THE

A L E X A N D R IA N C U L T S E R IE S
 Other Materials Available

By Dr. Peter S. Ruckman:

* B ible B eliev er’s Com m entary Series
* B eginning and A dvanced B ible Study Material
* In-Depth A p ologetics
* N um erous Pam phlets on Selected T opics
* Variety o f G ospel Tracts
* Audio Cassettes
* Video Cassettes

Also Available:
* A V 1611 B ibles
* Study Helps
* Concordances
* Biographies
* E vangelism Material
* Material by Other Authors and Speakers

For FREE Current Catalogue write:

BIBLE BAPTIST BOOKSTORE
P.O. Box 7135 Pensacola, FL 32534
 C op yright © 2 0 0 0 by Peter S. R uckm an
A ll rights reserved

IS B N 1 -5 8 0 2 6 -7 0 0 -9

P U B L IS H E R ’S N O T E
The Scripture quotations found herein are from the text
of the Authorized King James Version o f the Bible.
Any deviations therefrom are not intentional.

No p art o f this pu b licatio n may be reprod uced

or tra n s m itte d in any fo rm or by any m eans,
e le c tro n ic or m e c h a n ic a l, in c lu d in g p h o to ­
c o p y in g , re c o rd in g , or any in fo rm a tio n
s to r a g e , r e t r i e v a l s y s te m , m u l ti m e d i a , or
Internet system , w ithout p erm issio n in w riting
fro m the p u b lish e r.

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA

 Table of Contents
“The M issing Inform ation” ............................................... 1
“The Root o f the Trouble” ..................................................... 6
“Final A uthority” ..................................................................... 11
“The Dual Authorities” .........................................................17
“The Brain W ashers” ............................................................22
“Some Case Histories” ..........................................................28
“Some M ore Case Histories” .............................................. 33
“H igher Education in Am erica” ........................................ 38
“BJU— Cult Headquarters” ................................................ 43
“The Cult at Tennessee T em ple” ......................................48
“M idwestern in Alexandria, E gypt” ................................54
“ Saul and the Alexandrian C ult” .......................................60
“Fuller Seminary and Prairie Bible Institute” ...............67
“M ore Cultic Garbage from the C ult” ............................ 73
“Endless Duplicity and E vasion” ......................................80
“Rice, Dollar, and Their Fellow A postates” .................85
“Revelation 22 and the C ult” .............................................91
“The O R IG IN A L Greek S pook” ...................................... 98
“Cornelius Stam, a G enuine A lexandrian” .................. 102
“Osw ald Smith and the Professional Liars” ................108
J. V ernon M cG ee and Revelation 2 2 :1 4 .......................115
“Credit W here Credit is D ue” .........................................122
“Back to the Bible B roadcast” ........................................129
“The Death Ministries in A m erica” .............................. 136
M odern Christian S c h o la rsh ip ......................................... 143
“The Origins o f all Death M in is tr ie s .............................148
“Three ‘G o d ly ’ A postates” ............................................... 155
“Rice and the Bean Bag o f the Lord” ........................... 164
“Demons, Devils, and D ragons” ..................................... 171
“A B rief S um m ary” ............................................................. 177
“Ezra, N ehem iah, and C ain an ” ........................................ 184
“W ord for W ord Translating” ......................................... 109
“Another Sum m ary” ............................................................199
“The Bible is A BOOK: not ‘The Word of G o d ’” .. 204
“Autographs, Versions, and R evisions” ...................... 210
“’’Living a Life o f Spiritual Sin” .................................... 215
“Fundamental H u m an ists.................................................. 220
“An O verview o f ‘R u ck m an ism ’” ..................................226
“A Typical Alexandrian A postate” ................................232
“A Typical Case History” ..............................................237
E p i lo g u e ................................................................................. 244
A ppendix 1 .............................................................................255
Appendix 2 .............................................................................256
 ARTICLE O N E
Beginning with this issue of the Bible B elieve rs’
Bulletin, we will be bringing to our readers material
regarding the A lexandrian Cult. All of the articles in
this series will be written by Dr. Ruckm an, and they
will constitute a documented history o f infidelity and
apostasy from the first-century church to the tw enti­
eth-century church. In this column, there will appear
with each section, beginning with the ninth article, a
discussion o f one or more problem texts which are
circulated by the A lexandrian Cult in an attempt to
create unbelief in the heart o f the Christian. Along
with these problem texts there will also appear, from
time to time, a detailed discussion o f the problems in
variants as found in both G reek texts and English trans­
lations. In this first article Dr. R uckm an deals with
what he calls “the party line” : the standard set o f lies
w hich identify the Cult members.

“THE MISSING INFORMATION”

The twentieth-century Christian is constantly b e ­
ing bom barded with material on apostasy and m odern­
ism. Every Fundam entalist or C onservative group in
A m erica has writers or collators of material dealing
w ith liberalism , n eo -e v a n g e lic a lism , ecu m en ic ism ,
neo-orthodoxy, etc. Strangely enough, one can find no
material on H O W all of this infidelity started.
In vain one will search the History o f Fundamen­
talism in America by George Dollar or Outside the
Gate by Carl M clntire or any o f the conservative litera­
ture about the ecumenical m ovem ent (even the m ate­
rial by W ebber from Tulsa, Oklahoma) to find out HOW
A m erican Christianity got into the position it now o c­
cupies. There is an abundance o f material available about
the “apostates” (Blake, Niebuhr, Tillich, Pike, Sock-
man, Weigle, Potest, Kagawa, et al.) and the “com pro ­
m isers” (Cam pus Crusade, Fuller Seminary, W heaton
College, Intervarsity Fellowship, etc.), but a tom b-like
silence descends on the historians and authors when
they are called upon to tell us H O W these groups and
individuals got to their term inus— IN FID EL IT Y to the
Scriptures.
W hen one reads this mass o f literature (I have
exam ined over 2,000 pam phlets, 1,000 books, 1,000
magazines, and 300 church bulletins dealing with these
matters) listing and exposing the apostates, he is struck
with the singular thought that none o f them dare tell
H O W any o f the apostates BEGAN their apostasy. E vi­
dently we are dealing with an international “conspiracy”
in the Biblical realm that would put the Illuminati and
the Free M asons to shame. N either Stuart Crane nor
Johnny Todd is able to tell us H O W a Bilderberger or a
witch starts down the road to H um anism or Satanism.
How does it begin?
It must begin somewhere. How is it that we can
find nothing in the writings o f Warfield, M achen, and
W ilson (even where they deal with Liberalism ) that
identifies the starting point o f the apostate? O f course
these men reject the Virgin Birth— why? O f course these
men reject the Deity o f Christ— why? O f course they
deny the “verbal, plenary inspiration of the unread origi­
nals”— why? Does a man ju st suddenly pop up at the
North Pole after reading an Almanac and say, “I D O N ’T
B E L IEV E IN TH E V IRGIN B IR T H ” ?
Before Bishop Pike began to fool with necromancy
and seances, did he ju st decide, when he was ten years
old, that the “originals” co u ld n ’t have been “verbally
inspired” ? O f course not. Sin starts somewhere. W here
does the sin of B IB L E R EJEC T IO N start? N ever mind
how it ends or where it is NOW . W hat we are inter­
ested in is spotting its O RIG IN so that we can avoid
ever getting on its track.
Is that last sentence clear?
The Japanese say, “A jou rney of a thousand miles
begins with one step.”
What then is the FIRST step to religious Liberal­
ism or Neo-evangelicalism? N ever mind w asting paper
and shooting o f your m outh about your “stand” against
something that is already here (and has been here nine­
teen centuries). If you d o n ’t know H O W it started,
how do you know that you or your church (or school)
has not already taken the FIRST step in that direction?
H ow are you so arrogantly “cocksure” o f your position
when you d o n ’t know w hat the first TH R E E steps are?
The first three steps are discussed now here in
George D ollar’s History o f Fundamentalism in America.
They are discussed now here in eight volum es of Philip
Schaff’s History o f the Christian Church, and there is
nothing in the Church Histories o f Lagarde, N ew m an,
Latourette, Eusebius, or D ’A ubigne that would clue us
in on H O W a professing Christian becom es an apos­
tate. If one reads these histories, he will be told that
the cause is:
1. They became formal and sacramental and ceased
to practice the Bible in their lives. (W hy did they do
th is l)
2. They were im pressed by G erm an Rationalism
and English Deism and ceased to believe the Genesis
account o f creation. (Why were they im pressed?)
3. They becam e lax in morals and fell away from
the Catholic faith. (W hy did they become “lax in m o r­
als” ?)
4. They followed a man who questioned the New
Birth and the Blood Atonement. (Why did they do this?)
5. They tried to build a kingdom on this earth and
to control the state by the church. (W hy w ould anyone
who studied the Bible do this?)
 6. They ceased to study the Bible and becom e
occupied with art, literature, and the “hum anities.”
(W hat led them to do TH A T?)
No m ajor historian, living or dead, has ever an­
swered the questions.
There seems to be a “bond o f dialogue” between
saved historians and unsaved liberals and apostates when
it com es to pinpointing the BEG IN N IN G S o f apostasy
in any age o f the church.
Charles Reese, a columnist for the Pensacola News
Jo u rnal, says th a t he is o fte n a c c u s e d o f u sin g
defamatory and libelous language in referring to Jimmy
Carter as a “L IA R .” R eese’s defense is simple: He says
that a man who says something that is untrue, and who
knows that it is not true when he says it, is a liar,
w hether he is a President or a jail bird.
W ith this truism in mind we shall list how the
m odern Christian educator and scholar can be located
in relation to the S O U R C E and C A U S E o f apostasy.
The modern Christian educator or scholar (“g odly” and
“ separated” o f course) inherits 1,850 years o f infidelity
preserved through “C hristian” scholarship and passed
faithfully on from one generation to another through
w hat we call the “ Scholars U nion,” or more accurately,
“TH E A L E X A N D R IA N CULT." Cult m em bers can be
spotted easily by the fact that they repeat in their gen­
eration three or more o f the following lies.
1. The original G reek text says . . . .
2. T H E Greek text says . . . .
3. The BEST manuscripts say . . . .
4. Second Timothy 3:16 applies only to the “origi­
nal manuscripts.”
5. E rasm us’ Greek text is a Rom an Catholic Greek
text.
6. W estcott and Hort were brilliant Biblical schol­
ars.
7. If “good m en” correct the Bible, you may co r­
rect it too, providing you do it “reverently” and “prayer­
fully.”
In our next article, we will discuss these matters
more fully, and we will also list the seven implications
that are used by m em bers o f the A lexandrian Cult to
put doubt into the C h ristian’s mind about the authority
o f the Authorized Version. D irect lying (see above) and
innuendo (see our next article) are the means o f incul­
cating U N B E L IE F into the mind o f the born-again,
soul-winning, separated Christian. Any reader of G e n ­
esis 3 could have spotted the source and origin of all
apostasy w ithout half trying, for both tactics appear in
the chapter, and they succeed in misleading two people
who were more “g odly” and “ separated” and “co n se­
crated” than any man or w om an reading this page.
 ARTICLE TWO
This is the second in a series o f forty articles which
will give the history o f the Alexandrian Cult. These
articles will locate and define the source and roots o f
apostasy in every generation and in every country (within
the Body o f Christ) since the writing o f Second C orin­
thians. Along with this history, Dr. R uckm an will dis­
cuss the so-called “problem texts” which are used by
enemies o f the A V (1611)— Fundamental educators fore­
m ost— to infuse doubt and unbelief into the mind o f the
tw entieth-century Christian.

“The Root of the Trouble”

In our last article, we discussed the m atter o f apos­
tasy and its roots or sources. W e pointed out that the
modern approach taken by Christian Colleges and U ni­
versities (and many Fundam ental churches and Bible
Institutes) is that apostasy is here, but no one can find
out how it got here. Various straw dum m ies are erected
and attacked as though they were the cause o f the
devilment. The most com m on o f these straw men is the
teaching that apostates deny the Deity of Christ or the
Virgin Birth or the “verbal plenary inspiration o f the
O R IG IN A L S .” This fails to deal with the problem on a
Biblical basis; That is, the m odern m ethod o f “taking a
stand” and “defending the faith” begins by avoiding the
Biblical definition o f the problem . (See any apologetic
work by any faculty m em ber at Bob Jones University,
T e n n e s s e e T e m p le , P e n s a c o la C h r is tia n C o lle g e '
H yles-Anderson, etc.)
The problem is defined in the Bible in Genesis
3:1-4.
No analysis o f apostasy is Scriptural or even rea­
 sonable if it does not begin by presenting three terrible
truths:
1. Infidelity and apostasy begin with a man made
in the image o f God and a w oman made from that man.
They are separated from every type o f “w orldliness,”
and they are in fellowship with G od daily. That is, they
are m ore “godly” than R. A. Torrey, J. G. M achen,
R obert Dick Wilson, K enneth Wuest, A. T. Robertson
Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Westcott, and Hort, or any
4,000 other Greek scholars or Fundamentalists.
2. Infidelity and apostasy are never conceived (or
“hatched”) by denying the “faith” or the “fundamentals
of the faith.” They are hatched by questioning what
G od said (Gen. 3:1-3).
3. This questioning begins with subtracting from
the word of God (Gen. 2 -3 ). Eve omitted “ fre e ly ”
because she believed that the “original” was an e x ­
panded or a “conflate” text, sm oothed out by com bin­
ing a “num ber o f sources,” etc. That is, she approached
what God said as the revision com m ittees of 1881,
1885, 1901, 1953, 1959, 1970, 1973, and 1978 ap­
proach the problem of truth.
N ow the Devil d id n ’t lie (Gen. 3) until he had first
questioned. No apostate lies about the “fundamentals
of the faith" until he first questions the source from
which these “fundam entals” come. That is, the Liberal
or the M odernist is at the end o f the line o f apostasy,
not at the beginning. W hat we are concerned with is:
“How does it start?” There is nothing in George D ollar’s
A History o f Fundamentalism in America that sheds
any light on this im portant question. W hy is this?
The reason is that every “recognized” church his­
torian and Christian “ scholar” is a m em ber of a CULT.
This cult is The Alexandrian Cult o f North Africa, and
its tentacles stretch from Origen (A.D. 184-254) to
John R. Rice and the faculty m em bers of every “recog ­
nized” Christian school in the world.
 Returning to the means for identifying the Cult,
there are seven lies to which the cult m em bers resort in
order to deceive the seeker o f truth. We shall list them
again and trust the reader will m em orize them so that
he can spot the cultist when he begins the “party line ”
1. “THE ORIGINAL G R E E T TE X T says . . . ’.”
This is an out-and-out ’ lie. No one has ever seen the
original Greek text; not even a m em ber o f the A lexan­
drian Cult could know what it said.
2. -THE G R EEK T E X T says . . . .” O ut-and-out
lying again. There is no such thing as “THE" Greek
text. The cult m em bers who use this cliche are always
upset about the use or non-use o f the “article” in the
Textus Receptus. That is, they are inconsistent hypo­
crites.
3. “TH E BEST M A N U SC R IPT S read . . . . ” A lie.
The two m anuscripts which the cult m em bers cite are
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which contain N ew T esta­
m ent A pocrypha and Old Testam ent A pocrypha and
have more errors, variations, and scribal blunders per
page than any other m anuscripts know n to textual criti­
cism. (See Zane Hodges, cited in Which Bible? by
D. O. Fuller and Believing Bible Study by Dr. Edw ard
Hills.)
4. “Only the original manuscripts are inspired.” A
gross falsehood. The verse used for a p ro o f text is 2
Timothy 3:16, and the context o f 2 Tim othy 3:16 is 2
Timothy 3:15. The word “ s c r i p t u r e ” is not used even
once in Acts 8; 2 Tim othy; M atthew; Mark; Luke; or
John as referring to “original manuscripts.” The “ s c r ip ­
t u r e s ” in the New Testam ent are things that people
SEE, REA D , and A CT on.
5. “Erasm us’ Greek text is a Roman Catholic text.”
G toss lying. No Catholic scholar would dare reco m ­
mend any edition o f the Textus Receptus in Greek or
in any translation. All Catholic scholars in the twentieth
century recom m end the Vatican Greek text o f the ASV
 and NASV. The Roman Catholic text o f the Jesuit Bible
(1582) is a Greek text used by scholars at Tennessee
Temple and Bob Jones University to alter the A V in
5,000 places in the New Testament. (You understand,
however, that for monetary purposes— enrollm ent and
endow m ent— both schools “U S E ” the A V because they
“prefer” it. You have to “prefer” your income even if
you would like to alter your “life style.”)
6. “Westcott and Hort were brilliant Biblical schol­
ars.” There is no evidence that either man was saved;
there is no evidence that either man believed that the
Bible was inspired at any time— past, present, or fu ­
ture. There is no evidence that either man knew any
more about Bible scholarship than did any Pope before
1850. (See True or False? by D. O. Fuller and The
Revision Revised, by Dean Burgon.)
7. “If good men (Torrey, Rice, Spurgeon, et al.)
correct the Bible, you may correct it too.” All “g o o d ”
men have an old nature. One must not follow the m achi­
nations of the old nature in any “go od ” man no matter
how “g ood ” he is (M ark 10:18). David was an ultra-
Fundam entalist and a godly man “after G o d ’s own
heart,” but would you trust him with your wife? W hy?
H aving observed that the A lexandrian Cult m e m ­
bers are professional liars— that is, they get p a id a
salary for teaching the things listed above— we shall
pinpoint the exact starting point for apostasy in any
age, where it clearly can be identified from a Biblical
standpoint, by the Scriptures, with clear cut statements
in regard to the matter. This is, all A PO STA SY , within
or without the Body o f Christ, begins with one simple
operation which anyone can spot without the benefit of
a high school education.
Are you ready? (This will be the great issue which
is avoided in all o f the history books and all o f the
apologetic works by every F undam entalist and C onser­
vative from A ugustine to Reuben Olson.)
 All apostasy begins, after questioning the w ord of
God, with the elevation or recom m endation o f more
than O N E fin al authority.
Now, it is as simple as that. Every apostate began
by recommending two authorities that conflicted. In
Genesis 3 :1 -3 , the two authorities are clearly presented
and clearly in conflict. This operation has not ceased
once since that day, and it is ju s t as clear in A m erica in
1999 as it was in 3,000 B.C. There is no way that a
Christian can go into apostasy as long as he submits to
the Holy Bible as the one final authority and refuses to
accept any other in its place or on an equal level with
it.
W e shall deal with this at great length in our next
article on The A lexandrian Cult. Suffice it to say, here,
that if philosophy (Col. 2:8) is an equal authority with
the Bible, the student will eventually abandon the B i­
ble. The Bible is a Holy Book. M en are unholy, and
even sa ved men have an unholy old nature. No man has
to “work at it” to doubt the Bible. Everything in his old
nature tends in that direction; all he needs is “helps.”
The “helps” come from Christian scholarship and Chris­
tian education, and they form an unbroken chain of
infidelity from the first Christian university at A lex an ­
dria (Pantaenus, Clement, Origen, et al.) to the last
monum ent built in A m erica at the expense o f the for­
eign mission field.
 ARTICLE THREE
This is the third in a series o f forty articles on
m odern apostasy. In the first two articles, Dr. Ruck-
man pointed out the seven standard lies used by all
m em bers o f the A lexandrian Cult and pinpointed the
source of apostasy in any generation as given by the
Holy Spirit in Genesis 3:1-4.

“Final Authority”
As we have said, as soon as a man presents a
Christian with conflicting “final authorities,” we have a
right to question his “godliness” as well as his motive.
W hy would any man do such a thing?
God told Adam “ th o u s h a lt s u re ly d ie ” ; the Devil
said “ ye shall N O T s u re ly d ie”— two conflicting au­
thorities. W ere they both “reliable” ? W ould you have
been safe if you had “preferred” one over the other
because it was “reliable,” according to yo u ?
Now, we cannot be too em phatic about this point,
because it is much more im portant than any “F und a­
mental o f the Faith,” and f a r more important than the
salvation o f any soul on this earth: G od would not do
wrong to SAV E a soul. G od is the fin al authority. The
subject m atter o f the Bible is a kingdom and a throne
(see The Sure Word o f Prophecy) and alongside that
m onum ental, eternal issue, individual salvation is an
afterthought with God.
D o n ’t misunderstand me, thank God we can be
saved. Thank God we get in on the blessings o f the
kingdom. T hank God we have access to the “throne.”
But from G o d ’s standpoint (and the B ib le’s standpoint),
the issue is authority (Gen. 3:1-3). There is n ’t one
issue or doctrine anyw here in the Bible that d o esn ’t
hinge on what God said or what He did not say (Jer.
23). To be quite brutal about it, there is n ’t one “F u nd a­
mental o f the Faith” that is anything more than pagan
superstition if the Book from which that fundamental
cam e is full o f errors.
All the “fundam entals” of R. D. W ilson and A. T.
Robertson can be found in the mystery religions of
Rome, Greece, India, China, and Babylon before the
birth o f Christ (see The Two Babylons by Hislop). A
Fundamentalist who has a phony Bible or a Bible full of
errors is a bigger fool than Tom Paine or Bob Ingersoll.
A Bible teacher who is paid $300 a week to make
infidels out o f Christian young men and w om en is a
deluded idiot; Ingersoll and M. M. O ’Hare got more
than that in one night for doing the same job.
Final authority in the universe is not a “hobby
horse” or a “nonessential” fundamental. W henever it
takes “second fiddle” to soul-winning and monum ent-
building, apostasy has started. And this explains why
no one can find one word in the history books (written
by M odernists or Fundam entalists) discussing the sub­
je c t of the source and origin of the apostates.
Final authority has always been the issue in every
country on this earth: in the home, the school, the
church, the library, the laboratory, the Army, the Navy,
the government, and the newscasts.
All fundamentals are secondary to the final au­
thority, for they are supposedly derived from that au­
thority. Now, what happens when two authorities that
contradict each other are recom m ended? (I did not say
“variation” in editions.” I d id n ’t say “word changes” in
updated spelling. I said “W hat happens when two au­
thorities that contradict each other are recom m ended?)
If a Cult m em ber is reading this, he will im m edi­
ately avail him self of every aid at hand to continue to
put doubt into the mind of the Bible believer about the
A V (1611). For example, as soon as the above has been
stated the A lexandrian Cultist will go to great lengths
to prove that if there are variations in the Receptus or
in editions of the AV that they must be conflicting
authorities. W e will discuss this subtle and Satanic
“ sleight o f hand” (Eph. 4:14) very thoroughly in the
next studies.
Now, observe w hat happens when two conflicting
authorities are recom m ended (or even “tolerated”) by
the Body o f Christ.
1. The traditions o f the Church “fathers” versus
the N ew Testament.
2. The Church councils versus the N ew T esta­
ment.
3. The popes’ ex-cathedra utterances versus the
New Testament.
But why stop here? This merely explains how apos­
tasy began after the book o f Acts and eventually took
the Body o f Christ into the Dark Ages. It all hinged on
Genesis 3:1. If God said it, then that was the final
authority; if God d id n ’t say it, then one m ust look to
some other authority. Simple, is n ’t it? No apostasy
begins with denying the “verbal inspiration” o f so m e­
thing nobody can see, read, hear, or teach. All apostasy
begins with questioning what G od said by raising up a
second authority equal or superior to it.
Shall we try again:
1. The textual theories of W estcott and H ort ver­
sus the N ew Testament.
2. The textual theories of Astruc and Kuenen ver­
sus the Old Testament.
3. The Greek grammarians versus the New T es­
tament.
Do you see how it is done?
W hat began as “equally reliable” winds up as a
superior critic.
No need to stop here.
1. The M ormons have Joe S m ith ’s book versus
the N ew Testament.
 2. The Jews have the Talmud versus the Old T es­
tament.
3. The Charism atics have “personal experience”
versus the N ew Testament.
All right, as long as none of this conflicts, it is not
“versus” (against), but that is how it works out. W hat
begins as “Did God say it?” (Gen. 3:1) winds up as
“No, He d id n ’t— listen to me” (Gen. 3:1-4).
Then we should have no trouble at all in guessing
the motive o f any Fundam entalist who recom m ends or
tolerates more than one authority. He wants you to
listen to him— at the expense of God.
Every m em ber of the Alexandrian Cult— from Ori-
gen to Bob Jones Jr.— reasons in this fashion, and that
is why every m em ber o f the Cult will accuse a Bible
believer of “following a m an.” They want you to follow
them.
Again, the reason why the modern apostate Funda­
mentalist will accuse a Bible believer o f idolatry (see
Cliff R ob in so n ’s correspondence, A ppendix 1) is that
he has put an institution ahead of what God said. He,
therefore, can interpret belief in what God said only as
idolatry. That is, if the Bible is placed above his institu­
tion (from which he feeds his belly), then obviously the
Bible must have becom e a “god” in the eyes o f the man
who placed it there. This is the “sick thinking” o f
every apostate, fundamental, Christian educator in
America.
Dual authorities are recom m ended to overthrow
the fin al authority.
Every apostate Fundam entalist (before he becam e
an apostate Liberal) followed exactly the same p r o c e ­
dure: he elevated something or someone to a chair of
equal authority with the Bible, and when that someone
or something came into conflict with the Bible, he aban­
doned the Bible at that point. This means every recog­
nized, Christian college in America, while “using” the
AV (1611) because they “p refer” it (not “believe it” !!),
must tolerate or promote some other version that con­
flicts with the AV text in 30,000 places. The versions
that do this are the ASV of 1901, the NASV o f 1971,
and the NIV o f 1978. The motive for recom m ending
(or tolerating) these is to allow the scholar or school to
be the fin al authority where these apostate corruptions
conflict with the A uthorized Text.
So said, so done.
W ithout batting an eye, the m odern F undam ental­
ist accepts the first step to apostasy, justifies it, prac­
tices it, and condemns those who will not take it with
him. No Liberal ever becam e a Liberal if he had one
Bible as his final authority. No N eo-evangelical ever
got that way before he questioned the authority o f the
Bible that he had— not the “originals” which he did not
have.
In short, no attack by any “Bastion of O rthodoxy”
against any Liberal or Neo-evangelical is honest, sound,
safe, reliable, or Scriptural if it does not show how they
got into the mess they got into. The reason why the
faculty members at Hyles-Anderson, Bob Jones, Dallas,
and M oody never discuss the subject is that they have
already taken the fir s t two steps in that direction:
1. To set up equal authorities that conflict bring­
ing confusion, indecision, mistrust, and uncertainty about
fin al authority.
2. To lie continually (see the seven lies used by
all Cult members given in our first two articles) about
the written evidence o f the Bible.
The Bible says “ a n d call no m a n y o u r f a t h e r
u p o n th e e a r t h . ” An equally “reliable” translation,
which some prefer, says “Go on and do it.” The Bible
says, “ F o r th e r e is one G o d , a n d on e m e d i a t o r b e ­
tw een G o d a n d m e n , th e m a n C h r i s t J e s u s .” A n ­
other “godly” authority whose “unquestioned loyalty to
the fundam entals” is “recognized” says: “Go on and
pray ‘Blessed Mary, Blessed Joseph, Blessed John the
Baptist.’”
The Bible says that New T estam ent redem ption
and forgiveness of sins is only through the blood of
Jesus Christ (Col. 1:14, AV). An equally reliable “ au­
th o rity ”— reco m m en d ed by m any “ godly dedicated
scholars”— says that “ r e d e m p tio n ” is equal with “re­
m ission” (see any blasphem ous “Bible” such as the
ASV, NASV, or NIV). The Bible says that G od was
“ m a n ife s t in th e flesh ” (1 Tim. 3:16, A V), but you can
“prefer” another “reliable” translation that simply knocks
God slap out of the passage.
W here two authorities conflict, the deciding au­
thority is the third authority. Is that clear? Do you have
any problem with it? That truth is not dependent upon
your age, race, sex, education, state, standing, salva­
tion, dam nation, politics, creed, school, church, belief,
or unbelief. That is a scientific f a c t which is p ro v e d in
court every day, 365 days a year. In a courtroom where
two conflicting authorities have told “the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” the third au­
thority becom es the final authority: he is called a
“jud ge.”
T herefore, opinions to the contrary by “good,
godly, dedicated soul w inners” are not to be taken
seriously where they deal with final authority.
If a man recom m ends more than one final author­
ity to you he has a motive for doing it. And according
to church history (“ by t h e i r f r u it s ye s h all k n o w
th e m ” ) there is nothing “g oo d” or “godly” about his
motive.
 ARTICLE FOUR
This is the fourth in a series of forty articles on the
Alexandrian Cult. In this series, Dr. Ruckman will show,
with docum ented evidence and source references, that
there has been an unbroken line o f infidelity extending
from Genesis 3 :1-3 to the present, and that this line is
connected with E D U C A T IO N — know ing as “ g o d s” —
having its original roots in the Christian University o f
Alexandria and extending down through eighteen cen ­
turies to the modern, Fundamentalist institutions. In the
previous articles, the seven standard lies o f the cult
m em bers were listed and their basic heresy identified:
the heresy o f recom m ending or tolerating (Eve toler­
ated Satanic suggestions before yielding to them) two
fin al authorities that conflict so that the cult m em ber
(or his school) may act as God— the fin al authority— in
resolving the conflict.

“The Dual Authorities”

As noted previously, “The road to Hell is paved
with good intentions.” Intentions to give a “more accu­
rate translation” or to “make the passage clearer” or to
clear up “obscure or archaic w ords” sound like beauti­
ful intentions. The road to Hell is paved with beautiful
intentions: there isn’t one negative thing involved in
E v e’s fall (Gen. 3:6). The “ t r e e ” is good on three
counts and bad on none, yet it damns the human race
(Rom. 5).
W hat I am saying is that no good, godly, “dedi­
cated” man who believes in the “verbal, plenary inspira­
tion o f the originals” is to be followed where the OLD
N A T U R E in that man is purposely leading others to sin
by lying about authority. No one should follow Simon
P eter’s example in Galatians 2, although Peter was
more “godly” than any Greek professor a student ever
sat under. N either should anyone follow P a u l’s ex­
ample in Acts 21— he lost two years o f his ministry
(Acts 24:27)— although he had more “verbal, plenary
inspired originals” than any professor ever saw in a
lifetime. No one is to fo llo w the advice o f a saved man
(1 Kings 13) simply because he says that G od said
something when He didn ’t say it.
1. The issue is not godliness or reputation.
2. The issue is not service or fruitfulness in the
ministry.
3. The issue is not the character o f the witness.
4. The issue is not the reputation o f the school or
faculty.
5. The issue has never been and never will be the
“fundamentals.”
6. The issue has nothing to do with what anyone
THINKS.
7. The issue has nothing to do with grammar, edu­
cation, or talent.
The issue is FINAL AUTHORITY.
W here two fin a l authorities are recom m ended (see
any correspondence on the m atter of final authority by
any leading F undam entalist in this century), the motive
for recom m ending them is that the “recom m ender” be
accepted as superior to either. The motive is carnal and
fleshy; it com es from the old nature in the believer; and
it is not to be admired, respected, tolerated, or im i­
tated.
W hen the Alexandrian Cult began the practice of
establishing dual authorities for the N ew Testament,
they began to develop the “curriculum ” o f “im plica­
tions” which survive to this day in the classroom s of
M idw estern, Hyles-A nderson, Fort Worth, Pensacola
Christian College, Liberty, and BBC. This “curricu­
lum ” consists of a series o f facts or p a rtia l facts, listed
apart from their background and future history, and
spoken (or written) as to produce the maximum amount
o f infidelity in the reader (or student) in regard to
absolute authority. I will list the most com m on o f these
used by the faculty m em bers o f “F undam ental” or “O r­
thodox” or “Evangelical” schools (the Cult controls all
three sufficiently well) to get the student to reject the
authority o f the word o f God:
1. “King James was egotistical; therefore . . .”
2. “Erasmus was a Catholic; therefore . . .”
3. “The A V does not match all of its editions word
for word; therefore . . .”
4. “Some words in the AV are archaic; therefore

5. “The Textus Receptus was printed after the AV

therefore . . .”
6. “The AV translators d id n ’t claim inspiration;
therefore . . .”
7. “W e have found older manuscripts; therefore

8. “W estcott and Hort were ‘co nservatives’ there­

fo re . . .”
9. “The Russian and Chinese had no A V until 1800;
therefore . .
10. “The RSV and NEB were translated by Liber­
als; therefore . . .”
11. “Godly men recommend the ASV and the NASV,
therefore . . .”
12. “O ver 36,000 changes in text d id n ’t alter the
‘fundam entals’; therefore . . .”
13. “If a Bible contains the ‘fundam entals,’ it is
reliable; therefore . . .”
O bserve in all this that the “facts” are presented to
produce implications. First o f all, dual authorities were
recom m ended to water down and w eaken absolute au­
thority, and then a curriculum was erected to get stu­
dents not only to take that authority lightly but ev entu­
ally to abandon it.
This is how apostasy begins. This is the motive
behind Bible rejection, and it d o esn ’t vary once in the
history o f apostasy. All apostates begin with two au­
thorities and wind up with no authority but tradition
and their own opinion. Every unsaved Liberal and lost
M odernist in the National Council o f Churches began
his defection by taking some m a n ’s word over the au ­
thority o f a Book which he had in his hand and which
he could read. There isn’t one unsaved Liberal in the
eighteenth century (French A theism ) or in the nine­
teenth century (English Deism and G erm an R ational­
ism) who ever was concerned or upset with any theory
about how AN Y Bible was written. W hen he rejected
the “fundamentals,” he rejected them as they were found
in the Bible that he read.
Is that clear?
H ow is it then that Gaussen, Smith, Rice, Wuest,
Zodhiates, and the “W orld Congress o f F undam ental­
ism” kidded suckers into thinking the issue was the
“originals” ? The “originals” d o n ’t figure as the main
issue one time in the history o f the church from A.D.
325 to 1900.
Som eone is giving you a “gaffed act.”
Now, who could it be? (Gen. 3:1)
Origen and Clement accepted philosophy as the
com peting authority with the Bible they read. Irenaeus
and Eusebius accepted tradition as the com peting au­
thority with the Bible they read. Augustine and Jerom e
accepted tradition and the Church Fathers as the co m ­
peting authority with the Bible they read. The popes
and College of Cardinals accepted tradition and super­
stition as the com peting authority with the Bible they
read. Aquinas, Abelard, Anselm, and Peter Lom bard
accepted philosophy and tradition as com peting with
the Bible they read. No man in the list w orried two
 minutes about any unattainable “originals.” No heretic
or apostate from A.D. 200 on ever had to deny or
affirm “verbal inspiration o f the original” to be a heretic
or an apostate. N either heresy nor apostasy begin that
way. They begin by denying w hat God said (Gen. 3:1)
and by accepting an equal authority as “reliable” b e ­
cause they “prefer” it (Gen. 3:3-4).
W estcott and Hort accepted tradition and imagi­
nation as com peting authorities with the Bible they
read. Schaff and A. T. Robertson accepted education
and grammar as com peting authorities with the Bible
they read. Joe Smith accepted M oroni’s “golden plates” ;
Mary B aker Eddy, the “ K ey” ; and Nestle and Metzger,
destructive criticism and hallucinations as equal au ­
thority with the Bible they read. A nd on it goes, into
the night.
W here a man recommends two authorities, the p u r­
po se he has in mind is to eliminate one or both o f them.
(See M achiavelli’s, The Prince.) “Divide and conquer.”
If the two disagree (compare Acts 8 and 9 in any new
“B ible” with the same chapters in the AV), the scholar
or the school or the church (Rome has always acted as
a final authority for her followers) must decide which
is right or tell the follower to “make up his own m ind,”
in which case the follower is indebted to the school or
scholar for “liberating” him from the written authority
o f G od Almighty and for setting up the individual as
his ow n god. Eve, all over again (Gen. 3).
Article num ber five will discuss the thirteen m is­
leading “facts” listed above and show the student the
motive behind their construction and the result o f tak­
ing them at face value without investigation (Prov.
14:15).
 ARTICLE FIVE
This is the fifth in a series o f articles dealing with
the sources and causes o f apostasy in the twentieth
century. H aving listed the seven standard lies which
im mediately identify a m em ber of the Cult, Dr. Ruck-
man has gone into great length in discussing the first
step tow ard apostasy, w hich is the rejection of absolute
Authority and the recom mending or tolerating of a co m ­
peting authority which conflicts with (or contradicts)
the absolute Final Authority.

