 in his example of how what you have here is not a 1611. You have a 1769.

In truth, the words from his example (John 14:6), are the same words as the Wycliffe, Tyndale, King James 1611, and today.
(He cannot allege that the evolution of the spelling of these words disannuls their inspiration.)

Marshall makes more mistakes

Marshall did not correctly represent the Bibles in 2 Chron. 33:19. He presents the Bishops Bible as omitting the word and. The Bishops does NOT OMIT the word and.

A correct chronological representation of 2 Chron. 33:19 would show spelling changes and one typo.
Coverdale: Geneva 1599: Bishops: 1611: 1630: 1638: 1672: 1824: Cambridge: and all his synne and all his sinne and all his sinnes and all his sinne and all his sinne and all his sinne and all his sinne and all his sin and all his sin

The few typos in the current Scofield, which were brought forward from Blayney, who perhaps made reference to a typo in the Bishops DOES not disannul the fact that God has had the correct reading in Bibles consistently all through the centuries. The Coverdale and Geneva Bibles were concurrent with the typo in the Bishops. Other printers were correct while Blayney and Scofield had it wrong.

Summary:
Marshalls two errors, misrepresenting the history of the text, give the false impression that our Bibles text has not been consistent.

1.) The Bishops has and in 2 Chron. 33:19. 2.) Blayney was not the one who was the first to remove and in John 14:6.

Marshall errs further by misrepresenting what is merely an evolution of spelling, as a change of words in 1 Tim. 2:9.
The study of the history of the Bible requires a thorough understanding of letters, the various ways each has been sounded throughout history, and the evolution of English spelling.

Marshall mistakenly communicates that the word shamefastnesse has a different meaning than the word shamefacedness.

Marshall makes this allegation and presents this example to support his thesis that the King James Bible has not been consistent and that we are somehow getting the wrong meaning today from our Bibles for that word. In fact, they are the same word, with the same meaning.

Marshall says Blayney changed shamefastnesse to shamefacedness. Marshall says, Now shamefastnesse in context deals with a sobriety of behavior, a modesty in decorum, and how you behave. However the word shamefacedness, you look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary that means to be ashamed. I dont think that passage is telling us to be ashamed. Its talking about a decorum of behavior. This is some of the things that Blayney comes through and makes in his changes.

Marshall has misrepresented the OED, as it does define shamefacedness as Modesty (OED Unabridged, vol. 15). The King James Bibles built-in dictionary solves Marshalls problem, as it defines shamefacedness, with the next word sobriety. There is no chance the reader will not understand the word shamefacedness.

Marshall says the Oxford English Dictionary defines shamefacedness as ashamed, which he says does not match in meaning shamefastness.
However my 20 volume unabridged Oxford English Dictionary also defined shamefastness as a feeling of shame, ashamedness. So if he is implying that he wants to go back to the word shamefast he will have to deal with the word ashamedness and shame with that spelling also.
(How could a word that has the word shame as its prefatory component, not have anything to do with the word shame? Perhaps he is mis-defining shame.)

Oxford English Dictionary shamefaced 1.Modest, bashful2.) Ashamed It echoes the same for:

shamefast 1.) Bashful, modest2.) Ashamed

The OED simply identifies shamefastness as being arch, that is, archaic.

That is why the spelling changed.

Marshall is wrongly stating that the word in our current Bibles, is wrong in its inference. The fact is that they are the same word, with the same meaning.
The word has evolved in its spelling.

The questioned phoneme is fast or faced, the former coming from the word faest. It is possible that all three words might have been pronounced faced. Faest might also have been pronounced faced. The extra vowel e could be silent and give the a a long a sound, as in faced.

The t (fast, faest) and the d (faced) endings are often interchangeable in English (burnt, burned).
Grimms Law states that t and d move freely and interchange identically across the European languages (Romance and Germanic).

The s in fast is pronounced like the c in faced.

Does Marshalls inexperience in linguistics causes him to invariably read fast as if it were a homonym fast, meaning quickly? Is he unfamiliar with the original spelling of fast as faest, and its potentially variant pronunciation as faced?

The whole impression one might gather from Marshalls presentation is that the text of the English Bible has been in a constant state of flux. The only evidence put forth to support his thrust were a few paltry typos by a one or two printers.

Marshalls speech might have given the naive the impression that the text of the English Bible had been wrong and needed revision. In fact, only the spelling and English language was evolving. He said,

Marshall said,

He refers to re-printings of often the identical Bible as editions, giving the impression that the Bible text is ever evolving. He said:

The truth is that many of the editions involved merely changes were of size, shape (e.g. folio, quarto), font (Gothic, Roman), and book design and contents (maps, notes, etc).

The Geneva had only 2, not 144 noteworthy textual revisions. These were by Tomson (N.T.) and Junius (for Revelation). This did not affect the true Bible as the Calvinist users of this Bible were working on the theological fringes of true Christianity.

Marshall cites the KJB translators who used the word meanest in reference to earlier English Bibles.

However, mean has two meanings.

Marshall has combined them and has ascribed the wrong one to this context. This mean means not low, but middle, average, like a mean in arithmetic
(See both in two different citations in the OED unabridged).

They were referring to the commonly used Bible.

Marshall said, You cannot say a translation is error free.

If he had said, You cant say all printings or all editions have been error free, that would have been more correct.

Acting as if the Bible was something that can be altered by anyone, he said that between 1611 and 1617 text corrections brought into agreement with the originals were introduced. In fact only typos were fixed.

Marshall cites (and the Summit bibliography lists) Scriveners and Nortons erring books as resources for KJB spelling errors!
Following books such as these, it is no wonder some do not believe the KJB is inspired. Neither Scrivener, nor Norton believe it is inspired.

In an effort to discredit the Holy Bible, Scrivener and Norton have collected the typos of various printers. They then list these, in an effort to give the impression that a standard Bible does not exist.

They do not tell you that while one printer is producing an edition with a typo, many other printers are printing Bibles without such a typo.

Frederick Scrivener, in 1873, created a new KJB, called the Cambridge Paragraph Bible (now published by Hendrickson).

Scrivener made many wrong changes to the KJB.

To promote his new KJB, Scrivener had to discredit the real KJB.
So he wrote the book cited by the Summit, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives, which showed typos which had occurred over the years by various printers of the KJB.

To make the current KJB look bad, Scrivener used the wrong 1611 as the standard, based on bad advise from his fellow RV committee member, B.F. Westcott!!!

All scholars know that Scrivener used the wrong issue of the KJB as his standard.
Even W.F. Moulton in his The History of the English Bible said, Scrivener confused the two issues of 1611. His first edition was the second and his second was the first.

A.W. Pollard, a leading 19th century expert on the early editions said,

A still more serious error was committed by the distinguished scholar F.H.A. Scrivener, who in 1884, in his bookargued strenuously, but in entire ignorancethat copies of the (second) editiondated 1611 preceded the (first) editionthe true sequence is obvious. This is now generally recognized (Pollard, Records of the English Bible).

Scrivener copied the error of the first 1611, saying he went in Ruth 3:15 instead of the correct she went. He changed the correct its to it in Lev. 25:5.
He put all of 1 John 5:7 in italics because he did not like it!!

Scrivener wrongly undid some of the typographical repairs made by the original KJB translators Ward and Boise in 1629 and 1638.
He re-did the KJBs paragraphing and italics, based on his own personal ideas! Unless you have read his book, Six Lectures, you have no idea how extremely critical he is of many of the Bibles important VERSES!

David Norton, now in the century, made his own new KJB, laden with changes. To promote it, he did exactly what Scrivener did. He not only wrote a book, A Textual History of the King James Bible, listing typos, he did it using Scriveners mistakes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

st 21

Nortons A Textual History of the King James Bible has the incorrect shewed, instead of hewed in Hosea 6:5, following a typo in the first 1611 issue, among other errors.

When Marshall came to Riplingers home in September of 2008 to ask questions about the history of the KJB text, she warned him about the well-known errors in Scriveners book on typos and consequently in Nortons book. He apparently chose to ignore the advice to the detriment of his audience.