“The Brain Washers”

On the last excursion into “cloud land” (to cite
Dean Burgon), it was discovered that all m em bers of
the Alexandrian Cult resort to little statements of “facts”
that are designed to lead to a falsehood— by im plica­
tion. The thirteen that have been prevalent since the
publication o f the AV may vary from the set used by
the popes in 1,000 or by A ugustine in 450 or by E use­
bius in 330 or by O R IG E N in 230, but the modus
operandi is the same: Tw o authorities are given “first
place” (quite a trick if you can do it), and then where
they contradict (which they will sooner or later), the
third intervening authority plays “g od ” (Gen. 3 :1 -4 )
and decides which is right, thus proving that the THIRD
party is the fin al authority.
ERA, Gay Liberation, the N AA CP, and the C o m ­
munist Party are all built on this simple principle. There
are two authorities (ERA: men and w om en; Gay L ib­
eration: “heteros” and “ho m os” ; N AACP: black and
white; the C om m unist Party: the C om intern and “the
people” ) which will sooner or later conflict. At Bob
Jones and H yles-Anderson* it is more subtle: The A V is
“reliable”— so also is the NASV. O r the AV is reliable,
as is the ASV. W hat happens when they conflict (as
they do in Luke 2:33; Acts 1:3; Luke 24 :5 0 -5 1 ; 2
Tim othy 3:16; Acts 9:5, 6, 8:37; John 9:35, etc.)?
Simple: the school plays god and tells the student which
to go by or “go by both,” when they d o n ’t match.
The first o f the thirteen “boo-bo os” runs like this:
“ King James was egotistical; therefore . . . .” From this
one is to presume that G od could not have protected
the translating com mittee from Jam es’ domination. The
“p r o o f ’ produced for this rem arkable conjecture is that
“ b a p tis m ” should have been “immersion” and “ c h u r c h ”
should have been “assem bly.” The w hite-w ashed cult
members who project this nonsense on the student keep
right on calling themselves “BA PTISTS,” and they have
the word stuck all over their church bulletin and the
front o f their sch ools! Strange interlude! M any of them
also fail to tell the student that the apostates who trans­
lated the NASV failed to translate “H ades.” They trans­
literated it. W hat “Egotistical M onarch” had the pres­
sure on them in 19591
The second funny story is: “Erasm us was a C ath o­
lic; therefore . . . .” From this piece of pa rtia l informa­
tion, the student is to presum e that the Textus R ecep­
tus of the King James com mittee was a pro-Roman
Catholic text. N othing could be more deceptive and
misleading. E rasm us’ text is the text that no Catholic
will recom m end to anyone. The only other translations
recom m ended by Catholics today besides their own
(Douay, Challoner, Jerusalem, New American, etc.)
are the ones that com e from the W estcott and Hort text
used by Aland and Metzger. The statement that “E ras­
mus wanted to dedicate his Greek New Testam ent to a
pope” has no bearing w hatsoever on one word in that
text. That G reek text has been anathematized by every
* A t th e tim e o f th is w riti n g (1 980).
po p e since its publication, and the Vatican text has
been substituted f o r it and adopted by Robertson, Warf­
ield, Schaff, Machen, and Wuest.
The third funny bunny runs like this: “Editions of
the AV vary in spelling and punctuation and in one or
two words; therefore . . . It is to be presumed from
this that if there is any variation between editions, they
contradict, and therefore, both cannot be infallible. The
sick thinking behind this is that if any words differ,
they m ust contradict.
This was the liberal theory o f 1850 used to prove
that the inscriptions on the cross contradict or that
God could not write two infallible records if they dis­
agreed in spelling. The silly billies who project this
kind of nonsense never tell the student the glaring and
horrible fact that M oses and Pharaoh did not converse
in Hebrew , yet the “verbally inspired original” (Cult
cliche) reports their words only in Hebrew idiom.
(Surely something m ust have been “lost in the transla­
tion.” Failure to inform the student that two inspired
accounts can differ (Jer. 36:32) is never mentioned in
Cult circles. Cultists are not Biblical sch olars.)
The fourth alibi for sin runs as follows: “The AV
has archaic words that need to be updated; therefore
. . . .” From this, one is to presum e that the motive for
altering the text in 31,000 places (ASV, NASV, or NIV)
was to help poor, dumb folks to understand the Bible.
Skulldrudgery is afoot. Two hundred translations since
1611 have used this alibi. N one profess to update each
other. All the “archaic w ords” could be listed in the
margin and given the modern equivalents, and the en ­
tire list would not com e to even one hundred words.
Someone is lying about motive.
The fifth Alexandrian Cult line states: “The Textus
Receptus was printed after the AV; therefore the AV
could not have com e from the Textus Receptus.” This
Disneyland logic is put out daily in two dozen Christian
colleges and Bible seminaries. The M ickey M ouse logic
behind it is that if Elzevir called the R eceived Text
(received by the church from God and preserved in the
Antiochan Syrian church, Acts 11, 13, 16) by a Latin
name in 1633 that there could not have been any real
“Received Text” before that time. Suckers are sup­
posed to buy this ju st like they buy the beer that has
“gusto.” By such inane bungling one would presum e
that no “Alexandrian” text existed until Griesbach (1800)
because no one referred to the Roman Catholic Vatican
G reek text by that name until that time.
From the sixth partial truth that goes, “The A V
translators did not claim inspiration; therefore .. .
One is to assum e that G od could not inspire Scripture
after the original m anuscripts were written, although
the proof text for this premise (2 Tim. 3:16) is not a
reference to original manuscripts. Paul was referring
to a Bible that Timothy read (2 Tim. 3:15). If the AV
translators did not claim inspiration what would this
mean? The verse used to prove that the “originals”
were inspired is not quoted from the originals. It is
quoted from Greek texts (never “the” G reek text) or
from an English translation. Try that one in court and
see if the “third authority” (the ju dge) will buy it!
The seventh shaft com es in like this: “W e have
found older manuscripts; therefore . . . .” The sucker is
to presum e from this bare statement that manuscripts
have to be closer to the original in content and quality
merely because they are closer in time. The manuscripts
referred to are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and papyrus
fragments (usually P66, P46, P 75, etc.), although many
Cult m em bers will refuse to list the manuscripts in the
fear that the student will check them out to see if they
are lying; they are. The content and quality o f the
“oldest m anuscripts” are a shameful disgrace to the
science o f textual criticism and a m ockery o f Biblical
orthodoxy. (See The C h ristian’s Handbook o f Manu-
script Evidence and B urgon’s Last Twelve Verses o f
Mark Sixteen.) No more grossly corrupt and heterodox
m anuscripts are known in the history o f Biblical litera­
ture.
The eighth dodge is: “W estcott and Hort were
Conservatives; therefore . . . .” One is to deduct from
this that the text which they published had to be a
Conservative text. It was the most radically heretical
text published since the writing o f Vaticanus and Si-
naiticus (A.D. 330). The two grossly corrupt uncials on
which the NASV is based differ between themselves
3,000 times in the Gospels alone; and B differs with the
Receptus 7,587 times; and Aleph, 8,972 times. There
are more variations betw een the two “oldest” m anu ­
scripts than there are betw een the com plete printed
G reek texts of Stephanus, Erasmus, and Elzevir. (See
H ill’s Believing Bible Study.)
N um ber nine: “The Russians and the Chinese had
no AV until 1800; therefore . . . .” The nasty im plica­
tion o f this Satanic alibi is that since they d id n ’t, the AV
co u ld n ’t be the infallible authority; otherw ise the Rus­
sians and the Chinese would have been without one.
N otice how Ingersoll, Paine, Voltaire, and Celsus all
used the same argum ent in regard to the “heathen’s”
not having any Bible. M ore serious thinkers will o b ­
serve that the “orig in a ls” could not have been infal­
lible or inspired either, because the Russians and the
Chinese d id n ’t have them either. It is am azing how a
little com m on sense will dissect a professional liar when
he attacks the authority o f the Bible.
The next article will take up the last four “appetiz­
ers” put forth by the A lexandrian Cult to talk the b e ­
liever out o f his faith in the King James Bible. All of
these cute little “facts” bear the same stamp: They are
designed to destroy faith in the written authority o f
G od Almighty. Every one is a half- or quarter-truth (or
in some cases only an eighth o f the truth), and every
one is given out o f context where the student cannot
check the background of the statement or the facts that
are relative to it.
 ARTICLE SIX
This is the sixth in a series o f forty articles by Dr.
Ruckm an on the origins, sources, history, and culm ina­
tion o f apostasy. Dr. R uckm an contends that all apos­
tasy among any group o f professing Christians (saved
or lost), in any period o f church history since the Acts
period, begins the same way with the same steps taken
and that these ways and steps are clearly given in the
A uthorized Text o f the Holy Bible. At present he is
discussing the thirteen statements used by the faculty
m em bers of M idwestern, BIO LA , Pillsbury, Piedmont,
T ennessee Temple, and Bob Jones to implant doubt in
the believer’s mind about the authority o f the A utho­
rized Text.

“Some Case Histories”

The tenth little “g em ” planted into the mind o f the
believer goes like this: “The RSV and NEB were trans­
lated by Liberals; therefore, it is to be gathered from
this that if a translation is translated by a Liberal it has
to be corrupt, regardless o f the Greek text that was
used in the translation. Conversely, you are to believe
that if a translation is made by a Conservative it has to
be reliable, regardless o f the Greek text that was used
in the translation. For the Cult m em ber who is reco m ­
mending dual authorities that conflict (see our preced­
ing articles), it is necessary to plant the poison in the
mind of the believer that the Greek text used by the
translator has nothing to do with the “reliability” o f the
translations. One familiar with manuscript evidence can
easily see why this is necessary: it is necessary for the
simple reason that every translation on the m arket put
out by Fundamentalists and Conservatives is the apos-
 tate G reek text u sed by the N a tio n a l Council o f
Churches, C. H. D o dd, K en n eth T ay lo r, an d the
Jeh o v ah ’s Witnesses. (See The C hristian’s Handbook
o f Manuscript Evidence.)
N um ber eleven goes like this: “G odly men reco m ­
mend the ASV and the NASV; therefore One is to
fill in the blank with “therefore they m ust be reliable
and trustworthy.” W e have discussed this at length in
our first two articles which show that the old nature in
R. A. Torrey is nothing worthy o f imitation, anym ore
than the old nature in A. T. Robertson or the old nature
in Stewart Custer. Sins o f the old nature are not ex­
amples f o r the new nature to follow . Any serious Bible
student who knew o f the lives o f Adam, David, and
Peter would have better sense than to follow a reco m ­
mendation that dealt with Final Authority on the simple
grounds that the “recom m ender” had a reputation for
being “godly.”
The twelfth piece of horseplay is the fable that the
31,000 changes (there were more than that betw een the
ASV and the AV or the NASV and the A VO do not
constitute an abandonment o f the right text and an
acceptance of the w rong text; rather, these incredible
con men would have you believe that 31,000 changes
are only a revision o f the same text. It is not. They are
lying. A ny Greek text and the G reek texts (note the
plural) used for the ASV, NASV, and NIV are not the
Greek text or texts (plural) used for any English Bible
published before 1800.
The thirteenth rotten apple tastes this-a-way: “If
you can find the fundamentals in the Bible and not one
fundam ental has been affected, then . . . Then one is
to presume that the dirty, G od-forsaken mess is equal
with the AV in authority. This overlooks the obvious
fact, discernible to any child, that all o f the fundam en­
tals can be found in any book on Systematic Theology,
any Bible published by Liberals and M odernists, and
any Bible published by the Vatican. W hy we should
think that a sewer is a bank, merely because we found
a dollar bill in it, is beyond com prehension. A garbage
can is not a je w elry store, even if you do find a d ia­
mond necklace in it. And all of this is self evident to
any sane man— saved or lost. A touch of insanity b e­
com es evident in the Alexandrian Cult when they begin
to talk as above.
W e are now in a position to exam ine the m em bers
and w ork o f the Alexandrian Cult. H aving listed the
seven standard lies used by the Cult m em bers as marks
of identification and the thirteen “pitches" used by the
con men as they “tap” their “ m arks.” O ur job now will
be to enum erate some exact, detailed pieces o f false
inform ation put out by this Cult, which began in the
second century after Christ and will continue, unabated,
until 2000. The accum ulated pile o f trash now stored
by this Cult is w hat you get when you buy a “modern
translation” by a “godly dedicated” bunch of “evangeli­
cals.” It represents 1,800 years o f irreverent tom fool­
ery and bungling depravity.
Case No. One
Adamantius Origen (A.D. 154-254)
This gentleman taught in A lexandria at a Christian
school. He revised the Bible where he felt like it (Hills,
The King James Version Defended). He taught that a
pastor was a priest (comm entaries on John), that pur­
gatory was necessary, and that “outer darkness” was
ignorance (Ante-Nicene Fathers, w orks o f Origen). He
believed in regeneration by sprinkling, no millennial reign
of Christ, no Rapture, no restoration of Israel, and that
Genesis 3 was a myth, as was Luke 4.
So?
So, he approved of and used the corrupt A lex an ­
drian text o f the Bodm er papyrus on occasion, although
he had access to the Greek text of the King James
Bible (see Hills, The King James Version Defended).
So?
So he was a cultured Christian educator who b e­
lieved in the Virgin Birth and the Deity of Christ. Schaff
(.History o f the Christian Church, V olum e II) credits
him with talent, brilliance, education, imagination, in­
sight, and scholarship. Schaff, the head of the ASV
(1901) revision com m ittee in America, despised E ras­
m u s ’ text (History o f the Christian Church, Volume
III) and accepted the Alexandrian text o f Alexandria,
Egypt, as the most accurate text, as did W estcott and
Hort and Bishop Lightfoot (the leaders o f the English
revision com m ittee of 1885).
Birds o f a feather flock together.
Case No. Two
Aurelius Augustine (A.D. 3 54-43 0)
This gentleman believed that the Septuagint (w rit­
ten between A.D. 100 and 300) was inspired, that the
A pocrypha was part o f the word o f God, and that b a­
bies are predestined to salvation if they are sprinkled
into the Roman church (Ante-Nicene Fathers, the works
of Augustine). He favored the A lexandrian text o f Ori-
gen and Eusebius although he had access to and quoted
from the King James readings (Burgon, The Revision
Revised). A ugustine, as Origen, was a North African.
He persecuted the Donatists, whose history shows them
to be primitive, Bible-believing Baptists. (Newman,
Church History, V olume 1).
So?
So, his “bible” includes the A pocrypha as it stands
in the outstanding text representative o f the A lexan­
drian Cult, Vaticanus (m anuscript B). N either he nor
Origen ever let the Bible interfere with their ideas on
history, salvation, prophecy, doctrine, or truth. A ugus­
tine has no restoration of Israel (See The Amplified
Version, 1 Thess. 2:16), no Rapture, no Antichrist, no
millennial reign, and no Judgm ent Seat o f Christ. His
“City o f G o d ” is the Rom an whore on the seven m o u n ­
tains o f Revelation 17.
Birds o f a feather flock together.
 ARTICLE SEVEN
This is article num ber seven in a series o f forty
articles on the Alexandrian Cult. It deals with the vast
stretch through the centuries o f a cult o f apostate F u n ­
damentalists (sometimes called Evangelicals, Orthodox,
or Conservatives) w hose jo b is to destroy the faith of
the body of Christ in the absolute authority o f the Holy
Bible. At present, Dr. Ruckm an is listing some of the
cult members and showing the reader how they are all
connected with the Latin, North African church o f A l­
exandria, Egypt in North Africa.

“Some More Case Histories”

W e have briefly exam ined Origen and A ugustine
and their relationship to Schaff, W estcott, and Hort.
M uch more could be said, but the student is invited to
read for himself the Ante-Nicene Fathers (edited by
Schaff) and hear “from the horse’s m outh” what Origen
and Augustine taught and believed. Augustine is one o f
the greatest apostate Fundamentalists in the history o f
reprobate literature. He believed everything stated in
the creed of Bob Jones University and everything stated
in the W estm inster and H eidelberg Catechism (Presby­
terian and Reformed) where they deal with the “fu nda­
mentals.” He was also a Bible-perverting, destructive
critic whom you could not follow safely three feet when
dealing with Final Authority. His Old Testam ent A p oc­
rypha was a com peting authority with the Old T esta­
ment. His church was a com peting authority with the
New Testament, and his philosophical speculations were
com peting authorities with either Testam ent (see the
article on the dual authorities). He was a typical C h ris­
tian scholar or Christian educator.
 You see the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts
used by the Lockm an Foundation and Bob Jones U n i­
versity to correct your Bible in 31,000 places have the
A pocrypha mixed in with the Old T estam ent books as
p a r t o f the inspired canon.
T h is o p en s fre sh “ a v e n u e s o f a p p r o a c h ” (or
interstates o f speed). H av en ’t you ever heard this boffer
before? “The first edition o f the King James Bible con­
tains the A pocrypha; we do not believe the A pocrypha
was inspired.” This is w hat Cliff Robinson (Tennessee
Tem ple University, see letter in September, 1978 issue
of the Bible B elievers’ Bulletin) wrote to one of our
students. See how it is done? You are to presume:
1. That if the AV had the Apocrypha, it could not
be the word o f God.
2. That if you believed the A V, you could not be a
Fundamentalist.
3. That Tennessee Tem ple was “fundam ental” b e­
cause it rejected the A V that contained the Apocrypha.
See how neat that format is?
If you d id n ’t have any sense (or were a young man
studying for the ministry!), it might even impress you
favorably. (In this case, favorably means that it might
shake your faith in the Holy Bible. D o n 't forget the
“m otive” behind those who recom m end dual authori­
ties.)
Now, to clear the air:
1. The A V shows clearly that the Apocrypha is not
part of the Old or N ew Testament, and therefore, it is
not included as p a r t o f the Old Testament, but is in­
serted between the inspired Testaments (as the Scofield
notes will be found! Ah, yes, kiddies, we have your
number!) See photographs o f a copy o f the A V of 1611
(A ppendix 2).
2. No translator of the AV would think o f using a
Greek text that had the Apocrypha as part of either
Testament.
 3. G reek texts for the ASV and the NASV (eclectic
or single) have the Apocrypha in both Testaments, and
in the O ld it is p a r t o f the inspired text. This can be
proved in court with photostatic copies of Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus.
By now, the student should be getting some idea
of the honesty and accuracy o f the A lexandrian Cult.
Their crookedness is legendary. They constitute the
greatest, largest, longest, and m ost consistent destruc­
tive critics the world has ever seen; and their inability
to talk straight in dealing with docum ented fact is the
outstanding testimony to their true intentions (Gen.
3:1).
They intend to shake the student’s faith in the
final authority o f the Holy Bible by recom m ending
two final authorities that conflict.
Case No. Three
The Dark Age Popes
Take any sampling at random. Everyone o f them
went by Jerom e’s Latin Vulgate from North Africa which
revised the correct Old Latin (J. J. Ray, G od Wrote
Only One Bible) and followed O rig en ’s corrupt A lex­
andrian m anuscripts in the New T estam ent (Wilkerson,
cited in F uller’s Which Bible?). Many o f them burned
every copy o f the Old Latin they could get their hands
on (History o f the Piedmont) and killed any Catholic
caught with any Bible in his hand but the North African
A lexandrian edition o f Eusebius and Constantine, e d ­
ited by Jerome.
Birds o f a feather flock together.
Case No. Four
Here is Constantine (303 -3 3 7 )
He wants fifty copies o f the S crip tures from
Caesarea. Eusebius (264-340) sets him up. Eusebius
was the standard bearer for A rianism at the Council of
Nicaea. He equated Constantine with Christ and the
apostles (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History), and in­
sisted that he was still living after he died. Constantine
was sprinkled on his death bed, thinking he was enter­
ing the “m ysteries” of a religion by so doing (Euse­
bius, ibid.).
C onstantine never professed the new birth apart
from sprinkling o f water, and the Bible he ordered had
the Apocrypha in it as p a rt o f the Old Testament. Two
remnants of that clandestine operation contain New Tes­
tament Apocrypha as well: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
both contain books in the N ew Testam ent that no o r­
thodox Christian has ever accepted once in the history
o f the church.
Birds o f a feather flock together.
Case No. Five
Westcott and Hort
A fter the greatest revival in the history o f the
Christian church (160 0-180 0); after the propagation of
the gospel to every major nation in the world; after the
establishm ent of mission boards, Sunday schools, tract
societies, Bible societies and Christian missionary train­
ing centers, up pop two sacram ental Episcopalians in
England that insist that the Book responsible f o r all o f
this be replaced with a different book. (The RV of
1881-1885 is not the same text, the same set o f m an u­
scripts, the same writers, the same readers, the same
words, the same letters, or the same sources.)
This “new ” book “in the language o f modern m an”
(that is the alibi that W estcott and Hort gave, exactly as
John R. Rice and the Lockm an Foundation give it)
would be safe in making 5 ,3 0 0 -5 ,8 0 0 changes in the
New Testam ent and 162 where they dealt with the Per­
son and W ork of the Lord Jesus Christ. N either man
professed the New Birth; both o f them accepted a U ni­
tarian on the com mittee; both o f them sm uggled their
own Greek Testam ent into the com m ittee without n o ­
tice; both o f them were pro-Catholic; and neither of
 them knew any more about Bible prophecy than a ja c k -
rabbit knows about ping-pong.
Naturally, they picked the text of Constantine, E u ­
sebius, Origen, and Augustine. All Cult m em bers fol­
low men. The Alexandrian Cult, after being nearly oblit­
erated by the w orldwide preaching and teaching o f the
A uthorized Holy Bible, pops up again 270 years later
and claims that the Bible responsible for Carey, G o ­
forth, Livingston, M orrison, M offatt, Taylor, Judson,
Martyn, Finney, Whitefield, Wesley, Edwards, Freling-
huysen, Tennant, et al., was IN E R R O R IN 31,000
PLACES, A ND N O W TH A T IT IS REPLA C ED W ITH
TH E O FFIC IA L BO O K O F TH E A L E X A N D R IA N
CULT, that there will be “better understanding o f the
W ord o f G od,” and the “Scriptures can speak for them ­
selves in modern language.”
Birds o f a feath er flock together. The two lying
alibis given above are the alibis o f every revision c o m ­
mittee since 1901.
(The docum ented material on W estcott and Hort
will be found in the publications o f Clarke, Bible Ver­
sion Manual; and Fuller, True o r False.)
 ARTICLE EIGHT
This is the eighth in a series o f forty articles w rit­
ten by Dr. Ruckman dealing with the sources, causes,
and outcom e o f the m odern apostasy in the twentieth
century. The thesis being presented is that apostasy
never begins with denying the “fundam entals” ; it al­
ways begins with questioning what God said (Gen. 3:1).
This is followed by presenting the believer with dual
authorities which conflict (Gen. 3:2-4). The motive,
then, behind the recom m endation o f more than one
final authority is to eliminate one or both of them and
leave the person (school or church) who does the “rec­
om m en ding ” as the deciding and final authority. That
is, the idolator who recom m ends more than one author­
ity is nominating himself (or his school) as a candidate
for GOD.

“Higher Education in America”

We have now exam ined five cases from the files of
the Alexandrian Cult. The five cases are: Origen, A u ­
gustine, the Popes, Constantine, and Hort. In outlining
the heresies and non-scriptural foolishness of these her­
etics (most o f them profess orthodoxy in the A lex an­
drian form), we have crossed the path o f Bishop Light-
foot (Burgon, The Revision Revised); W estcott (Bur-
gon, Causes o f Corruption in the Traditional Text)',
Philip Schaff; John R. Rice; the Lockm an Foundation;
and the faculty members of Bob Jones University, Pensa­
cola Christian College, Baptist Bible College, T ennes­
see Tem ple, and M idwestern. (Any statement issued by
these groups will clearly show: “we prefer to use the
AV, b u t ____” )
 All listed above recom m end conflicting authorities
as “reliable.”
All listed above will not com m it themselves to
saying that they believe any book on earth today is the
Holy Bible or that they believe that any book on earth
today is infallible. If you think we are “m isrepresent­
ing” them or “slandering them ,” why d o n ’t you write to
them so that you will know what you are talking about?
A misinformed, pinw hiskered mutt who thinks his ed u­
cation equips him to discuss things he knows nothing
about is the last thing on G o d ’s earth we need today. I
have the correspondence here on the table. We copy
this correspondence and give it to our students.
The Alexandrian Cult controls the educational sys­
tem o f America.
If the system is secular, it comes from Plato, A ris­
totle, Thales, A naxim ander, Anaxim enes, Socrates, and
Pythagoras: evolutionary materialists who believed in
the eternity of matter.
If the system is “Christian,” it com es from O ri­
gen, Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine, Constantine, and
the scholastic system of the Dark Ages.
From 1500-1880, this system was held in abey­
ance for the Philadelphia Church Period. D uring that
time, some o f the schools began with a non-Alexandrian
system (Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth), but they
quickly apostasized.
How?
I said: “ho w ?”
H ow did the University o f C hicago and C olum bia
University begin as Christian universities and wind up
as hog wallows for International Socialists?
How?
The faculty members at Tennessee Temple and Dal­
las know that they d id , but how did they? Oh, there is
that great vacuum where silence descends upon the
faculty like a turkey farm on Thanksgiving afternoon.
My, w hat a silence! Oh, how deathly quiet these bold,
brave “defenders o f the faith” in “bastions o f o rtho­
do xy ” get when called upon for the simplest of simple
operations in a realm with which they profess to be
occupied for a lifetime.
Before you believe one word written by an apos­
tate Fundam entalist on how they “got that w ay,” would
you exam ine the similarity of approach and m ethod
used by Bob Jones University and the University o f
Southern California?
L e t’s try California first and include Berkeley with
it.
1. Darwin was right: you cam e up slowly from an
amoeba.
2. Darwin was wrong: there are 30,000 missing
links.
3. Darwin was right: you ju s t got “help” from
outer space to ju m p the “links.”
4. Darwin was wrong: time and distance are rela­
tive so progress is relative, so you may be going for­
ward. Again, you may be going backward.
5. No one can say for sure that anyone is “right”
or “w rong” because “right” and “w rong” are relative
terms which have different “m eanings” to different
people because their “life styles” (“values” in the Cult
vocabulary) vary.
Summation— W illiam Jam es gives the greatest
summation know n to man: “T here is nothing to be
stated , nothing to be predicted. The only thing we
know is that we know nothing f o r sure. There is no
advice to give.”
Secular education leads to the maximum uncer­
tainty relative to absolute authority. Darwin is not the
final authority. Heisenberg (uncertainty principle) is not
the final authority. There is no fin a l authority. The
school will “ liberate” you from final authority, so you
will be your own authority by believing the infidelity
 shot into your intellectual veins by Satan.
Shall we try “Christian E ducation” (on a “higher
level,” o f course; there is nothing w rong with teaching
kiddies now to read and write) in any recognized, “lead­
ing” school in A m erica where all o f the faculty m e m ­
bers profess to believe in a “plenary, verbally inspired,”
unread “ Bible” ?
1. The AV translators are right: it should be “ v i r ­
gin,” not “young w om an” (Isaiah 14).
2. The AV translators are wrong: it should be
“Passover,” not “ E a s t e r ” (Acts 12).
3. The A V translators are right: it should be “ G o d
blessed f o r e v e r ” (Rom. 9).
4. The AV translators are wrong: “ G o d ” had no
business being “ m a n ife s t in th e flesh ” (1 Tim. 3:16).
5. W estcott and Hort are right: there is no ascen­
sion or worship mentioned in Luke 24:51-52.
6. Westcott and Hort are wrong: the ending of
M ark 16 should be there.
7. The AV translators are wrong: half o f Acts 9 :5 -
6 sho uldn’t be there.
8. No one can say f o r certain that either are right
or wrong because subjectivism enters into all transla­
tions and a translation can be "reliable” without b e ­
ing accurate or clear. It can also be “r elia b le” while
attacking the Virgin Birth (Luke 2:33), the Bodily Resur­
rection (Acts 1:3), the Deity o f Christ (1 Tim. 3:16),
the A scension (Luke 24:51 -5 2), the right way to study
(2 Tim. 2:15), the Blood A tonem ent (Col. 1:14), and
the restoration o f Israel (1 Thess. 2:16).
Summation: You have no authority but the guess­
work o f people who use what they “prefer” or prefer
what they “use” because they either “prefer” it or have
to use it to keep from being spotted as an apostate.
W estcott and Hort are not the final authority. The
AV is not the final authority. N estle is not the final
authority. The fin al authority is an unread, unknown,
unheard, unavailable piece o f p a p e r (or p ieces o f p a ­
p e r or collection o f pieces o f p a p er—a “manuscript ”
is not a “book, ” remember?) which you cannot read,
teach, learn, practice, consult, or hear. The school has
“liberated” you from the hated authority o f the Holy
Bible so that you will be your own authority by believ­
ing the infidelity shot into your spiritual life by Satan.
Both systems o f education, Christian or non-Chris­
tian, are designed and calculated to produce the m axi­
mum amount of uncertainty in the student where it
deals with Final Authority. They are their own “gods,”
and their “ G o d is t h e ir b elly.” They f e e d their belly
(Phil. 3; Rom. 16) by the income they get from the
school system. And this explains why all faculty m e m ­
bers of apostate, fundam ental schools think that when
a man believes the written words o f God in the Holy
Bible that he is “w orshipping” a translation. Having
elevated their “belly” (means o f income at the school)
to the supreme seat o f authority, they are forced to
logically assume that anything above their belly (means
o f income at the school) must be a god in the eyes of
the beholder.
Such are the paths o f Hell and dam nation in the
A lexandrian Cult; it is a “Christian ” cult.
 ARTICLE NINE
“BJU—Cult Headquarters”
H aving listed the standard lies (and false im plica­
tions) used by the Cult m em bers and having identified
their typical “cliches” or speech forms, we have not
arrived at the place where we may docum ent their p e ­
rennial heresies exactly as they have been passed down
from one Christian college to another since the first
Alexandrian college was founded by Philo, Pantaenus,
and Clem ent (A.D. 100-200).
W e shall keep two things in mind as we docum ent
these apostate Fundamentalists:
1. The constant recom m endation o f D U A L au ­
thorities so that the school or the scholar remains as
the deciding (“final” ) authority.
2. The open adm ission that none o f them have
ever seen TH E Bible, read TH E Bible, or taught TH E
Bible, while advertising that they believe TH E Bible
and “teach” it.
With these two demonstrable operations before our
faces, shall we start?
W e will start with Bob Jones University:
1. “W e would not tolerate anyone here who at­
tacked the King James Bible” (Bob Jones III, Sept. 11,
1976).
2. “W e believe that the text o f W estcott and Hort
• . . is, as a whole, superior to the text o f Erasmus. We
have no sympathy with any version o f that Bible that is
not faithful to THE Greek text” (Custer and Neal, fac­
ulty members o f BJU).
3. “A Fundam entalist believes that whatever TH E
Bible says is so and judges all things by TH E Bible. He
maintains an im m ovable allegiance to the inerrant, in ­
fallible, and verbally inspired Bible” (clipping from
Faith f o r the Family, after the W orld Congress o f
“F undam entalists” ).
4. “The King James Version is still the most b eau ­
tiful and most poetic. It is the version we use in all of
our services here, but we also have enough sense to
know that it is possible to improve on a translation.
The ASV (1901) is a reliable translation. The scholars
o f our Bible faculty believe it to be more true than the
King James . . . in these two versions, we believe God
has protected the integrity o f His Word. It is preposter­
ous to say that the King James is the only worthy
translation. W hile I earnestly contend for the faith, 1 do
not contend for hobbies.” (Bob Jones III, President
BJU, Aug. 31, 1971).
5. ‘‘I f e e l that the ASV o f 1901 is, by far, the most
reliable versio n ” (M arshal Neal, Registrar, BJU, Dec.
23, 1963).
There is the position in all o f its ridiculous dis­
honesty.
The position is that o f a dem ented moron.
The president o f the institution contradicts the f a c ­
ulty, they contradict him. The advertising is false, and
the faculty doesn’t believe anything of the kind that
appears in the school’s advertisement. The advertise­
m ent states that the school believes “in the absolute
authority o f the Bible.” Observe the definite article—
“T H E ” Bible.
In Bob Jones I l l ’s last propaganda sheet (March,
1978), he tells the prospecting student that BJU wants
to be “ identified” with the AV, not because it is “the”
Bible or because it is the Scriptures, but because it is
“ adequate” and “reliable” and has always been associ­
ated with the “F undam entalist” position. Neither he nor
Custer nor Neal have ever seen the Bible or the Scrip­
tures.
How then do they “ju d g e all things” (see above)
 by something they have never seen or read?
Interesting, isn’t it?
This is the typical format o f all apostate F u n d a­
mentalists who have taken the first two steps towards
Neo-orthodoxy: Genesis 3:1 and the recommending o f
two or more conflicting authorities. W hile spouting all
over the country about the “ stands” taken against “cor­
rupt versions” (they list the NEB and the RSV), neither
Bob Jones III nor anyone on his faculty will dare face
the terrible and dam ning f a c t o f docum ented evidence:
the NEB and the RSV are from the Alexandrian Greek
text of W estcott and Hort exactly as the ASV and the
NASV cam e from the same source. By calling this text
an “eclectic” text (A LL “texts” are “eclectic texts”),
the “Bastion o f O rthodoxy” deceives the students, ad ­
vertises its position falsely, lies about m anuscript evi­
dence, and recom m ends the m ost godless, depraved
corruption o f the right Greek text know n in the history
of M anuscript Evidence.
I have a letter on my desk, written to one o f my
students, by a certain Elm er Rum m inger, who draws a
salary at BJU. He pointed out to my student that “R u ck­
man is an enem y of BJU, who slanders our position on
the Bible." Go soak your head, Elmer; your superiors
have already stated your position in print. A nyone can
read it.
Does Bob Jones Jr. profess to have a copy o f the
Bible? O f course! In writing to Jack Van Impe about
“com prom ise” (Dec. 14, 1977), he says, “Men may
differ on interpretations; but where obedience to the
Bible is concerned, those who love the Lord and b e ­
lieve the Book (!!) are going to line themselves up with
the Book and, therefore, against his position.”
W hat is this “the B ook” o f which Bob Jones Jr.
speaks?
D o n ’t be silly. He w a s n ’t even attempting to tell
you the truth. W hen he said “the B ook ,” he meant a
Book that no one ever saw or read, and none o f his
faculty members have ever taught it a day in their
lives. “The Book” is the “m ystical” com bination of
“reliable versions” and “older m anuscripts” which cor­
rect the Book in 31,000 places (36,000 in the NASV),
and “the Book” and “the Bible” are no more proper
speech in the mouth o f a man like that than in the
m outh o f M ao Tse-tung.
How do you obey “the Bible” when you d o n ’t
have a copy? Simple: in the minds of the deluded fanat­
ics you ju st pretend that since “good, godly, dedicated
m en” recom m end garbage on occasion (Wuest, Hort,
Robertson, Schaff, Green, M achen, Davidson, Warfield,
et al.), you can get students by advertising a Book you
d o n ’t have. In its place, you offer 1,900 years of bun­
gling stupidity— the nineteen centuries of rubbish co m ­
piled by the A lexandrian Cult.
This position of Bob Jones U niversity is not in the
least rare. As a matter o f fact, over 90 percent o f the
faculty m em bers o f any Christian college, university,
or seminary in A m erica handle it ju st like that. If you
d o n ’t believe this, we shall proceed with Tennessee
Tem ple University in our next article, and then work
our way down to Pensacola Christian College and other
Alexandrian offshoots who specialize in usurping the
authority o f the Holy Spirit and the Holy Bible (Gen.
3:1).
For now, review the material quoted above. It is
all documented in xeroxed copies. This is the official
Cult position of the apostate in any generation which
leads to apostasy in the next generation. W e are here
dealing with the roots of apostasy, not the fruits or the
final results; the fruits and results are obvious to the
most unlearned. But we are here locating the root of
apostasy as it occurs in nineteen centuries o f church
history. Its roots are the same in nineteen centuries. It
begins with questioning what G od said, and then it
recommends a competing authority with what G od said
(that often contradicts what G od said), and then it
leaves the believer with no fin al authority but scholar­
ship (Col. 2:8).
In our next article, we shall study the roots o f
apostasy as found in the faculty m em bers o f T ennessee
Tem ple U niversity (C hattanooga, T ennessee), and then
we shall look at M idw estern in P ontiac, M ichigan. The
“apostolic succession” o f A lexandrian teaching goes
from one university to another, and there has never
been a cure for it know n in church history. O xford and
C am bridge follow ed this pattern, as did H arvard, D art­
m outh, Y ale, Princeton, W estm inster, and W heaton;
with no exceptions. There are no exceptions. O nce the
first tw o steps are tolerated, the retrograde dow n m ove­
m ent begins, and it does not end until it lands in the
NCCC or the C om m unist Party.
 ARTICLE TEN
“The Cult at Tennessee Temple”
In our last article, we w ent into som e length to
define the position o f the C ult and the C ultists by p re­
senting the official stand o f Bob Jones U niversity in
regard to “the B ib le.” A fter thirty years o f advertising
that the school stood for “the absolute authority o f the
B ible,” we w ere m ildly surprised to find that neither
Bob Jones III nor his faculty m em bers (Neal and Custer)
had ever seen any Bible. If you w ill go back and review
the article (in the previous Bulletin), you w ill see the
docum ented evidence that b elief in the B ible is the gim ­
m ick used by the C ult to get C hristian young men and
w om en to attend the school. W hen it com es to “th e”
B ible, the m atter is out o f the question. T he school has
to use the AV (1611) to retain its enrollm ent, it m ust
“prefer” it because 98 percent o f the founders and fac­
ulty m em bers w ere saved through the preaching or read ­
ing o f the AV (1611), and it m ust promote it as “re li­
able” since it is perfectly apparent that the greatest
revival in the history o f the church attended its p reach ­
ing and teaching (1 6 1 1 -1 9 1 0 ).
C arefully checking out B JU ’s “p o sitio n ,” we have
learned that it takes tw o positions: one fo r the sucker
about to be enrolled (and his fam ily who m ay com e to
“chapel” or “B ible co n feren ce” to hear the B ible) and
the other for the classroom (and correspondence) w here
fo u r authorities are recom m ended:
1. T he corrupt W estcott and H ort G reek text o f
the R om an C atholic C hurch.
2. The grossly corrupt ASV o f 1901 w hich attacks
four fundam entals o f the faith in various passages.
3. The equally ridiculous NASV, w hich alters the
G od-honored text m ore than 31,000 tim es.
4. A nd finally, the one that m ust be “p referred ”
because the body o f C hrist is still “u sing” it— the Au­
thorized Version.
This is the standard doctrine o f the Cult: dual
conflicting authorities which the school or scholar sub­
stitutes as “ G o d ” (Gen. 3 :1 -4 ).
Shall we now try C liff R obinson and A fm an o f the
Bible D epartm ent o f T ennessee T em ple U niversity?
Surely a m an as spiritual and “g o dly” as Dr. Lee R o b ­
erson w ould not be found w ith a N orth A frican C ult in
the nest, w ould he?
“H ere at T ennessee Tem ple Schools we use the
King James Version o f the Bible as a basis for Bible
study in all our B ible classes. In our G reek classes we
use N estle’s text . . . N estle’s text is based on m anu­
scripts from the third and fourth cen tu ry ” (January 3,
1964, C liff Robinson, H ead o f the B ible D epartm ent).
“It is deceitful on the part o f those who w ould jo in
us in criticizing the Revised Standard Version to in­
clude in their criticism the above m entioned versions
(ASV and NASV). The m en w ho produced those texts
were, in my opinion, o f equal faith and scholarship
with those w ho did the King James Version . . . If this
m ovem ent o f criticizing all those w ho w ould use for
reference another good version, I w ould predict it w ould
soon becom e a cultic (!!!) group, grieving the spirit o f
God and dividing unnecessarily the believers in the
inerrant Word o f G o d ” (Fred A fm an, Tennessee Tem ple
C ollege, N ovem ber 18, 1976); (L etter published in Bi­
ble B elieve rs’ Bulletin, January, 1979).
H ere is the neo-O rthodox position o f B arth and
B runner as beautiful as you ever saw it. A fm an co n ­
cludes his letter by saying that students should give
their energies to the com passionate “teaching o f the
W ord o f G od.”
What “Word o f G o d ’” ?
 To A fm an, the “W ord o f G od” is the contents o f
three versions that cross each other up in m ore places
than the com bined publication o f 900,000,000 A V ’s
published since 1611. W hat is this “W ord o f G od” (note
capital “W ” as used by T illich, B arth, and B runner)
w hich is not a B ible, let alone the B ible?
O bserve further the old A lexandrian pitch. D id
you notice how subtle C liff R obinson injected the idea
(without listing any evidence) that the N estle’s text
was m ore authoritative because it w as “old er” ? Did
you notice that insertion? W a s n 't it done w ith “sound
speech, that cannot be condem ned” ? Oh m y, yes;
you w ould never catch a m em ber o f the A lexandrian
C ult talking like Paul (2 C or. 10:10). Oh heavens to
Betsy, no! The C ult alw ays uses “good words and
fair speeches” (Rom. 16:18) to inject the poison. D id n ’t
Satan begin with a “yes” ? Y ou w ouldn’t catch any C ult-
ist calling a “b roth er” a “suck egg hound” (N orris) or a
“hog-jow led liquor head ” (H am ) or a “rotten w orm ”
(L uth er). O h no, it is ju s t as cool and refin e d as
T ertu llu s’ speech in A cts 2 4 :1 -6 .
Now “the simple believeth every word” but the
w ise “looketh well to his going.” O bserve:
A fm an has said by im plication that:
1. People w ho have the Bible and believe it can
becom e a cult.
2. A man who criticizes the ASV along w ith the
RSV is deceitful.
3. A m an who criticizes the NASV along w ith the
RSV is deceitful.
4. A man w ho holds up one, final authority is
dividing the Bible believers on an unnecessary issue.
G o back and read the quotations if you think I
have m isrepresented either o f these teachers at T en n es­
see Tem ple.
Is this the “pot calling the kettle b lack ” ?
No, this is the standard propaganda o f the C ult put
 out by its high priests and neophytes fo r m ore than
eighteen centuries. It ignores the facts that:
1. The ASV is from the sam e G reek text as the
RSV.
2. The NASV is from the sam e G reek text as the
RSV.
3. The G reek text for all three is the G reek text
recom m ended by C liff R obinson, the H ead o f the Bible
D epartm ent.
4. This text departs from the R eceived T ext of the
A V in m ore than 5,800 places in the N ew Testam ent.
5. The "equal faith” and “scholarship” had no more
bearing on the product (ASV, NASV, NIV, NEB, and
RSV) than butterm ilk has on the production o f baseball
bats.
“Equal faith” and “scholarship” were added ingredi­
ents put in at the end to increase your faith in a co m ­
peting authority with the w ord o f God. (See the first
three articles in the series.) All C ult m em bers think and
talk alike, for they are all man-pleasers follow ing a
man. E veryone o f them designs to shake your faith in
the absolute authority o f the Bible by recom m ending or
tolerating a conflicting authority.
A lthough R obinson will not dare com m it h im self
to a statem ent on N estle’s text or the “third and fourth
century m anuscripts,” he only rem ains silent in the hope
that none o f his students will buy P ick erin g ’s w ork on
The Identity o f the New Testament Text and H ill’s w ork
on Believing Bible Study.
O ne ounce o f docum ented evidence presented by
an honest man is w orth 31,000 changes o f S cripture by
scholarly C ultists w ho think they are sm arter than God
and accept the hallucinations o f their pagan im agina­
tions (B urgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 2 0 0 -3 3 0 ) as
fact” because o f their “equal faith .”
N ow , w hat is behind all o f this?
W ell, the problem is exactly as we stated it in the
first four articles published in the Bulletin. The first
step in apostasy (for a saved m an or a lost m an) is to
question what G od said. The second step (after having
cast a doubt in the m ind as to absolute authority) is to
elevate some other authority even to the one that is
about to be displaced. This is the B iblical description
of the origins o f apostasy (G en. 3). It cannot be set
aside by any F undam entalist w ithout im periling his
school, church, and m inistry. It is set aside regularly
by every m ajor, C hristian college and university in
A m erica and E urope, and that is w hy every one of
them , w ithout exception, eventually w inds up “m o d ­
ern ist.”
“A trip o f a thousand m iles begins w ith one step”
(Japanese proverb).
In our next article, we shall exam ine the w ork o f
the C ult in M idw estern o f Pontiac, M ichigan. It m ust
be understood that exactly as the C atholic Church keeps
control o f all countries in South and C entral A m erica
no m atter w hich general has a “co u p e”— the A lex an ­
drian C ult controls the m echanics o f the learning p ro ­
cesses in all institutions o f higher learning no m atter
how “godly” their “sou l-w in n in g ” founder m ay have
been. It d o e sn 't m ake any difference who founded it or
who recommends it or how “g o dly” the m en w ere that
m ade the other translations; the blighting fact is that
unless the school cleans out the ra t’s nest o f C ultists
subm erged in its interior, they will eventually convert
the school to a L iberal institution. Since no “g o d ly ’
Fundam entalist believes this (observe how Scofield cov­
ered up the facts for you in his note on apostasy— 2
Tim . 4), the school is “ in the b ag ” w ith the passage of
time.
If the school is the final authority, the school has
been placed over the written revelation o f God.
If the church is the final authority, the church has
been placed over the written revelation o f God.
 Paul uses the w ord “scripture” tw ice in the New
T estam ent in place o f God (Rom . 9; Gal. 3), and a l­
though we have better sense than to equate the tw o, we
understand perfectly why the A lexandrian C ult is so
deathly afraid o f “bibliolatry.” They are afraid that people
will w orship w hat God said instead o f w hat they say.
They are already idolators. They have ju s t substituted
an earthly infallible organization (or m an) for the living
w ords o f the living G od (1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4 :1 2 -1 3 ).
In our next issue we shall present the stand o f
M idw estern w ith reference to Dr. R onald Jones, a D ean
w ho w orks under Tom M alone. In our next issue also,
we shall begin to list (one in each issue) the objections
to the A V raised by the Cult. It m ust be understood that
we w ill n o t be d e a lin g h ere w ith “L ib e ra ls ” and
“N eo-evangelicals” and th eir objections to the w ord o f
God. W e will be dealing w ith the destructive criticism
o f “godly” scholars at “fu n d am en tal” schools as they
seek to rid the student o f the authority o f the Autho­
rized Version.
 ARTICLE ELEVEN
“Midwestern in Alexandria, Egypt”
U pon exam ining the docum ented evidence given
by the faculty m em bers at B ob Jones U niversity (N eal
and C uster) with the approval o f their president (Bob
Jones III) and the faculty m em bers o f Tennessee Tem ple
(R obinson and A fm an), we are now in a position to
“th e o riz e ” on the resp o n se o f P ied m o n t, P illsb u ry ,
B IO LA , M id-S outh, N orthland B aptist C ollege, C en ­
tral Sem inary, Indiana B aptist College, H yles-A nderson,
F airhaven C ollege, C alvary B aptist School o f T h eo l­
ogy, F uller, T albot, and thirty or thirty -fo u r at random
o f the colleges advertised in the Sword o f the Lord.
W e shall project the theorem that nearly every
m ajor, “recognized ” fundam ental school in A m erica is
controlled by the A lexandrian C ult, and that every m a­
jo r school w ill recom m end a competing authority with
the Holy Bible and do w hat they can to shake the
student’s faith in that Bible. A man m ust be educated
out o f his faith in the Authorized Version in order to
doubt it and deny it. Christian education fulfills this
function, at least on the post-high school level. No
Liberal in the eighteenth or nineteenth century had to
m ake 31,000 changes in the co rrect text to prove his
lies; that was the result o f M achen, W arfield, and R ob­
ertson follow ing the disastrous leadership o f Schaff,
L ightfoot, and H ort (1 8 8 0 -1 9 0 1 ).
The follow ing inform ation is from Dr. R onald
Jones, the A cadem ic D ean o f M idw estern Schools in
Pontiac, M ichigan.
“As far as the versions you asked about, we use
the King James in chapel and our B ible classes. How
do you explain the fact that w hen first printed it was
disliked by A rm inians and Puritans alike? The King
James Version is a good, accurate copy o f the W ord o f
G od in English. W hy did the 1613 edition differ from
the 1611 edition in m ore than 4,000 places? W e use it
(the King James) to settle m atters o f faith and practice,
and our faculty and chapel speakers use it fo r chapel.
M ay I suggest you consider some o f the follow ing books
to help you in this area o f study.”
(There follow s six books by am illennial, baby-
sprinkling, five-point C alvinists— M iller, W arfield, Allis,
Y oung, and a Sym posium by the president o f R eform ed
Publishing Com pany.)
R onald Jones w rote this m aterial in answ er to the
question: “D o you think the King James Bible is the
infallible w ord o f God and is it in erran t?”
Naturally, Jones d id n ’t answer the question. He
sim ply planted a doubt in your m ind to m ake you think
it co u ld n ’t be inerrant. He never gave any evidence for
w hat he believed, nor did he state w hat he believed. He
believes in “using it.” D itto BJU. Jones was also asked
“w hich B ible,” or “ w hich B ibles,” M idw estern co n sid ­
ered to be the word o f God. He refused to answer
either question. To m ake you think he was a great
defender o f the faith, he said, “W e believe that liberal
scholars are going to m ake a liberal version, as seen in
The G ood News Bible. ”
The G ood News Bible is from the N e s tle ’s text
recom m ended by C liff R obinson at T ennessee Tem ple
(see last issue). The G ood News Bible is the Alexan­
drian Greek text o f the B ibles produced by “godly co n ­
servatives” (1901) and “d ed icated ” F undam entalists
(1959). N aturally, Jones ducked the issue.
N otice how a C ultist goes about the jo b o f insem i­
nating poison into the b eliever by innuendo and im pli­
cation.
1. “A rm inians and Puritans did n ’t like it” . . . there­
fore . . . ?
 (Y ou are to deduce from this that if both objected
then there m ust have been som ething wrong w ith it.
W hy w ould any idiot surm ise this? The AV has been
opposed by Puritans, Fundam entalists, Catholics, Armin-
ians, C om m unists, C onservatives, N eo-orthodox, C al­
vinists, and L iberals fo r 360 years. So w hat? W hat
surer p roof o f the D ivine hand on the translators than
thatV.)
2. “T here are 400 variations in tw o editions . .
therefore?
(Therefore, the unw ary are to assume that any
variation is a contradiction. O r we are to assum e that
there could be no variation if G od had a hand in e i­
ther.)
N ow, le t’s pick up a few side item s that the A lex ­
andrian C ult has overlooked.
1. Rem em ber all that talk about the third and fourth
century m anuscripts for N estle’s text (C liff R obinson,
T ennessee T em ple)? Do you know w hat the fourth cen ­
tury ones w ere? (R obinson w o u ld n ’t list them ; neither
w ould N eal or C uster, B JU .) They w ere A leph and B
(Sinaiticus and V aticanus), the two most notoriously
corrupted manuscripts ever discovered (see B urgon,
The Last Twelve Verses o f Mark). T hese tw o “oldest
m anuscripts” (see N eal and C uster, B JU ) d iffer b e ­
tw een them selves in 3,000 places alone in M atthew ,
M ark, Luke, and John.
D oes this disqualify them as being “au th o ritativ e”
in the eyes o f the C ult? O f course not. The C ult p ro ­
ceeded to m ake 30,000 changes in your B ible w ith
better than 5,000 o f them based on these two corrupt
manuscripts. W hen did “variations” ever becom e a prob­
lem w ith the C ult? N ever.
2. W hat w ill B rother Jones do w ith the 40,000
“variations” betw een any G reek text and any English
text or any H ebrew text and any E nglish text? A nyone
who know s languages know s that idiom s differ and that
 even the “verbal, plenary, inspired orig in als” w ere not
w ord-for-w ord reports o f w hat was spoken in E gyptian
or A ram aic (or B abylonian or C haldean) w hen they
were written. Once the providence o f God is o v er­
looked follow ing original inspiration, no am ount o f d is­
torting facts will alibi the unbelief. Jeremiah wrote two
inspired originals which d id not match (Jer. 36), and
the gang that rejected both o f them believed in cutting
out portions o f S cripture w hich they d id n ’t like (Jer.
36:23).
3. W hat are these fam ous “four hundred p laces,”
B rother Jones? A re all m atters o f faith and practice to
be found in a series o f m anuscripts that y o u ’ve never
seen, heard preached, read from, or studied? You are
about as “sound in the faith ” as Errol Flynn or Hugh
H efner.
O ur first “problem tex t” that we shall discuss will
quite naturally be a “p ro b lem ” only in the eyes o f the
C ultist who is dedicated to destroying faith in au th o r­
ity; by this we m ean any F undam entalist or C o n serv a­
tive on any faculty o f any school in E urope or A m erica
engaged in this activity. It is am azing how m any “p ro b ­
lem s” suddenly arise w hen one is dedicated to replacing
the A uthorized Text with the obscene nonsense o f W est­
cott, N estle, H ort, A land, M etzger, R obertson, D avis,
Thayer, Trench, V incent, R endall, Schaff, Green, Light-
foot, and M achen.
PRO BLEM : How does A haziah stand at forty-tw o
years old (2 Chron. 22:2) and twenty-two years old (2
K ings 8:26)? Is not this a blatant contradiction in clear
print w here it can be docum ented? Is not this p ro o f that
corrupt readings and “spurious” passages have crept
into the M asoretic text? “Yea, hath God said?”
B efore answ ering this sim ple, grade-school pro b ­
lem in B ible rudim ents, let us observe that it has been
solved at least ten tim es a year for 300 years, and yet
no acknow ledgm ent ever com es from the C ult or any
admission that it has been solved. The A lexandrian
C ult goes right on, as blind as a bat in a barroom ,
pretending that the “d ifficu lty ” is unsolvable. (This is
very im portant to rem em ber, for it m eans that the d is­
ease that infected the C ult in A.D. 100-200 is incur­
able-, salvation and the blood o f C h rist never have had
any effect on any apostate F undam entalist w ho is e n ­
gaged in m aintaining his own authority; i.e., incom e—
his belly, Phil. 3:19).
a. A haziah is not Jeh o ram ’s real son. This is ap ­
parent by the fact the Jeh o ram ’s w ife is not A h aziah ’s
mother, and Jehoram only had a boy nam ed “ J e h o a h a z ”
w hen he died (2 C hron. 21:17).
Q uestion: W hy w ere these m atters not pointed out
to the B ible-believing student when he w asted his money
paying tuition at a school designing to m ake an IN F I­
D EL out o f him ?
b. A haziah’s m other was the daughter o f Omri
(A hab’s sister: 2 C hron. 22:2).
c. Jehoram ’s w ife was A h a b ’s daughter, not his
sister (2 K ings 8:18).
Q uestion: W hy did the blatant, arrogant, blind, stu­
pid guides (w hose “lo y alty ” to the “verbally, inspired
orig in als” was “ unquestioned” !), w ho im planted doubt
in the stu d en t’s m ind about the “co n trad ictio n ,” d elib ­
erately avoid the Biblical information on the Bible state­
ment?
d. D avid was anointed as a king years before he
got on the throne (1 Sam .).
e. Saul was anointed twice as king (1 Sam. 10:1
and 1 Sam. 11:15).
f. Jesus C h rist’s kingship (M att. 17) began in A.D.
33, and He is not on His rightful throne yet (M att. 19,
25). He began to reign at 33, and He will begin to
reign at 2000 plus.
Q uestion: Since any fourth-grade B ible student
could be taught this in grade school, w hat was the
purpose in spending $4,000 dollars at a “B ible-believ-
ing” college that stood for the “verbally inspired, in fal­
lible B ible,” to avoid learning it?
O bviously, A haziah is offered the K ingdom at
tw enty-tw o in Israel, and it is postponed till he is
forty-tw o. He could have been anointed (D avid and
Saul) and recognized (John 19:20-22) and unable to sit
dow n on the throne for twenty years.
M oral: W here 100 percent o f the godly, dedicated
Fundam entalists, w ho believe in “the plenary, verbal
inspiration o f the orig in als,” im plant a doubt in your
m ind about the A uthorized Text, it is due to ignorance,
carelessness, lack o f honesty, and bad heart condition.
 ARTICLE TWELVE
“Saul and the Alexandrian Cult”
H av in g e x am in ed th e “ s ta n d ” tak en fo r d u al
conflicting authorities and the rejection o f any au th o r­
ity as “th e” B ible (see previous m aterial on Bob Jones
U niversity, T ennessee Tem ple U niversity, and M id­
w estern), w e are now including in each Bulletin a
so-called “problem tex t.” T hese “p ro b lem ” texts are
the tw entieth-centu ry antidote for b elief in the B ible,
and they form part and parcel o f the “sto reh o u se” o f
“godly F undam entalists” w ho are engaged in exalting
their school or church (i.e., salary— belly) above the
living words o f the living God.
To the Bible b eliever they naturally form no p rob­
lem at all since an ounce o f faith is w orth a pound o f
education, and an ounce o f common sense is w orth ten
tons o f nonsense published by W estcott, A land, M etz­
ger, N estle, H ort, and other C ult m em bers o f the A lex ­
andrian “Scholars U nion.”
In the last issue, we discussed A h aziah ’s age (22
and 42) and show ed the believ er how ridiculous it is to
assum e there is a m istake in the AV sim ply because 100
per cent o f the “godly, dedicated Fundam entalists” think
there is.
B efore looking at our next “problem te x t” from 1
Sam uel 13:1 (look out for the thirteen!!), let us look at
som e interesting correspondence from D allas T heologi­
cal Sem inary and from the Southern B aptist Sem inary
at L ouisville. Since both o f these institutions are co n ­
trolled by the A lexandrian Cult, they should present a
unified front w hen opposing the A uthorized T ext o f the
P rotestant R eform ation.
O ur first C ultist will be John F. W alvoord (who
 believes in the “verbal, plenary, etc.” if you ev er saw
it): “I personally prefer the American Standard Ver­
sion o f 1901. This version, how ever, does have a rev i­
sion w hich was undertaken by scholars who accept the
Bible as the W ord o f God, and m any evangelicals p r e ­
fer this new er edition. It is my personal opinion that
the RSV and several others w hich are recent are not
entirely trustw orthy as accurate translations o f the origi­
nal text o f the Bible” (W alvoord, January 1, 1969),
D allas Theological Sem inary).
Is n ’t that beautiful?
1. He “prefers” a book that he d o esn ’t dare use.
2. The “B ible” is used tw ice in the letter w ithout
any reference to anything he has seen, read, handled,
learned, or taught.
3. B ut he professes to know w hat is in “the origi­
nal Greek text o f the B ible” !
R em arkable profession, w o u ld n ’t you say, for a
m an w ho has neither?
This is Standard O perating Procedure.
The A lexandrian C ult is unanim ously agreed that
W alvoord’s letter on these m atters is correct; nay, “flaw ­
less,” as far as it goes.
W hy isn ’t the RSV trustw orthy, D octor? It is from
the same Alexandrian text fro m which the ASV and the
NASV cam e, the text that contains the R om an C atholic
Apocrypha in the Old Testam ent as p a rt o f the in­
spired canon and New T estam ent pseudepigrapha in
the N ew Testam ent.
Shall we step over to Lottie M oon and see how
A. T. R o b ertso n ’s A lm a M ater looks at these m atters?
“The m ost literally exact translation o f the B ible in
E nglish is the American Standard (1901). If you check
m odern translations against it, you will be follow ing
the best procedure. It is not, o f course, a p erfect tran s­
lation— there is none” (R aym ond B. B row n, New T es­
tam ent Interpretation, L ouisville, K entucky, D ec. 30,
1963).
N ow , here m ight be a good tim e to review articles
1-3 in this series and go back over the ground (Phil.
3:1), f o r here you have the exact position o f Genesis 3
and 1 Kings 13 presented by the two outstanding theo­
logical seminaries in America. Lew is Sperry C hafer
and Dr. A. T. R obertson are the tw o nam es connected
with these A lexandrian, N orth A frican offshoots planted
in the heart o f Fundam entalist A m erica (Texas and K en­
tucky) to get rid o f the authority o f the hated Autho­
rized Version.
O bserve the d em onstration o f a fix ed pattern since
1880; it is a pattern designed to set up an apostate
church (M att. 13) u nder the A n tich rist (Rev. 13), and
its “ le a v e n ” (M att. 13) is designed to fill the w hole
lum p, not ju s t the L iberal and N eo-O rthodox part o f
the “lum p.” A fter all, the “lum p” o f bread is from good
seed (M att. 13) and is a reference to the B ody o f Jesus
C hrist in G alatians and 1 C orinthians 5 :6 -7 . T h ere­
fore, the heretical teaching that apostasy has only to
do w ith unsaved p eo ple is a Satanic doctrine taught by
those engaged in setting up a situation w here apostasy
can germ inate (2 Tim . 4 :1 -6 ). N o unsaved m an know s
what “ s o u n d d o c trin e ” is and w hat it is not (2 Tim.
4 :2 -6 ).
T his fixed pattern is sim ple. To be recognized as a
“g odly, dedicated sch o lar,” w hose “vast labors to re ­
store the original te x t” m ust be “h o n o red ” because he
believes in the “verbal, plenary, etc., etc.,” one m ust
fir s t attack the Authorized Text (G en. 3:1). So neither
R obertson, Schafer, W alvoord, or R aym ond B row n ac­
cepted that text as faultless (see correspondence above).
Secondly, one m ust elevate a competing authority
even w ith that text so that the tw o cancel each other.
(O bserve: “T here is not, o f course, a p erfect tran sla­
tion— there is n o n e ”) This w ay, the man who said that
 (in this case, B row n o f L ouisville) is the absolute, f i ­
nal, supreme, and last authority on w hat any Bible
should say and w hat it should not say (G en. 3:1).
Observe that this is the exact position o f Bob Jones
III (BJU), Cliff Robinson (Tennessee Temple), Dean
Jones (Midwestern), W alvoord (Dallas), and in a m o ­
ment, Hyles-Anders on, * Moody, Fuller, Wheaton, and
Pillsbury.
This is w hy the apostate F undam entalist on these
faculties alw ays insists that a B ible b eliever is “fo llo w ­
ing a man. ’ They have already canceled every authority
but their own in deciding w hat is the B ible, and they
m anifest this by saying they “p refer” one version above
another. They do this as not to hurt the feelings o f
others w ho “prefer” something else. By m aking their
own preference the final authority, they allow u n lim ­
ited conflicting authorities, for there are as m any “p ref­
erences” as there are Bible-rejecting jackasses.
N ow , w hat did R aym ond B row n say?
1. He professed to know w hat the B ible was b e ­
cause he undertook to tell you w hat the best literal
translation o f it was (look at the evidence above).
2. The B ible to w hich he was referring was the
G reek text o f N estle, W estcott, and H ort from V atica-
nus and Sinaiticus, because that was the G reek text
used for the ASV (1901).
3. The Bible, at L ouisville, is the corrupt Catholic
Greek text o f 1881.
4. This is the Bible in the correspondence o f Custer
and N eal at BJU.
5. Since there is no perfect translation (see above),
the only perfect B ible (see above) w ould have to be the
m onstrous perversity o f 1881 sm uggled into the rev i­
sion com m ittee by H ort ( Which Bible?, D. O. Fuller).
Such are the w ays o f sin and death.
W hat p r o o f did the good doctor give to us that the
* T h is w a s w ritte n in 1980.
AV was not a perfect translation? None. He ju s t in ­
je cted the poison and w ent his way. C ould he p ro ve the
B ible I have in my hand is not a p erfect translation? O f