Beware of the old liberals concept inspiration, when men, such as Bob Marshall, says that the Greek and Hebrew are the contents and vernacular Bibles are only the container which takes the message.

Our Holy Bible was degraded when Marshall said,

Im not interested in the container. The container is not the issue.

He called the English Holy Bibles only the container that takes the word of God

In truth, the Holy Bible is the word of God. The Bible draws no such distinctions between languages, as evidenced by the gift of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2, where God gifted men to carry the word of God to every nation under heaven.

There are no second class Christians, to whom God has given inferior Bibles.

Another historical mistake was made when Bob Marshall said, Wycliffe took his Latin Vulgate and translated it into English. (Mr. Vogel also echoed this error, saying, John Wycliffehe translated it from the Latin Vulgate.)
Many scholars repeat this error, therefore he is not to be blamed.

In fact, Wycliffe himself said, the common Latin bible has more need to be corrected, as many as I have seen in my life, than the English bible late translated (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 789).

Beware when someone says that Wycliffe used the corrupt Latin Vulgate when: 1.) In 1378 Wycliffe said in his book On the Truth of Holy Scripture that the corrupt Latin was corrected by Hebrew manuscripts and corrected according to the Greek exemplar (pp. 143, 157).

2.) Wycliffes bones were dug up and scattered by the Catholics for writing an English Bible that did not match the Latin Vulgate.
3.) The myth began because the 1850 Madden and Forshall, edition edited by Purvey, is misnamed Wycliffe. It contains Purveys corrupt Vulgate readings.

According to the Cambridge History of the Bible, the myth that Wycliffe translated from the Latin Vulgate sprang from the front page of an 1850 edition by Frederic Madden and Josiah Forshall.

Also, Strongs (and McClintocks) Cyclopedia says,

Purveys translation of the New Test. was first published by Lewis (Lond. 1731, fol.) as Wycliffes translation; it was then erroneously reprinted as Wycliffes by Baker (London 1810, 4to), and by Bagster in the English Hexapla.

After Wycliffes death, his assistants, Purvey and Herford, were pressured to recant their participation with Wycliffe. They then edited Wycliffes text, reintroducing the Catholic Latin Vulgate readings. These corrupt Catholic readings were then ascribed to Wycliffe by those who are unfamiliar with the history of his text.
The complete 16 page history, entitled, Wycliffe vs. Cloud is available from A.V. Publications (1-800-435-4535).

Marshall infers that English Bibles were not flawless. He asks, why would they need to be changed?

Marshall said:

One very close friend of Jack Schaap said that if he and his speakers had read In Awe of Thy Word, they would not be making all of these mistakes.

The book In Awe of Thy Word gives over 300 pages documenting exactly WHY and WHAT the changes are between the KJB and the earlier English Bibles.

Were KJB translator Lancelot Andrews five hours a day of prayer answered, as God turned the

Sleek and Perfect English Swan

into a

stunning and perfect peacock,

perched for all nations?

The King James Translation became: 1.) even more easy to memorize
than the earlier English Bibles. 2.) a more separate from sinners vocabulary than the earlier English Bibles. (Early English Bibles used common vocabulary; the KJB used a holy, undefiled, separate from sinners vocabulary.

The Bishops Bible (1500s) said: We always bear about in the body The KJB has the b sound hitting rhythmically after every two syllables. Al ways bear ing a bout in the bo dy (2 Cor. 4:10). __ b __ b __ b __

Pure Bishops vs. pure rhythmic KJB

Bishops Increase was plenteous Fashioned changed King James Bible bound abound conformed transformed

Bishops 1568 sounds modern

KJB 1611 is separate from sinners

Yes, Lord: for You Clothes Lusted Places Took me not Dear Gave Who is this? The rulers Evil doers grave

Trueth Lord: yet Ye Raiment Listed Chambers Laid no hold on me Beloved Yielded What manner of man is this? Magistrates Malefactors sepulcher

Edinburgh Associative Thesaurus Word Association Response

Dear (Bishops): Sir, madam, girl, enemy, foe, animal, dog, hamster, inmate Beloved (KJB): wife, darling, loved, child, God, heart, cared, Christ, church, family

Bishops (1500s) Gatherinto his barn

KJB (1600s): Gatherinto his garner barn is easier; garner is more poetic and more easily memorized. The KJB taught the reader what a barn is by matching the letters in garner with its defining gather.

The early English Bibles were no less inspired; they were not incorrect and in need of correction in the places the KJB translators changed. Early English bibles were not corrected of bald errors, but made higher, like Jesus, the Word.
God is God; he merely went up an octave in the KJB. The Bible was purified seven times, according to Psalm 12. Each time was pure.

Marshall wrongly said,

Of their translation, the KJB translators actually said their intent was to translate one principle good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.

In plainer words, they wanted to make a translation that was flawless, of which no one could say it was good, except this and that flaw.

They referred to their product as being the perfected end of what others had started
(See In Awe, p. 561).

The impression given that the text was and is not stable, strips our Holy Bible of its authority. Marshall calls it a constant journey pursuing this English Bible. Marshall said it was:

In spite of the fact that the previous English Bibles were pure and given by God, but in a simplier English style, Marshall gives the impression that they were not superintended by God, and needed corrections. He said,

The location of the work of the King James Bible translation was misrepresented throughout the Summit (e.g. Ken Schaap). For example, Bob Marshall refers to the translators as the men who made up Hampton Court. He said, The Hamptons Court said, then he went on to quote The Translators to the Reader.

In fact, the translators worked at several British universities; they never worked at King James Hampton Court, where James first was asked to produce the KJB.

Folly Number 5 manifest

Beware of anyone, such as Jack Schaap, who chides those who say perfect means perfect.
(Have you read the novel 1984 where words get new meanings?)

Schaap concluded that since none of you are perfect, therefore the word must not mean perfect.

Schaap asks, How do you determine the word perfect? How do you define that word? As the Bible defines it or as Merriam Webster defines it.
Both the Bible and the dictionary define perfect as we normally understand perfect.

In fact, our imperfection does not change the Bibles definition of perfect, which is even, as your Fatheris.
as means the same as.

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Mat. 5:48
The word even is used in the Bible as a direct parallel.

When two items are even, or the same height, they are the same.

How does the Bible define perfect?

James 1:25 speaks of the perfect law of liberty. Does it have errors?

James 1:4 parallels perfect with entire, wanting nothing.

1 Cor. 13:10 says, But when that which is perfect is come. Will that not be perfect, as we understand the word?

Marshall cannot even pretend that his container is less perfect than its contents, as Hebrews 9:11 speaks of the perfect tabernacle, which is a container of the word of God. Gods containers are perfect.

The first usage of perfect in the Bible, parallels it with just.

Job 1:1 parallels it with upright.

Psalm 19:7 says, The law of the Lord is perfect. It parallels it with sure. Proverbs 30:5 says, Every word of God is pure. The Bible says further that, Thy words are very pure.

Beware of statements, such as those by Schaap who said, The Greek word there for perfect does not imply a flawlessness.

The Websters dictionary says perfect does mean flawless.

Schaaps comment, the Greek word there has no antecedent. Where?

The English word perfect is a translation of about a half dozen Greek words.

It most often comes from teleios, which is generally translated perfect.

The origin of distrust in the flawlessness of the KJB can be seen in the Summit Bibliography, which cites corrupt Greek lexicons by men who hated Gods call to perfection.

Beware of the Summits Glossary, distributed on a CD-ROM, or a new version which defines perfect as only complete, just like the NIV and new versions.

New versions

KJB

complete 2 Cor. 13:11 perfect complete Rev. 3:2 perfect

complete 1 Thes. 5:23 perfect complete Matt. 19: 21 perfect

Perfect is qualitative. Complete is quantitative. A product made in China may be complete, having all its parts, but it will not be perfect. College students may complete their education at a school that does not believe the Bible is inspired, but it will not be a perfect education.

The liberal shift from perfect to complete comes from corrupt lexicons by Wuest, Moulton and other corrupt lexicographers, cited in Summit Bibliography.