course not. All he could do was w hat the silly dean at
M idw estern did (see correspondence): copy som e ru ­
m ors he picked up from a C ult m em ber that dealt w ith
general theories about general speculations— not one
f a c t in a carload.
M en w ho follow W estcott and H ort cannot deal
with facts because neither o f those gentlem en w asted
ten pages on them (The Revision Revised, B urgon).
“The facts” behind the Lucian R ecension, the conflate
readings, the “better” readings, the “intrinsic evidence,”
the reliability o f w itnesses, etc., put forth by H ort (for
M achen, W arfield, Schaff, R obertson, and W uest to
follow ) are no m ore “facts” than “em bryonic recap itu ­
latio n ,” “ice ages,” the theory o f evolution, or “ac­
quired characteristics.” The A lexandrian C ult began with
religious philosophers, not B ible believers, and it ends
w ith superstitious scientists, not B ible believers.
W e shall now take up the second “p ro b lem ” text
put forth by apostate F undam entalists to overthrow the
faith o f the believing student in the A uthorized B ible o f
the R eform ation.
This problem pops up in 1 Sam uel 13 w here we
are told by the Lockm an Foundation (oh, good, “godly,”
dedicated m en if you ever found th e m !!) that “ Saul was
. . . years o ld .”
(Som etim es fundam ental scholarship is too funny
to get upset about. A re we to count the dots and as­
sum e that Saul reigned for three years because there
are three d o ts? A re we to assum e that this reading
“ Saul was . . . years o ld ” is clearer than the King James
text (“Saul reigned one year” ). O r are we to slip
around the back o f the shed and say that although it is
not “clearer” it is m ore “accurate” ? See how it’s done?)
T he m en responsible for this ridiculous nonsense
 are John W alvoord (see correspondence above!!), Frank
G aebelein, E. Schuyler English, A llen M acRae, C harles
F einberg, W illiam C ulbertson, C larence M ason, A lva
M cC lain, and W ilbur Sm ith.
A ny infidels in the group? O f course not.
Any N eo-O rthodox or “M odernists” ? O f course
not.
D o all believe in the “verbal, plenary inspiration o f
the unknow ables” ? O f course.
So ?
So every H ebrew text reads w ith the King James
and says “ben sheneh saul B eM A L aC H O ”— “Saul was
a son o f a year in his reig n in g .” This Hebrew idiom is
the exact reading o f 1 Kings 22:42 and 2 Kings 8:26.
The correct w ay to translate it is found in the A V
(1611), w hich presents it M O R E A C C U R A T E L Y and
more clearly than the New Scofield Reference Bible,
which contains the m onstrous nonsense given above:
“Saul was . . . years o ld .”
W hy did the “go o d , g o d ly , d e d icate d F u n d a ­
m entalists” listed above (w hose vast labors to restore
the original text, etc., etc.) sim ply falsify the text and
present a lie under the title o f “Authorized King James
Version ” ? (This reads the sam e as the NSRB in the fly
leaf o f the 1967 ed ition— “Authorized KING JAMES
Version. ”)
Sim ple: they figured that nobody w ould check on
them if they used a dead m a n ’s name (C. I. Scofield) to
pawn off the counterfeit. They did it and got aw ay w ith
it. In the L aodicean period, this is not hard to do.
W hat alibi did they give for lying? Sim ple: they
said that “the H ebrew text states . . .” (page 334, fo o t­
note 1, NSRB) and that the num eral before “y ears” was
lost.
It is the H ebrew text o f K ittel’s, w hich I have here
on th e ta b le (p. 422, K i t t e l ’s B ib lia H e b ra ic a ,
W urttem bergische B ibelenstadt, Stuttgart, 1937).
N aughty, naughty, boys! M u sn ’t lie ju s t because
“loyalty to the w ord is unquestioned” \
 ARTICLE THIRTEEN
“Fuller Seminary and
Prairie Bible Institute”
W e have now m ade considerable progress in docu­
m enting the sourcesof apostasy, the fam ous A lex an ­
drian C ult o f N orth A frica, with its leading founders
and high priests; next we traced th eir “ sch o larsh ip ”
through the G reek texts o f the cen tu ries— and their
m ethod o f handling absolute authority. W hen they
popped up on the faculties o f T ennessee Tem ple, Bob
Jones, M idw estern, D allas, and L ouisville (see the last
four articles), we w ere not in the least surprised. A fter
all, the D evil is about ten tim es as pow erful and as
clever as the m odern C onservative gives him credit for
being; therefore, it is “no great th in g ” if his theories on
m anuscript evidence, “best” texts, “oldest m anuscripts,”
and “better readin g s” should not show up at Bob Jones
and the U niversity o f C hicago under the same sponsor­
ship as we have pointed out and docum ented. A ll co m ­
peting authorities w ith the AV (ASV, NASV, NIV, etc.)
are the N orth A frican text o f O rigen, Jerom e, E u se­
bius, C onstantine, and A ugustine.
If the deluded apostates (C onservatives and F u n ­
dam entalists included) w ere “put on the spot” about
these m atters o f final authority, they w ould com e up
with a hackneyed cliche w hich has been used dow n
through the centuries by various people engaged in a
variety o f clandestine operations. W hen the unholy “fa ­
thers” o f the V atican w ere engaged in murder and tor­
ture, they w ould often cry “G od w ills it!” (Iron Men
and Saints, H arold Lam b). M any a C harism atic has
borrow ed m oney with no intention o f paying it back (or
hoodw inked a sick saint out o f his pension w ith p rom ­
ises o f “releasing your faith ”) by sim ply saying “the
Lord led m e.” O ur S cholars U nion (m em bers o f the
Cult) operate in exactly the sam e fashion. W hen “pinned
to the m at,” they respond w ith “the final authority is
God.”
See how that gets you “out o f the b in d s” ?
N eat, is n ’t it?
If you argued w ith them , they w ould say that if the
final authority is the H oly B ible, then you were putting
the Holy Bible ahead o f “G od.” N eat, is n ’t it? If you
d id n ’t have the sense that G od gave a brass m onkey,
you m ight even think they w ere honest m en, w o u ld n ’t
you?
Q uestion: What God? T here are several around,
according to the H oly B ible (Exod. 22:28; Psa. 82; 2
Cor. 4 :1 -4 — am azing how m uch light you m iss when
you are fooling w ith the “plenary, inspired o rig in als,”
isn ’t it?).
What God? “ T h e G o d a n d F a th e r o f o u r L o rd
Je s u s C h r is t” (Eph. 1:2; C ol. 1:3; 2 C or. 11:31)? The
God w ho led fifty -fo u r m en to put out a B ook that
caused the greatest revival in the history o f the w orld,
or the G od that “led” tw o b u llshooting papal spies to
sm uggle a text into a com m ittee (1881) w hen neither
m an believed G enesis 3 was history in any translation
or the “o rig in al” ?
What G od? T he G od th a t used B illy Sunday,
W. B. R iley, and Spurgeon w ith a B ook w ritten in
1611, or the God that “u sed” the L ockm an Foundation
to co rrect that B ook in 5,000 places?
“G ods” com e in assorted sizes you know (Isa. 4 0 -
48).
If the final authority is “G od,” does that G od ever
tell you w hat H is ideas o f right and wrong are? W ould
such a G od lead you to b elieve that “ re d e m p tio n ” and
“rem ission” are the sam e term (Col. 1:14 in the ASV
and NASV)? W ould He m ake you think “ Saul w as . . .
 years old” ? W ould He be interested in putting a doubt
in your m ind about the greatest B ook the w orld ever
saw or read?
If the final authority is “G od,” w ould it be the God
who included the Apocrypha as part o f the O ld T esta­
ment inspired writings (S inaiticus and V aticanus) or
w ould it be the G od that left them out (King James,
1611, Authorized Version)?
W e evidently have tw o conflicting final au th o ri­
ties: two Gods (see NASV, John 1:18), that operate
contrary to the principles for w hich they profess to
stand. This is w hy two Gods are listed by the Lockm an
Foundation in John 1:18 (NASV), recom m ended by Bob
Jones and T ennessee T em ple (see correspondence in
the last five articles).
Is this the w ork o f “G od” ? Which God?
C ontinuing our docum enting o f the heresies o f the
Cult, we now exam ine som e correspondence from F u ll­
er T heological Sem inary (Pasadena, CA ) and the P rai­
rie B ible Institute o f Three H ills, A lberta, Canada. H av­
ing com e this far in our study, we will be prepared to
prophesy before exam ining the m aterial. W e will proph­
esy that both will deny any absolute authority but their
own opinion (or someone e l s e ’s opinion), and then
both will recommend dual authorities that cancel each
other so that the school can be “G o d ”—the fin al au­
thority.
“It is probably safe to say that the American Stan­
dard Revision o f 1901 is as accurate a rendering o f the
entire B ible as is available on the m arket. T here is,
how ever, for the New T estam ent the New American
Standard Bible recently put out by the L ockm an F o u n ­
dation. Since I was very active in the production on
this translation, I naturally am enthusiastic about rec­
om m ending it. In regard to the O ld T estam ent, m ost o f
the m odern E nglish versions have defects o f one type
or other; the RSV is sufficient for m ost purposes . . . .”
(G leason A rcher Jr., P rofessor o f B iblical L anguages,
F uller T heological Sem inary, A pril 3, 1964).
Shall we try it again in a low er key?
“W e believe that the translators o f the AV did a
noble task in the light o f all the m anuscripts that they
had in their possession. Since that tim e how ever, f u r ­
ther light has been throw n on the original Scriptures.
W e believe the ASV (1901) is a very trustw orthy and
dependable translation. This is not to be identified of
course w ith the RSV . . (D onald E. C rites, President,
Prairie B ible Institute, Sept. 10, 1964).
N othing new u nder the sun, is there?
If you d id n ’t believe in men “ap in g ” men after
reading this pile o f rubbish, you w ould have to have
your glasses checked. W e are dealing w ith Tw eedledum
and T w eedledee; the identical tw ins control every m a­
jo r faculty o f every “reco g n ized ” school in A m erica.
(W e plead exem ption from “m ajor” and “reco g n ized .”
T he price o f recognition is to co rrect the H oly B ible.)
1. Neither man believes any Bible is the w ord o f
G od or the Scriptures.
2. Neither man believes the King James Bible is
the w ord o f G od or the Scriptures
3. Both m en recom m end the G reek text o f the
RSV and excuse their stupidity on the grounds that the
men w ho handled this text for the ASV d id n ’t think like
the ones w ho used it on the RSV, although it was the
same text.
4. B oth m en avoided any documented evidence or
p roof for one dogm atic statem ent they m ade. O bserve
how C rites poisoned his students w ith three beautiful
“ insinuations” left unsubstantiated (as they are alw ays
left):
a. T here has been “further lig h t” on the originals
since 1611. What is this light, sonny boy? It isn ’t in the
w riting o f T rench, T hayer, V incent, H ort, M iller, A llis,
R endall, W uest, N estle, or Hort. Oh, do tell us about
 this “further light” that we people m ust have— we poor,
dum b, stupid people w ho believe in a book w ritten in
1611! W hat, you c a n ’t tell us w hat this “further lig h t”
is? Then why did you mention it? Purpose? M otive?
Ah, yes, D octor, we know the purpose and the motive!
b. The AV translators did a “ noble task ” w ith the
“m anuscripts they had.” What manuscripts did they
have, D octor? You d id n ’t say? D id you know they had
access to the V atican m anuscripts? Y ou d id n ’t see the
docum ented evidence in H odges, Pickering, W ilkerson,
Hills, and B urgon? What manuscripts did they have,
D octor? Y ou d id n ’t m ention the versions. W hy not?
Could it be because every alteration o f the King James
text in the ASV and the NASV was know n in 1611 by
consulting the Jesuit R heim s B ible o f 1582?
N aughty, naughty, D octor! M ust not m isrepresent
the client when the client is the w ritten authority o f
God A lm ighty.
c. You didn’t say the AV was “tru stw o rth y ” or
“dependable” (see above). Instead, you recom m ended
the ASV w hen it corrects the AV in 31,000 places from
the tw o m ost grossly p erv erted G reek m an u scrip ts
know n to m an (docum ented evidence on every reading
listed in The Revision Revised by D ean B urgon).
H aving discarded both o f these schools with all o f
their facu lty members, we shall (in our next edition)
take a look at the A lexandrian C ult in the teaching
chairs o f L o u isv ille B ap tist T h eo lo g ica l S em in ary
(H arold Songer). W e w ill also have the privilege o f
w atching that great authority, M r. Bell (B illy G rah am ’s
father-in-law ), sit in ju d g m en t on the AV and tell us
how it should have been translated, but first, we com e
now to problem text num ber three in the list o f the
“problem s” placed in the m ind o f students at fu n d a­
m ental schools as the faculty m em bers try to get them
to place their confidence and trust in the scholarship o f
the school instead o f the living words o f the living
God.
P roblem : H ow could Jeh o iach in be “eighteen
years” old (2 K ings 24:8) w hen the C hronicles said
that he was “eight” (2 Chron. 36:9)? This ancient chest­
nut, hoary w ith the centuries, has been used ev er since
the days o f C elsus and Porphry to m ake you think that
the B ible is a second rate book or at least “contains
errors in tran slatio n .”
O nce again, we w ill find that a b elieving heart, a
hum ble mind, and 20-20 vision will gain us m ore know l­
edge and w isdom (and “further lig h t” ) than “recent
discoveries,” “better m an u scrip ts,” and all o f that God-
defying, m an-exalting, stinking, hot air.
1. Jehoiachin had a m other w ho w as a queen (2
K ings 24:12).
2. O bserve that the H oly B ible (A V 1611— not the
“verbally, inspired o rig in als” ) calls her a “queen” (Jer.
13:18, 29:2).
3. This explains why Nebuchadnezzar took her
away captive with Jehoiachin (2 K ings 24:12, 15).
O bviously then (or not so obviously if you are
carrying out the dirty, G od-defying task o f destroying
your stu d en t’s faith in the Bible), the Queen mother
reigned jointly w ith her son till he was o f age (e ig h t-
eighteen); after that he reigned alone.
M oral: W hat appears as a “p ro b lem ” to a faculty
m em ber at Bob Jones, T ennessee T em ple, M idw estern,
D allas, L ouisville, M oody, T albot, or P rairie B ible In ­
stitute is often a m atter o f fourth-grade English in a
dim e store Bible.
 ARTICLE FOURTEEN
“More Cultic Garbage from the Cult”
In our past publications, we have been d o cum ent­
ing the tw o great heresies taught by the faculty m em ­
bers at Bob Jones, T ennessee Tem ple, Talbot, M id­
w estern, etc. These tw o heresies are the stock and trade
o f the scholars union or “recognized scholarship” w ithin
the C ult. This N orth A frican cult controls C hristian
education from A lexandria (A.D. 100) to San F ran ­
cisco (A.D. 1980), and it can alw ays be identified by
the sam e tw o false teachings:
1. You can question w hat God said (G en. 3:1)
w ithout destroying your “faith .”
2. Y ou can recom m end, as a competing authority
with w hat G od said, something that He did N O T say
(Jer. 23).
All apostasy begins here in every generation, and a
present day L iberal or M odernist is nothing but the
culm ination o f a series o f steps that began in 1900 and
1920. M odernists at that tim e w ere infidels w ho w ere
developed in the 1840s and 1860s. Infidels in the fo u r­
teenth century w ere nurtured early in that century or
late in the thirteenth century. The future, apostate L ib ­
erals and M odernists are now taking the steps that are
taught in every “fundam ental school” in A m erica.
1. They are doubting w hat G od said.
2. They are taking another authority in its place.
H aving noticed that the party line o f the C ult is
identical in Louisville Baptist Theological Sem inary with
the position o f Bob Jones U niversity, we shall now pick
UP a second w riter from L ouisville; this one will be
H arold Songer, P rofessor o f N ew T estam ent In terp re­
ta tio n . T h en w e w ill h e a r fro m B illy G ra h a m ’s
father-in-law . Both o f these gentlem en follow the party
line o f the C ult right dow n the hom e stretch.
“The G ood News f o r Modern Man is an extrem ely
fine version o f the B ible . . . T he RSV on the other hand
is a bit m ore sophisticated and dem ands m ore v o cabu­
lary on the part o f the reader. It is my ju d g m en t that all
o f the m ajor versions o f the B ible on the m arket today
are generally reliable. You can use any o f the m ajor
versions o f the B ible on the m arket today w ith co n fi­
dence” (H arold Songer, Jan. 29, 1969).
Songer is m ore honest than A fm an (T ennessee
Tem ple) or C uster (Bob Jones). He recognizes that
every m odern translation on the m arket was the p ro d ­
uct o f the substitution o f the A lexandrian G reek text
for the R eceptus. H ence, he does not fail to accept
G ood News and the RSV with the ASV and NASV, nor
should he— they are the same basic, corrupt, blasphe­
mous, degraded text. The Pharisees w ho m ake a m ark
betw een the ASV and the RSV or the NASV and the
NEB are only applying w hite w ash to sepulchres; all
four belong to the sam e fam ily and cam e from the sam e
source— V aticanus and Sinaiticus.
A nd now let us hear from B illy G rah am ’s father-
in-law : “The King James Version uses m any obsolete
w ords and expressions; that is why new translations
w ere necessary . . . .” B eautiful, isn ’t it? “M any ob so ­
lete w ords,” and none o f them listed? H ow “m any” is
“m any,” B rother B ell; w ould you tell us? W ould you
say that 8,000 corruptions o f the text in V aticanus and
Sinaiticus for the “new tran slatio n s” w ould constitute
“m any” ? B eautiful, is n ’t it? “N ew translations w ere
necessary . . . .” C om e, com e, L.N ., old boy, you w rote
that in 1968; there have been thirty since then. W hy
did you say “they w ere necessary ” ? W hat? Tw o h u n ­
dred translations in 100 years? D o you m ean to tell us
that each o f the 200 was obsolete in less than seven
 m onths? Com e, com e, L.N ., w ho are you trying to con,
your grandm other??
“You w ill find that the new edition o f the Scofield
Reference Bible, w hile still using the basic K ing Jam es
translation, changes obsolete to m odern w ords . . .
(L ike— “ Saul was . . . years o ld ,” perhaps? R em em ber
that boffer in the last issue? Like calling baptism a
“ sacram ent” on p. 1174, eh D oc?)
“M y plea was that people give G od a chance to let
His W ord speak to them . . . (A hhh? T here is w here
A fm an, John R. R ice, B arth, and B runner got that
“W ord” from! G o d ’s W ord was not a Book— it was
found som ew here in a B ook: it is a message found in a
number o f Books'.) A hhh! T h a t’s w here R ice got all
screw ed up in his n ew spaper (A pril 13, 1973) about “I
have in my hands a message from God, the eternal
infallible W ord o f G od.” W hen a B ible-believing C hris­
tian (H erbert Evans) w ired Dr. John and said, “What
version is m eant in your statem ent 7 have in my hands
a m essage from God . . . the infallible Word o f G o d ’V ,
Rice d id n ’t answ er. He cou ld n ’t without lying. So he
just chickened out, and the “Tw entieth C entury’s M ighti­
est P en” fell as dead and as silent as a dead blue fish on
the beach last sum m er. He d id n ’t have the guts to an ­
sw er the question because he knew that he never had
his hands on a copy o f the Holy Bible a day in his life,
and he never accepted any version as the “W ord o f
G od.” He ju s t lied. It is quite the style these days in
“Fundam entalist” circles.
Dr. Bell continues: “D espite the im perfections o f
all translations, the Bible is the W ord o f G od and G o d ’s
Spirit breathes through all o f it. ”
Now there is a doctrine! The S criptures w ere not
God breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16)— G od breathed through
the translations after they came out! Dr. Bell says “the
Bible is the W ord o f G od.” I w onder what Bible he is
talking about? It is n ’t the King James Bible, fo r “In the
King James Version is to be found som e o f the m ost
beautiful language in all o f E nglish literature; but we
need new translations using m odern E nglish, and the
H oly S pirit speaks through them."
That is, the Holy Spirit can and may speak through
anything.
If this is so, w hat is the purpose o f com plaining
about any RSV or NEB or Living B ib lel Y et the ap o s­
tate Fundam entalists in the C ult go right on m aking you
think that there is a difference in the ASV and the RSV.
The difference, my dear brethren, is betw een the Au­
thorized Version and any, and all, o f the rest o f them ,
regardless o f their language.
How does B rother Bell line up w ith N eal, C uster,
A fm an, Bob Jones III, O rigen, C onstantine, W alvoord,
E usebius, A rcher, M cC lain, the P opes, and B loody
M ary? Sim ple: he recom m ends multiple authorities that
contradict and cancel each other out, so he believes in
no final authority but his own opinion. O f M r. B ell and
Bob Jones III, Spurgeon said: “The tendency to alter
the w ord o f G od is human. The desire to alter the w ord
of G od is dangerous. The act o f altering the w ord o f
God is sinful. The desire to alter the w ord o f G od is
weakness. T he am bition to alter the w ord o f God is
P harisaic, and the craving to alter the W ord o f G od is
accursed.” Spurgeon said that about the C onservative
scholars o f his day w ho w ere altering the text o f the
King James 1611 Authorized Version (D ear Dr. John,
by H erbert Evans, M ay 1973).
In our next article, we shall see w hat is going on
up in H yles-A nderson and w ith L ehm an Strauss. B e­
fore we do, we shall hypothesize that n either in stitu ­
tion believes that any book is the H oly B ible, that no
one in either school has ever read the H oly B ible, and
that the fin al authority is the educated guessw ork of
the faculty as they seek to replace the absolute author-
 ity o f the Holy Bible with the relative guesswork o f
their own studies (Col. 2:8).* As we have stated tw ice
already: the ultim ate aim o f higher education in C h ris­
tian universities and colleges is to produce the m axi­
mum am ount o f uncertainty in the pupil in regard to
absolute authority.
W e shall now exam ine another so-called “p ro b ­
lem te x t” w hich is often used by apostate F undam en­
talists to shake the faith o f the student (in a “bastion o f
orthodoxy” ) in the absolute authority o f the A utho­
rized H oly B ible (AV 1611). This little gem is a m as­
terpiece w hen it com es to dem onstrating the stupidity
o f the m odern, orthodox scholar w ho is engaged in the
hobbyhorse o f destructive criticism (see Bob Jones I l l ’s
cute, little rem ark about not engaging in “ho b b ies”
from A rticle N um ber N ine).
The terrific “p ro b lem ” that we are supposed to
find here (according to the N orth A frican F aculty o f
A lexandria) is that D avid took 700 horsem en, 1,000
chariots, and 20,000 footm en from H adadezer (2 Sam.
8:4), but he should have taken from him 7,000 h o rse­
m en instead o f 700 (1 C hron. 18:4) according to the
apostate F undam entalists w ho follow ed Schaff, H ort,
G reen, M achen, W ilson, W arfield, R obertson, A fm an,
C uster, and the last eight “C h ristian ” colleges we ju st
docum ented (see previous articles).
This is so typical o f the rinky-dink “ sch o larsh ip ”
o f P ensacola C hristian C ollege, A rlington, S pringfield,
etc., that it has becom e a classic. W hen the apostate
Fundam entalists at these institutions consult their G reek
(the A.D. Septuagint w ritten 200 years after the resu r­
rection) and their H ebrew (any H ebrew text put out by
anyone), quite naturally they get no light at all. If the
texts m atch the “verbally inspired o rig in als” (and in
this case, it w ouldn ’t m ake any difference w hether they
did or d id n ’t), the “new lig h t” w ould still leave the
* T h is w a s H y le s ’ p o s itio n in 1980.
apostate Fundam entalists in the inky blackness o f outer
darkness.
You see, you cannot find that ten horsem en are
needed per chariot unless you read 2 C hron 9:25 and 1
K ings 10:26, and w hat “good, godly, dedicated m an”
w ho believed in the “plenary, verbal inspiration o f the
originals” ever took tim e to check out anything the way
God said it as it appeared on a dime store counter in
front o f his face?
A. T here are 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots.
B. T here are 1,400 chariots.
C. T here are 12,000 horsemen fo r these chariots.
N ow observe! And observe from the infallible, e r­
rorless, perfect A u thorized T ex t given by G od A l­
m ighty— apart from any “verbally inspired anythings’
— that it takes nearly ten horsemen p e r chariot. N ote—
from the infallible 1611 text, w ithout consulting any
“verbally inspired o rig in al” or any m an w ho su b sti­
tuted any “verbally inspired o rig in al” fo r the tru th —
that Pharaoh had “chosen chariots”— 600 (Exod. 14:7).
W e gather that Solom on had 1,000 regular A rm y ch ari­
ots and 400 chosen chariots, for that is how they are
listed. This will give us ten men p e r chariot for the
1,000 and thirty men p e r chariot fo r the elite corps.
O bserve that the horsem en in 1 C hronicles 18:4 are
h o rsem en w ho atte n d e d on ch ario ts: they are the
“spares” that provide horses when the chariot horses
are crippled or killed. The 7,000 are plainly chariot
horsem en. Y ou see, “the men of seven hundred chari­
ots” (2 Sam . 10:18) are 7,000 m en (1 C hron. 19:18);
they run ten to a chariot.
T hat is the final, infallible ju d g m en t by the A u ­
thor o f Scripture, w ho w rote and preserved the infal­
lible truth in spite o f the “relativ ism ” and “p refer­
ences” o f the apostate F undam entalists from A.D. 100
to 2000. W hen D avid takes 700 horsem en, he takes the
ten-to-one elite o f the 100 chariots m entioned in 1
 C hronicles 18:4 (as S olom on’s 400 and P h arao h ’s 600).
The 7,000 are the 1,000 regular A rm y chariots.
Thus, the infallible King James Bible passes on
inform ation o f a mathematical and historical nature
that is superior to any archaeological discoveries found
or to be found, and it proves that “new lig h t” on the
Scripture is never dependent upon Christian education
or Christian educators or “up to date ” translations.
A nd the depraved faculty m em bers o f C hristian
schools w ho im planted this ridiculous “p roblem ” in the
m inds o f their young men and w om en are never to be
com m ended or given “ d o u b le h o n o u r ” for laboring in
“ th e w o rd a n d d o c trin e ” (1 Tim. 5:17). They are to
be ridiculed f o r their lack o f honesty, fidelity, intelli­
gence, scholarship and motive. They do not search the
Scriptures, they are not B iblical students, they cannot
be classified as B iblical scholars, and the born-again,
Bible-believing child o f God has no m ore business m ess­
ing w ith their Satanic hocus-pocus than the theology
o f M adalyn M urray O ’H are or B ertrand R ussell.
 ARTICLE FIFTEEN
“Endless Duplicity and Evasion”
By now , the regular reader o f the Bulletin should
have had a “ stom ach fu ll” o f the N orth A frican C ult
w hich controls the S cholars U nion in C hristian c o l­
leges and universities. The NEA is no m ore selective
or unionized than this cult, and the H EW has never
controlled the lives o f as m any people. The A lexandrian
C ult (O rigen to E. S. E nglish) has dom inated Christian
education for eighteen centuries and w ill continue to
dom inate it as long as anyone will give ground to one
w ord or one inch in m atters o f absolute authority. The
C ult is dedicated to the overthrowing o f absolute au­
thority and producing a relativ istic anarchy, w here
scholarship itself will be respected as the final au th o r­
ity (Col. 2:8).
W e have traced the roots o f this depravity from
G enesis 3 to the pens o f B ob Jones III, A fm an, C uster,
W eniger, A rcher, W alvoord, et al., in the last few is­
sues o f the Bulletin, and we have called your attention
to the docum ented fact that w hether the apostate F u n ­
d am entalist is John R. R ice or O rigen, his approach to
final authority is exactly the sam e as Tom Paine, V o l­
taire, C elsus, and B ertrand R ussell: there is no final
authority that anyone can check to see if a thing is so or
not so.
1. All involved recom m end m ore than one final
authority.
2. A ll do it knowing the authorities violently dif­
f e r (in more than 30,000 places).
3. A ll do it because someone else did it w ho had a
reputation for being “scholarly” or “g o dly.”
4. All do it so that they (or th eir school or church)
 m ay volunteer to be the deciding authority betw een the
ones that conflict.
5. All are devoted to destroying your faith in the
Authorized Bible as the final authority, even w here they
“use” it and “prefer” it because it has made them a
go od living.
In no correspondence printed in this colum n (see
the last ten articles) did any cult m em ber ever profess
to believe the King James Bible as the Scriptures, nor
did any ever profess that he h im self could produce “the
B ible” if called upon to do it. They only profess to
believe in conflicting authorities that enable them to
“prefer” a “reliable tran slatio n ” in order to kid you into
thinking they speak w ith authority. H aving no au th o r­
ity, they speak w ith no authority. W here they “u se” the
AV, they temporarily speak w ith authority, but only
because it is the authority, not because any o f them
believe it.
W hen L ehm an Strauss (M ay 12, 1978) was asked
w hich o f three translations was the w ord o f God (AV,
NASV, or RSV), he answ ered exactly as any C om m unist
w ould answ er under a H ouse un-A m erican A ctivities
investigation. He said sim ply (and com pletely beside
the point): “I read from the NASV and the RSV. I am a
strong advocate o f the King James Version. It is the
one I study, m em orize, and preach and teach fro m .”
D id he say he believed it? O f course not.
No C ult m em ber believes in any final authority but
his own opinions.
D id he say the King James Version was the w ord
o f G od? O f course not.
No Cult member has ever seen a copy o f the word
° f God or the Scriptures.
Shall we try the doctrinal statem ent o f Hyles-A nder-
son (H am m ond, Indiana):
“Scriptures: The B ible, including both O ld and
New T estam ents in the original autographs, is the in ­
errant, infallible, and inspired W ord o f God. The S crip­
ture is the final authority in all m atters o f faith and
practice (2 Tim . 3 :16).”
N ow, H yles-A nderson has the least objectionable
statem ent o f belief, although one can see at a glance
that: 1. The “ S cripture” has been given as som ething
distinct from the Bible. O ne is the final authority (the
S cripture)— but is not said to be inspired— w hile the
other is inspired (the Bible) but is not said to be the
final authority. 2. Second Tim othy 3:16 was attached
to the w ord “ S cripture” in the second clause, and yet it
was stated as referring to the “ B ible” in the first clause.
C onsequently, we have letters from students at
H yles-A nderson who have asked us why the AV was
altered in the classroom , w hen Jack H yles w as su p ­
posed to be a staunch supporter o f it.*
R outine: typical, SOP, par for the course.
There isn ’t any question about H y les’ consecration
or his love for C hrist or his loyalty to the com m and­
m ents as found in the AV 1611. The question is: why
the double flip-flop w hile protecting faculty m em bers
who w ant the final authority instead o f the Bible having
it?
T ypical. Shall we try Dr. R oger V oegtlin, Fair-
haven C ollege (M arch 30, 1978)? “As far as your q u es­
tions about the various translations we feel the best
translation, o f course, is the King James Version. As
far as the ASV, it also is very accurate, and I have no
problem w ith it.”
W as Dr. V oegtlin asked about the “b est” tran sla­
tions? O f course not.
He was asked which one was the w ord o f God.
W as Dr. V oegtlin asked w hich one was the “m ost
accurate” ? O f course not.
He was asked which one was the w ord o f God.
* D o c u m e n te d b y m a il ( 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 8 0 ) .
 D id he attem pt to answ er the question? O f course
not.
N o C ult m em ber has ever seen or handled “the
w ord o f G od” a day in his life, even though the A V
(1611) told him to believe it (2 Thess. 2:13) and preach
it (2 Tim . 4:2).
F or our “problem te x t” today, we have chosen the
kiddy-car scholarship o f John R. R ice on A cts 12. The
good doctor has told us that the G reek w ord here (A cts
12:4) is “P assover” not “ E a s te r .” A nd “if you are fa ­
m iliar w ith the history, you will know that there was
not any E aster celebrated; the term was not even used
until long after New T estam ent tim es. In that case, the
translation was wrong. They did not have any ‘E aster’
in N ew T estam ent tim es.”
Since we are “fam iliar with the history” (see above)
and since we know w ho the “they” was (see above), we
do not hesitate to p oint out:
1. No translator ever translated Greek words the
same way every time. T herefore, to say that a G reek
w ord is som ething instead o f som ething is nonsense.
P ascha could be “P aschal feast,” “p asso v er,” “p assover
lam b,” “the sufferin g ,” and a h alf a dozen other things.
The NASV never translates “ fo rn ic a tio n ” the sam e way
every tim e, nor does it translate “ sk y ” the sam e way,
nor does it translate “ o ffen se” the sam e way. To insist
that a w ord has to be translated the sam e w ay every
tim e is am ateurish nonsense.
2. “ E a s te r ” was observed by B abylonians and the
ancient G reeks and Rom ans centuries before Christ
was born (see The Two Babylons, by H islop), so R ice’s
ignorance o f this historical f a c t— know n to thousands
o f students o f history and archaeology— is tragic.
3. H erod, being a R om an (see the context), kept
“Easter.” The fact that later this king (H erod was a
R om an) took the pagan nam e and put it on the Pass-
over is o f no consequence, for the dates o f modern
Easter are not the P assover dates.
H ere the A V text is right and Rice (plus those who
agree w ith him ) are, quite naturally, w rong. To say
“they” did not have any E aster (see above) is rid icu ­
lous. All R om ans had “ E a s te r ,” and it was an estab ­
lished feast 2,000 years before Jesus Christ showed
up.
 ARTICLE SIXTEEN
“Rice, Dollar, and
Their Fellow Apostates”
In previous issues, the B ib le-believer has learned
to becom e w ary indeed o f the “B astions o f O rthodoxy”
who stand “w ithout apology” f o r a book they have
never read nor seen, let alone p reach ed or taught. W e
have docum ented the “ stand” taken by the faculty m em ­
bers at M idw estern, Tennessee Tem ple, Bob Jones U ni­
versity, Southern B aptist T heological Sem inary, Prairie
Bible Institute, San Francisco B aptist Theological Sem i­
nary, Free W ill B aptist B ible C ollege, and F uller S em i­
nary. W e threw in a few nuggets from B illy G rah am ’s
father-in-law ju s t to show you how sim ilar the position
is taken by all apostate F u n d am en talists and N eo-
orthodoxes. W e learned, from our docum ented evidence,
that no group listed above has any absolute and final
authority other than their own opinion.
No one in the group professed to have ever seen a
copy o f the Scriptures, although all professed not only
to believe them , but som e w ent so far as to say that
they used them as the final authority, and that all p rac­
tices should be judged by them. W hat this m eans in
view o f the fact that none o f them have ever read or
looked at a copy is beyond “the fo g g iest.”
If there is any doubt in your m ind about the p o si­
tion, after having seen it documented in prin t fifteen
times, we shall enter the w ritings o f an outstanding
C ultist— Dr. John R. R ice— w ho w ill, to the end o f his
life, prefer his ow n “p reference” above the living words
o f the living God. The follow ing are the excerpts from
a correspondence w hich he did not dare print in the
Sword o f the Lord, because if he had, he w ould have
lost 500,000 subscriptions overnight:
1. “M any think that A cts 8:37 was a gloss added
by som e copyists. The truth is, I think so too. It is not
like the rest o f the Bible, and it seem s to teach a d iffer­
ent teaching on the plan o f salv atio n .” (See how it’s
done? If som ething “seem s” funny to you and you d o n ’t
think it’s right because you c a n ’t figure it out, you
pretend that it is an error. Y ou see? T hat is exactly
how B ertrand R ussell, Stalin, M arx, Freud, D arw in,
John D ew ey, and every dialectical materialist in the
w orld handled the truth.)
2. “Now, you may prefer one rendering o f the
G reek text . . . . You may prefer to have the term
“blood” put in that verse (Col. 1 : 1 4 ) . . . since there is
not any clear evidence that it was there in the original
manuscripts, then it d o esn ’t m atter to m e.” (See how
it’s done? There is no “clear ev id en ce” that anything
was in “the original m anuscripts” because no one has
ever seen them; therefore, R ice has reserved the right
to say “it d o esn ’t m atter to m e” on anything. The fact
that he did not choose “ev ery th in g ” and “an y thing” as
R ussell, D ew ey, and M arx only show s a difference in
degree, not kind. The motives are identical.)
3. “O ne m istranslation o f the King James Version
is in Revelation 22:14; it w ould make salvation by works
and it’s obviously wrong. It is only the Bible itself that
is inspired.” (W hat is “the B ible,” D octor? W hen the
original m anuscripts w ere “inspired,” not “is,” they were
never called “the B ib le.” The term “the B ible” o rig i­
nated w ith C hrysostom in the fifth century. R em ark­
able, isn ’t it, the m ess these apostates get into when
they begin to attack the A uthority o f G od A lm ighty?)
4. “D o n ’t you see you are going to have to an­
sw er to G od about the Bible? I have a m iracle in my
hands in this book. I have in my hands a message
(A h, there you did it, Doc! Y ou alm ost m ade them
think there, for a m inute, that the Book you had in
 your hand was “the B ib le,” but you slipped under the
w ire w ith B arth and B runner ju s t in tim e to jo in the
N eo-orthodox scholars at B ob Jones U niversity!)
N ow , som e o f you w ill take offense to that last
rem ark b ecau se o f y o u r e g o tistic a l stu pidity and
narrow -m inded, superstitious bigotry, so for your b en ­
efit, we are now going to cite G eorge D o lla r’s w ork on
The History o f Fundamentalism, w ritten w hile he taught
on the faculty at Bob Jones.
D ollar states, on page 264 o f his w ork, that F u n d a­
m entalism has not denied and cannot deny “the au th o r­
ity and infallibility o f the B ible.” What Bible is this?
It is the one that was originally written (p. 264)
w hich is not the King James Bible (p. 264). H ow ever,
“F undam entalism ” in som e m ysterious w ay has been
able to conform to “the W ord” w ith convictions based
on “the W ord” because o f the attacks on “the W o rd .”
What is this “W o rd” ? The “W o rd ” is the B ible, but the
B ible is the “verbally inspired original, ” but the M es­
sage o f the B ible is the M essage o f the W ord, although
you have no “W ord” (note the capital “W ” used by all
N eo-orthodox w riters) and you have no “B ib le.” You
have a “m essage” from the Bible that is “reliab le” (p.
264).
This is the muddled guesswork o f a confused a g ­
nostic.
W hen A rcher W eniger attacks the N eo-evangelicals
(“Ecum enical F olly,” Sword o f the Lord, 1961), he finds
fault w ith the apostates w ho say that the “W ord o f
G od” and “the B ib le” are not the sam e (Dr. J. C arter
Swaim , N C C C D irector o f D epartm ent o f E nglish B i­
ble). Sw aim sim ply said, “G o d ’s best W ord to m an
(capital W) is not a Book. W e beg you, therefore, to
heed G o d ’s living W ord as it com es to you through the
S criptures.” The “W ord” is not the sam e as “the S crip­
tures” in S w aim ’s thinking. N either is it in the w ritings
° f J. V ernon M cG ee, John R ice, W ilbur Sm ith, S tew art
C uster, K enneth W uest, or A rcher W eniger. M clntire
said, “W e have a B ible and that it is a revelation given
to us from our Lord Jesus C h rist.” Did he m ean the
Book that he had that G od gave him , or did he mean
w hat G eorge D ollar m eant— he had a B ook that none
o f us have ever seen or read, but the message from it is
w hat m arks out a “F undam entalist” ?
Shall we try G leason A rcher Jr.?
He says that the only w ay that anyone can m ake
any affirm ation about G od or faith is by the authority of
the written Bible (.A Survey o f Old Testament Intro­
duction, pp. 2 1 -2 2 ), and that the w ritten w ord o f God
is so great that “the B ible m ust sit in ju d g m en t upon
man: man can never sit in ju d g m en t upon the B ible” (p.
22). Boy, h av en ’t we gotta real B ib le-believer here?
Boy, if this isn’t orthodoxy, w hat is? M an, w hat a
F undam entalist!
D o n 't you believe it for a m inute. W hat G leason
A rcher Jr. actually m eant w as that we cannot pass ju d g ­
m ent “on the clear teachings o f Scripture as estab­
lished by exegesis” (p. 22). He d id n ’t really m ean you
couldn’t ju d g e the B ible or any book. He w as only
concerned w ith the “m essage,” the “clear teach in g s.”
T hat is the position o f B arth, B runner, and T illich,
exactly. Neo-orthodoxy.
H aving discerned that every m em ber o f the C ult
thinks and talks alike, regardless o f his public p ro fes­
sion, let us step over here and sam ple tw o m ore “C on­
servative schools” w ho take the same position as G eorge
D ollar (Bob Jones U niversity) and A fm an (Tennessee
T em ple U niversity).
These N orth A frican institutions are the Toledo
Bible C ollege and L exington B aptist C ollege.
1. Y our first question is “W hich o f the follow ing
B ibles, if any, do you think is the w ord o f G od, the
AV, the New ASV , or the R S V ?” A nsw er: “All three
are the Word o f God. The w ritten W ord o f G od (see
 above!!) was not given originally in E nglish.”
From this you are to gather that three conflicting
authorities, that differ in 36,000 places, are “the W ord
o f G od.” (N ot “the B ib le” or “the S criptures,” you
understand. These fellow s alw ays ju g g le all three terms
so they never refer to the same thing.)
From this you are to gather that no written En­
glish Bible could be “the w ord o f G od” because it
w asn ’t “originally in E n g lish .” (See our analysis o f this
ridiculous nonsense in previous issues.)
2. Shall we try T oledo (L uther J. Rupp, assistant