Wuest cites the Unitarian J.H. Thayer as saying that the word perfect means completeness.

He adds, The word completeness speaks of a well-rounded Christian characterproper balance

A balance of hot and cold is lukewarm.

The Bible calls the bluff of the Summit Glossary and new versions which want to define perfect as merely complete.
Col. 4:12 says, stand perfect and complete This verse has two different Greek words for complete and perfect.

1.) perfect is teleioi 2.) complete comes from the root word, plero. When God wants to say complete, he normally says pleroo, not teleioi.
(Rev. 3:2 translates pleroo as perfect because the works were notperfect. All perfect things are complete; but all complete things are not perfect.)

Folly Number 6 manifest

Mr. Ted Speer, another Professor of Bible, spoke at the Summit. The last half of his second presentation was intended to prove from the Bible that the word perfect is not used to mean without error.
He repeats, if we say that perfect means without error and if perfect meant without error or without sin

To build his case that if we call the Bible perfect it does not have to mean that the KJB is without error, he gives the examples of Job and Noah who are described as perfect in the Bible. He says perfect therefore does not mean without sin.

What sort of Professor of Bible would not know that Gods requirement for Noah and Job to be called righteous and perfect before him were the same as they are for us? We admit we are sinners and we look to a sacrifice for those sins, just as both Noah and Job did (Gen. 8:20 and Job 1:5).

When Speer went through a list of synonyms used for words sometimes translated as perfect, he failed to focus upon the usages of
without spot and undefiled.

These words both mean without error.

Speer spent a great deal of time trying to prove that the word perfect does not mean without error. He asks, Is our King James Bible perfect? Yes, if you define perfect by the biblical standard of what the word means. It is whole. It is complete. It is sound

In other words, the KJB is, by his definitions, not without error, merely complete, whole, sound.

Any liberal would agree

Speer says the words word of God can be used in reference to the King James Bible, even though it may not be without error.
He is using the words word of God as a neologism*. He is also using the word perfect as a neologism*

How do the liberals (and now the fringes of fundamentalism!) deal with words, such as word of God, Bible, etc.?

They use neologisms:

A new, meaning for an already established word.

Perfect does not mean perfect. A Bible is not your Bible. The word of God is not Gods actual words. Next: Kool-aid is no longer just Kool-aid.

They say that the Bible is the inspired word of God. But they do not mean the Holy Bible (KJB), but the originals or unreadable manuscripts in museums. They do not really mean that it is Gods words, but the words of the KJB translators to express Gods words.

Though they say, Open your Bible to and all dictionaries say:
Bible: The sacred book of Christianity. (all dictionaries) Book: a set of written or printed pages fastened on an end and enclosed between protective covers. (all dictionaries) They really think it is lost animal skin originals or rolled scrolls in museums.

Oxford English Dictionary

Bible: The scriptures of the Old and New Testament.

In normal usage, All scripture is given by inspiration of God means that the Bible is given by inspiration of God.

Word Normal

Neologism

usage
Bible: Holy Bible in Lost originals; your lap Greek or Hebrew manuscripts word Gods words Mans feeble of attempt to God discern Gods words

B.B. Warfield and Carl Barth were two liberal theologians who were among the first to invent imaginary castles outside of the tangible Holy Bible to house the word of God.

Barth said that the word of God was really Jesus, not the Bible, so he capitalized W. (Good folks still copy that by mistake.) Warfield (and his teacher Hodge) moved the locus of inspiration from the Bible to the originals.

Warfield studied under German rationalists who had been influenced by the enlightenment philosophers who exalt human reason and rule out revelation as a source of knowledge.

Spoil you through philosophy Col. 2:8

They were influenced by philosophers Schleiermacher, Hume, and Kant, who denied any miraculous intervention by God.

Warfield said the originals were lost and could be reconstructed by Westcott and Hort who Warfield said, furnish us for the first time with a really scientific method which will meet with speedy universal acceptance.

Naturalistic empiricism
The natural sciences, falsely so called, demand evidence of linear causation. To get from point A to point Z, they demand physical evidence. The theory of evolution is just one example.

Theology Departments Their counterparts in the religion department at seminaries, now demand physical proof, like doubting Thomas, of the mileposts marking Gods intervention in the history of the Holy Bible.

But without faith it is impossible to please God. Eccl 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit.
[B]lessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed John 20:29

God said he would do wonders to carry his word forward in Josh. 3:4-7. There is no physical proof that the waters of the Jordan opened to allow the passage of the ark, containing the word of God, yet we have those words today.

Warfield should have listened to his elders

Thirty years earlier, Warfields grandfather had single handedly stopped the wavering American Bible Society from redoing the KJB. With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding Job 12:12

These naturalistic philosophers all moved their faith from faith in the Holy Bible to faith in men.
Translators & Textual critics

Warfield invented a plan whereby he could still say The Bible is the inspired word of God.
He used Semlers Theory of Accomodation, using the familiar word Bible, but ascribing to it a different meaning.

We have theologians and fundamental pastors who are now following this non-soulwinning Presbyterian Calvinist saying, The Bible is the inspired word of God, when they mean only Greek and Hebrew originals or manuscripts, not real Bibles. They use these words to deceptively accommodate to what they believe are the nave views of their members.

These men have become rationalists, naturalists, and modernists in practice by exalting mans role in the transmission of the Bible and denying the miraculous intervention of God. Thou shalt preserve them. It is his work. What shall he preserve? The words of the Lord, not the words of men.

What does word of God mean according to the Bible?

1 Thes. 2:13 says, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God

One cannot call the King James Bible the word of God, as Mr. Speer did, unless he believes that it is Gods unchangeable words, not the words of the KJB translators.

1 Cor. 2:13 says,

Not in the words which mans wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual

Word of God
Those who say that their non-inspired Bible is the word of God are changing the meaning of those words from their usual usage. The words of John are Johns words, not Toms words. The words of God, are Gods words, not those of the KJB translators.

The Bibles built-in dictionary defines the word of God as the scriptures.

John 10:35 says, the word of God came, and the scriptures cannot be broken.
John 5:38, 39, And ye have not his word abiding in you...search the scriptures Acts 17:11 says, they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures

Gods words, not translators words

when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye

received it not as the word of

men, but as it is in truth, the

word of God 1 Thes. 2:13

Folly Number 7 manifest

Beware when someone, such as Summit speaker, Darryl Whitehouse, cites Jerry Falwell, and other good men, who corrected the KJB, as an excuse to do it yourself.

Ted Speer also cites great men, such as John R. Rice, Joe Boyd, and Jack Hyles, all of whom he says believed at one time or another that the KJB was flat out wrong in places and could be corrected in places.

Darryl Whitehouse also cites great preachers like Lee Robertson, Tom Malone, G.B. Vick, and D.L. Moody, some of whom, he asserts, used versions such as the American Standard Version or Revised Standard Version.

To point to men, instead of the Bible, one must forget that: Many of the kings in the Old Testament, which God described as good, were also described as failing to take down the high places. The great man of faith, Joshua, was deceived by the moldy bread of the Gibeonites.

Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Moses and David murdered men, etc. Great mens shortcomings at one juncture in their lives, do not disannul the good they did, but their shortcomings, while growing in grace, need not be an excuse to do likewise.

Folly Number 8 manifest

Summit speaker, Tom Vogel, made a grievous error by stating that the Apocrypha was in all but one English Bible until about 1880.

Vogel said,
Whats important about the Apocrypha, I think, is that the apocrypha has been included in e v e r y Bible [drawn out emphasis on the word e v e r y] from that time until about 1880 except one year in 1629 there was an edition that did not have it. But in 1880 the American Bible Society decided to leave it out of the Bible and from that time until this it has never been in our English Bible

To prove Vogels error, see The Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture by T.H. Darlow and H.F. Moule (originally published,
London 1903-1911 by The British and Foreign Bible Society)

These volumes list and describe in detail all printed Bibles. Volume 1 describes every English Bible printed from 1525 to 1862.