to the President, A pril 6, 1978)? “The Authorized Ver­
sion o f the King James Version o f the B ible is a good
translation. I also feel the New American Standard Ver­
sion is a good translation and very accurate in dealing
w ith the original Greek. ”
From this you are to gather that two conflicting
authorities (see A rticles 1 and 2) are equal except that
one— the apostate RV text o f 1881 and 1901, w ith the
Alexandrian Apocrypha as p a rt o f the Old Testament—
is superior because it is accurate in dealing w ith “the
original G reek.”
W e know w hat to m ake o f that: eggnog.
So we know tw o m ore C olleges that have no final
authority but their own opinion, w hich itself (as we
have seen and docum ented) has been shaped dow n
through eighteen centuries o f scholastic garbage and
educational slop. N either institution has any final au­
thority higher than that used by the N EA or the HEW .
They are their own gods (G en. 3 :1 -3 ).
N ext issue we will hear from Sanford M ills, author
o f A H ebrew Christian Looks at Isaiah 53.
O ur “problem tex t” for today— all “problem tex ts”
are invented by the C ult to shake the stu d en t’s au th o r­
ity in the A uthorized V ersion— is the m ighty problem
of why the w ord “baptizo” was left as “ b a p tis m ” or
“ b a p tiz e ” in the AV when it should have been tran s­
lated as “im m ersed .” This cute ding-a-ling has been
m ightily used by apostate F undam entalists in B aptist
colleges to destroy the b eliev er’s faith in the text and
split the body o f C hrist (w hile accusing “R uckm an” o f
splitting the churches— see A fm an ’s correspondence in
preceding issues):
1. The word “baptism ” w ould be incorrectly trans­
lated as “im m ersed,” for it is a compound word m ean­
ing also “to d ye” and “to d ip .”
2. The critics who use the argum ent recom m end
tw o Bibles that will not only not translate “b ap tizo ,”
but will not translate “H A D E S .” (N either the ASV nor
the NASV dare say anything w here “h ades” appears;
they transliterate!)
3. The hypocrites w ho posit this objection will
not call themselves by the w ord they recommend. No
B aptist school or church in A m erica will dare translate
the w ord, no m atter w hat they think (or profess to
think) the w ord should be. They w ill use “ B aptist C o l­
lege,” “B aptist T em p le,” “B aptist C h u rch ” w hile slan­
dering the B ook that gave them their name.
A two-faced hypocrite ought to keep his big mouth
shut.
 ARTICLE SEVENTEEN
“Revelation 22 and the Cult”
By now, the reader w ho has follow ed this p u b lica­
tion through sixteen documented articles should be get­
ting som e idea o f the religious conspiracy that exists in
the S cholars U nion as the faculty m em bers o f each
school guide it into apostasy w ith the dictum s o f the
A lexandrian Cult. The reason why H arvard, C olum bia,
Y ale, D artm outh, and the U niversity o f C hicago w ound
up the way they did certainly had nothing to do w ith
the faculty m em bers getting upset by som e m ystical
“verbal, plenary, inspired o rig in als”— something that
they had never seen and neither had anyone else. The
men who denied the Virgin Birth and the D eity o f C hrist
in the eighteenth and nineteenth century certainly did
not deny either fundam ental on the basis o f any “o rig i­
nals” that they had or that anyone else had. It is a great
error then to suppose that a “bold uncom prom ising
stand for the verbal, plenary, inspired o rig in als” is any­
thing m ore than cowardly crawfishing in the face o f
infidels w ho w ere upset by the Authorized Version.
As we have observed, none o f the m odern “F u n d a­
m entalist” colleges or universities have any absolute
authority but the opinions o f the Cult. This C ult co m ­
prises eighteen centuries o f text m angling, Scriptural
abortion, superstitious inserts, boggling philosophies,
‘scientific m ethods,” and “new lig h t” w hich are about
as “scientific” and as “new ” as a broom handle. The
Cult contains L iberals (B riggs, G raf, W ellhausen, Pike,
Sockm an, Peale, Blake, Poteat, W eigle, et al.), N eo ­
orthodox (B arth, B runner, et al.), N eo -ev an g elicals
(O ckenga, Ram m , D an Fuller, C ornell, G ordon Lew is,
Paul Jew ett, W arren Y oung, John W hitcom b, et al.),
Rom an C atholics (all popes and all cardinals; all C atho­
lic versions are from the A lexandrian T ext o f O rigen
and Jerom e), and Prem illennial “Fundam entalists” (Bob
Jones III, W eniger, A rcher, W alvoord, M cG ee, John
Rice, W ilbur Sm ith, et al.).
T he broad basis o f this ecum enical m ovem ent is
hatred f o r absolute authority in the old nature o f the
saved (or lost) sinner.
To protect the C ult m em bers from being detected,
they often hide behind a B ible-believing founder o f an
institution— Jack H yles, Bob Jones Sr., W. B. Riley,
Lee R oberson, et al. They also hold each other up even
w here they differ in theology; all o f them agree to agree
that they can all disagree as long as they agree on one
thing— the Authorized Holy Bible is not the Scriptures.
A nd that is w hy in sixteen articles preceding this one,
you d id n ’t get one profession o f faith from any “F u n ­
dam ental” school in the country that said anyone there
ever believed any such thing, whether the founder b e­
lieved it or not\
Since the “old n atu re” in R. A. T orrey and D avid
is no different than the “old natu re” in H arry Em erson
Fosdick or D w ight L. M oody, the plea m ade by the
C ult— “good, godly, dedicated men disagree about such
and such a readin g ”— is a nullity. D avid was a good,
godly, dedicated m an, and if you had trusted your w ife
with him w hen you w ere drafted, you w ould have been
a deceived fool. Sim on P eter was a good, godly, d ed i­
cated m an, and you co u ld n ’t trust him w ith sound d o c­
trine w here it dealt w ith grace (G al. 2) anym ore than
you could trust John W esley or P eter C artw right. The
rid icu lo u s and irratio n al th eo ry th a t b ecau se som e
“godly” m an corrected the AV text that that was p ro o f
he was “godly” is m adness. That is p r o o f that he had
an old nature that resented the authority o f the Book.
A standard w ay o f lying around the facts is to say
that “there was opposition also to the King James Bi­
 ble w hen it cam e o u t.” (This is a favorite little hicky
used by the C ult on B ible-believers.) From it you are
to gather that the opposition to the King James cam e
from people who were right because they w ere “godly,”
or you are to gather that the opposition to the ASV and
NASV com es from the same source.
All o f this double-tongue duplicity, this “gaffing o f
the act,” is done to cover up the ghastly fact that the
G reek text (and texts) o f the AV (1611) differed from
the A lexandrian texts o f the ASV and NASV in m ore
than 4,000 places in the New T estam ent and differed in
their attitude tow ards the D eity o f C hrist (1 Tim. 3:16),
the V irgin B irth (Luke 2:33), the A scension (Luke
24 :5 1 -5 2 ), S alvation (A cts 9, 16, 18; Luke 23), Blood
R edem ption (Col. 1:14), and G race (1 Pet. 2).
To prevent the student from finding this ghastly
truth out, he is sidetracked to every argum ent in the
w orld but the m ain one— the substitution o f a corrupt
Rom an C atholic text for the truth o f God.
W e have learned that there are two Bibles. G od
w rote one and Satan w rote the other. Both are found in
an abbreviated form in G enesis 3 :1 -4 . In one, G od said
w hat He said, and in the other He did not really say
w hat He said. “F undam entals” are a secondary co n sid ­
eration. The point is that God has a version and the
Devil has a version, and they differ.
The A lexandrian C ult, then, can alw ays be id en ti­
fied. They recom m end an A lexandrian T ext from A lex­
andria w here the first C hristian university popped up—
popped up from two, unsaved gnostics (P antaenus and
P hilo!)— and its tw o A lexandrian representatives are
N orth A frican m anuscripts from A lex an d ria, E gypt
(V aticanus and Sinaiticus).
The B ibles from these A lexandrian abom inations
are:
1. The RV o f 1885.
2. The ASV o f 1901.
 3. The RSV o f 1952.
4. The New ASV o f 1971.
5. The New RSV o f 1971.
6. The NIV o f 1978.
And any other English Bible printed since 1881
by anyone that was recommended by any university or
college in the United States or Europe.
N estle, A land, and M etzger succeeded in putting
over the “p itch ” fo r the A lexandrian T ext so that it is
now used for every version o f the B ible. The only p o s­
sible exception w ould be the New Scofield Reference
Bible w hich professes to be “the A uthorized V ersio n ”
and is not. As a m atter o f fact (see The Bible B e lieve r’s
Commentaries o f Job and Proverbs), m any o f the A l­
exandrian readings from the ASV o f 1901 have been
stuck into the O ld T estam ent, w hile kidding the sucker
into thinking that he is getting a Reformation text.
All C ult m em bers think and talk alike. All o f them
advertise fa lsely to get students or readers. A ll o f them
reject any final authority but th eir ow n opinion.
Sample:
“The authors o f this pam phlet b elieve that the B i­
ble is G o d ’s infallib le W ord. W e are sorry that it is
som etim es asserted that the KJV is the only Bible in the
E nglish language that represents the W ord o f God. W e
believe that any effort by Bible-believing C hristians to
make a translation that faithfully presents the early
m anuscripts should be supported and en couraged.”
1. C apital “W ” is used throughout m eaning “some­
thing you never read. ”
2. “Early m an u scrip ts” turn out to be V aticanus
and Sinaiticus, although the authors (M acR ae and N ew ­
m an) d o n ’t dare list them.
3. “Any effort should be supported and en co u r­
aged” m eans that anyone who believes w hat M acR ae
and N ew m an believe qualifies; they b elieve exactly
w hat the translators o f the RSV and NEB believe: that
 V aticanus and Sinaiticus (containing O ld and New T es­
tam ent apocrypha) are the best “B ible” m anuscripts.
4. The present tense “is” is used— “the Bible is
G od’s infallible W ord,” when neither man has ever
seen or read a copy anywhere. They b elieve it “w as,”
exactly like A fm an, C uster, W estcott, A ugustine, O ri­
gen, H ort, Bob Jones III, or any other C ult m em ber
believes, and they say “is” (see doctrinal statem ent by
H yles-A nderson in A rticle 15) to kid you into thinking
that they are going to teach you the B ible. They d o n ’t
have the Bible. T heir B ible “w as,” not “is. ”
L e t’s try Sanford M ills, shall w e? (From A H e­
brew Christian Look at Isaiah 53.)
1. If we changed the AV text o f G enesis 1:2 a
“contradiction disappears.”
2. V erse 10 in Isaiah 53 is “b etter translated . . . .”
3. If Jacob was the sam e kind o f man in G o d ’s
sight as Job, it w ould be unscholarly and superficial to
say that Jacob was a cheat or a supplanter.
4. The “actual m eaning” o f kayonek is . . . (not
w hat the AV says it is).
5. C hrist was crucified on F riday because the ASV
has corrected the m istake in the A V w hich says “p rep a­
ratio n ” instead o f “P rep aratio n ” (John 19:31)!
A ll C ult m em bers operate the same.
Sanford M ills has led you to believe that:
1. The ASV is m ore accurate than the AV.
2. You can get m essed up doctrinally w ith an AV.
3. He (M ills) is able to correct the A V.
4. The AV d o esn ’t give you the “actual m eaning”
o f the H ebrew .
To this we m ay answ er: go soak you r head in a
wet rag.
In our next issue, we shall exam ine the heresies
and B iblical nonsense o f Dr. R andolph Y aeger ( The
Renaissance New Testament) and Rev. E. S. A nderson
(The Bible Greek Course), tw o o f the m ost fanatical
and deluded m em bers o f the C ult, the latter being p ro ­
moted in the Sword o f the Lord (1977) by John R.
Rice.
For our “problem tex t” today, we have chosen an
“oldie but goodie,” used by the faculty m em bers at
T ennessee Tem ple and Bob Jones to instill unbelief
into the heart o f the student. This one states that E ras­
m us used a Latin B ible fo r his ending on R evelation
22, w ithout any G reek authority, therefore . . . . (You
are to presum e that the entire ending is wrong and that
the new B ibles give you the correct ending.)
In line w ith this M ickey M ouse, D isneyland type
o f “ scholarship,” C uster and N eal put the above in a
little xeroxed sheet and sent it out to all inquirers who
are putting them on the spot about th eir A lexandrian
convictions. For the record, observe the fa cts that are
available, independent o f the drivel given out by C uster
at Bob Jones.
1. The Old Latin, w hich Jerom e retained in R ev ­
elation 22, was at least 100 years older than any G reek
m anuscript found for the reading since then ( Latin
V ersions,” The International Standard Bible Encyclo­
pedia, V ol. Ill, p. 1841).
2. O f 135 w ords w hich E rasm us used, N estle,
A land, and M etzger had to use 100 o f them', adm itting
that E rasm us’ Old Latin was 75 percent right, without
any Greek manuscripts (T rinitarian Bible Society, L on­
don, England).
3. O f the rem aining thirty-five words w ith w hich
A land, M etzger, and N estle disagreed, twenty-six make
no difference in any English translation, and the re ­
m aining nine are debatable; thereby show ing that the
AV could not be ju d g ed w rong on 126 w ords out ot
135, and o f the nine left, no absolute p ro o f could be
produced to prove they w ere w rong either.
4. On every one o f the disputed words, Erasmus
has the confirmation o f some editor or translator in
 the twentieth century. Since none o f them profess to
have any absolute authority by w hich to deny or affirm
the reading, no one has ever proved yet that every
word Erasmus wrote down was not the living w ord o f
the living G od in the exact Greek G od intended to use
f o r the Receptus o f the Reformation.
So m uch for the nonsense put out by Bob Jones.
 ARTICLE EIGHTEEN
“The ORIGINAL Greek Spook”
This is the eighteenth in a series o f articles d e­
scribing the source, foundation, operation, and p resent
state o f the greatest instrum ent Satan ever used to d e­
stroy B ible-believing C hristianity. R eaders up to this
point have now seen the truths o f such a statem ent
docum ented so m any tim es that they should no longer
have any doubts about w hat is “going on.” W hat is
going on is that the S cholars U nion controls the faculty
o f nearly every C hristian school in the country, and to
m aintain their authority they consistently recom m end
m ore than one authority so that w hen these authorities
conflict (as they alw ays do) the faculty can show up as
the “savior” o f “co n tradictions” and the “q ualified ” and
“recognized” authority for the final “say so.”
This is the C atholic m ethod: the B ible and T rad i­
tion.
This is the Liberal m ethod: the B ible and Science.
This is the M ormon method: the Bible and M oroni’s
golden plates.
This is the C hristian Science m ethod: the Bible
and the “ K ey.”
And this is the method o f every m ajor Christian
school in America:
“The B ible plus the ASV."
“T he B ible plus the NASV."
“T he B ible plus the NIV."
“The B ible plus the ‘findings’ of good, godly, dedi­
cated m en w ho labored to restore the originals, etc.,
etc.”
L et us take a look at an advertisem ent in the Sword
o f the Lord (Sept. 1977). Since John R. R ice will not
 advertise any book that exalts the A V as the H oly B ible
and the B ible only, let us see him rake in a little cash
promoting the Cult: “N ow you can learn and under­
stand the T rue W ord by studying the original Greek
textl N ow the serious B ible student can learn to u n d er­
stand the original Greek text and m ake his own in telli­
gent decisions regarding the true meaning o f S cripture
verses . . . learn the original W ordl”
T here you have it, ju s t like a B arnum and B ailey
dossier.
H ollyw ood never put it on any better, nor did
Josef G oebbels; and when it com es to out-and-out ly­
ing there isn ’t a C om m unist in the party, from 1850 to
1980, that ever outlied R ice’s Sword o f the Lord on
that one.
1. No man has ever studied the original G reek
text (see above.)
2. No man can understand som ething he has never
read nor seen nor heard.
3. True m eanings are not dependent upon anyone’s
“intelligent decisions.”
4. You can learn the original Word ju s t about as
quickly as you can play basketball on top o f Mt. Everest.
T hat is, sim ply because a m an is a “good, godly,
dedicated, soul-w inning, prem illennial Fundam entalist,”
d o esn ’t m ean that he w o n 't lie like a flou n der when it
com es to his rejection o f absolute authority. T hat ad
you read was to sell a pitch by Rev. E. S. A nderson, a
F undam entalist w ho believed in “the verbal, plenary,
inspiration o f the originals.”
Such a b elief has never guaranteed anything.
If the m an has no authority in his ow n hand, he is
his ow n authority, and in this case, both m en w ill lie to
m ake a living.
If that shocks you, I suggest you go to an altar and
ask G od to cleanse you o f a dirty heart; there m ust be a
big liar inside you som ew here to desire to ju stify such
ungodly lying by those who say “be a Fundam entalist,
not a crackpot.” I ’ll tell you som ething better, children;
“be an honest man before you try to be anything.”
L et us now turn from E. S. A nderson (w ho is
about as straight as a broken-dow n, barbed w ire fence)
and pick up another Fundam entalist who believes in the
“absolute inerrant, plenary, verbally inspired, A lex an ­
drian dishrag.” O ur C ultist, this tim e, is Dr. R andolph
Y aeger: hear, hear!!
“C hristians have alw ays been dependent upon the
scholarship, honesty (!), and sanctity o f others to tell
them w hat the text says.”
They have! F or “what the text s a y s ” ?
W hat could “the tex t” be? Surely Y aeger d id n ’t
mean the AV text that any sixth g rader could read: a
text says w hat it says, anyone can tell w hat it says if he
can read it.
Ah, here we are! “ In addition to m ore than forty
years experience as a p reacher and student o f the G reek
New T estam ent.” Ah, there it is! He professes to have
been studying “the ” G reek N ew T estam ent. This is
“the te x t” w hich he talks about w hen he says, “it brings
the scholarship o f THE G reek N ew T estam ent w ithin
reach o f the student . . . It brings the reader directly to
THE original G reek.”
1. There is no such thing as “th e ” Greek New
Testament, and Y aeger knew it when he lied about it.
There is a G reek T estam ent by Fell, one by M ill, one
by W alton, one by E rasm us, one by S crivener, one by
E lzevir, one by S tephanus, one by N estle, one by Tis-
chendorf, one by G riesbach . . . but w hy go on? Every
one o f these runs into several editions. W hat is the
point in saying “the G reek tex t” unless the con m an in
the C ult is trying to m ake you think that if you buy his
book you w ill have access to the original manuscripts?
W hy say it? That is easy; once the deadly lie has been
im planted you say exactly w hat Y aeger said: “directly
to the original G reek.”
2. By coupling “the original G reek” to “the G reek
New T estam ent,” Y aeger has created the impression
desired by every m em ber o f the Cult: that the AV is not
for serious students and that the reader o f N estle’s
G reek text is reading the original: which he is not.
N ext m onth, we will again dem onstrate the scope
and breadth o f this A lexandrian octopus as it stretches
out its ecum enical tentacles not only to ensnare A n d er­
son, Rice, Y aeger, A fm an, C uster, Bob Jones III, and
R obinson (T ennessee T em ple), but the hyper-dispen-
sationalist, C ornelius Stam . The A lexandrian C ult is no
respecter o f persons, and it w alketh about as a roaring
lion ready to devour every “soul-w inning, prem illennial
F undam entalist” who w ishes to exalt his old nature
above the authority o f G od A lm ighty.
 ARTICLE NINETEEN
“Cornelius Stam, a Genuine Alexandrian”
O ur problem text, today, is from Ruth 3. This is
one o f the “last reso rts” used by the C ult to prove a
“contradiction” in the AV. The thinking behind this is
that som e editions o f the AV had “she went into the
city” w hile others said “he w ent into the city .”
S trangely enough, these gnat pickers are not slightly
concerned about the deletion o f the nam e o f “God”
from the strongest passage in the N ew T estam ent on
the D eity o f C hrist (1 Tim . 3:16). B ut w hen it com es to
tw o O ld T estam ent characters going into a city, they
becom e brilliant critical “ students” o f “ serious Bible
study” !
N ow the fact is, they both “went into the city.”
O bserve Ruth 3:16— R u th ’s m other-in-law , N aom i, is
in the city. O bserve R uth 4 :1 — Boaz had to go into the
city to get to “the gate.” E ith er reading w ould have
been the truth o f G od without contradiction. A nd yet in
their m addening fanaticism to im plant doubt in your
m ind about the authority o f the AV, these sam e d esp er­
ate critics have allow ed Jesus C hrist to be in danger of
the judgm ent as a sinner (see M att. 5:22) by om itting
“without a cause” from the ASV, NASV, RSV, and the
NRSV. This m akes C hrist a sinner, for he was angry
(M ark 3:5).
Such are the w ays o f “serious Bible students” who
study the “original G reek ” text to m ake “ ‘intelligent
decisions” from the “earliest m anuscripts.”
Stick it in your craw, sonny.
The B ible-believer, in any age, should be deeply
concerned about these roots and causes o f apostasy,
since it is apparent that the apostates appear in any age
 as the product o f som e process w hich has “gone on
before.” The L iberal apostates o f the tw entieth century
w ere taught by apostates in the nineteenth century and
so on. By lim iting “ap ostasy” to unsaved m en (see any
note on apostasy in any Scofield Reference Bible, old
or new ), the Alexandrian Cult is able to cover its tracks
in every century; its “track s” are alw ays the first two
steps taken before producing a C atholic, C om m unist,
or “L iberal” :
1. Questioning what G od said (G en. 3).
2. Exalting some authority as an equal to the B i­
ble.
W e have seen the C ult in operation. The d o cu ­
m ented evidence on the non-biblical stupidity o f O ri­
gen (a “B ible-believing” Fundam entalist) is m anifest in
the A nte-N icene Fathers. The blasphem ous stupidity o f
his follow ers (Eusebius and A ugustine) is likew ise docu­
m ented w here anyone can read it (see A nte-N icene and
Post-N icene Fathers), and the “entourage” o f this bunch
of apostate Fundam entalists— they all believe in the V ir­
gin B irth, D eity, etc.— includes Jerom e, C onstantine,
the popes, and every d estructive B ible critic in the
history o f the church (C elsus, Porphyry, Paine, Strauss,
Renan, A struc, G raf, K uenen, W ellh au sen , Sem ler,
G riesbach, H ort, Schaff, C uster, A fm an, R obertson,
W uest, Z odhiates, A nderson, Y aeger, et al.).
H aving observ ed , w ith a ran d o m sam p lin g o f
twenty colleges (including H yles-A nderson, T ennessee
Tem ple, and Bob Jones), that none have any fin a l au­
thority but the accumulated opinions o f the Alexan­
drian Cult, we have com e to the only p roper co n clu ­
sion that a Bible-believer should com e to: w here a man
thinks he is sm art enough to correct the A uthority o f
God A lm ighty, it is because his old nature is being
used by Satan (Gen. 3:1). The p ro o f is in the pudding.
The proof lies in the documented evidence we have
Printed in this Bulletin in nineteen consecutive articles.
There wasn ’t one straight, honest, clear-cut statement
by any member o f the Cult (or any school which was
controlled by the Cult) on what the fin al authority in
this universe is f o r the Bible believer, unless it was an
unread, unheard, unknown, lost "book” which no one
has seen since Tobit and Judith were written into Vati-
canus as p a r t o f the Old Testament.
The tentacles o f the A lexandrian octopus have such
a far reach (due to the unregenerate nature in F u n d a­
m entalists, C atholics, and infidels alike) that it will
eventually enm esh every C onservative scholar o f any
degree if he m eets one essential qualification: he m ust
think that his education has equipped him to alter the
King James Bible. O nce that “stan d ard ” has been met,
Satan can use him , no m atter w hat his profession is.
O bserve C ornelius Stam (The Present Peril):
1. Stam says that “we all agree” that no transla­
tions are inerrant. (W ho is “w e,” Stam , unless it is the
m em bers o f the A lexandrian C ult?)
2. Only the originals are w ithout error because
this is an “ inescapable co n clu sio n .” W hat, C ornelius,
no proof! “C onclusion” from W H A T, C ornelius? W hat
does “inerrancy” m ean? It d o esn ’t m ean “an acoluthon”
for anacoluthon (failure o f tense or voice to follow
through) is found in several languages including Greek.
W ould bad grammar be an error, C ornelius? W ould
G od use P e te r’s bad gram m ar? P eter w as a commercial
fisherman w ho w as “ u n learned” in his day and tim e.
W hat is this “inerrancy” bit, Cornelius? W ould you show
us a genuine error in the AV so that we w ill know w hat
you mean by the “inerrancy o f the originals” ?
3. E phesians 6:12 should read w ith the corrupt
W estcott and H ort text o f the RV (1881) on page 76 of
S tam ’s w ork on M oses and Paul.
4. E phesians 6:13 should read with the RV o f 1881
instead o f the King James (M oses and Paul, p. 76).
5. W e should read w ith the RV three tim es in John
 3:18, 5:24; and R om ans 8:1, and “the rest o f the verse
in the AV (Rom . 8:1) is an interpolation.”
It is? Would any o f you care to prove it in court?
You think because the S cofield note lied about it
that it is true?
D id you check R om ans 8:13 in the E nglish to see
if it was true?
Stam is no different than P aine or V oltaire w hen it
comes to altering the truth to suit his fancies. He
guessed h a lf o f R om ans 8:1 sh o u ld n ’t be there and
guessed very badly (in view o f vs. 13), but having been
m isled by such “good, godly, dedicated m en” as C. I.
Scofield, G aebelein, et al., w hat w as he to do? T rust
God? O f course not. He should fo llo w the Scholars
Union—he did.
6. T here is a tem ple in New Jerusalem (Stam , The
NSRB). (There is? There isn ’t any in the AV, ASV,
NASV, RSV, or NRSV). I w onder w hat “in erran t” o rig i­
nal Stam has that puts a temple in N ew Jerusalem (Rev.
2 1 :22 )?
7. G od, in sovereign grace, has “chosen som e to
be saved” (Is Salvation Certain, fourth printing) b e­
cause no sinner can believe on C hrist or willingly re ­
ceive him until after he is born again (The Present
Peril.
Stam is a Hyper-Calvinist, not a Bible believer.
N ow , w here did Stam get these non-scriptural fan ­
tasies from : A ugustine and C alvin, tw o m en who co r­
rected the Bible on num erous occasions, added the Apoc­
rypha, held that the Septuagint w as inspired, elected
“saints” by baby sprinkling, and held that every Old
T estam ent saint was born again, when none o f them
were. Every saint in the O ld T estam ent w as “outside o f
C hrist,” not in Him. N one w ere “chosen in C h rist”—
none o f them w ere spiritually born again or spiritually
resurrected, and yet all o f them w illingly obeyed God
in faith from an unregenerate nature (Exod. 3 4 -3 5 ).
 (In S tam ’s w ork on The Gospel o f John he cites
the RSV over the AV on a reading that he w ished did
not read the way it read in the King James.)
D oes Stam have a B ible w ith no errors? O f course
not. D oes he believe the King James Bible is the word
o f G od? O f course not. W ould he co rrect it to prove a
point? O f course he w ould.
Any member o f the Cult will correct it anytime he
feels like it.
His final authority is himself. If he decides there is
a tem ple in N ew Jerusalem the fact that the King James
Bible says “ I saw no te m p le th e r e in ” (Rev. 21:22) is
of no consequence to C ornelius Stam at all. A lex an ­
drian C ult m em bers write their own Bibles and accept
no Bible as the final authority.
By now , the reader should have the C ult m em ber
identified and spotted as soon as he pokes his head out
o f the A frican jungle:
1. He USES the Authorized Version because he
has to.
2. He “prefers” it because he c a n ’t fool the Body
o f C hrist w hen he “uses” another.
3. H e w ill correct it continually w here and when
he feels like it.
4. He will recom m end com peting authorities which
contradict it and alter it in 36,000 places.
5. He has never seen a Bible or had his hands on
one; he has only seen “r elia b le” and “unreliable
translations.
6. In his deluded fancy, he supposes that “re li­
able” and “unreliab le” have no reference to the G reek
texts for B ibles, but rath er has to do w ith the “p ro fes­
sion o f faith ” o f the translator.
7. H e w ill altern ate “ S c rip tu re ,” “ B ib le ,” and
“W ord o f G od” so that they m ean the originals one
tim e, four translations another tim e, one translation an­
other tim e, and occasionally only the “m essage” found
 in tw o translations.
T h a t is, in c o n s is te n t, p r o f e s s io n a l lyin g is
characteristic o f the Cult.
In our next installm ent, we shall pick up a great,
good, “godly,” prem illennial, soul-w inning F undam en­
talist (O sw ald J. Sm ith) who tells us that the R om an
C atholic B ible is the infallible w ord o f G od and the A V
is not. For now, let us p ick up another “p roblem ” text
w hich is used by the faculty m em bers o f Lynchburg and
S pringfield to foster doubt in the authority o f the H oly
Bible.
T he H oly Spirit has been referred to as “ i t s e l f ’ in
R om ans 8:16. This is an atrocious blunder on the part
o f the stupid AV translators if we are to believe the
faculty m em bers at the schools we listed in previous
articles! A gain in 8:26 we find “ itse lf.” In holy horror,
the zealous B aptists raise their hands and cry that it
should have been “h im self,” for the H oly S pirit is a
person, etc., etc.! In their zeal to get rid o f the P en te­
costal s, a strange m adness seizes our “good, godly,
dedicated scholars,” and the M ickey M ouse exegesis
starts. To “ c o m fo rt th e fe e b le m in d e d ” w e should no­
tice:
1. C hrist is an “ it” in G enesis 3:15.
2. C hrist is a “ th in g ” in Luke 1:35.
3. Jesus C hrist is “ th a t w h ic h ” in 1 John 1:1.
4. The w ord for S pirit is neuter in any G reek le x i­
con or any G reek text.
5. T here is nothing w rong w ith using “ it” w here
the work o f the H oly S pirit as an influence is the point
in question (observe Num. 11:17).
6. W here one is dealing with the person o f the
H oly S pirit (John 14:16), the m ascu lin e w ould be
proper, and so the AV has retained the usage show ing
they certainly knew as m uch as the silly, tw entieth-
century boobs w ho think the sun rises and sets on
them selves.
 ARTICLE TWENTY
“Oswald Smith and the Professional Liars”
The purpose o f this article, in this series o f articles
on the m odern C ult o f apostasy, is to show that sim ply
because a m an is a separated, prem illennial, soul-w in-
ning, independent, m issionary-m inded “B ible believ er”
that it is not a fo o lp ro o f set o f criteria that he can be
trusted in m atters o f B iblical authority as f a r as you
can throw this newspaper. W hat you are about to read
w ill be questioned by m any and denied by som e, but
docum ented fact has alw ays had the quality o f u p set­
ting hypocrites, con m en, the ultra shy, the u n co m m it­
ted, the com prom ising, and the conspirators. W hat you
are about to read is found in a B ook in print, and the
B ook can be obtained at nearly any C hristian b o o k ­
store.
To m ake sure we slight no one in the Cult, we will
let B oyce B lackw elder speak up w ith O sw ald J. Sm ith,
as both o f them attack the B ible and both seek to
overthrow it w hile believing in “the verbally, plenary,
inspired originals.’’'’
W e w ill refer to B lackw elder to show you that
expertise in G reek gram m ar never qualifies a m an to be
a B iblical scholar. W e pick Sm ith to show that soul
w inning and m issionary endeavors n ever qualify a man
to be a Biblical scholar. The first tw o requirem ents of
a B iblical scholar are a humble mind and a believing
heart (1 Cor. 1—2; Isa. 29; Luke 10; 1 Thess. 2; D eut.
29:29). The contem porary hallucination, propagated in
every century by the A lexandrian C ult, is that the tw o
qualifications are: first, to profess to b elieve in the
fundam entals, and second, to have m astered H ebrew
and G reek gram m ar.
 This double-barreled flim flam m ay be said to be
the doctrinal conviction o f the C ult, and the first and
second m ajor item s in its religious “creed.”
A lthough m any C ultists in the Scholars U nion may
disagree as to w hat the “fu n d am en tals” are— see the
difference betw een the Bob Jones III-H ort-M achen-
W arfield-R obertson type o f F undam entalism and the
W. B. R iley-N orris-V ick-B illy Sunday type o f F u n d a­
m entalism — they all agree that a man does not have to
believe the Bible to be a Biblical scholar. All he has to
do is profess to believe that nineteen centuries ago G od
w rote som e m anuscripts w hich becam e a Bible and
then they disappeared from sight. By this ridiculous
“conviction” the A lexandrian C ult jam s H ort, W est­
cott, Schaff, L ightfoot, R obertson, G reen, and W arf­
ield into the category o f “B ib lical” scholars, w hen not
a m an in the list could be trusted to teach Bible P ro p h ­
ecy to a D aily V acation B ible School.
A lso by this ridiculous standard, O sw ald J. Sm ith,
Stew art C uster, Fred A fm an, C liff R obinson, A n d er­
son, Y aeger, and John R. R ice are placed in the cat­
egory o f “B ible believ ers,” w hen none o f them have
any fin al authority but th eir own preference for a num ­
ber o f translations, w hich none o f them believe are the
Bible (see the docum ented evidence given in the last
nineteen articles).
there is O sw ald J. Sm ith, w ho pastored the larg ­
est, m issionary-supporting church in the w orld (The
P eople’s C hurch, Toronto, C anada). In his book The
Battle f o r Truth (!!), he tells us on pages 60, 88, 104,
and 115 the follow ing things:
1. The Bible alone is “u n ch an g eab le,” and there
is “no other autho rity .”
2. The Bible is G o d ’s “infallible, inspired w ord.”
(Boy, h av en ’t we got a real Bible believ er here, hey
boys? M an, you co u ld n ’t get any m ore fundam ental
than that if you tried, right?)
 3. The reading in John 1:18 in the AV is wrong-,
“in the orig in al” it says there are tw o gods as we find it
in the New American Standard Version.
4. The difficulty in understanding the Bible com es
from the “erroneous tran slatio n s” in the King James
Bible.
5. To get back “to the o rig in al” (ah yes, ch il­
dren!), it w ill be necessary for the C hristian to use the
American Revised Version o f 1901. This is the “o rig i­
nal,” and in the AV, one is “hopelessly at sea.” (W ell,
w ell, we d id n ’t have a B ible b eliever on our hands. W e
had a m an w ho thought the corrupt ASV o f 1901 was
the “o rig in al” !)
6. “L et us turn to this C atholic B ible (p. 89) . . .
the infallible, authoritative W ord o f G od.”
7. Sm ith says that “this Book that I hold in my
h a n d ” w hen he is holding a Roman Catholic Bible in
his hand. O f that Book (the one he said he had in his
hand), he says: “therefore it (the one he has in his
hand) is infallible, for it is the W ord o f G od.”
8. Sm ith states that there is no question (“ un­
questionably” ) about the R om an C atholic B ible being
authoritative, for it is an “accurate tran slatio n ” “true to
the original.” (You see, you had a Papist and d id n ’t
even know it.)
T he difference betw een O sw ald J. S m ith ’s p o si­
tion, in his “battle for the tru th ” (saints preserve us!),
and Bob Jones U niversity is not that one is a N eo ­
evangelical and the other is a “m ilitant F u n d am en tal­
ist.” Perish the thought! The difference is that O sw ald
Sm ith is honest and carries the C ult creed to its logical
conclusion— N orth A frica w here the L atin church b e­
gan. BJU , on the other hand, com prom ises and tries to
lie its way out o f the C ult w hile staying in it and p re­
tending that the NASV and the ASV (1901) are not
R om an C ath o lic B ib les— w hich they are (see The
C h ristian’s Handbook o f Manuscript Evidence).
 Oswald Smith was a saved, soul-winning, premillen-
nial, “m issionary statesm an.”
So?
So you cou ldn ’t trust him in matters o f Biblical
authority any further than you could trust Bloody Mary
or Fidel Castro. The Bible B elieve rs’ Bulletin is for
B ible believers; not “ saved, soul-w inning, B ible-per-
verting, prem illennial, separated, destructive critics.”
A nd now in this co rn er, we hav e M r. B oyce
B lackw elder, using a forew ord by K enneth W uest and
A. T. Robertson, in his book Light From the Greek
New Testament. Surely such great B iblical scholars as
W uest, M antey, and R obertson w ill not lead a “F un­
dam entalist” astray in m atters o f authority, w ould they?
O n pages 16, 30, 33, 35, 3 7 -3 8 , 43, 74, 1 13-114,
141-144 we learn (from these “good, go dly, dedicated
m en who believed in the plenary verbal, blah, blah,
blah”) that:
1. They had the G reek N ew T estam en t— They
didn ’t.
2. P eter and Jam es and John could not have been
theologians because to be a theologian you have to be
first a grammarian.
3. In the A V, you c a n ’t tell the difference betw een
the C herubim s and the A ntichrist because the w ord
“beast” was used fo r both o f them .
4. The AV should m ake a co nsistent distinction
betw een G reek w ords even though they w ere used
“interchangeably at times in K oine G reek.”
5. Y ou c a n ’t understand John 20:17 and M atthew
28:9 w ithout Greek grammar.
6. You c a n ’t understand the problem o f rem ar­
riage in 1 C orinthians 7:15 w ithout Greek grammar.
7. The baptism o f fire (M att. 3) is for saved people
because the “and” should have been “ev en .”
8. The dragon o f R evelation 12 is not literal b e­
cause o f the “anathoric use o f the article.”
 9. G alatians 3:1 is unintelligible in the Autho­
rized Version. The expression “ th e t r u t h ” in the N ew
T estam ent is only the “m essage o f the g o sp el.”
10. Y ou can ’t understand 1 C orinthians 14:34-35
w ithout Greek grammar.
11. T here m ust be a continuous act o f trusting
C hrist as long as you live, and you can lose salvation
and go to Hell because the G reek gram m ar o f 1 John
3:6, 9 is in the present durative linear.
12. F irst P eter 3 :1 -2 is u n in tellig ib le w ith o u t
N estle’s G reek text.
13. The “problem ” o f A cts 22:16 is “cleared up”
by the tense o f the participle.
This is the standard type o f textbook published by
K enneth W uest (and every G reek teacher since 1800)
for tw enty years. O bserve that w here the apostate has
accidentally found a truth, that truth is an established
truth w ell know n to any reader o f the A V 1 0 0 -9 0 0
years before the apostate attempted to establish a Greek
text as the key to interpretation.
O bserve, further, how credit is given to secular
education for unraveling “insoluble p ro b lem s” w hich
are never problem s to start w ith, and to which any fo o l
could have found out the answer without any secular
education above the twelfth grade.
O bserve, finally, that often the apostate F u n d a­
m en talist’s know ledge o f G reek causes him to pervert
the truth, misread the text, lose the information, and
becom e im bedded in B ible-rejecting heresy. His know l­
edge sheds light on absolutely nothing but his own
skeptical stupidity.
W e are dealing w ith lying thieves w ho substitute
“ separation” and a “stand for the orig in als” for B iblical
truth and Biblical scholarship.
No G reek scholar has ever found out one single
new truth in the B ible (that w as so) that was not know n
publicly by the Body o f C hrist more than 100 years
 before that Greek scholar was born.
W e are dealing w ith professional liars. They earn
their salaries and incom es by lying about B iblical au ­
thority. W e say, ju stifiab ly therefore, that they are p r o ­
fessionals. T hat is, they earn their living (“feed their
belly,” Rom . 16; Phil. 3) by lying about matters o f fin a l
authority. They m ake you think that the key to o b tain ­
ing final authority and m astering final authority is edu­
cation and grammar. They are lying (1 C orinthians 1 -
2 ).
O ur “problem tex t,” for this m onth (see the ring-
a ro u n d -th e -ro s y a b o v e ), w ill be th e v a ria tio n o f
“ S h e b a ” or “ B e e rsh e b a , a n d S h e b a ” in various p rin t­
ings o f the AV by O xford and C am bridge. The idea,
here (alw ays given by the C ult to shake your faith in
the authority o f the B ible), is th at if one includes
B eersheba then there w ould b qfourteen cities, w hereas
the total is given as thirteen (Josh. 19:2, 6). N ote how
careful the C ultist is alw ays to be engaged at gnat
straining (M att. 23). N ot one w ord about the two gods
he ran into (John 1:18); not one w ord about teaching
salvation by works (1 Pet. 2)— after com plaining about
R evelation 22:14!— and certainly not one w ord about
attacking every verse in the New Testament that was in
the context o f a sinner being saved by grace (see Luke
23, the dying thief; A cts 9, Paul; A cts 8, the eunuch;
and A cts 16, the jailo r); no, only that “ B e e rs h e b a ” is
an error in Joshua 19:2!
1. T he D ing-a-ling theologians who bring this to
us are, naturally, very shallow B iblical scholars and
know nothing about “serio u s” B ible study. This is ev i­
denced by the fact that none o f them observed the
frequent discrepancies in num bers w hen dealing with
Simeon, since som e o f its territories w ere in Judah and
overlapping. A t the end (Jer. 52) the tribe o f Sim eon
has no boundaries at all; it is included in Judah with
Benjamin. Note: “ h a d th e ir in h e rita n c e w ith in th e
inheritance of them ” (Josh. 19:9).
2. Som ehow , in their “ serious B ible studies” w ith
“scientific tex ts” that “ shed new lig h t” on B ible kn o w l­
edge, all o f these stupid dum m ies forget that B eersheba
is a place (G en. 21:14, 31) as w ell as a city. F u rth er­
m ore, the city is renamed (G en. 26:33) from the place.
One should understand, then, that there is a vast
difference betw een a self-deluded, lying grammarian,
who m akes his living as a destructive critic, and a
serious B ible scholar w ho believes what God said as
He said it. E ither reading in either edition o f the AV is
correct, depending upon w hether or not you w ant to
list the place w ith the city. Furthermore, it is possible
f o r a city to have three names as one city (Cf. Gen.