Traversing this over 400 page book, one can scarcely go past several pages without finding a note that says: No Apocrypha The Apocrypha, though mentioned in the list of Books, were perhaps omitted, as the signatures run continuously through the O.T. and N.T. with the Apocrypha omitted (e.g. p. 183). wanting the Apocrypha wants Apocrypha

wanting all the Apocrypha

1640 This seems to be the earliest example of an English Bible which deliberately omits the Apocrypha from the list of books (Darlow and Moule, Vol. 1, p. 187). The insertion of the Apocrypha interrupts the signatures. (It was inserted later.)

In fact as early as 1612 Barker of London printed it without the apocrypha. In fact, King James himself said in his book Basilikon Doron, As to the Apocryphal books, I omit them because I am no papist.

I quickly noted the following editions, without the Apocrapha, available from an antiquarian bookseller.
1.) quarto edition of the Great Bible of 1549, 2.) many copies of the 1599 Geneva, 3.) a quarto edition of the Bishops of 1577 4.) KJBs from 1637, 1653, 1662, 1682 etc.

It had never been a part of the signatures in many other editions between 1611 and 1880:

Years ago I had planned on buying an edition without the Apocrypha to prove that it was not called for in all editions. When I searched for one to buy, I found that there were tons of them, which made the purchase to prove the point, unnecessary. (Go through the past catalogues of Peter Cresswell, Antiquarian Bibles, South Humberside, England: Humber Books, Catalogue 23 et al; TBS, No. 31, et al.).

Like many of the other speakers, Mr. Vogel has made a broad sweeping statement that does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. He errs saying that every Bible (except 1629) included it, whereas there were numerous ones that did not include it in the signatures, the table of contents, or the printing.

Incidentally, Darlow and Moule list no edition of 1629 that did not include the Apocrypha; therefore that appears to be an error also.

Unfortunately Vogels statement that from that time until this it has never been in our English Bible is also incorrect.
Recently, editions of some modern (Protestant) editions have included the Apocrypha.

Vogel said that Jerome was pretty true to the Greek in his original translation. Beware when Jeromes vile corruption of the pure Old Latin Bible is described as a good translation from the Greek. In fact, Jerome used the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus type Greek, not the pure Greek text.

Jerome admitted in his Preface, You [Pope Damasus] urge me to revise the Old Latin, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of Scriptures which are now scattered throughout the worldIs there not a man, learned or unlearned, who will not, when he takes the volume in handcall me a forger and a profane person for having had the audacity to add anything to the ancient books, or to make changes (In Awe, p. 963)

In Jeromes Prologue to the Catholic Epistles, Preserved in the Codex Fuldensis (PL 29, 827-31), he admits that Christianshave pronounced to have branded me a falsifier and corrupter of the Sacred Scriptures.
(Lit. qui me flasarium corruptoremque sacrarum pronunciant Scripturarum.

The pure Old Latin was corrupted by Jerome. Metzger admits,

His revision of the Latin Bible provoked both criticism and anger, sometimes with extraordinary vehemence. (Metzger, Early Version, p. 334 et al.).

Vogel said without qualification that, 200 B.C. the Old Testament was translated into the educated language of the day which was Greek and we call that the Septuagint. Bob Marshall also mentioned this version. It is a common misconception.

The myth that it is a B.C. document is based only upon, what all scholars agree is, the Pseudo (counterfeit) Letter of Aristeas, not on any extant complete B.C. Old Testament in Greek.

Beware when the Septuagint is extolled as a Greek Old Testament, written before the time of Christ.
In fact it is actually Origins fifth column, written in the third century after Christ.

All currently printed editions of the Septuagint admit they follow A.D. documents, such as Vaticanus and Alexandrinus.

The Summits focus on our changing Bible, was enhanced by

Vogels mistranscription
of the Old English thorn () (which sound like th). He thought it was a p. His mistaken transcription made a Bible more difficult to read than necessary. He said:

Correctly pronounce the thorn as th and drop the inflected ending and ia becomes thi that is, thy. And which becomes thou that

Wouldnt it be better for a college to educate their hearers, simply showing that the English Bible has always been the same, than to show a slide quickly and infer that the Bible is changing?

Lets learn to read Gothic and Anglo-Saxon in 30 seconds Simply remove the prefixes (e.g. ge) and inflected ending suffixes from words.

gebiddao becomes bid, that is, pray. gehadgod can be recognized as hallowed
nama becomes name eart becomes art Heafonum becomes heaven

Vogel exaggerates saying that Erasmus Greek New Testament of 1515 was seriously flawed.

The Summit Bibliography cites King James Bible critic Doug Kutilek as a source for information.

Vogel repeated the myth, used by Kutilek, that Erasmus rushed through his Greek edition as soon as he could, as he was basically in a race to beat someone else to the bookstores...

Kutilek was sorely refuted in an extensive chapter on Erasmus in In Awe of Thy Word (e.g. p. 936 et al).
Kutileks footnote documenting his claim about Erasmus rushing, when checked, does not exist. (See In Awe, chapter on Erasmus).
This is a standard myth often repeated by critical text scholars.

Yale University Presss book The Reformation of the Bible responds to the myth that Erasmus worked quickly saying that Erasmus himself wrote that he had been working on his edition for two years (In
Awe, p. 935).

Froudes Life and Letters of Erasmus indicates that he worked on it for many years. Noted historian Will Durant said, The preparation had taken years (In Awe, p. 936).

Vogels sources (listed in the Summit Bibliography) provide the standard myths about Erasmus. Vogel echoes the KJB critics, saying,
He [Erasmus] did have some problems. He had about six texts that he compiled the Greek from.

Another KJB critic (not from the Summit) echoes, Seven manuscripts were used by Erasmus in Basel to compile the Greek text
Of Vogel (and others) alleged six manuscripts, The Cambridge History of the Bible states that: It is an exaggeration to maintain, as some do, that Erasmus only used the Greek manuscripts that he had found in the library of the Basle Dominicans for his edition. (vol. 2, p. 498).

Vogel further impugns the good text of Erasmus saying, But he didnt have the book of Revelation. So he took the Latin Vulgate from the Catholic Church and backtranslated it into Greek to have a complete Greek New Testament. So that the Greek that he had at least for the book of Revelation and some other passages was suspect

Calling a text suspect which echoes the readings of all pure Bibles cast aspersions on the King James Bible, which follows the text of Erasmus in perhaps 80 special places.

Taking a magnifying glass to just one of Erasmuss readings in Revelation (e.g. book of life), we see: 1.) Herman Hoskier, the pre-eminent collator of the manuscripts of Revelation said that Erasmus did not take this reading from the Latin, but from Greek Manuscript 2049 or 141. Greek manuscripts such as 051, 296, 2049, 2067mg have Erasmuss choice also.

2.) The Greek Andreas manuscripts echo Erasmus choice.

3.) Ancient Coptic and Arabic Bibles echo Erasmus choices for Revelation (e.g. book of life).

Calling Erasmus text suspect cannot be done, when even the most criticized elements of his text are examined with a microscope.
Those words, which KJB critics pretend were taken from Latin, can be traces to Greek manuscripts easily. Note the following

1.) MSS 296 and 2066 and 17 of Hoskiers Greek cursives have and in Rev. 22:16.
2.) Greek MSS 209, 218, 254, 296, 1894, 2049, 2050, 2066, 2075, 2312, as well as ancient Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Arabic Bibles have the second and in Rev. 22:17.

3.) Greek MS 2066 and 8 of Hoskiers cursives, as well as the ancient Coptic and Ethiopic Bibles have for in Rev. 22:18.
4.) Greek MS 296, 2049, and the ancient Arabic Bible have [A]nd from the things which are written in this book. 5.) Greek MS 296, 2050, 2066, and 15 of Hoskiers cursives, as well as the ancient Ethiopic Bible have you, in Rev. 22:21.

As discussed in Hazardous Materials, the Greek Orthodox church often omitted the book of Revelation because it contained the warning to the Greek-speaking churches of Asia. Unfortunately the Originall Greeke of the KJB translators is not preserved. All of Europes pure Holy Bibles match Erasmuss book of Revelation.

1.) Erasmus would have had the witness of pure Old Latin (before Jeromes corrupt Latin Vulgate) manuscripts such as c(6), dem (59), g(51), h(55), m (PS-AU spe), reg (T), t (56), and z (65). (In Awe, p. 962). 2.) He would have had the West Flemish book of Revelation from A.D. 1280. 3.) Erasmus questioned last six verses of Revelation are identical to the Dutch Bijbel of his homeland, as seen in the still available 1618 edition. (For example, it has het boek des levens, which is the book of life, not the tree of life).

Erasmus would have accessed the Dutch translation of Revelation by Johan Schutkenin of 1383 and the Delft Bible of 1477. These were not taken from the Latin Vulgate from the Catholic Church.
See In Awe of Thy Word (chapter 27) for numerous other demonstrations which prove that Erasmus did not take his book of Revelation from the Catholic Bible.

Spouting the typical liberal viewpoint, which infers that the Bible has only sporadically been in the hands of men, Vogel says,
In 1522 Martin Luther translated the New Testament into German.

Of course this is true, however, the German people had a pure Bible long before that.

Luther had scores of previous German Bibles with which to work, whose origin was from the original gift of tongues in Acts 2 (e.g. the first Germanic Bible was Gothic, spoken B.C. near the Black Sea).
In fact, in following Greek Luther omitted the Trinity in 1 John 5:7. The Germans had previously included it. When he died, the Germans put it back, until recently.

Acts 2 Gothic to Germanic Line

Gothic (1 A.D) Bavarian (600) Frisian (800) East Franconian (830) Saxon (850) West Flemish (1280) German-Dutch (1231) Liege Diatessaron (1250)
Rijmbible (1280) Matthew of Beheim 1343 Augsburg (1350) Schutkenin 1383 Teple 1389 Mentel 1466 Eggestein 1479 Pflanzmann 1474 Luther 1500s to present
For more detail see The History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7 by Michael Maynard

Vogel perhaps should not have said that Tyndales was the first New Testament in the English language.

Statements such as these (re: Luther and Tyndale) infer that there was no Bible for the people before these men. This follows the liberals notion that God had not preserved his word to all generations as the Bible states.

This was a portion from the English Bible in John 1:12-15 in 1350 before Wycliffe and Tyndale. This is English and almost identical to the KJB!
his name/which not of blod. Nether of the will of fleish. Nether of the will of man but be born of

God/ and the word (this is Gods Son) was mead

fleisth (or man) and hath dwellid among us/and we han seyn the glorie of him the glorie as of the oon bigetn of the fadir the sone ful of grace and of treuthe/ John bear witnessig of him and cryeth

seyige/ This See p. 743-744 of In Awe of Thy Word.

In keeping with the Summits apparent thrust to avoid presenting a continuity of Bible preservation, Vogel misrepresents the line of the British monarchy. He wrongly says, Henry died and Queen Mary took the throne in 1553.

Vogels PowerPoint image also wrongly states,

Queen Mary I 1553 A.D. Succeeded Henry VIII to the throne of England.

The truth is Henrys son Edward succeeded Henry VIII to the throne of England. Edwards six year reign was one of historys greatest in terms of the printing and promotion of the Holy Bible.

When Edward was crowned he was given three swords. He asked were the fourth was The Bible, the sword of the Spirit, and to be preferred before these swords, he said.

Edward had 31 printers set about printing only Holy Bibles. He wanted every person to read the same as the very lively word of God (Foxe, vol. 5, p. 708).
In 1547 Edward brought back the old British custom of reading the Scripture in a language understanded of the people (Dore, 1st ed. p. 52).

Edward said every Sunday at every service pastors should, read, one chapter of the New Testament in English[and] one chapter of the Old Testament. Edward made Coverdale his chaplain and together they commanded that churches take down and destroy all Catholic images (Foxe, vol. 5, pp. 707, 717; vol. 6, p. 4, 703).

Why did Vogel say Mary succeeded Henry? Was it because??? Edwards era and its focus on setting Gods gospel at liberty would have encouraged the saints (Foxe, Vol. 5, p. 592).
This is what happens when one does not do ones own research using primary sources and uses many of the rabid anti-KJV books, cited in the Summits Bibliography

The false impression that the Bible has been constantly changed is reinforced when Vogel says that There were 144 editions of the Geneva Bible. An edition is a new printing when they make a change. There were numerous changes in the Geneva Bible over the years.

The truth is almost all of the changes were of either size (e.g. folio, quarto), font (Gothic, Roman), and book design and contents (maps, etc). Darlow and Moule list only a few typos that were fixed.

The Geneva had only 2, not 144 actual textual revisions.

These were by Tomson (N.T.) and Junius (for Revelation).

Summary
This presentation has proven that those who seek to discredit the inspiration of English Holy Bibles have done so by:
1.) misrepresenting earlier Bibles 2.) misrepresenting data related to the Bible 3.) misrepresenting the length of time it took to fix certain typos 4.) misrepresenting the continuity and the meaning of Bible words.

Folly Number 9 manifest Some Disguise Presbyterians as Baptists.

Summit speakers, Darryl Whitehouse and Darryl Moore, both cited early Confessions of Faith which they called Baptist.
The men who wrote these articles were Calvinists.

Beware of Baptist Confessions of Faith which claim to express the historic Baptist view of inspiration, stating that only the originals were inspired. These confessions were not by born again Baptists but by unregenerate five point Calvinists.

The London Baptist Confession and its clone, the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, were written by five point Calvinists and were taken from the Confession of the Westminster Assembly the creed of all British and American Presbyterians.

These Confessions do not represent the historic Baptist position, as they also teach a mix of Calvinism and Charismatic theology. These confessions require:

1.) two ceremonial prerequisites to the Lords Supper baptism and the laying on of hands, which are both required in the Philadelphia Confession for a farther reception of the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia, Article XXXI).

According to these confessions of faith, salvation is for the elect only and elect infants, since according to them, only some men and angels are predestined or foreordained to eternal life.

On the other hand, the New Hampshire Baptist Confession said that
the Holy Bible was divinely inspired and it has God for its author
There is no mention of originals.

Folly Number 10 manifest

Beware of any notion that the typos in the 1611 KJB were correct and Bibles we have today are therefore wrong. Jack Schaaps March 4, 2009 sermon did just that.

There were some typos in the first printing of the KJB, since the typesetters were working in a very poor optical environment. 1.) They worked with a few candles for light, nowhere near the 32 candles needed to equal the light from only one 40-watt bulb. 2.) They set each letter by hand.


2.) Window apertures were quite small

in the 1600s and embrasures, allowing for a little more natural light, were not standard.

3.) This is all compounded by the fact

that until the 1700s, the science of grinding lenses for glasses, based on the principles of light refraction, had not yet developed; there were no prescription glasses!!

In truth, the currently printed KJBs match the Greek and Hebrew texts and all pure vernacular Bibles, worldwide. The KJB 1611 typos were soon fixed and all editions after 1638 generally exhibit the reading in todays KJBs.

The following verses were wrongly cited by Jack Schaap as correct in the 1611, but wrong in currently printed KJBs

Genesis 39:16: The 1611 typo her lord was corrected by 1638 and still stands correct in all KJBs today as his lord (Scrivener, p. 148). Lev. 20:11: The 1611 printers accidentally omitted surely. It was returned by original KJB translators, Ward and Boise, in the 1629 printing. It still stands correct in all KJBs today (Scrivener, p. 148).

Jer. 4:6: The 1611 introduced a typo, adding an s to standards; it was corrected by original translators by 1629 to standard and stands correct in all KJBs today. (Scrivener, p. 168).
Ezek. 24:7: The 1611 had the typo poured it; it was fixed by original translators to poured it not by the 1613 printing and still stands correct in all KJBs today (Scrivener, p. 170).

Hebrews 3:10: The 1611 had the typo hearts ; it was corrected by original KJB translators to heart by 1638 and still stands correct in all KJBs today.
(Scrivener, p. 193).

Matt. 12:23: The 1611 accidentally omitted the word not; it was returned by original KJB translators by 1638.