13:18; Josh. 14:15).
O ne m ust never abandon or correct the AV text
sim ply because an A lexandrian C ult m em ber, w ho is a
professional liar, decides that he is sm arter than G od
and his studies in gram m ar enable him to usurp the
authority o f the A uthor o f Truth. If 100 percent o f the
“Bible-believing Fundam entalists” didn’t believe the text
in Joshua 19:2, it w ould be o f no m ore consequence
than a pile o f ants not believing in a honey jar.
 ARTICLE TWENTY-ONE
J. Vernon McGee and Revelation 22:14
A t this point, it m ight be a good idea to rem ind
our regular readers that this colum n is not w ritten for
“scholarly Fundam entalists” who believe that God wrote
a book and then lost it and had to depend upon the silly
theories o f tw o apostate C onservatives (W estcott and
H ort) to restore the D ark A ge, R om an C atholic B ible
(Jesuit R heim s, 1582) to the classroom s o f M idw est­
ern, M id-South, Liberty, H yles-A nderson, T ennessee
Tem ple, and Bob Jones U niversity (see docum ented
evidence in the last ten articles).
This colum n is w ritten for Bible believers who
love and believe the H oly B ible. By the H oly B ible, we
mean a Book, not “original m an u scrip ts.” By “H o ly ,”
we m ean above the scholarship o f any group o f d e­
structive critics (saved or lost). By “th e” B ible, we
mean the Protestant Bible o f the P h ilad elp h ia C hurch
period (Rev. 3:8) that brought about a 300-year release
from the apostate G reek text o f Bob Jones U niver­
sity— the W estcott-H ort-N estle-M etzger text o f the New
American Standard Version (NASV).
W hen we w rite, we never confound “the S crip ­
tures” w ith the “m essage” (see R ic e’s correspondence
w ith Evans); we never confound the “W ord” o f G od
w ith the words o f G od (see anything w ritten by G eorge
D ollar or C uster— Bob Jones U niversity); and we never
confound “a G reek m anuscript” (V aticanus or Sinaiti-
cus) w ith “the” G reek text or “the o rig in al” G reek text
(see Y aeger, John R. Rice, A nderson, or any other
double-talking “F undam entalist”).
H aving been inform ed by O sw ald J. Smith (a “born-
again, soul-w inning Fundam entalist) that the Roman
Catholic Bible is the infallible authority o f G od from
the “verbally inspired origin als” (B attle for Truth),
and that the AV is “m islead in g ” and “hopelessly co n ­
fused” (see last issue), we should take note that O s­
w ald Sm ith differs from the faculty at Pensacola C h ris­
tian C ollege only in that he is honest. They are not
w hen discussing m atters o f B iblical authority.
To reinforce w hat w e are saying, we began to
print in article num ber Ten a series o f so called “p ro b ­
lem tex ts” w hich are brought up by the faculty m em ­
bers o f “F undam en talist” institutions to force the stu ­
dent to reject the AV as final authority in all m atters o f
faith and practice— even w here the outw ard ad v ertis­
ing m ay profess to b elieve in it as the authority. These
“problem tex ts” are given to the student w ithout any
attem pt on the faculty m em b er’s part to resolve them ,
for if they w ere resolved, it would divest the faculty
member o f his position o f authoritative critic sitting in
judgm ent against the “fin al authority in all matters o f
faith and practice. ” So in these schools, w hich are all
controlled by the A lexandrian C ult, doubt is implanted
in order to produce an infidel, at least w here fin al and
absolute authority is at stake.
W e have never said that Rice denied the V irgin
B irth or the D eity o f C hrist; certainly Pope John Paul
does not. W e have never said that R obertson or H ort
denied the literal resurrection or a literal H ell; certainly
Pope John Paul d o esn ’t. W hat we have said is that in
regard to authority, every m em ber o f the A lexandrian
Cult will devote his life to getting rid o f the one final
authority so that the Cult can pose as the Savior o f
interpretation and the G od o f intelligence (G en. 3:1 —
3).
W e have been docum enting these truths through
tw enty issues o f the Bulletin, and not a single item we
have docum ented has ev er been answ ered or ever w ill
be answ ered w ith docum ented fact. Facts are foreign
 to the C ult w here authority is the issue. W e did not say
that they w ere unsaved L iberals (certainly M achen,
W arfield, and W ilson w ere not). W e did not say that
they w ere not “separated m en, living separated liv es”
(certainly the F ranciscans, D om inicans, and T rappists
m onks w ere all “secondary sep aratio n ists”). W hat we
said was: they are professional liars in matters o f Bib­
lical authority.
Shall w e try it one m ore tim e “w ith feeling” ? L e t’s
see w hat J. V ernon M cG ee has to say about B iblical
authority, shall we? “Through the Bible R a d io ”— did
you dig that “the B ible” b it?— from P asadena, C alifo r­
nia, is surely a fine, Fundamentalist broadcast, is it
not? O f course! O bserve:
“N ew translations o f the B ible continue to roll o ff
the presses at such a rapid rate that the m arket is g lu t­
ted w ith them and confusion reigns suprem e.”
(Ahhh! N ow surely, we are going to find a man
who has som e authority besides H IM SEL F!)
“The im plication is that som ething is radically
wrong with the Authorized Version. In the m inds o f
m any, this has w eakened the authority o f Scripture in
any translation.”
(Careful now, Vernon!! You did n ’t say that it w eak­
ened the authority in your mind. You said “in the m inds
o f many.” C areful, D octor!)
“W e d o n ’t need a new translation here; we need
to study the one we have. F orgive us, Lord, our tran s­
lations. We d o n ’t need new translations. ”
(A hhh, now we are on the right track! G lad to see
you d id n ’t slip o ff into left field, V ernon; you alm ost
had us guessing there for a m inute!)
“D ear friend (A pril 17,1978), In response to your
letter received on M arch 28, 1978, we w ould reco m ­
mend the Authorized King James Version and the Amer­
ican Standard Version.”
Sam e old business. Two conflicting authorities.
G o d ’s B ible versus the D ev il’s B ible. The A lexandrian
text versus the Syrian text. The R eform ation versus
Rome. The absolute authority o f G od versus a dehy­
drated dishrag.
The ASV, recom m ended by Dr. M cG ee, crosses
the AV text in 31,000 places. M cG ee has reserved for
himself the right to decide w hich reading is right w here
they disagree, for he recom m ends both o f them.
W here, then, did his first thoughts com e from ?
Easy: every member o f the Cult has a double standard
f o r a double tongue. The first three quotations above
w ere xeroxed copies for public consum ption in the mass
mail m edia. The fourth one was a personal letter.
O bserve how M cG ee handled it exactly as it is
handled at T ennessee T em ple and Bob Jones and M id­
w estern. T here is one set o f standards publicly ad v er­
tised and propagated in the m ass mail m edia to get the
sucker; there is another set o f standards slipped through
into the mails to individuals to assure them that w hat
w as advertised publicly has q u alifications and lim ita­
tions: i.e., it is a lie.
N ow , w e have been at this business o f d o cum ent­
ing the A lexandrian position for a good w hile, but our
purpose is to drive hom e and enforce the m ain idea
propagated by the Cult: w hile professing to be Bible
believers, they have no Bible, and w hile professing to
be subm itting to a suprem e authority, their ow n su­
prem e authority is their preferences and opinions (Col.
2:8; 1 Tim . 6:20). N one o f them are in subjection to
any Bible, least o f all the A uthorized H oly Bible o f the
Protestant Reform ation. Anyone o f them would not hesi­
tate to m ake from one to one hundred corrections p e r
chapter on every chapter in the Bible (Jer. 36), and
they w ould lie to their students (1 K ings 13) in order to
m aintain their ow n position o f authority.
T heir degenerate, old nature (w hich is still present
in the “good, godly, saved C o n servative,” Rom. 6 -7 ) is
 on the throne o f the universe, and they are apostates in
the sense that they continue to profess something they
no longer believe in. By changing the term inology and
setting up a double standard (“accu rate” and “clearer” )
and shuffling the articles (“th e” original G reek text,
“the” G reek T estam ent, “a ” reliable translation), they
pass o ff as B ible believers. N one o f them are. They are
educators. They worship education.
O ur “problem tex t” fo r this m onth, posited by the
faculty m em bers o f F undam ental schools w ho w ish to
im plant infidelity into the student, is R evelation 22:14.
A ccording to John R. R ice (see docum ented a r­
ticle in his correspondence w ith Evans), R evelation
22:14 has no business being in the B ible as w ritten in
the King James, because to B rother Rice, it is an E p is­
copalian conspiracy to teach salvation by w orks. A side
from the fact that the corrupt ASV text (N estle’s), ad ­
vertised by John R. Rice (see docum ented m aterial on
A nderson and Y aeger in the Sword o f the Lord), was a
G reek text constructed by Episcopalians a t the request
o f the Episcopal church and the A V text was constructed
by Puritans and E piscopalians at the request o f the
Puritans, there rem ains the fact that there is n ’t one
head o f one Bible D epartm ent in any school in A m erica
who could expound R evelation 22:14 in eith er text (AV
or ASV).
C onsider (“ seriously” I believe is the term ), for a
m om ent, the ludicrous situation that com es into being
w hen a “ serious” B ible student who has m astered “the
original” obtains “earlier m anuscripts” w hich shed “new
lig h t’ on the original.
1. “The G reek tex t” o f V aticanus is not the o rig i­
nal.
2. “The Greek te x t” o f Vaticanus does not even
have Revelation 22 in it.
3. T he S inaitic text o f R evelation 22:14 reads
“w ash their robes.”
 4. This is the official Jesuit reading o f the Roman
Catholic Church (1582).
5. H aving abandoned the R eform ation text, “do
his com m andm ents,” the silly idiots w ho did it cannot
understand or expound the text they have substituted.
“ B lessed are those who wash their robes that they
may have the right to the tree o f life.”
What does this mean ?
H aving altered it because you thought it taught
“salvation by w orks,” w hat do you have after the altera­
tion? D oes any C hurch A ge saint “w ash his robes” ? O f
course not. The w ashed robes are those o f Tribulation
saints (Rev. 7). If a C hurch A ge saint “w ashed his
robes,” w ould he partake o f the tree o f life? O f course
not, stupid; he already has eternal life (1 John 5 :1 0 -
13), and the partakers o f the tree o f life (Rev. 2 1 -2 2 )
get life from that tree (G en. 3) exactly as God said they
w ould (G en. 3:22).
N ow , if a C ult m em ber w ere to read this m aterial,
do you know w hat he w ould do? Sim ple: he w ould get
upset about the w ords “ silly ,” “ stu p id ,” and “ id iot.” He
w ou ldn ’t check any o f the Biblical material to see if it
were right or not. His motive is to protect his standing
in the C ult, and this can only be done by protecting the
Cult.
A ny m an who was a “serious student o f the B ible”
w ould know perfectly w ell from the AV text— w ithout
benefit o f any H ebrew text or any G reek text or any
scholar or revision connected w ith any ASV or NASV—
that w orks are an elem ent in Tribulation salvation (Matt.
13:24; Rev. 12:17, 14:12; M att. 2 5 :3 5 -3 9 ), and it is
only the preconceived, blind p rejudice o f B aptists and
Presbyterians that m ake them reject these verses (plus
Heb. 3, 6, 10) on denominational grounds. H aving d e­
nied the w ord, they m ust pervert the word (Rev. 22:14).
H aving perverted it (Rev. 22:14), they cannot expound
it.
 Such are the w ays o f hell, sin, and death for “godly,
dedicated, soul-w inning F un d am en talists” who think
m ore o f their denom inational doctrines than the living
words o f the living God. N o C hristian w ould think o f
taking the Tree o f Life for anything— com m andm ents
or robes or anything else. The unnecessary perversion
o f the verse by the ASV com m ittee and the NASV co m ­
m ittee was done w ith only one guiding principle: d is ­
honest stupidity.
 ARTICLE TWENTY-TWO
“Credit Where Credit is Due”
It is now tim e to say som e com plim entary things
about som e o f the C ult m em bers.
I am sure som e o f them could use a com plim ent
about now, after reading over sixty pages o f docu­
mented evidence show ing that none o f them believe in
any final authority but their own educated opinion\ O ri­
gen w asn ’t any different; his final court o f appeals was
G reek philosophy even though he w as only one hun­
dred years rem oved from the “original m anuscripts.”
E usebius and Jerom e d id n ’t look at it m uch differently.
Jerom e used O rigen constantly in the New Testam ent,
at the sam e tim e deriding him as a heretic (see History
o f the Christian Church, V olum es 2 -3 , Schaff). C lem ­
ent and A ugustine are the sam e stam p. They alleg o ­
rized and “ spiritu alized ” w here they felt like it and
expected their readers to accept it on the grounds o f
their “authority.” Y aeger and A nderson (tw entieth cen ­
tury), M acR ae and N ew m an (tw entieth century), C uster
and N eal (tw entieth century) have exactly the sam e
opinion about absolute authority held by S ch aff and
G reen (nineteenth century) and the popes (any cen ­
tury).
W hat can be said o f a complimentary nature about
these apostate Fundam entalists, apostate C onservatives,
and apostate “E vangelicals” ?
W ell, m uch. As a m atter o f fact, we sell John R.
R ic e’s books in our bookstore here at P ensacola (al­
though he w ill not even advertise ours!), and we advise
our students to take the Sword o f the Lord for good
illustration material.
Do we have to do this? O f course not. W e could
 cut o ff Jo h n n y ’s w ater tom orrow night w ithout losing a
student or a church m em ber.
Then why do we do it? B ecause any C hristian
should have enough grace to recognize the good in any
b ro th er’s w ork, regardless o f their differences on other
m atters, and any C hristian should have enough grace to
approve o f anything a brother is doing in C hrist that is
RIGHT.
It is true that John R. Rice and Bob Jones III
never had this m uch grace, but this is a testim ony to
their immaturity and childishness. G od forbid that we
should cease to be manly, even if we cease to be gentle­
manly. W hile Rice is calling us “crack p o ts” that cannot
be trusted doctrinally (see Our G od Breathed Bible,
ho-ho), he is thanking G od for Johnny C ash and O ral
Roberts (ibid). W e shall be m ore charitable than B rother
John. W e will recom m end his books and papers, and
continually correct him where he presum es to think he
is smart enough to correct a Book that can correct him
anytime it is ready. W e love B rother R ice, but we will
continually correct his nonsense and buffoonery w here
he follow s the blind leadership o f the C ult and seeks to
cause doubt in the m inds o f young m en about the au­
thority o f the H oly B ible (AV, 1611).
R ice is an excellent tract evangelist and C hristian
new spaper m an. T hank God for him . M ore pow er to
him. W here he corrects the G od-given text, he can go
take a flying ju m p at his left leg, and that goes for
anyone in his fam ily or on his “board.”
D o we m ake ourselves clear?
Bob Jones U niversity is a fine C hristian school; I
still recommend students to go there w ho are interested
in entering full-tim e C hristian education as a calling. I
recom m end students to go there; do they recom m end
students to com e h erel O f course not. They d o n ’t have
the guts or the grace. Stunted little children can never
take criticism or com petition gracefully, so they sim ply
w arn people against com ing here. D o we do this to
them ? O f course not, we have m ore grace than to kick
every dog that bites us, especially if it is a tho ro u g h ­
bred dog that is som eb o d y ’s pet. Bob Jones U niversity
has done a great deal o f good in teaching C hristian
young m en and w om en how to live clean lives. Thank
God for that. T hank God that at Bob Jones U niversity
no C hristian is taught that C hrist w as a bastard or that
death “ends it all.” W e appreciate any right w ork done
by any teacher or student at the school, and we thank
G od for their faithfulness to five or six things extracted
from the Bible.
W here they undertake to correct the Bible on the
grounds o f their stupid faith in the A lexandrian Cult,
we w ill pull the rug out from u nder them ju s t as quick
as look at them , and that goes fo r any teacher or any
preacher or anyone connected w ith the school, directly
or indirectly. Do w e m ake ourselves clear?
T hank G od for Lee R oberson. T ennessee Tem ple
has alw ays turned out better preachers than Bob Jones,
because it has alw ays had an accent on the local church
from a pastor, w hich B ob Jones U niversity never had. I
know o f hundreds o f graduates o f T ennessee Tem ple
w ho are doing a great jo b with a King James 1611
Authorized Version; thank G od fo r everyone o f them . I
often recom m end a young man to go to Tennessee
T em ple. Do they recom m end anyone to com e here? O f
course not. M any a “gian t” for G od turns out to be
nothing but a spoiled brat w hen you criticize him or
call his faults to his attention. The silly faculty m em bers
at Tennessee Tem ple w ho correct the A V in their classes
think that all sins o f m ankind should be preached against
except one: the scholarly pride that seeks to sit in ju d g ­
m ent on the w ord o f God.
H it that sin, and there are C hristians at T ennessee
T em ple that will get as rabid as a hungry shark.
N ow , I trust this article is clearing the air for
 som e o f you who have about decided that “B rother
R uckm an is against everything, and he thinks everyone
is w rong that d o esn ’t agree w ith him , because, etc.,
etc.” This is the stock and trade o f the “hit d o g ” who
has been hit. To the contrary, we have alw ays been
liberal enough to recognize the good in any C ult m em ­
ber and take note o f it: S c h a ff s is an excellent C hurch
H istory; A. T. R obertson was a great G reek gram m ar­
ian; M achen and W arfield stood fo r the N icene creed
against the L iberals in th eir church, etc., etc.
T he fact that the C ult m em ber can see no good in
our work and ministry show s w hat is w rong: he is
living in sin (if there is such a thing!). When you p oin t
out his sin and preach against it— the sin o f shaking
the faith o f B ible believers in the authority o f the
B ook— he does not repent; he does not confess; he
does not m ake restitution; and he does not study the
situation. He begins to h o ller bloody m urder and down
every voice that exposes his dirty rotten sins. T he re ­
sponse o f the average m em ber o f the A lexandrian C ult
to a m essage on the authority o f the AV B ible is about
like the response o f the G lide M em orial C hurch (San
Francisco) to a m essage on homosexuality. C ult m em ­
bers are extrem ely thin skinned.
N otice, throughout, that our point o f controversy
has never been personal. N ot once w ould we bother to
go into personalities or m inistries. W e are dealing with
documented fa cts that concern written texts as they are
printed in books and letters. W e have no argum ent w ith
the personal lives or beliefs o f any m em ber o f the Cult
in this century, if that m em ber is a saved man. C h ris­
tians are m em bers o f the sam e body. O ur argum ent has
been (and w ill be to the R apture) that not one m an o f
them is intelligent enough to find fault w ith one word o f
the greatest B ook m ankind has ever seen.
N ow , that is the point.
T he C ult takes the opposite side: they all think
they are intelligent enough to find fault, not only with
one w ord, but with 31,000 words.
O ur position is that this faultfinding w ith w hat
G od said (G en. 3:1) form s the root, trunk, and ground
o f all apostasy. T here is no apostasy w ithout it, and all
apostasy begins w ith it.
The fact that no C ult m em ber will own up to this—
this identification o f the root and source— is a d an g er­
ous indication that the C ult m em bers are involved in
protecting S a ta n ’s work in each generation. O bserve
how G eorge D ollar (History o f Fundamentalism) tells
us that we need not ever look again for the kind o f
B ible-believing, B ible-preaching crusaders that w ere
trained by J. F rank N orris (p. 172). A fter adm itting
that hundreds o f preachers on the A m erican scene ow e
m uch o f their spiritual vision and vitality to “their
noble exam ple,” D ollar slam s the door shut on them
w ithout one explanation for why “Fundam entalists need
not look for their type ag ain .”
W hy not, G eorge?
W hy is it that the young men w ho w ere trained at
the Fort W orth Sem inary (1 9 3 0 -1 9 5 0 ) for “the En­
glish B ible” will never show up again?
Imagine a History o f Fundamentalism that says
we are never again to look for the men that set up the
tw o larg e st in d ep en d en t B ap tist fello w sh ip s in the
world, and then offers no reason why we are not to
look for them!
S trange history, eh w hat?
W e take the position o f W. B. R iley and B illy
Sunday, and in our next issue we will read excerpts
from the only preacher in history w ho was a true w or­
shipper o f a translation, a man w ho bow ed before the
AV that lay on his pulpit— C harles H addon Spurgeon o f
the M etropolitan T abernacle.
In the meantime, let us note that the AV 1611 was
the only Bible taught and p reach ed at the Fort Worth
 Seminary by a man who never recommended the ASV a
time in his life, although it was in print before he
fou n ded his seminary. If you “need not lo o k ” for any
m ore crusading preachers o f righteousness that are able
to effectively “shake a nation over h ell” and alter its
religious face, it is because you are courting the A lex ­
andrian C ult and accepting the superstitious nonsense
o f the Scholars U nion as having m ore authority than
the B ible that led to N o rris’ salvation, controlled his
life and m inistry, and determ ined the outcom e o f the
m inistry o f every young m an he trained: the King James
1611 Authorized Version.
Let us repeat w hat we have said. W e appreciate
every good and right and spiritual thing that any good,
“g od ly,” dedicated m an is doing, and that every good,
fundam ental school is doing— m ore pow er to them . W e
need them ; we need each other (1 Cor. 12). There is n ’t
the slightest reservation in my m ind when I say this.
T hank G od for Tom M alone, even if he c a n ’t co n ­
trol his faculty. T hank G od for Tom W allace, even if
he does hate books like The C h ristian’s Handbook o f
Manuscript Evidence. T hank G od for B ill Rice, C urtis
H utson, Jack H yles, Jack V an Im pe; and thank God for
M clntire, Paisley, and the w hole crew.
W e need m ore o f them . W e appreciate their work.
W e recommend th eir m inistries, and we thank G od for
their supporters.
C aution: W here any o f them, or th eir friends or
associates or relatives, undertake the w ork o f d estro y ­
ing the faith o f others in the au thoritative H oly B ible
(AV 1611), we will not hesitate to call it to your atten ­
tion. W e w ill do it every tim e we get the chance as
long as we live. No F u ndam entalist is so “g o dly” that
he deserves respect when actually engaged in over­
throwing the Authority o f God.
O ur problem text this issue is sim ple: W e are told
that w hether you leave “through his blood” in (Col.
1:14) or take it out it d o esn ’t m ake any difference
because the statem ent is found in “other p laces” in the
new translations. This Satanic blasphem y is saying that
if you can find “the fundam entals” anyw here in a tran s­
lation it is “reliab le.” The tw o-faced, lying hypocrites
who teach this are evidently unaw are o f the fact that
you can find “the fundam entals” anyw here in the tran s­
lations they condem n (RSV, NEB, Living Bible, and
NRSV): that is, they adopt a double standard to protect
their ow n sins. W ithout “through his blood” in C olos-
sians 1:14 “redem ption” w ould be equated w ith “re ­
m ission.” A ny ju n io r high school student w ho reads
R om ans 3 and H ebrew s 9 knows they are not the same.
The om ission teaches false doctrine. (R em em ber R ic e’s
rem ark about people “not trusting R uckm an” w hen it
cam e to his “doctrinal teach in g ” ?)
No Bible that om its “through his blood” (Col.
1:14) is a pure B ible or a clean Bible; it is dirty and
leavened and w ill e v e n tu a lly c o rru p t th e re a d e r.
“Redem ption” is the clearing o f sins (Exod. 34) and
the taking aw ay o f sins (H eb. 10), w hereas “rem issio n ”
can occur (Psa. 51) w here there is no “redem ption”
(Heb. 9). This is a fundamental doctrine dealing with
the blood atonement o f Jesus Christ. Any Bible o m it­
ting “through his blood” has attacked this doctrine,
no m atter w hich m em ber o f the C ult (R ice, C uster,
N eal, Bob Jones, Y aeger, A nderson, W uest, Z odhiates,
W alvoord, W eniger, A rcher. Schaff, H ort, M cG ee, et
al.) recom m ends the grossly corrupt N ew American
Standard Version.
 ARTICLE TWENTY-THREE
“Back to the Bible Broadcast”
In our last article, we threw a few bouquets to
John R. Rice, H yles-A nderson, B ob Jones, T ennessee
Tem ple, for the obvious reason that they deserve re ­
spect for their B iblical w ork along certain lines. As we
have pointed out on num erous occasions, we have never
said that the leading C hristian celeb rities o f our day
are “in fid els” or “lib erals.” W e have said that som e o f
them hire and pay apostate F undam entalists, and we
have said that an “ap o state” is a m an w ho keeps on
professing something w hen he has ceased to believe in
it.
There is no doubt at all about the im m ense am ount
o f g o o d done by any m an w ho challenges C hristians to
w itness and m otivates them to becom e soul w inners;
thank G od for every such man. T here is no doubt at all
about the im m ense am ount o f good being done by godly
pastors w ho are building large churches that have an
im pact upon their tow ns. A ll o f this is excellent. H ow ­
ever, the C ult w ould take you one step further— to
tolerate criticism o f the B ible. As long as this step is
taken and respect is show n to destructive Bible critics,
the C ult d o esn ’t care how m uch good is accom plished,
for in a m atter o f tim e it will stop. It w ill stop stone
cold dead, and that will be the end o f it.
W hen you hear C uster w hining about “soul w in­
ning” after having his hide thrashed by facts co n cern ­
ing the apostate text he recom m ends (the A lexandrian
Text), d o n ’t think for a m inute that C uster or 90 p er­
cent o f the faculty at Bob Jones win souls on a regular
basis; they d o n ’t. They take credit for the soul-w inning
Work done by students.
 V ery often w e get nasty little letters from little
graduates o f these schools trying to prove that no one
can take the position we take on A bsolute A uthority
and be a “ soul w inner.” This overlooks the fact that,
per capita, we train as m any soul w inners as any school
or church in the country, and we have the only teacher
o f A dvanced G reek G ram m ar in the co u n try who
preaches on the street. The Lord gives the author about
200 or 300 every year for w hich he is extrem ely g rate­
ful, and although this m ay be “ slim pickins” to the
m ultim illion dollar operations that m atriculate students
through like baloney sausages on an assem bly line, it is
still evangelistic soul w inning on a B iblical basis w hich
has produced m ore than 250 preachers— o f w hom I
have had the privilege o f ordaining forty-five.*
H ow ever, we are not allow ed to brag. R ice, H yles,
and C om pany are. T heir bragging can alw ays get by as
“prom oting evangelism ,” “bringing back rev iv al,” etc.
B ut it is a great sin for P eter S. R uckm an even to
mention anything that G od has done through him , b e ­
cause G od is not supposed to be able to win souls
through such a man as Peter S. Ruckman. This w ould
alm ost involve God in sin, if we are to b elieve som e o f
the faculty m em bers o f C hristian schools. But m arvel
o f m arvels, the Lord can and does use alm ost anything
(1 Cor. 1 -2), so we have had the jo y o f leading thou­
sands o f people to C hrist, w hile ordaining dozens o f
young m en into the m inistry and training hundreds o f
C hristians to stand by th eir Protestant heritage without
having to compromise, one time, one single letter or
word anywhere in the Holy Bible, in either Testament.
If our m inistry is sm all, it is Biblical. If it is n o to ­
rious, it is Biblical. If it is despised, it is Biblical. And
if it is o f no consequence in the eyes o f the Scholars
U nion (Y ou’d be am azed how often the “big bo y s” go
out o f their w ay to com e clear dow n here to the G ulf to
* In 199 9 o v e r n in e ty .
 the hick tow n o f red necks — P ensacola— and try to get
in on the action!), at least it is B iblical. W hen we say
“Biblical,” we never mean what any member o f the
Cult means when he says “Biblical. ” “B ib lical,” for a
C ult m em ber, can m ean the philosophical principles
extracted from several reliab le translations and p ro p ­
erly exegeted by a rep u tab le Cult member.
It is tim e now to go “Back to the B ib le ” (Lincoln,
N ebraska) and see if T heodore Epp has any m ore au ­
thority for his m inistry and his preaching than a w ashed-
out sew age ditch.
H ere, for all the ju n g le A fricans to behold (p. 21
o f a paperback tract called “What A Christian Should
Know About Bible Translations”), is T heodore E p p ’s
idea o f “The O rigin and D evelopm ent o f the E nglish
B ible.” The chart he printed for “Back to the B ib le ” is
in a w ork w ritten by C hristian W eiss, his associate.
This am azing chart tells us that the NASV and the RSV
are from “early copies o f the original m an u scrip ts” but
that the King James Bible was only from “ancient co p ­
ies” and “ancient versions.”
If this is so, why does Theodore Epp keep on using
such an inferior Bible?
H ow does he know that the RSV and NASV are
from early copies o f the “o rig in als” and the AV is not?
D id either he or W eiss tell any o f th eir readers which
copies they w ere talking about?
O f course not.
D id either o f them show how the NASV and the
RSV m atched the “o riginals” ?
O f course not.
D id either o f them give you P ick erin g ’s evidence
{The Identity o f the New Testament Text) w hich show ed
that the AV cam e from early copies that w ere right,
w hile the NASV, ASV, RSV, and NRSV cam e from early
copies that w ere corrupt?
O f course not.
 C ult m em bers never deal w ith documented facts
w here they concern Biblical authority, they deal with
p eo p le’s opinions about people they like and d o n ’t like.
They are Humanists.
W eiss tells us that “w here the translators feel as­
sured, on the basis o f m anuscript studies, that a p as­
sage does not belong in the S criptures, it is o m itted.”
W here they feel “assured” ? W ho is “they” ? W here
“they feel assured” ? W e w alk by feeling, do we? Is
there any C harism atic who w ouldn’t go along with f e e l­
ings as reliable data for om itting (see above) passages
o f Scripture? “M anuscript studies” ? Whose studies?
Pickering or H ort? Burgon or W estcott? W ilkerson or
Schaff? H ills or K enyon? W e are to om it a passage if a
translator “feels assured,” are we?
N ow , w atch how H um anism takes over the Back
to the B ible broadcast, and w hat passes o ff for B ible-
believing Fundam entalism turns out to be ju s t one m ore
case o f Hum anism . (H um anists w ould think that a m an’s
reputation, often m istaken for character, or his p u b lic­
ity often m istaken for truth, or the gossip about him ,
often m istaken for fact, is the m ajor facto r in settling
an issue. The philosopher w ho first gave H um anism its
M agna C harta said, “M an is the m easure o f all things."
H um anists are interested in the opinions that people
have about people. All apostate Fundam entalists are
Humanists.)
W eiss goes on to say, “ Since most peop le do not
have the ability to study the biblical m anuscripts, they
may question the reasoning and decisions o f the trans­
lators. However, sound biblical scholars should be
credited w ith sincerity and integrity. The m ajority o f
Bible translations have been produced by earnest, godly,
and evangelical scholars . . . the Amplified Version . . .
the Berkeley Version
N ow , there is the party line.
If a man is “godly” by his own c r o w d ’s standards,
 and if he is “evan g elical” and in “earn est,” he has to be
“ sound” and should be credited w ith integrity. W hat
about his work, his translation? W ould we accept it
instead o f the AV? W eiss d id n ’t say. They never say.
They never speak clearly. They nev er tell the straight
out-and-out truth w here you can understand it one time.
To answ er W eiss’ sidesw iping “sh aft,” we reply:
If the m an is trying to sell a B ible, o f course his m otive
is sincere. If he is trying to replace the A V w ith a b etter
Bible, o f course he has “integ rity .” He alters the A V
text in 31,000 places (ASV and NASV), so o f course he
is a “sound B iblical sch o lar.” So w e give him credit for
being a fine little dandy w ith a great little m otive and a
sm art little head. W e then put his entire w ork in the
w astepaper basket on the grounds that it is n ’t worth
the time it would take to look at it twice. The p ro o f is in
the pudding.
The translator is entitled to his opinion, and we
are entitled to ours. The tran slato r has an excellent
m otive— correcting G od Almighty, and we have an e x ­
cellent m otive— believing G od Almighty. The tran sla­
tor is sincere and so are we, so it is a dead heat. The
difference rem ains fixed and unalterable. The differ­
ence is that we have a Book that is inerrant and an
absolute, final authority in dealing w ith all translators,
w hile the godly, “ sin cere” translators o f w hom W eiss
spoke have no authority but the educated fancies o f the
A lexandrian Cult: 1,800 years o f lying stupidity.
It is objected that “conversation” and “charity”
are archaic (1 Cor. 13; 1 Pet. 3), and there is a “d esp er­
ate need to update these w ords so that the W ord o f
God can speak forth clearly through the translation . . .
etc.” On this lam e alibi, you are to accept the w ork o f a
“sound B iblical scholar” (see above) who is godly and
evangelical” (see above), and who accidently attacks
the D eity o f C hrist (1 Tim . 3:16 in any new version),
the V irgin B irth (Luke 2:33 in any new version), the
A scension (Luke 2 4 :5 1 -5 2 in any new version), and the
S inlessness o f C hrist (M att. 5:22 in any new version).
That is, to update two words (w hich could have been
updated in the margin, not the text) you are to sacrifice
the purity o f the w ord o f G od w here it deals w ith fou r
fundamentals o f the C hristian faith.
Is it w orth it?
If you are a big enough fool to b elieve a H um anist
like G. C hristian W eiss (see above) and think that if a
m an is “ sound,” “ sincere,” “g o dly,” “ev an g elical,” and
a man o f “integrity ” (see above) that m an w ill give you
a pure B ible, you need to have your head looked at.
N ot one translation recom m ended by the C ult (RSV,
ASV, NASV, NRSV, NEB, AMPLIFIED, or BERKE­
LEY) fails to attack every fundam ental o f the faith in at
least one verse. A little leaven leavens the w hole lum p.
Is the case for “ c o n v e rs a tio n ” that hard? Since
the m outh is connected w ith the heart and out o f the
heart are “ th e issu es o f life,” w hy w ould a m a n ’s
speech differ m uch from his manner o f life, unless he
was a professional hypocrite? A nd w eren ’t you told in
the AV text that the husband “beh o ld s” the “ c o n v e rs a ­
tio n ” (1 Pet. 3 :1 -4 )? Look at it. A nd if the w ord needed
“ updating,” w hat w ould prevent anyone from putting
“m anner o f life” in the margin by the w ord? W hat
could be so confounded difficult about looking up an
occasional w ord in the m argin when the New Scofield
Reference Bible slapped 5,000 A V words into the m ar­
gin, none o f w hich w ere hard to understand?
Is “ c h a r ity ” really passe? Is love giving? “Can
you love w ithout giving (John 3:16)? If salvation isn ’t
a “handout,” w hat is it (2 Cor. 8:9)? If you left it “lo v e’
every tim e, w ould n ’t that give a “m odern m an” a false
lead on “love” ? H ollyw ood love is often getting, not
giving; and it is often lust, not love. If the AV tran sla­
tors w ere intelligent enough to use both w ords (love
and charity), why w ould one be so “arch aic” that you
had to alter the B ible in 31,000 places in order to
“update” the word. There are m ore than 31,000 changes
betw een any Bible that updates “ c h a r ity ” and the A V
that retains it.
W hen in doubt, sm ile at “good, godly, sound, sin ­
cere, evangelical tran slato rs” and then put their w ork in
the trash w here it belongs. A reputation for goodness,
godliness, and orthodoxy is no alibi f o r lying and p e r ­
verting the words o f the living God.
 ARTICLE TWENTY-FOUR
“The Death Ministries in America”
For tw enty-three issues we have been dealing with
the infam ous A lexandrian C ult, the author and p ro ­
m oter o f Bible rejection in every decade since the found­
ing o f the first C hristian college at A lexandria. It is
apparent, by now , that the C ult has such a vast control
over the old natures o f the saved scholars that they
parrot and ape each other continually through eighteen
centuries w ith little variation.
All question w hat G od said (G en. 3:1); all p ro ­
m ote authorities to com pete w ith w hat G od said; and
none have any final, absolute authority except their
own opinion or the opinions they borrow ed from other
opinionated Cult members. This explains the neurotic
obsession the C ult has for saying that a Bible believer is
a “H ussite” or “W ycliffite” or “L utheran” or “N orrisite”
or “R uckm anite” or “N estorian.” Since they them selves
w orship the depraved human nature o f fallen man as
the highest authority (w hile professing that the “Lord
Jesus” or “G od” is the final authority), they m ust read
their own dirty rotten sins into the lives o f everyone
who rejects their depraved scholarship instead o f the
Holy Bible.
The m inistry o f the A lexandrian C ult is w hat we
call a “D eath M inistry.” It ministers death. A lthough
som e o f the C ult m em bers “win souls” and engage in
m issionary program s (see docum ented m aterial on John
R. Rice and O sw ald Sm ith), and m any o f them train
C hristian teachers and w orkers (see docum ented m ate­
rial on T ennessee T em ple and Bob Jones U niversity),
once the w ork o f the C ult is taken up— destructive
criticism o f the highest authority on this earth— the old
 nature gains the upper hand in student, convert, m is­
sionary, teacher, pastor, and w orker; and the “m ystery
o f iniquity” continues its w ork as it leavens the Body o f
born-again believers (M att. 13; 2 Tim . 4).
N ow , it is possible fo r a strong, B ible-believing
C hristian to be exposed to some o f this deadly poison
and survive in fair shape. No one can deny that the
leading C hristian colleges and universities in A m erica
have, on occasion, turned out a handful o f B ib le-b e­
lieving preachers w ho have built large w orks. The av er­
age, how ever, is about 90 percent less than w hat their
advertising and publicity m aterial w ould have you b e­
lieve. The largest churches in A m erica (their pastors)
represent the w ork o f less than fifty men. The num ber
o f preachers who w ere trained in and graduated from
these great m ultim illion do llar “bastions o f orth o d o x y ”
am ounts to over 5,000 a year since 1940. (There are
over seventy B ible institutes, colleges, and universities
in A m erica that profess to teach the B ible or B iblical
principles, and every one o f them has a creed that
states that they believe in the “verbal, plenary in sp ira­
tion o f the nonexistent A ngel D u st.”)
W hen one considers that som ew here in A m erica
there are 15,000 young m en (excluding w om en g rad u ­
ates) w ho w ent through a school that took a “bold
stand” for the “verbal, plenary, inspired n oth in g s” and
received “ soul-w in n in g ” training so they could “build
great ch u rch es,” and o f this num ber not 150 ever did it
(that is less than 1 percent), it m ight constrain a ratio n ­
al m an to ask, “W hat is w rong?”
W ell, the thing that is w rong is the schools are
training the students to be loyal to the school. The
B ible is an afterthought, and properly so, considering
that no school we have exam ined yet has a copy o f the
B ible. How are you “lo y al” to a B ook y o u ’ve never
seen, read, or heard? Sim ple: you becom e loyal to an
administration in brick and cem ent buildings that you
can see (Col. 3 :1 -3 ). A postasy d o esn ’t vary in any
generation. All idolaters choose something ahead o f
what G od said (Gen. 3:1). This leaves them w ith a
variable, shifting, undefinable authority, w here anything
can be attributed to “G od” that they w ish to put through
(1 Tim . 6:5). This is the beginning o f a “D eath M inis­
try .” The product o f such a m inistry m ay be separated,
ethical, polite, crafty, keen, w itty, know ledgeable, kind,
considerate, useful, energetic, and loyal; but spiritually
he is as dead as a ham m er. The H oly S pirit (2 Tim . 3)
w ill not bless a m inistry with pow er that spends its time
correcting the B ook that He w rote, preserved, h o n ­
ored, sanctified, used, and blessed (Isa. 55).
W e have pointed out the good qualities o f the men
and w orks that side w ith the C ult against the B ible.
N ot once have we ever said that the w ork o f these men
was completely Satanic, and not once have we im plied
that any o f them w ere lost. W hat we have said is that
their sins are m anifest w hen they sit in ju d g m en t on
the w ord o f G od, and sin is sin no m atter how “go d ly ”
(D avid, Peter, Paul, M oody, Sunday, et al.) the sinner
is. The sins o f the C ult are:
1. C hronic lying (Rom. 16:18; Prov. 30:6; Jer.
23:26)
2. Infidelity (1 Thess. 2:13; Luke 24:25; John 5 :4 4 -
47)
3. Pride o f life (Rom . 12:16; Luke 10:21)
4. The fear o f m an (Prov. 29:25; M ark 4:17; Jer.
17:5)
5. Perverting the B ible (Jer. 23:26; 2 Cor. 2:17;
Jer. 23:30)
6. Teaching rebellion against G od (1 K ings 13:21;
Gen. 3 :1 -3 )
7. S plitting the churches (John 7 :5 2 -5 3 )
8. Putting young men out o f the m inistry (1 Kings

A ll “godly” Fundam entalists have an old nature (1

 John 1:8 -1 0 ), and “ secondary sep aratio n ” has no effect
at all on the sins listed above. If som e lying hypocrite
prints serm on books on how a B ible-believing ev an g e­
list should “preach against Sin and S ins,” and then re ­
fuses to preach on the sins o f Christian scholars as
listed above, he is a m an-pleasing, m an-follow ing panty-
waist.
“O riginal Sin" in E zekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 had
nothing to do w ith “secondary sep aratio n ,” so you can
cancel that as the m ain issue. “O riginal S in” in G enesis
3 had nothing to do w ith believing or not believing the
“fundam entals,” so you can cancel that as the m ain
issue. In short, any issue constructed by the A lex an ­
drian C ult is a dum m y to cover up the main issue. No
sin begins w ith anyone w anting to support L iberals or
fellow ship w ith “N eo -o rth o d o x .” The root o f sin in this
present w orld system is “the love of m oney,” and the
best w ay to obtain m oney (salary or gifts or offerings)
from the w orld system as a “fundam ental B ib le-b eliev ­
ing C h ristian ” is to show your w illingness to jo in the
world system in attacking the authority o f G od A l­
mighty (Rom . 12 :1-2). This is why no fundam ental
scholar can be “reco g n ized ” until he publicly alters the
AV text; this proves that it is the highest authority on
earth, and that the F undam entalist w ho corrects it is
follow ing Eve. He desires to play “g o d ” fo r the church.
N ow , we are not through docum enting the p rac­
tices o f the Cult. W e shall exam ine some w ork by C uster
(Bob Jones U niversity) in subsequent issues; we shall
see how C uster lines up with Briggs (who was defrocked
for being a “L iberal” ); and we shall catch up on our
back w ork and list for the reader the actual statem ents
of A ugustine and O rigen (tw o o f the early, founding
fathers o f the C ult) from the Post- and A nte-N icene
“F athers.”
Suffice it to say that the last thing A m erica needs,
before the Catholic-C om m unist w orld church takes over,
is a bunch o f sm ooth-faced, m ush-m outhed, top-heavy,
baby-fatted, bespectacled sissies w ho think they are
sm art enough to co rrect the R eform ation Holy Bible.
They are com ing out o f “C h ristian ” schools at the rate
o f 5,000 or m ore a year. O ur country is glutted w ith
six-footed, butter-m outhed, syrup-headed, am ateur psy­
chologists trying to preach to sex-m ad, m oney-crazy,
pow er-hungry, dem on-possessed “C hristians w ho have
h av e sp e n t the w eek w a tc h in g b u z z a rd -flo p p in g ,
skunk-gliding, belly-shaking, professional m odels sing­
ing cocktail lounge “C h ristian ” m usic. W ill our C h ris­
tian colleges produce Bible-believing soldiers to put
this bunch in their place? D on’t you b elieve it. W hen
you divest a preacher o f his authority you have already
put him out o f action, and that is the goal o f “higher
education” : to produce the maximum amount o f uncer­
tainty in the mind o f the preach er boy in regard to the
fin al and absolute authority o f God.
W e are entering the starless m idnight o f the ap o s­
tasy o f the Body o f C hrist (2 Tim . 4). M odern C hristian
educators w ant orthodoxy before the H oly Spirit, ed u ­
cation before G o d ’s authority, discipline ahead o f re­
generation, and separation before revival. The faculty
lounges are no longer filled w ith honest, blatant in fi­
dels, but “prem illennial Fundam entalists” teaching B ib­
lical Introduction in such a w ay as to m ake the Bible
unw orthy o f being introduced. The devil o f resp ectab il­
ity has m urdered our C hristian schools. A prayerless
people is a pow erless people, and a pow erless C hristian
is controlled by Satan.
Since every m isconception o f G od produces or
introduces a false god, every m odern translation denied
some truth somewhere, and it com es from m anuscripts
(A lexandrian) that attem pted to deny some truth som e­
w here. The fact that the translation “contains the fu n ­
dam entals” (B arth and B runner’s position) in som e­
place is no reason fo r its ju stificatio n or respect. We
 are dealing w ith “the truth” (John 17:17)— not “p a r­
tial tru th .”
O ur “problem te x t” fo r today is in m ultiple form .
Every C hristian university and college in A m erica
has (from its inception) tried to talk the C hristian out o f
his faith in the King James text by telling him that,
“H ere the article has been inserted in the AV, w here it
should not have been in serted ,” or “H ere the article has
been left out w here it should have been tran slated .”
If there is anyone reading this Bulletin w ho has
been to a C hristian college and m ajored in B ible (or
studied G reek), you have heard this ten tim es if you
have heard it once. T here is n ’t one book printed by any
“godly, F undam en talist,” that deals w ith textual m at­
ters, that d o esn ’t harp about the “article” all the w ay
through the book (see any book by W uest, T rench,
R endall, et al.).
1. No translator ever translated all the articles
from any text.
2. No translator ever translated an article if he
"felt” like it shouldn’t be translated— see the NASV
(A cts 10:23; M att. 17:1, 16:13, 12:18, 1 :2 -8 ; Rom.
11:2; Phil. 1:5, 7; etc.).
3. Every translator added articles w here there were
none— see the NASV (Luke 1:17; 1 Thess. 4:8; Heb.
2:12; 1 Cor. 2:16; A cts 10:6; Luke 1:32; etc.).
W ith the differences betw een the G reek and E n ­
glish idiom s, it w ould be m adness— and extrem ely bad
translating— always to translate the article, and not to
add an article where it was called f o r (note 1 Cor.
2:16).
The objection, therefore, that the AV translators
use or disuse the article is hypocritical. N o m an that
m entions it practices w hat he preaches, and no m an
who m entions it does not know , w hen he m entions it,
that he is gnat straining. S trangely enough, these are
the people that keep hollering, “D o n ’t m ake an issue
out o f the B ible,” and, “D o n ’t w aste your tim e w ith
hobby horses— win souls,” etc. And they are disturbed
by an “a r tic le ” ? Strange w orld, isn ’t it?
There isn ’t one translation on the m arket that trans­
lates every article in any G reek testam ent, and there
isn’t one that doesn’t add articles on occasion. K eep
this in m ind, and settle it in your ow n heart, that God
did ju st as m uch for the AV translators in 1611 as he
did for these superficial book sellers in 2000. W hat is
good for the goose is good for the gander. You can
rest assured that the handling o f the G reek article in the
AV is equal to, or superior to, anything that has com e
out since.
 ARTICLE TWENTY-FIVE
Modern Christian Scholarship
W e have exam ined the C ult creed, the C ult m em ­
bers, the C ult activity, the C ult resources, and the C ult
“stand” long enough now to know w hat is going on.
They are teaching loyalty to an institution, because the
Cult controls the institution-, that is all there is to it. If
the C ult is not in possession o f the institution, it at least
draws its salaries from the institution (Rom . 16:18),
and hence belly w orship (Phil. 3:19) is its first co n sid ­
eration. F or this reason, you will find the w ord “belly”
carefully rem oved from the New Scofield Reference
Bible in both the references given above. To com pletely
destroy the connection o f the cross references, “b o d y ”
has been used one tim e and “ap p etite” the second tim e.
This is SOP for the A lexandrian Cult. Every verse aimed
at them m ust be altered to m ake it “m ore accurate” or
“clearer” (see Rom. 1:25 in the NSRB; Rom . 1:18, 21
in the ASV, RSV, NASV, or NRSV). F irst T im othy 6:20
and 1 T im othy 6:10, in the “reliable tran slatio n s” rec­
om m ended by the C ult (ASV and NASV), w ere not re ­
ally changed to m ake them “clearer” or “m ore accu ­
rate. They were altered to cover up the sins o f the
Alexandrian Cult.
R egardless o f the profession o f faith (all L iberals
and M odernists had to profess something they d id n ’t
believe to get ordained), the m odern C hristian school is
teaching loyalty to the school as the final authority, and
w here that authority crosses the King James text, the
C ult im m ediately recom m ends a “reliable tran slatio n ”
to nullify the King James text and keep the B ible in the
secondary position o f authority and loyalty.
This explains the peculiar blind fanaticism m anifest
by m any graduates o f Tennessee Tem ple, H yles-A nder­
son, Bob Jones, BBC , A rlington, and L iberty when
any criticism is m ade o f the M ickey M ouse “ B iblical
scholarship” m anifest by those institutions. Loyalty to
the word o f God (in those institutions) m eans taking
the stand o f the A lexandrian Cult: i.e., the w ord of
God is an unreadable, unavailable, unseen, nonexistent
set o f “original autographs.” W hen C uster (B JU ) says
that he w ill defend every w ord in the “ original auto­
graphs” (M ay, 1978), he m eans absolutely nothing at
all.
1. He never saw the original autographs.
2. If he did, there is no guarantee that he could
have separated the block uncial capitals in them rightly
(if they w ere w ritten in block uncials).
3. He never saw any m anuscript, anyw here, w rit­
ten at the tim e o f the originals (or after the originals)
that contained “the w ords o f the original au tographs.”
4. He recom m ends the N orth A frican tex t o f the
R om an C atholic C hurch as a substitution for the A n ti­
och text o f the C hristians in Syria (A cts 11:26).
5. He d o esn ’t know one w ord in the original auto­
graphs to defend, so his defense for “every w ord” is
pure, unadulterated nonsense.
How do you teach loyalty to the Bible when y ou've
never seen it, read it, heard it, studied it, or m et anyone
who had?
Easy: you do n ’t. You teach loyalty to the institu­
tion.
Bob Jones Sr. said, “You can ju d g e people by
their responses. ”
To test the thesis o f w hat we have said, perform
tw o sim ple experim ents (and it w ill not take a high
school education to perform either o f them ).
One: Take the Sword o f the Lord for three years
and count the books advertised in it that correct the A V
from 5 to 5,000 places and observe that no one who
 reads the paper, w rites the paper, proofreads the paper,
edits the paper, buys the paper, or sells the paper is
disturbed long enough to yawn.
Tw o: G et up in a pu lp it in front o f Lee R oberson
and tw o o f his faculty m em bers, Jerry F alw ell and tw o
o f his faculty m em bers, Tom M alone and tw o o f his
faculty m em bers, Tom W allace and tw o o f his faculty
m em bers, and m ake one statem ent o f twenty-five s e c ­
onds that says that the ASV and NASV are w rong in
from 5 to 5,000 places and w atch your “audience” shift,
cough, w hisper, grow l, grind teeth, and then go out o f
the building and back to th eir classroom s and spend ten
to thirty minutes o f class time trying to convince the
students that “R uckm anism ” is a dangerous heresy.
If you doubt this for a m om ent, go to a local
church (I ’ve been to over 400 o f them ). G et up in the
pulpit and face the congregation, w hich (if it is a F u n ­
dam ental B aptist church) w ill have in it som ew here
from one to five graduates from one o f the m odern
“bastions o f orthod o x y .” Preach.
Preach on the sins o f lying scholars. Preach on
the sins o f Bible perverters. Preach on the sins o f C hris­
tians who profess som ething they d o n ’t believe and
advertise falsely. Preach on the sins o f monument build­
ers who w ould sacrifice the H oly Bible in order to build
their w orks. Preach on the sins o f “good, godly, d ed i­
cated F undam ental sch o lars” who spent a lifetim e lying
about m anuscript evidence and G reek texts.
O bserve the response.
You w ill feel like S tephen facing the Sanhedrin,
because the C ult follow ers in your congregation w ere
not taught loyalty to G od or the B ible. They w ere not
even taught loyalty to the church or the pastorl They
Were taught that the final authority for their lives was
the opinions o f the teachers who taught them at the
institutions they attended.
A nd this explains why every one o f these u n io n ­
ized scholars, w ho are hiding behind the doors o f a
Fundam entalist institution, have one refrain w hich they
keep going day and night in order to prevent a young
man from finding A bsolute A uthority. The refrain is
sim ple; it runs like this:
“ Ruckm an thinks everyone is a heretic who d is­
agrees w ith him .”
“R uckm an thinks everyone is an apostate who
d o esn ’t follow his doctrine. ”
This is the talk o f a spoiled brat who c a n ’t deal
w ith figures and facts. It is the p rittle-p rattle o f a d e­
luded sissy who c a n ’t think or talk straight. It is the last
resort o f a B ible-denying F undam entalist to keep the
respect and honor o f a young m an, w here that respect
and honor should go to the w ord o f G od (and w hen we
say the w ord o f God, we m ean the w ord o f God, and
not som e “plenary, verbally inspired nonentity”).
T he m odern C hristian scholar is basically an idola-
tor. Therefore, he w ill accuse the Bible believer of
idolatry. Since he is also basically a m an-pleasing man
follow er, he w ill accuse a B ible believ er o f “follow ing
a m an.” The truth is that O rigen follow ed Satan (Gen.
3: 1), Eusebius and A ugustine follow ed O rigen, Je r­
om e follow ed A ugustine, the popes follow ed Jerom e,
the Jesuits follow ed the popes, W estcott, and H ort fo l­
low ed the Jesuits, R obertson, M achen, W arfield, and
S chaff follow ed H ort, and the B ible departm ents of
every m ajor “recognized” school in A m erica follow ed
W arfield, Schaff, and A. T. R obertson. G od w as never
a point in question one tim e. The Holy Spirit was never
consulted one time in the entire operation.
O ur “problem tex t” for this issue is that terrific
m istranslation o f the w ord “Jesus” w here it should
have been “Joshu a” (A cts 7:45).
H ere we have a fine exam ple o f how the C ult will
backtrack and violate its own standards o f scholarship
when “push com es to shove.” Y ou see, the G reek word
 here (in every G reek text, in every G reek edition) says
“Iesou ” (Jesus). The w ord has been translated that
way in the ASV and NASV over 100 tim es in the New
T estam ent. A nd yet here we are to allow “Jo sh u a”
after com plaining about the A V not “consistently” tran s­
lating "Pascha” (Passover) in Acts 12! Truth is stranger
than fiction.
H ere, every translation on the m arket refused to
consistently translate the w ord f o r Jesus. The w ord
“Jo sh u a” is found in no Greek manuscript ever seen by
man. The w ord is “Jesus,” exactly as you find it in the
highly accurate and scientific King James 1611, Autho­
rized Version.
The reason for the L ord w riting “Iesou ” in every
G reek text was for purposes o f advanced revelation,
w hich have to be rejected by the Cult. H ere G od is
show ing us that Joshua is a type o f the Second A dvent
o f Jesus C hrist. Since every recognized, Fundam ental
scholar from O rigen to Lindsay and K irban altered the
text, they all missed the prophetic material.
1. T here is an accursed city in Joshua and R ev ela­
tion 17.
2. T he A ngel o f the Lord is present at both tim es
to do battle,
3. The “seven tim es around” m atch the seven years
o f D an iel’s Seventieth W eek.
5. The Jew s w ill inherit the land, and it w ill be
divided (Ezek. 4 0 -4 8 ).
W hen in doubt, it is a good idea to throw all
“reliab le” translations out o f the w indow and go by the
infallible living words o f the living God.
 ARTICLE TWENTY-SIX
“The Origins of all Death Ministries”
For a m om ent now , we shall leave the tw entieth-
century, apostate F undam entalists who continue to seek
to get the new C hristian to put his tru st and respect in
the C ult and pledge his loyalty to a school instead of
the Bible.
In this issue, w e shall go back to tw o o f the great
“founding fathers” o f C hristian education. The first one
o f these was president o f the W o rld ’s M ost U nusual
U niversity at A lexandria, Egypt, and the second set up
the theological form at for the R om an C atholic system
o f scholasticism w hich bred the E uropean school sy s­
tem . These tw o men w ere both “good, godly” d ed i­
cated m en w hose m otives w ere “ sincere” in their “evan­
gelical” zeal, etc. (see the baloney by G. Christian W eiss
o f B ack to the B ible B roadcast) to stand for the “fu n ­
dam entals,” etc.
O rigen (A.D. 184-254)
“The story o f the purging o f the tem ple is to be
spiritualized. Taken literally, it presents som e very d if­
ficult and unlikely features. The account o f the building
o f S olom on’s Tem ple contains serious difficulties and
is to be interpreted spiritually. W e say, accordingly,
that m en can be high priests (in the church age).
T he prom ises addressed to Jerusalem in the pro p h ­
ets refer to the church. The 144,000 sealed in the A poca­
lypse are converts to C hrist from the G entile w orld,
M ary is the M other o f G od, and the “outer d arkness,”
in my judgm ent, is to be understood as o f those persons
who, being plunged in the darkness o f profound igno­
rance have been placed beyond the reach o f any light of
the understanding.
 A m an becom es a child in C hrist through the laver
w here he is sprinkled in w ater” (O rigen, De Principii).
T he m an who w rote and taught those heresies was
the first textual critic, the first p ublisher o f “co m p ara­
tive translations,” and head o f the fir s t Christian school
that p rofessed to believe in the “Fundamentals o f the
faith." In spite o f the fact that he taught baptism al
regeneration, sprinkling o f infants, transm igration o f
souls, universal salvation, and no physical resurrection
of the sinner, Philip S chaff says o f him:
“T he greatest scholar o f his age . . . the m ost
gifted, m ost industrious and m ost cultivated o f all the
ante-N icene fathers . . . his b rillian t talen t and vast
learning . . . His know ledge em braced all departm ents
of the philology, philosophy and theology o f his day
. . . profound and fertile thought, keen penetration . . .
glow ing im agination, as a true divine . . . to the service
o f truth and piety” (Schaff, History o f the Christian
Church, V ol. II).
Do you know why that opinion is so significant?
B ecause P hilip Schaff, w ho w rote those w ords, was the
head o f the ASV 1901 Bible committee that produ ced
the most godless, depraved piece o f trash since 1881
(RV). The sam e S ch aff said, “W e believe in and hope
for one, holy, catholic, apostolic church, onefold and
one shepherd” (Ibid). T hose are also the w ords o f Pope
Pius X II, John X X III and Paul VI, w ho, before their
adopted “aliases” (as heads o f the M afia), w ere called
P acelli, R oncalli, and M ontini.
The A lexandrian C ult never considers w hat G od
said to be the first item on the agenda. As m an-w or-
shippers o f a m an-m ade and m an-sustained C ult o f “edu­
catio n ” (G en. 3 :1 -3 ), they w ould put th eir in terp reta­
tions above the plain statem ent o f S criptures every time
they fe lt like it, and they w ould put the ecum enical
m ovem ent o f the A ntichrist ahead o f any translation
any tim e that it w ould add a dollar to their paychecks.
They are man-following idolaters (Jude 16).
A ugustine (A.D. 3 5 4 -4 3 0 )
A ugustine is a N orth A frican “ju n g le jo lly ,” ju st
like C lem ent, Philo, and O rigen. He is held up by Schaff
and C alvin (and som etim es Luther) as the epitom e o f a
“good, godly, dedicated, evangelical scholar.” Shall we
listen to old A urelius for a w hile?
“W hile the devil is bound, the saints reign w ith
C hrist during the sam e thousand years, understood in
the sam e w ay, that is o f the tim e o f His first coming.
His saints are even now reigning w ith Him.
Baptism (w ater) is not unto salvation except w ithin
the Catholic Church. Those w ho have lacked the sa c­
rament (w ater baptism ) m ust be classed am ongst those
who do not believe on the Son, and therefore, if they
shall depart this life w ithout this grace (w ater b ap ­
tism ), they will have to encounter w hat is w ritten co n ­
cerning such— they shall not have life but the wrath o f
God abideth on them.
“Infants (w ho have been baptized in w ater) b e ­
long am ong those who have believed, for this is ob­
tained for them by virtue o f the sacrament and answ er
of their sponsors, and from this it follow s that such as
are not baptized are reckoned am ong those who have
not believed . . . these last are condemned. ”
H ow is that fo r a good, “g odly,” dedicated F u n d a­
m entalist?
Did A ugustine believe in the V irgin B irth and R es­
urrection as W estcott and H ort?
O f course.
D id A ugustine believe that once upon a tim e there
was som e “verbal, plenary inspired o riginals” like John
R. R ice and R obert Sum ner?
O f course.
W as A ugustine a B ible believer? D o n ’t be silly.
A ugustine was an am illennial, b aby-sprinkling,
Bible-rejecting Roman Catholic w ho cared no m ore
 for w hat G od said as H e said it, w here He said it, than
K enneth W uest or Judge R utherford.
Believing the Bible, and professing that the “B i­
ble” is “verbally in sp ired ” are tw o entirely different
things: one is found in 1 T hessalonians 2:13 and the
other is found in Jerem iah 36. The authority for cutting
up the “verbally inspired o rig in als” (Jer. 36) was the
opinions o f those w ho resented w hat they said (Jer.
36). The final court o f authority in the A lexandrian
C ult is the opinions o f the C ult (individually or co llec­
tively). They have no Bible.
If A ugustine w ere living today he w ould reco m ­
mend Sinaiticus and V aticanus exactly as Stew art C uster
(Bob Jones U niversity) recom m ends them . He w ould
recom m end the RSV (1946, 1952) or the Jerusalem
Bible (1966) or the New American Bible (1970) or the
New English Bible (1970) or Phillips (1960) or G ood
News (1960). T hat is, he w ould recom m end any B ible
from any text except the Authorized Version from the
T extus R eceptus.
Proof?
I have the R om an C atholic recom m endations for
those B ibles (Christ Among Us, by A nthony W ilhelm ,
C. SP. 1972, P aulist Press) in a book signed w ith the
im prim atur “Nihil Obstat. ” The w riter says exactly what
Bob Jones III says, “The B ible is inspired o f G od . . .
we read it as the w orld’s m ost sacred and special book.”
W hat B ible is this that you can read? Easy: it
d o e s n ’t exist. No m an in the C ult believes that any
Book you can read in the tw entieth century is inspired
(see above). T he C at-lick er sim ply lied, exactly like
John R. R ice and the m an who w rote the doctrinal
statem ent for H yles-A nderson (see A rticle No. 15, Sept.,
1979).
So m uch for our b ird ’s-eye view o f C ult history
for this issue. In our next issue, we shall see w hat
W estcott and H ort had to say in their “Introduction”
to ju stify the reinstating o f the R om an C atholic text of
the Jesuits (R heim s, 1582) as the “B ib le” for T en n es­
see Tem ple and Bob Jones to recom m end.
This G reek text is called “the A lexandrian T ex t”
by m odern apostate F undam entalists and the reason for
adopting it was solely on the grounds that two o f its
m anuscripts w ere earlier than the m ajority o f m anu­
scripts. On the grounds o f “ antiq u ity ” alone, these two
grossly corrupt perversions w ere used as the fo u n d a­
tion for the RV, ASV, and NASV, and we should know
how H ort and W estcott m anaged to paw n them o ff as
B ible m anuscripts w hen they conned the C hurch o f E n ­
gland out o f her P rotestant heritage.
O ur problem today (all problem s volunteered by
Fundam entalists w ho seek to establish the m axim um
am ount o f uncertainty in the m inds o f C hristians in
regard to absolute authority) is this:
How could 1 John 5 :7 -8 be a part o f the Bible
w hen we c a n ’t find any G reek m anuscripts that read the
way the A V 1611) reads?
H av en ’t som e o f you heard that b o ffer before?
All right, let us, for a m om ent, get rid o f all blind
fanaticism , all lunatic fringe scholarship, all p reco n ­
ceived notions, all m uddled thinking, and let us look at
a num ber o f facts w hich no C ult m em ber w ould dare
list, let alone consider.
1. There are no Greek manuscripts (early or late)
that read as the NASV reads in Luke 1:25, 21, 31, 18; 1
T hessalonians 1:6, 3:3, 2:13; H ebrew s 1:13; Acts 13:47,
13:39, 10:16, 10:13; or P hilippians 1:8.
2. There are no Greek manuscripts in the second
or third century for scores o f passages in the New
T estam ent. The B odm er Papyrus does N O T contain all
o f the New Testam ent; they are short over 1,000 verses.
3. The Old Latin antedates the G reek m anuscripts
of N orth A frica (S inaiticus and V aticanus) by m ore
than 100 years, and m any w riters on the Old Latin
 insist that they were 200 years older than the G reek
manuscripts used for the NASV and the NRSV (same
set, same text).
4. The readings which are 100-200 years older
than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are Acts 9:5, 6; 20:28;
Romans 16:25-27; M atthew 10:8; Acts 8:37; John 3:25;
Revelation 22:14; and 1 John 5 :7 -8.
5. W hen Jerome revised the O ld Latin he took 1
John 5 :7 -8 (a) out, but it was replaced in 800 since
there were Old Latin Bibles around Europe being used
by “heretics” (Paulicians, Bogomiles, Nestorians, etc.)
which had the passage.
T u rning to Dr. E dw ard Hills (Believing Bible
Study) and the Trinitarian Bible Society o f London—
whose “fidelity to the w ord ” is at least 800 percent
better than that o f W estcott, Hort, Robertson, Schaff,
Green, Lightfoot, and W arfield— we find:
1. Cyprian quotes it in A.D. 250, one hundred
years before the North African Cult at A lexandria cut it
out o f the Bible (Jer. 36).
2. Priscillian and Clarus cite it in A.D. 385, within
forty years o f the writing o f the C u lt’s fake Bible at
A lexandria (A.D. 385).
3. Cassiodorus cites it in A.D. 550, and it is found
in an Old Latin m anuscript o f the fifth century (A.D
550).
4. The King James reading is in a Greek m anu­
script (Ravianus) and is also found in the margin o f two
cursive (88, 629) Greek manuscripts.
5. By omitting the passage, all the hypocrites who
were shooting off their mouths about their “up-to-date
know ledge o f the Greek language” and putting down
the AV translators for “doing the best they could with
their limited kn ow ledge” constructed a sentence where
three neuters (spirit, water, and blood) have to be treated
as masculine. “ P e rs o n a liz a tio n ” b ro u g h t a b o u t no
change in the gender o f the Holy Spirit in verse 6 (it is
neuter), so this lame alibi (see Hort or any nut like him)
is to be rejected.
The obvious reason for the masculine sense is b e ­
cause the words “Father” and “W ord” are both m as­
culine, and they were in the passage before the A lex­
andrian Cult cut them out (Jer. 36). Take out “Father”
and “W ord,” and you have grammatical nonsense. But
gramm atical nonsense never bothered these conceited
asses who think that the A V translators were “doing the
best they could with their limited understanding.” Thank
God they had more understanding than the com bined
faculties o f Hyles-Anderson, Lynchburg, BIOLA, P ied­
mont, Pillsbury, Arlington, Fort Worth, Springfield, Bob
Jones University, and Tennessee Temple. It is only the
deluded fancy of m odern educators that makes them
think they know more than the men who saw their
relatives burn in the fires o f Smithfield.
 ARTICLE TWENTY-SEVEN
“Three ‘Godly’ Apostates”
By now our readers should have a solid grounding
in the history of the Alexandrian Cult. W e have covered
enough material so that we can begin to dig into the
actual mechanics o f the Cult as it seeks to propagate
false Bibles, false inform ation on m anuscript evidence,
and lies about those who rem ain loyal to the Scriptures.
Since loyalty to the Bible will undercut many of
their salaries and institutions, they look upon the genu ­
ine Bible believer as a dangerous heretic and an enemy
with which to be reckoned by any means, fair or foul.
This accounts for the mass o f innuendos, rumors, and
outright slander that proceeds from the mouths o f teach­
ers to pupils in the classroom, where they cannot be
checked o r recorded. It is here that the dirty work is
done exactly as the NEA carries out “blackboard” power
for the C om m unist Party in the public school system.
W hile professing that the matters we are discuss­
ing are too inconsequential” (a “hobby horse”) with
which to take up time, the Cult members are taking up
hours in their classrooms, every week, implanting doubt
in the student’s mind about the Bible and those who
believe it.
W hen Bob Jones Jr. writes in Faith f o r the Family
that the greatest issue in our day is the “W ord o f G od,”
he does it ju st to make you think that he believes the
Bible. He d o esn ’t believe anything o f the kind, even
when he professes to. If you d o n ’t believe it, write
him.
W hen a Cult m em ber says “W ord o f G od” (as we
have seen and docum ented for twenty articles), he never
refers to any Book on the face o f this earth. The Bible
believer reads such articles and nods his head and says,
“Good, I see that this Fundam entalist still know s that
the main issue is the fidelity and authority o f the word
of God.” He d o e s n ’t mean anything o f the kind. He
means w hat any unsaved Liberal means when he talks
about the “resurrection of the Christ.” An apostate is a
man w ho professes something that he does not believe.
An apostate was never anything else and never
shall be. He will use the terms you use and trust that
you will think he means what you mean when you use
the terms, when he d o e s n ’t mean a w ord o f it f o r five
seconds (see docum ented evidence in articles five to
fifteen on J. Vernon McGee, Osw ald J. Smith, John R.
Rice, Cliff Robinson, Afman, Custer, W alvoord, Weni-
ger, Archer, Bob Jones III, and ten “Fundam ental” col­
leges and institutes).
Now that we know this and have read it in black
and white on more than one hundred occasions, let us
dig a little deeper.
“The oldest Greek m anuscript that has been found
(p 52), dated about A.D. 125, belongs to the A lexan­
drian text. These oldest manuscripts are the most accu­
rate because they are closest to the originals which the
apostles wrote. The student of the Greek Testament
may have serene confidence that the printed edition of
the Greek New Testam ent has the reading of the origi­
nal in the vast majority of verses.
“W e have no sympathy with any version of the
Bible that is not faithful to the G reek text. W e believe
that the text of W estcott and Hort, based upon these
Alexandrian manuscripts, is as a whole superior to the
text (AV, 1611) based upon m anuscripts of the Middle
Ages.”
W ho is this? Is this Dean W eigle who used this
exact line of reasoning in setting up the New Testament
text for the RSV7 No. Is this Dodd, the English Liberal
who chose the Alexandrian text for the same reason
 when he wrote the New English Bible? No. “Button,
button, w h o ’s got the button,” Could it be Kenneth
Taylor who used this exact argument for his “Living
B ib le ” N ew Testam ent text? No. Oh, who could this
be?
Why, it is the head o f the Bible departm ent at Bob
Jones University (Sept. 11, 1976), w hose buddies
printed Faith f o r the Family which said that the p er­
versions o f the Scripture are “The Living Bible, ” “The
Revised Standard Version, ” and the “New English B i­
b le” !
A nd this is “scholarship?” This is O rthodoxy? O r­
thodox w hat?
To understand this wild scene (and it would put
Star Wars and Jaws out o f business), let us go to two
o f the greatest Bible-perverting “F undam entalists” that
ever were led of Satan to attack the Holy Spirit: Messrs.
W estcott and Hort.
This time, instead o f docum enting their hallucina­
tions (the conflate readings, the Lucian recension, the
intrinsic evidence, the “ring o f genuineness,” etc.) let
us simply listen to them as they try to “explain” their
M ickey M ouse method o f replacing the AV with the
Jesuit Rheim s New Testam ent o f 1582. (The hallucina­
tions are docum ented in The Revision Revised by Bur-
gon, Which Bible by David Otis Fuller, The King James
Bible D efended by Edw ard Hills, and any o f the works
by Hodges, Pickering, W ilkerson, or Philipots.)
Here we go!
“A careful com parison of the accessory attestation
(?) o f readings supported by Aleph and B together, by
B against Aleph, and by Aleph against B, respectively,
render it morally certain (?) that the ancestries o f B and
Aleph diverged from a point near the autographs (?)
and never cam e into contact subsequently (?) so that
the coincidence o f Aleph and B marks these portions o f
text in which two prim itive and entirely separate lines
of transm ission had not come to differ from each other
through independent corruption in the one or the other
(?) accordingly with certain limited classes o f excep­
tions the readings of Aleph and B com bined may safely
be accepted as genuine (?) in the absence of specially
strong internal evidence (?) to the contrary and can
never be safely rejected altogether (?).”
“D ocum entary evidence in its simplest form con ­
sists in the relative authority (ah yes, baby!) of indi­
vidual documents; that is, in the relative antecedent
probability (?) that the reading attested by them is the
true reading. That is w hat is meant when it is said in
popular language that ‘good m anuscripts’ should be
trusted. (?) The only adequate criterion o f authority for
an individual docum ent apart from its affinity to other
documents is the character o f the text (?) as ascer­
tained by the fullest possible comparison o f its different
readings; the variations in which internal evidence is ot
such exceptional clearness (?) as to be provisionally
decisive (?) being taken as tests o f the general charac­
teristics (?) o f the text throughout, and thus shewing
how far it is likely (?) to have preserved genuine read­
ings in the more num erous variations in which internal
evidence is more or less am biguous.” (?)
N ow, do you know what that was?
Well, we have a word for it, in the Service, that I
could not repeat.