Daniel 3:15: The 1611 accidentally omitted the word burning; it was returned to the text by 1638 by original KJB translators and still stands correct in all KJBs today. 1 Tim. 1:4: The 1611 had accidentally omitted the word godly; it was fixed by original KJB translators by 1638 (Scrivener, p. 192).

These typos may have been fixed much before 1638, but this is the earliest edition we can check.

If anyone has believed that sermon (that the 1611 was without typos), they went out and purchased the 1611 printed by the NKJVs publisher, Thomas Nelson. This will only compound the confusion as Thomas Nelson, in what appears to me to be an effort to discredit the KJB, printed the INCORRECT 1611 issue (1st, not 2nd).

Nelson actually printed the 1833 Oxford reprint of the first 1611, not the corrected second issue of 1611, which corrected many of the typos of the first run. Around 100 typos (very approximate) were corrected immediately, including, Ruth 3:15 which at first said, he went, instead of the correct she went.

None of the spelling variants or typos which have been reproduced have any doctrinal implications or create untrue statements (I am not referring to one time typos).

In Nahum 3:16 we have fleeth and flieth. If you flieth, you fleeth. In Jeremiah 34:16 we have he (God) or ye (the Hebrews). Both of them set at liberty.

Some editions of Cambridge vs. Oxford have a few tiny differences:

In Joshua 19:2 we see Beersheba, or Sheba or Beersheba, and Sheba. 2 Chron. 33:19 says all his sin and his trespass. Others say all his sins and his trespass. Either could be correct since both are plural since the words all and and indicate more that one sin. Chapter 33 is loaded with his sins.

A microscopic handful of current typographical or spelling variants by some printers have been scrapped together and marshaled as weapons to try to prove our Holy Bible is uninspired.

Words are spelled differently in each language. Implying that the varieties in spelling disannuls inspiration, would be to infer that the Greek Bible was not inspired because it spells words differently than the Hebrew Bible or because the Italian Bible spells words differently than the Spanish Bible.

Mr. Speer said of the 1611, the Nelson 1611, the Scofield, and the Cambridge editions,
Theyre all different. He didnt tell you where any differences were or the effect would be diminished to no effect at all.

The differences are few and MEANINGLESS differences. Such variances include things like:
Mispar vs Mizpar men children vs menchildren housetops vs house tops further vs farther Nicolaitans vs Nicolaitanes

Minute typos/variants of Scofield or Oxford

Rev. 18:14 lusteth vs lusted. 1 Sam. 17:48 hastened vs hasted Deut. 22:3 lost things vs. lost thing Deut. 24:10 And when thou dost vs. When thou dost 2 Sam. 16:15 people of the men vs people the men Rom. 8:33 anything vs. any thing Lev. 14:36 and all that vs. that all that

Most Christians, who are serious students of the word of God, have expressed a preference for the Cambridge Large Print Text only setting of the Bible.

Dr. Wally Beebe promoted it (Lexington, KY). AV Publications promotes it (Ararat, VA). Local Church Bible Publishers prints this edition (Lansing, MI).
Just because the Summit speakers seem to be lodged in the Scofield (a variant of the Oxford standard), they have assumed that since it has a few meaningless variants that no Bible is without them.

The only KJBs to avoid, if possible, are those published by Zondervan and the American Bible Society. They are beginning to use American, not International British spelling, which is recognized worldwide because Britain colonized Africa, the Far East, and the Middle East.

A great deal has been made of some variants between capital S and lower case s. Did Jack Schaap incorrectly say that the small s was man and upper case was the Holy Spirit? This would be entirely wrong.

Early alphabets (such as Greek, Hebrew, and others) did not distinguish between upper and lower case. All letters were capital letters. Therefore very early Bibles cannot be used as a measuring stick for this development in orthography.

English is of Germanic origins. Even German today capitalizes substantives (that is, nouns and pronouns, such as dog, cat, etc.) The capitalization of the word spirit has changed over the years in Germanic-based Bibles.

Often the Old Testament uses the lower case s for the Spirit of God, indicating that the capital and lower case s are interchangeable, as seen in the following:

1 Cor. 2:11-12 says, But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God.

Multiple Follies Made manifest

A few of the speakers at the Summit seemed to give the KJB translators preface more authority than the Holy Bible. They act as if it should be followed jot and tittle, but act as if the Holy Bible is not flawless. In fact, when the translators spoke, outside of the Bible, such as their preface, their words bear no more weight than those of any Christian.

Beware of anyone who gives the impression that the few marginal notes of the translators prove that they were not sure what rendering to put. God has not preserved their notes for all; but he has preserved his word for all.

Beware of those who give a long list of early English Bibles (Tyndale, Coverdale, Tavener, Great, Bishops) subtly giving the impression that the Bible can change all the time. In fact these Bibles were generally identical in their words, just not their spelling.

Folly Number 11 manifest

Saying that the Holy Bible is not inspired is a ploy borrowed from historys nonspiritual intellectuals and is now being adapted for use by those who are ever so slowly becoming the tattered fringes of fundamentalism.

Invariably the inspiration of the Holy Bible is shoved off on to the originals or to a Greek and Hebrew edition that only the professor or the college graduate can interpret for you.

F.H.A. Scriveners Greek Textus Receptus, (also called Bezas) printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society, is the closest to the KJB and is therefore used by many fundamental schools which teach Greek. Few know however, its origin and the problems in this edition, which sometimes make it a false friend.

Those who think that only Greek is inspired would be aghast to find out that the Greek text of Beza, underlying the TBS Scrivener text, was created in part as Beza consulted a Latin version of the Syriac Peshitta and a Latin translation of the Arabic N.T..

The Greek manuscripts and editions we now look at to determine the Greek text were often made by consulting vernacular Bibles, not Greek Bibles
(See Hoskiers Concerning the Genesis of the Versions of the N.T.)

Those Fundamental schools which feel that they must go to this TBS text to see the original Greek may be actually going in places from:
Syriac or Arabic into Latin [Tremellius et al.] Then Latin into Greek [Beza]

Also, the TBS text is not entirely Bezas.

Scrivener created it on his assignment as a member of the Revised Version committee, with Westcott and Hort. He was asked to back-translate the KJB into Greek by finding its original Greek source.

However, Scrivener did not do this in at least 20 (probably more than 60) places, where Scrivener exchanged
the KJBs good Greek reading with Bezas occasionally wrong reading. Scrivener pretended that the KJB did not have Greek backing in those places. The book, Hazardous Materials, proves that the KJB translators did have Greek backing.

Imagine the foolishness of going to a Greek text (TBS) that was based on the English King James Bible in the main in the first place.

In spite of the fact that the Greek text used at HAC is this slightly flawed Scrivener text, Bob Marshall, another Summit speaker, says,

The Greek text HAC uses (Scriveners) used an English translation (KJB) as its standard.

The inerrant and infallible Greek text that Marshall insists must still be preserved, is in fact preserved in the King James Bible, and in a language Marshall can read. Isnt God smart a Greek text and English lexicon in one book.

I publicly challenge the men of the Summit to give a bibliographic citation of Marshalls perfectly preserved and inerrant and infallible standard in Greek, so that we all can see it. Surely such an important book or manuscript must be readily accessible and identifiable. Post the name of such a document on your web site for all to see. Were waiting..

Using the TBS Beza-Scrivener-KJB hybrid will only confuse students and lead them to believe that their KJB does not follow the Greek text and is therefore NOT INSPIRED, because the KJB translators followed other Greek sources than Beza occasionally.
The KJB translators said on their title page that they followed the Originall Greeke and they did, as documented in Hazardous Materials.

The Summit Bibliography cites Berrys Interlinear and Machens Greek Grammar.

Machens* New Testament Greek for Beginners:

Its Greek text is from Westcott and Hort, who were neoPlatonists. The English is from Thayer, a Unitarian. The grammar is from Moulton, who was sympathetic to Zoroastrianism.

Berrys Greek-English Interlinear

Omits an entire verse. Infers that Jesus is a sinner. Changes the Greek text underlying the KJB in 80 places. Gives the Unitarian, J.H. Thayers lexicon definitions in the back.
Uses the corrupt English Interlinear of Newberry, who calls God Allah.

a little Folly
Eccl. 10:1

What is the origin, among KJV using fundamentalists, of this strange and historically liberal notion that our Holy Bible is not inspired?

The push to deny the inspiration of our beloved Holy Bibles first reared its ugly head publicly in a book by Jack Schaap, the Pastor of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana and Chancellor of Hyles-Anderson College, the sponsor of the KJV Summit.

Beware of his book, Where Are We Going?, which repeats the unsubstantiated story of KJB enemies that King James murdered and tortured our Baptist forefathers (p. 53).

This internet fable is being propagated by opponents of the KJB, like those listed on the Summits Bibliography.
When asked to give documentation, they can only produce the names of Legate and Wightman. In fact, Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman, the men James is charged with sentencing to capital punishment, were not Christians, let alone Baptists.

The Commission and Warrant for Legates execution said he said, among other blasphemous things that Christ is not God This is not a Baptist.

The Commission and Warrant for Wightman said he said,

Christ is only a man and a mere creature, and not both God and man in one personthat the person of the Holy Ghost is not God coequal

and that he the said Wightman is that person of the Holy Ghost spoken of in the scriptures; and the Comforter spoken of in the 16th of St. Johns Gospel. And that those words of our Saviour Christ of the Sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, are meant of his person.

Wightman said he was the Holy Ghost! This is not a Baptist. This is a dangerous nut.

The facts relating to Legate, Wightman, and King James are documented thoroughly in the book Innocent Until Proven Guilty by Stephen A. Coston Sr., (St. Petersburg, FL: KingsWort Incorporated, 1998) also author of King James Unjustly Accused
(Portions at jesus-is-lord.com/rumors.htm).

What is the earliest origin, among KJV fundamentalists, of this strange and historically liberal notion that our Holy Bible is not inspired? Perhaps it can be traced back to D.A. Waite.

To get rid of our Holy Bibles inspiration, Waite promotes H.D. Williamss book entitled,
The Miracle of Biblical Inspiration.

Does he use the term miracle to associate inspiration with the miraculous sign gifts to Israel, so that the KJB could not be inspired?

Williamss subtitle is:

A Refutation of Perfection of Translation (Idealism), Derivative Inspiration, Double Inspiration etc.
(emphasis mine).

They deny that any translation can be perfect. Sound familiar? Perhaps we now know know why the Summit made such a point that perfect did not mean perfect as related to the Bible.

To build his case, Williams tries to parallel 2 Tim. 3:16 and Jude 1:3. However, the present tense of 2 Tim. 3:16 (is given) does not match the past tense was once delivered in Jude 1:3.

Williams idea will not work because Jude 1:7 identifies and limits verse 3 to the words which were spoken before of the apostles (e.g. Paul, Peter, and other apostles), not All scripture, including Jude, Mark, Luke etc.).

A History Lesson: A number of years ago (circa 2002), Waite demanded that DBS speakers sign a paper promising that they would never say that the King James Bible was inspired at their meetings. Many members, including long-time Executive Board member Dr. James Sightler, refused to sign such an heretical document, and the organization lost a sizable number of its good members. This exodus was quite hush hush.

This sudden shift away from a permanent and inspired KJB came on the heels of an offer, by Robert Turner, a millionaire from Florida, to get Waite and his organization to help with the editing of Turners new version, the Easy Reading King James Bible (via his liaison Craig Jacobs).

Riplinger received a call from Craig Jacobs, Turners representative, telling her that D.A. Waite, Sr. was working on this Easy Reading KJB project for them. The purpose of his call was to ask if she would like to participate and check over Waites work.
She was aghast that anyone would even consider working on such a project.

With Jacobs call, the cat was out of the bag about the Easy Reading KJV project and Waites alleged participation.

The errors in this Easy Reading version were subsequently exposed in Riplingers book, In Awe of Thy Word. Turner himself is said to have disassociated himself from the Easy Reading version, as a result of reading of its serious problems.

In the opinion of some, without Riplingers warning and critique of the errors in this new versions, it may have been promoted in KJV circles, perhaps even by Waite himself. Under the dark storm cloud of this wide and embarrassing exposure, Waite then washed his hands of the project, publicly at least, and claimed that his son, not he, did the actual computer work.

Some members of the Executive Board of Waites Dean Burgon Society found out about the project. Dr. Sightler, for example, wrote to Waite asking him pointed questions about specifics in the Easy Reading version. Waite responded with a phone conversation. His answers to some of Sightlers questions about specifics in the Easy Reading version, showed that he was very familiar with the details of the project; he did not refer these questions to his son.

When confronted with the revelation that Turner made a donation at this time to Waites organization, Waite said that the donation had nothing to do with the work that was being done for him. Waite however admits that his son, the editor of the Defined King James Bible, was paid for his computer work on the Easy Reading King James Bible.
Even if his son, who helps him with BFT projects, did the work, the BFT should not have been involved with a new version of the Bible.

Only God can judge the motive for any donations around that time from Turners organization and Waites motive for suddenly insisting that the KJB is not inspired. The fact that these events occurred near the same time simply raises the question.

But historically there appears to be a connection between saying that the KJB is not inspired and:
1.) A desire to make a new version to replace it (motivated by either pride or financial gain) (e.g. Scrivener, Norton).

2.) A desire to usurp the authority of the Holy Bible and interject oneself, rather like a Catholic priest, between a man and his Saviour. This is evident when one suggests that Bible words mean something other than what the King James Bible says.

D.A. Waite, his Bible For Today, and his Dean Burgon Society, it appears, have traded the perfect Holy Bible for two slightly faulty man-made printed texts, Scriveners Greek New Testament and Ginsburgs Hebrew Old Testament. They are not, at all points, the pure originals underlying the KJB.

The 1,200 page book Hazardous Materials details the heresies held by Scrivener (RV committee member, text critic) and Ginsburg (higher critic, follower of Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky and the wicked Kabbala), as well as the specific errors of their two editions, which alter the historically correct Greek and Hebrew texts followed by the KJB translators and all pure Holy Bibles worldwide.

The men who most vocally represent the inconsequential fringes of fundamentalism, such as D.A. Waite, have, in my opinion, virtually come

unraveled
with the recent publication of detailed documentation proving that both their Scrivener and Ginsburg texts (which they have taught are inspired) are in fact, not the exact originals.

They cannot address the analysis of Scrivener and Ginsburg, seen in the book Hazardous Materials, as it required a knowledge of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, and over 15 years of research, aided by a member of the prestigious North American Conference on British Studies.
To prevent their followers from seeing the cracks in the false foundation upon which some wrest the scriptures, a blinding smoke screen is now billowing from these tongues, set on fire of hell itself.

In lieu of an academic or scriptural defense of their position, those who deny the inspiration of our Holy Bible have taken on the methodology of the first Bible questioner. He is a liar and the father of it and the accuser of our brethren (John 8:44; Rev. 12:10).

In this vein, Waites BFT newsletter pretended that Riplinger lied saying Maurice Robinson did an edition called The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament. In fact, Robinson did make such an edition. It is sold at:
http://www.logos.com/ebooks/detail/TR1550INT

We will excuse Waites not knowing about this edition, because of his extreme age (over 80). But one cannot pretend an up to-date researcher, like Riplinger, is lying, because he himself has not been able to kept up with the latest research. lies This is just one of a number of fabrications Waite has constructed about Riplinger to keep his followers from reading the research on Scrivener and Ginsburg. The KJB translators said that they themselves were tossed upon tongues with uncharitable imputations.

Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears
Acts 20:29-31.

To interpret these slightly faulty Greek and Hebrew texts, the Summits Bibliography cited the following corrupt lexicons by these authors. 1.) Moulton 2.) Vine 3.) Wuest

Harold K. Moultons* The Analytical Greek Lexicon

It is an update of his fathers Moulton & Milligan Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament.
Moultons Analytical Greek Lexicon

is the Greek textbook often used at fundamental colleges which deny inspiration of the KJB. Hyles-Anderson College, which sponsored the Summit, has used this lexicon. Hmmm.

The original Moulton and Milligan Lexicon was written by Harold K. Moultons father, James Moulton, to defend the words in the Revised Version, of which his father, William Moulton was a translator, along with Westcott and Hort. Consequently Moultons definitions often match the grandfathers Revised Version.

Moultons vocabulary is secular, not spiritual. It is based upon secular materials, found according to him, in the Rubbish-Heaps of Greek-speaking Egyptians. James Moulton says that there is no such thing as Biblical Greek or the language of the Holy Ghost.

The Cambridge History of the Bible show that: 1.) The Bible brings literacy to a country. 2.) The Bible codifies the language. 3.) The Bible serves as a written repository of word meanings.

The ensuing dark, secular contexts, in which these words find themselves, cannot shed light on the true meaning of these words, nor usurp the Holy Ghosts original meaning. They may reveal how a word was adapted or distorted in secular usage. But to determine how the Bible uses the word, one must study the context of the Bible alone.

Moulton claims, for example, that the KJBs rendering of Hebrews 11:1, faith is the substance is wrong. Based on secular Egyptian rubbish he says it should be faith is the title deed.

A title deed is not the actual substance of which it writes, but only a piece of paper.

With the KJB, one gets the solid substance, the real thing, not just a promissory note.

James Moulton published four books sympathetic to Zoroastrianism, a religion from Iran which worships a god named Mazda.

Following in his grandfathers footsteps, Harold K. Moulton was on the recent corrupt Greek text committee of the United Bible Society with Aland and Metzger. Harold K. Moulton also helped with the DICTIONARY in the back of the corrupt United Bible Societys Greek text 4th edition, which underlies the new versions!!

The Dictionarys preface thanks Moulton and admits, the meanings are given in present-day English, rather than in accord with traditional ecclesiastical terminology.

James Moultons textbook says, Correct the following mistranslations of the A.V.
With such a history, is it any wonder that some schools that use Harold K. Moultons lexicon to teach Greek think that the KJB is not inspired??!

Vines* Expository Dictionary was cited on the Summit Bibliography

Vine Lists his sources as:

The corrupt Greek text of Westcott and Hort The Revised Version of Westcott and Hort of 1881 Lexicons by members of this RV committee: Thayer, Strong, Trench, and Lightfoot Lexicon by son of RV member, Moulton and Milligan

Following the Revised Version sometimes corrupts Vines theology. Like John MacArthur, Vine denies that it is the blood that saves.

The Old Testament section of Vines Complete Expository Dictionary is not Vines, but Nelsons Expository Dictionary, by NIV and NKJV editors, with NIV and NKJV definitions, following the corrupt Old Testament text!

Vines biographer says,

Among English versions he gave his exclusive preference to the Revised Version
Such a quote from Vine is even cited in the CD-ROM given out at the Summit!!

Vines definitions are from the Revised Version of Westcott, Hort, and Vaughan. Vines definitions are often the very words used in new versions, as new versions often copy the RV and ASV.

The following chart, demonstrating that Vine uses RV words, shows that the KJB uses easier words, that is, words that require no such multisyllabic, more difficult definition.

KJB
add again will now able

RV etc.
supply a second time counsel already sufficient

Vines
supply a second time counsel already sufficient
14 syllables

7 syllables 14 syllables

Vine says, Correct your rendering from the R.V.

The R.V. rendering is preferable to the A.V.

Vine often defines the word in the corrupt Westcott and Hort text, not the Textus Receptus.

The following other lexicons use words from the Revised Version of 1881 for definitions:
Strongs Concordance*
Thayers Lexicon
(may underlie the wrong definitions in The Defined King James Bible, which match new versions)

Moultons Lexicon* Vines Dictionary* Berrys Interlinear*

* Indicates a book on the Summit Bibliography

Why were the men on the RV committee feverishly filing off the sharp edges of the Holy Bible? Westcott and Hort started the Ghostly Guild to study necromancy, that is, contacting the dead. RV host, A.P. Stanley (aka Nancy) was a sympathetic friend of Luciferian Anne Besant.

When the hatchers of the Revised Version were looking for proven God-hating heretics to join them in over-ruling the Holy Bible, they asked C.J. Vaughan to come out of ten years of hiding and join them as a member of the translation committee.

Ten years earlier, Vaughan had been forced to resign his position at Harrow School for boys due to the scandal involving homosexual child molesting charges involving a student under B.F. Westcotts care. Westcott opened the door for his old homosexual and pedophile compatriot C.J. Vaughan, brother-in-law of A.P Stanley (known as Nancy), to work closely with him on his RV Committee.

The Journal of Theological Studies from Oxford University has recently printed the newly discovered translation notebook of Westcotts. It cites notepaper, on which is recorded in Westcotts hand, a number of humorous exchanges mainly involving Vaughan.

Vine says, the student should obtain Nestles Greek New Testament a near copy of Westcott and Horts corrupt Greek text.

Textus Receptus Matches KJB zelos hagion zeal

Vine defines Corrupt Greek

Vines
Definition

ponos

saints aion

toil ages men

Sarkikoi
Eleemosune

carnal anthropoi alms

Dikaiosune righteousness

Vine thinks words are almost always mistranslated in the Authorized Version; He thinks it misses the meaning, tends to mar the translation, gives the wrong impression, and is inconsistent with the facts.

Now we know WHY good fundamental colleges have gone sour on KJB inspiration, as their bibliographies cite Vines Expository Dictionary.

Some think that reading the English words of the RV in Vines is studying Greek.

How can a Brethren, like Vine, give the Historic Baptist Position? Vine does not believe in the office of the pastor or deacon!! How much discernment can Vine have about other things??

Wuests* Word Studies in the New Testament was cited on the Summit Bibliography

In violation of Rev. 22 which forbids adding anything to the Bible, Kenneth Wuest created an expanded translation which he admits adds more English words than the standard translations do.

Wuest admits he copies: Thayer (the Unitarian), Moulton and Milligan (who was supportive of Zoroastrianism), Trench (who wrote an entire book against the KJB, which has his publishers occult serpent logo on the title page) Liddell (Alices in Wonderlands winebibbing father).

For example, Wuest says, the foregoing estimate of hagios [holy] is taken from GreekEnglish Lexicon by Liddell and Scott. Imagine taking a definition of holy from Liddell, one of the most unholy lexicographers in history! (See Hazardous Materials).

Wuest continually repeats that The A.V. has gone wrong

He gives a constant denunciation of the translation offered here by the A.V.

Wuests translation omits through his blood from Col. 1:14.

He drops the Godhead.

He says hades is not hell, but merely the Unseen. That could be anything from heaven to a blind date.

Wuest uses the through the 24th editions of the corrupt Nestle Greek text.
th When the 25 edition of

st 1

Nestles came out, it fixed 470 places to match the KJB.

The KJB was correct and Wuest wrong.

For example, Wuest recommends rantizo (sprinkle) instead of baptizo (baptize).

Those who use Wuest are getting the definition of the wrong Greek word.

Wuest calls Phoebe a deaconess, not a servant, not discerning that one Greek word can have different meanings, based upon context. Without an inspired Holy Bible, where English distinctions such as this are made, all kinds of liberalism, such as women deacons, will creep in.
The way things are now going someone will unearth a deaconess who is the husband of one wife.

IN CLOSING The speakers at the Summit are fine Christian men. One would be most fortunate to have them as neighbors, friends, spouses, and parents. They are excellent in their performance of many things in the ministry.

In light of the documentable errors in their presentations, they have demonstrated, in my opinion, that they have stepped beyond their normal and positive areas of expertise, and taken up casting an unnecessary cloud of questions over the historic text of the Holy Bible.

Such error may be either the result of a faulty faith toward the Holy Bible or will result in a weakening of faith in it.

They should return to their God-ordained duties of glorifying the Bible and soul winning. A Bible College should at least have a Bible, and believe it.

The Summits unwarranted criticisms of the text have been proven incorrect.

As Benjamin Disraeli said,

Winston Churchill said,

Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; Ignorance may deride it Malice may distort it; But there it is!

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Gal. 4:16