This is a professional huckster giving you the shaft
to sell you a bum product, and the only way he can do
it is talk all around it till you think he has said som e­
thing when all he has said is “I am going to tell you
how to get rid of the Authorized Version. ”
I have placed a question mark everyw here that
W estcott and Hort refused to talk straight or refused to
present or discuss evidence. Reading Hort is exactly
like reading M acRae, N ew m an, Neal, Custer, Afman,
Robinson, or any other Cult member: one stream of
 continuous opinions without a f a c t behind them.
Accessory attestations?? Did he list any? No. Does
he know of any? Probably not. W hy write “accessory” ?
Is he implying that any reading that agrees with Aleph
and B is connected with it (as an “accessory”)? W hy
this would mean that you could prove all AV readings
were “late” by the simple expedient o f saying that every
verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that m atched the A V
reading could claim every m anuscript used for the A V
reading as its own.
You dirty, old, filthy-mouthed, lying hypocrite.
“M orally certain??” Come, com e doctor, this is
not the time for preaching the Sermon on the Mount.
You are supposed to be dealing with documented evi­
dence. It may be “m orally certain” that W estcott and
Hort were lost and in Hell right now, but none o f you
bigots would believe that without evidence, would you?
O f course not. All right then, let’s can all this rot about
“m orally certain” when you have immorally refused to
list anything that w ould prove anything was certain, let
along “morally” certain.
“A point near the original autographs??” But you
didn’t list any evidence. Not one reading. Not one m anu­
script. N ot one word from any set of manuscripts. Not
one case that could prove (or even suggest) anything o f
the kind. W e are not dealing with “ scientific methods of
m anuscript evidence,” we are dealing with two clowns.
In this issue, we shall exam ine (briefly, let us
pray) the correspondence o f John R. Rice as he sought
to shake the faith o f two Christians in the authority o f
their Bibles. (See letter in A ppendix.) It is understood
of course (see lengthy docum entation in Articles Four
through Fifteen) that when Rice and the A lexandrian
Cult say “ Bible,” they mean two to fo u r different things
depending upon who they are trying to deceive. W hen
we say “Bible,” we mean a Book you have in your
hand.
 The article that was printed in order to split the
Body of Christ on issues of authority appeared in the
so-called Sword o f the Lord (June 9, 1978). As all Cult
members, Rice accuses Bible believers of being trouble­
makers and splitting the Body of Christ over “nones­
sential issues.” This is SOP with the Cult, for they
have, for nineteen centuries, split the local churches
and divided Christians among them selves by recom ­
mending more than one final authority (see lengthy
docum entation in Articles One through Fifteen).
Readers of the following will also observe that
while gently professing not to have anything “personal”
in his differences with “Dr. R uckm an,” Rice is som e­
what o f a foul-mouthed gossip. This is also SOP. What
appears in Cult correspondence against Bible believers
is rarely printed publicly. That is, the divisive, under­
handed, dirty work is done “under the table.”
In a letter to a sixteen-year-old young man in D e­
troit (June 22, 1978), John R. Rice defends his attacks
on the authority of the A V text by saying:
“Let me suggest that I probably know the King
James Version better than you do and love it more than
you do. You are not sensible. You are not even honest.
You have been misled . . . to criticize others who love
the Lord better and have proved it more than you have,
love the Bible better than you and know it better than
you do.
“You talk about the American Standard Version.
You d on ’t know anything about it. Now, why d o n ’t
you get to loving the Bible and believe it and work at it
instead of slandering others? You see, you are not hon­
est; you are not sensible. You d o n ’t even tell the truth.
W hat do you suppose could cause a “good, godly,
dedicated F undam entalist” to rip into a Bible-believ-
ing young man like that? Simple: the young man who
wrote to Rice asked him where the w ord o f God was,
did anyone have a copy, and how did you preach it if
 you d id n ’t have it?
Naturally, Rice d id n ’t answ er one question.
While telling the young man to believe and love
“the Bible,” he was careful not to tell the young man
what the “Bible” was. Rice hasn ’t go t a copy o f “the
Bible. ” If you d o n ’t believe it, ask him.
Shall we see how a “good, godly, dedicated, soul-
winning, premillennial Fundamentalist” handles an older
man when he is trying to destroy his faith in “the B i­
ble' ? This one is to Mr. Fred Chitwood, o f Ft. Walton
Beach, Florida. Mr. C hitw ood had the audacity to write
to Rice and ask him why “R uckm an” was included with
Thiem e and A rm strong on page 25 o f his silly book
called Our G od Breathed Book. (Rice never saw it,
read it, preached it, checked it, or knew anyone who
d id ; how then did he write a book about it?) The page
and a half o f return mail dated June 1, 1978, never even
attempted to answ er the question. Cult m em bers never
deal with facts; they deal with innuendos and im plica­
tions and call facts “slander” if the facts overthrow
their falsehoods.
Johnny writes:
“I am a little shocked that you should even inquire
and not know any reason why you should avoid the
influence o f Dr. Ruckman. You have heard his tapes,
you have been in his class, you have read his books,
you listen to him each Sunday morning, so I under­
stand that the dam age is already done.” (W hat “d a m ­
age” is it that Chitwood would believe the words o f the
AV o ver R ic e ’s word— Is this “dam age” ?)
“You see no special harm in his violent language
• . . the divisive nature o f his m inistry.” (M atthew 23
perhaps? Titus 1 perhaps? John 7:43, “So there was a
division among the people because of him ?” )
Then Brother Rice proceeds to indict Brother Ruck­
man on three counts. The Scriptural reasons he gives
for including Ruckman with Thieme and A rmstrong are
not that Ruckm an teaches anything wrong-, the reasons
Rice gives are Jude 8 -9 ; 2 Peter 2 :10 -1 1; and Acts
23:3-5!
That is the quality of R ic e’s “ scholarship.” That is
the quality of the scholarship of any Cult member try­
ing to find a way out o f the mess into which he has
gotten himself. All Rice could say was that Brother
Ruckm an was a railer against “high priests” (Acts 23)
and “dignities” (2 Pet. 2), and therefore, you shouldn’t
eat with him (1 Cor. 5:11). I d o n ’t recall that Thieme
or A rm strong ever “railed” on anyone! Strange classi­
fication!
Then to get rid of C hitw oo d’s faith in our stand on
the AV completely, Rice tunes up the cello and comes
out with this professional sob story.
“Now, if you are an honest man, you must be
distressed by the split o f Dr. R u ck m an’s church, by
trouble in his home, and by his slanderous accusation
against godly men . . . But if Dr. Ruckm an had a good
Christian tongue and used moderate Christian language
(Matt. 23 perhaps? Titus 1 perhaps? Jer. 23 perhaps?),
then he would not be causing trouble everyw here he
goes, as he does.”
So much for Johnny. T h h-h-h-h-here’s Johnny!!
Now, to set the record straight with facts instead
of the old, sidewinding, double-tongued, crooked “good
Christian” language of Dr. Rice:
1. W e have finished a $120,000 church building
to seat 450 people,* and there is so m uch shouting in
the song services down here sometimes you c a n ’t hear
yourself sing.
2. All ten of my children are saved and attending
church. They all believe the Book. They all tithe, and
two of them are considering full-time service. My wite
is a soul winner.
3. Rice d id n ’t give one piece of concrete evidence
* It n o w s e a ts 6 5 0 p e o p le .
 for one single “slanderous accusation” and d id n ’t give
one piece o f evidence for one single case o f “causing
trouble everyw here he goes.”
Rice is a foul-m outhed gossip where “Ruckman ”
is as issue.
No slanderous accusations have been made. There
are scores o f meetings we hold every year where there
is no “trouble” but the trouble that the Holy Spirit and
the w ord o f G od bring when either are in evidence or in
power. Rice is a liar when he attacks “R u ck m an ’s”
ministry.
He will not lie about some things, but when it
comes to opposing those who believe the Book and
oppose the Alexandrian Cult, he will take his side with
the Cult and write slanderous letters that deal with
gossip. The letter cited above is printed in this issue in
full. You notice that it begins with “There is no p e r ­
sonal matter between me and Dr. R u ck m an .”
If this is the case, we would suggest he deal with
facts and not rumors about the personal life o f a man
he know s nothing about except by second-hand innu­
endo and slander. Rice has never been in my home or
my church or my school, and I stopped subscribing to
his paper five years after I was saved (that is in 1954).
He has no business talking about the personal lives o f
preachers about w hom he know s nothing, and his ap ­
peal to his readers to be “h onest” is ju st about as funny
as you can get without putting on a H allow een suit.
H eeeerree’ssss Johnny!
 ARTICLE TWENTY-EIGHT
“Rice
and the Bean Bag of the Lord”
It is now time to close shop on the Cult and d e­
vote our rem aining articles to undoing the dam age that
they have done to 7 0 ,000 -100 ,000 ministerial students
in the last seventy years; that is, from here on our
column will be devoted to solving the invented p r o b ­
lems which these arrogant egotists have invented to
destroy your faith in the Reform ation text o f the En-
glish-speaking people.
In closing, we should present the last will and
testament o f John R. Rice, an outstanding Cultist, whose
leadership of apostate Fundamentalists has been consis­
tent throughout the years. Rice would always lie about
matters of Biblical authority; he would always reco m ­
mend more than one authority; he w ould always re­
serve the right to correct the Bible wherever he fe lt like
it; and he would not hesitate to implant doubt into the
mind o f any young m inister in regards to the accuracy
of the Authorized Text. He, therefore, is an outstand­
ing example of the arrogant egotist disguised as a
“dear, sweet, godly, good m an .” H erew ith follows
R ic e’s ow n words from the Sword o f the Lord (Friday,
June 9, 1978).
“Y ou need not bother too much about the R e­
ceived Text and the Textus Receptus . . . the truth is
that the differences between the King James Version
and the American Standard Version are so minor, so
incidental, so infrequent, it is very foolish to make a
big fight over the difference. The ASV is sometimes
more accurate, and I check it frequently.”
 In addition to this, Brother Rice (most modern
destructive critics o f the A V text are saved) tells us that
“nobody” should teach that there is a perfect transla­
tion because God d id n ’t prom ise that “specifically,”
and that the King James Bible has to be subject to
errors because the Bible d o esn ’t guarantee that any­
body who copies it will do it exactly right or “translate
it perfect.”
This is the Creed o f the Cult. This is how to step
into the pulpit as a destructive critic o f Biblical author­
ity and save face by using “ good w o r d s a n d f a ir
sp eech e s” for belly purposes (Rom. 16:18). The rea­
son why we call such men professional liars is that
they gain their income (their livelihood) by lying about
Biblical authority. W e do not say that they will lie
about the “fundam entals o f the faith” or about their
income bracket. We said they will lie— and lie every
time— when positing an opinion on Biblical authority.
The context o f R ic e’s remarks (see above) is the
authority o f the Authorized English text. M ake no m is­
take about it. Before you believe the party line (propa­
gated by Rice and others) that people who make such
statements are “unchristian” or “railers,” you had better
spend some time with an Oxford dictionary. These men
make their living by posing as authorities on the Bible;
they maintain their living by recom m ending more than
one authority so that they (or their friends in the Cult)
can be the final authority. And we have docum ented
this now to the tune o f tw enty-seven articles running
over 300,000 words. There is no doubt in the mind of
an honest reader (I did not say “good, godly, dedicated,
Christian gentleman” ) about the tune and pitch o f R ice’s
lying.
1. The differences are not “minor.” (We will docu­
ment.)
2. The differences are not “incidental.” (W e will
document.)
 3. The differences are not “infrequent.” (We will
document.)
That is, three straight lies in a row to destroy
your faith in the authority of the A V and place it in the
Jesuit text of 1582 (ASV, 1901) are not to be taken
lightly by any man who professes to be “ straight,” let
alone “saved.”
The “Christian” attitude towards such deliberate
lying is found in M atthew 23; John 8; and Titus 1. It is
not found in 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 4.
Before documenting the professional liar, let us
notice the “ sick thinking” that accompanies any attack
on the authority o f God.
Rice has told us that because God has not “ specifi­
cally prom ised” that there would be a perfect transla­
tion, no one should say that there is. Again, he has told
us that since the Bible (whatever that is!!) do esn ’t guar­
antee that anybody can copy it perfectly, nobody did.
O bserve how “rational” this type of criticism is
when it is laid out where you can see it.
1. Nobody should teach that there is an imperfect
translation because God never said specifically that there
would be an imperfect translation.
Why does Rice then say that all o f them are?
2. Nobody should teach that the original m anu­
scripts were perfect because God never said “original
manuscripts” in any translation or version including
the “originals. ”
3. N obody should teach that the ASV is more ac­
curate (see R ice’s letter) because God did not specifi­
cally say that any ASV would even be a “ Bible,” let
alone an accurate one.
Notice the mess Rice got him self into when he
began to lie to get subscriptions. He got so “ultra-
scriptural” that he m oved in with the Cam pbellites and
Hyper-dispensationalists who insist on a verse for ev ­
erything— light bulbs, nursery, printing press, dorm ito­
 ries, washroom, parking lot, prayer altar, pulpit, church
building, etc. Because God did not specifically say some­
thing no more gives you the right to say that nobody
(see R ic e ’s bigoted dogm atism ) can say it than it gives
you the right to go to church Sunday morning. There is
no Sunday morning specifically in the Scripture, and
there is no church building specifically in the Scrip­
ture.
W hen Rice offered $500 for Scripture on tithing to
the local church, he talked like a Campbellite with rocks
for brains. N ow here in any Bible did God tell you to
give one dime to a newspaper publisher who made a
living attacking the AV text. L et’s see you find that
verse! I ’ll “up” Johnny: $500,000,000 to any man who
can find a verse of Scripture telling you to send a dime
to a man who recom m ends a competing authority that
differs with the word of God in 31,000 to 36,000 places
(ASV and NASV).
1. “The differences are so m inor” : Luke 2:33 at­
tacks the Virgin Birth; Luke 23, Acts 9:5, 6; 8:37 and
16:31 alter four passages where a sinner is saved by
G RACE; the Rom an Catholic readings are adopted on
M ark 8:36, Luke 4:4, 8, John 3:13, Revelation 22:14;
blood redem ption is attacked in Colossians 1:14; sci­
ence is covered up in 1 Timothy 6:20; the RSV read ­
ings o f the NCCC are adopted in Rom ans 1:18, 21; a
warning to a Christian walking after the flesh is torn
out in Romans 8:1; the Deity o f Christ is attacked in 1
Timothy 3:16; the physical ascension of Christ is at­
tacked in Luke 24 :5 1-52; the proofs for the resurrec­
tion is watered down in Acts 1:3; the Deity o f Christ is
watered down in Acts 20:28; and Galatians 5:4 and
3:1, H ebrew s 11:6, 2 Corinthians 2:17 and 10:4 are
perverted. “M inor” aye, Doc? Minor, like your op in ­
ions?
2. The differences are so incidental. Incidental,
aye, D oc? Incidental means “occasional, w ithout pu r­
pose or intent.” The Greek text of the ASV is the C atho­
lic text (1881) smuggled into the com m ittee o f the RV
on purpose by two men who put it together on purpose
(W estcott and Hort) when they knew it differed from
the Greek text of the A V in 4 ,7 0 0 -5 ,0 0 0 places.
Incidental, aye, Doc? “ Sword of the W H O ?” , Doc?
Christ is the truth, is He, Johnny? And His word is
truth (John 17:17)— is it, Johnny? And you would say
that 5,000 corrections on the G od-given text are “inci­
dental,” would you, Johnny? (Documentation: Which
Bible?, Fuller; Believing Bible Study, Hills; The Iden­
tity o f the New Testament Text, Pickering; The Revision
Revised, Burgon; True or False, Fuller; and the Preface
to the RV by the translators, which I have here on my
desk.)
3. “The differences are so infrequent” : 4,700 to
5,000 in the New Testam ent and 20,000 to 25,000 in
the Old Testam ent are “infrequent,” are they, Johnny?
And you a “good, godly, premillennial Fundam ental­
ist!” Is that what we are to believe? Here is a man who
is so anxious to destroy your faith in Biblical authority
that he w ould recom m end two texts that vary more in
the Gospel of Luke than Stephanus, Beza, Erasmus,
and Elzevir (editions for the Receptus) varied in M at­
thew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and Romans, and then
say the differences are “infrequent.”
The Alexandrian Cult is a cult o f professional li­
ars.
W hen they speak o f Biblical authority they will lie
every time and will not give it to you straight one
tim e— not once.
W hen Rice says that he “checks” the ASV fre­
quently, he blankly admits that he is familiar with it.
Frequent “checks” could not fail to inform a normal
man what the content of a translation is, especially if
that man sets him self up as so great an authority that he
can correct the book by which he was saved and called
 to preach, the Book that sustained him in the ministry
all o f his life.
Such blatant, arrogant, dogmatic egotism is not to
be overlooked by an “honest m an.” W e will not ov er­
look it.
If he “frequently” consulted the Rom an Catholic
ASV o f 1901 (see The Christian's Handbook o f Manu­
script Evidence, 1970), he knew the difference between
that apostate text o f the Dark Ages (ibid.) and the AV
were:
1. M A JO R
2. PLA N N ED
3. M U L T IP L E
Rice simply LIED three times in a row to sell a
newspaper.
Hearst and Luce never did it any differently though
they were lost sinners.
W ith this little sample (Sword, Friday, June 9,
1978), we shall close our docum ented account of p r o ­
fessional lying carried on by the Cult members who
profess to believe in the “verbal, plenary inspiration of
our G od-breathed telephone book.”
1. They all question w hat G od said (Gen. 3:1).
2. T hey all recom m end a conflicting authority
(Gen. 3:2-4).
3. They will lie (Gen. 3 :2 -4 ) as quickly as take a
breath o f air in order to elevate scholarship to the final
seat o f authority.
W hen Jerry Falwell builds his new university, the
Cult will come in on the opening day o f class, seize all
chairs o f higher learning, and start the work downhill
into apostasy the fir s t week o f classes. How will they
do it? By doing exactly what we said they will do, and
we have docum ented it now for 300,000 words. They
will do what we tell them to do because we have an
infallible authority, and we can predict what they will
do w hether they adm it it or not. They will recommend
two or more authorities so the school will be the final
authority.
W e give them no alternatives.
They will do what we tell them to do. (A nd if a
Cult m em ber reads this, he will take the last paragraph
out of context to prove “egotism .” He will not deal
with one docum ented fact given above.)
All Cultists think alike.
W hen they read a docum ented article dealing with
facts, all they can find is “unChristian attitude,” “railing
accusations,” “coarse and vulgar language,” and “arro­
gance.” They cannot find the truth (2 Tim. 3:7). “The
truth” is not their “bag.” Their bag is lying.
Beginning with our next issue, we shall devote our
entire time in this column to a discussion o f “Problem
Texts.” W e have said enough about the modern, apos­
tate Fundam entalist to identify him clearly w herever he
speaks about Biblical authority. In other matters he
may pass by “unidentified,” but in matters of authority,
we have our speckled cat spotted.
W e will not “sleep” while the enemy plants “tares.”
The “mystery of iniquity” is ju st as much at work in
the Laodicean age as any age. W e need to know how he
works, why he works, and above all, when he starts to
go to work.
Readers o f this colum n now know by an objective
exam ination o f factual, docum ented statements made
by the m em bers o f the Cult. They will never be refuted
by any m em ber o f the Cult, f o r they c a n ’t be. All the
Cult can do is proselyte sympathy from young Chris­
tians and get them to think that “friendship,” “fellow ­
ship,” “cooperation,” “love,” and “understanding” are
more important than the absolute authority o f God A l­
mighty.
Every liberal in the N CCC handles things exactly
that way.
 ARTICLE TWENTY-NINE
“Demons, Devils, and Dragons”
W ith this article, we begin a series o f studies of
individual problem texts. By now, the regular reader of
this colum n is thoroughly aware of the roots and causes
of apostasy in every Fundam entalist church and school
in America. It begins with questioning what God said
(Gen. 3:1) and continues by recom m ending two c o n ­
flicting authorities (Gen. 3 :2 -4 ) and winds up with sin,
death, and damnation in Hell. Som etim es it takes a
school one hundred years to wind up apostate; many
times they are controlled by unbelievers in less than
fifty years. All unbelief begins the same way and m ani­
fests the same symptoms.
W e know now why Fundamental churches split
and stay split: they stay split because every time a young
man com es back to them from some “ Bastion o f O rtho­
doxy,” he has been taught loyalty to the school and
disloyalty to the Book that the pastor is preaching and
teaching. The greatest church splitters in this world are
men like Porter, Afman, M artin (Tennessee Temple),
Custer, Neal, Panosian (BJU), and H arold W illm ing-
ton. They teach loyalty to a school instead of the local
church, loyalty to the Alexandrian Cult instead o f the
pastor, and loyalty to the Rom an Catholic Jesuit Bible
of 1582 (ASV, RSV, NASV, NRSV) instead of the E n­
glish text o f the Protestant Reformation. They are divi­
sive, hell-raising troublemakers, and that is why they
think every believer who is exposing their dirty, rotten
sins is a “hell raiser.” Their attitude towards straight,
hard, clear preaching against their infidelity is the reac­
tion of a chronic alcoholic to a m essage on tem per­
ance.
 At this point, the “problem texts” start. U nder­
stand, of course, that these are only “problem s” in the
m ind o f the insincere, hypocritical F u ndam entalist
w hose “loyalty to the verbal, plenary, verbal, etc.” is
unquestioned. They pose no problem to an honest man
or a sane man. They are “problem s” invented by the
Cult to instill infidelity into the heart of the young man
or w om an attending the institution so that his loyalty
will be transferred from the Book to the school.
Problem: W hat are “devils” doing in an A V when
everyone knows there “is only one Devil but there are
many dem ons.” (Ever get that one before?) The devils
have vanished from M ark 5 and 1 Timothy 4:1 and
every other place where they used to hang out.
Here we have an excellent “test case” to see how
a know ledge of Greek is a hindrance to serious Bible
study and to note the contrast between believing Bible
study (to quote Hills) by a high school freshm an and
destructive criticism by the staff of the New Scofield
Reference Bible. First, we shall line up the ASV and
N A SV with the NSRB, s in c e th e s am e g ro u p of
Bible-perverting Fundam entalists was behind all three
of them.
1. The A V is w rong for transliterating “baptism ,”
but it is all right to transliterate daimonion.
2. The AV is wrong for saying there are “devils”
when there is only one Devil, even though every Greek
text extant says “d ia b o lo s ” for Judas, when he was not
THE Devil (John 6:70).
3. It is right, then, to say “dem ons” instead of
devils, because this is more “ accurate” and “clearer.'
The above is the opinion o f every leading Bible
teacher and expositor in America. W ith 100 percent of
all born-again, saved, soul-winning, premillennial, Fun­
damentalists behind the exposition, who but a mad
man would disagree?
We shall discount their combined opinions with­
 out batting an eye.
1. If you can transliterate, so can we.
2. W hat silly G reek scholar would think there was
only one devil when Satan was one and Judas was one
(John 6:70).
3. W ith “angels o f the L ord” and only one “Angel
of the L ord,” with “ sons o f G o d ” and only one “ Son
of G o d ,” with “ g od s” and only “ one G o d ,” why would
any “serious” Bible student think there w eren’t devils
and only one D e v il? I mean if he read the Bible and
was able to read sixth grade English why w ould he
com e up with the ridiculous nonsense espoused by 100
percent o f those Fundam entalists who spend their time
correcting the King James text?
There is the “ d r a g o n ” (Isa. 2 7 :1 -2 ; Rev. 12), so
there certainly are “ d r a g o n s ” (Jer. 10:22), even though
the New Scofield Reference Bible tore the word out
and substituted the text o f the National Council of Chris­
tian L iberals!
Strange world, is n ’t it?
And finally, how is “dem ons” more accurate when
Socrates and scores o f pantheistic materialists believed
that some demons were good and some were bad and
some made you a “g enius” so you could find out what
Eve found out! There is a soul-shattering thought, is n ’t
it?
By translating “ devils,” the King James transla­
tors were far more exact and scientific in their accu­
racy and their clarity than the stumbling blind work o f
the NASV and the New Scofield Reference Bible. They
equated all demons with devils and indicated their kin­
ship to the Devil. If you will read the text (AV) in M ark
5, you will find that the Devil and devils and the un­
clean spirit are all linked together as a unit.
W hen in doubt, throw 100 percent o f the co m m en ­
tators out. O -U -T !!
Our next “problem ” is associated with the previ­
ous one. In this case, our problem is how to get rid of
“dragons” since there is only one “dragon, ’ and two,
how to get rid of “satyr” (Isa. 34:14) when obviously
no such animal exists.
Observe how the New Scofield Reference Bible,
following the lead of unsaved liberals in the National
Council of Churches, has also removed “unicorns” from
Isaiah 34. On w hat grounds? Well, according to B er­
nard Ram m, a religious Liberal (an unsaved infidel) is
spotted by the fact that he sets up, as the final canon of
truth, his own reason; whatever in the Bible does not
measure up to his taste or opinion may be rejected as
the word of God). If the literal interpretation of a Bible
passage conflicts with “science” (that is why they all
changed 1 Tim. 6:20!!), the Bible is wrong at that
point.
A ccording to the definition given above, the New
Scofield Reference Bible was translated by Liberals;
according to the men who translated it, Bernard Ramm
is a New -evangelical. Nutty nuts are nuttier than nuts.
W hy are unicorns and satyrs “unbiblical” ? Because
a modern Fundam entalist has rejected the doctrine of
deformed monsters (Rev. 9) and animal mutations (Rev.
9) where they will occur in the lake o f fire (Isa. 34)
with devils who are likened to birds (Isa. 34; Rev. 18;
Matt. 13; Eccl. 10; etc.). That is, the most educated
Fundamentalists in A m erica in this age (Laodicean) do
not differ one inch from the worst, Christ-rejecting
Liberal that ever lived when it com es to unbelief in the
Bible where that Bible crosses what they have learned
in m agazines and books written by unsaved men. There
is the dragon (Rev. 12) and “dragons,” and there are
“satyr” and “unicorns” in the word of God. The Al­
exandrian Cult (M cClain, English, Walvoord, Olson,
et al.) reject them on the grounds that they think their
own reasonings are more scientific then the Holy B i­
ble— ditto all Liberals.
 The biggest problem that the m odern translators
have is with a m onster that shows up in Job 41. The
ridiculous New Scofield Reference Bible says that “p er­
haps” it is the crocodile-, the other Bibles all say that it
is the crocodile, with a rare exception or two that say
“hippopotam us.”
W hat Satan has to do with a crocodile or hippo­
potam us is a little obscure to say the least. The greatest
detailed chapter in either T estam ent on the size, shape,
character, and composition o f Satan is Job 41. With
more than one head on the “crocodile” (Ps. 74:14) and
his ID given as a “serpent” and “dragon” (Isa. 27:1),
the outrageous nonsense of Walvoord, English, McClain,
and G aebelein (all believers in the “verbal, plenary in ­
spiration” o f your aunt S ally ’s housecat) goes right on
under the guise o f “Christian Scholarship.” W e are
asked to “respect” and “honor” these “ spiritual giants”
who d o n ’t have the sense that G od gave a brass mon­
key when it comes to com paring Scripture with S crip­
ture. Crocodile, your foot!
A num ber o f problem texts are encom passed when
one confronts the ancient objection, “The words in the
AV are outdated and need to be updated:' This is a
reference to “ranges, curious, ouches, fray, polled,
b estea d , esch ew , trow , sith , so ttish , ta b erin g ,
grisled,” and a few others.
Let us begin by being practical, honest, and sen­
sible instead of “scholarly.” Let us begin by observing
that none of the destructive critics in the Cult object to
retaining false readings or cutting out genuine readings
as long as it doesn ’t affect “one fundamental o f the
f a it h ." (Ever hear that gasser before?) How is it that
when these pious hypocrites say things like that, they
c a n ’t apply their own creed to their own conduct?
Surely, if they can cut out “through his blood”
(Col. 1:14), and the “Son of God” (John 9:35) and
“God” (1 Tim. 3:16), while salving their consciences
with the fact that these changes d o n ’t materially affect
any fundamental o f the faith, how is it they cannot
tolerate one archaic word in 1,000 verses where no
word in any o f those verses affects any doctrine o f the
faith, let alone a “fu n da m en tal” doctrine?
Strange business, d o n ’t you think, for an honest
man to be engaged in?
If we can tolerate major changes in verses dealing
with Deity and say they “d o n ’t affect one major doc­
trine,” therefore they are all right, w hat is the point in
com plaining about thirty-one words that have no affect
on any doctrine ?
Easy: No hypocrite is honest, and when he com ­
plains, he is a liar (John 12:6).
1. Thirty-one words can be put into the margin;
after all, the NSRB pu t more than 5,000 words into the
margin.
2. There are not one hundred words that are “ar­
chaic.” I have checked fourteen classes* o f students
ranging from graduates o f the eighth grade to college
graduates with I Q ’s o f 140, and there have never been
more than twenty words that they co u ld n ’t guess w ith­
out looking at a dictionary in Greek, English, or H e­
brew. Someone has been lying about the number of
words.
W ords such as “ t a b e r i n g , m a r i s h e s , e ffe c t,
c h a r g e r , p o lled ,” etc., can be guessed from their con­
text. The price for updating them is 5,000 perversions
of text and m isleading marginal notes (New Scofield
Reference Bible) or 31,000 changes with ten attacks on
the Deity o f Christ and the work of Christ, Obviously,
the price you are asked to pay for being unable to look
up thirty-one words in the margin is inflationary. You
would do ju st as well to spend $20,000,000 for a box
o f Kleenex.

* In 1999 it c a m e to th ir ty -fo u r c la s s e s o f s tu d e n ts.

 ARTICLE THIRTY
“A Brief Summary”
It is time for a sum m ary o f the manners, methods,
ways, means, and identifying marks of the A lexandrian
Cult. W e have traced this group o f Christian heretics
from the first apostate Fundam entalist (Origen) to his
m odern retinue who control the Bible departm ents of
every recognized school in A m erica and Europe. This
vast worldw ide Cult has persevered in destructive criti­
cism for nineteen centuries and has outlived the Roman
Catholic Church in its century-by-century function as
the source o f apostasy in every generation. We may
summarize our last twenty-nine docum ented studies by
the following observations:
The Characteristic Speech
O f The Apostate Fundam entalist
1. “W e believe the Bible is the word o f G od.” (No
Cultist believes that any Bible is the word o f God.)
2. “The Bible does not contain the word of God;
it is the word of G od.” (No Cultist has access to any
Bible that is “the word o f G od” or “the Scriptures.” )
3. “W e believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of
the original autographs.” (Only on second-hand infor­
mation full o f errors, for all Cultists say this on the
basis of what some translation says; no translation of
any set o f Greek manuscripts ever mentions “originals”
or “original autographs.” That is the professional cliche
of the Cult.)
4. “W e are not Neo-evangelicals; we are F und a­
mentalists.” (All Catholics are Fundamentalists. All d e ­
mon-possessed peop le in the New Testam ent— Acts 16,
19; M ark 1, 5— believe in the Deity o f Christ and the
Virgin Birth. All Neo-evangelicals reject the A V as the
Bible.)
5. “People who believe that the AV is the word of
God are ‘nuts’; they are ‘riding a hobb yho rse’.” (All
Cult members spend their lives altering the God-given
text, while hiding in an institution that emphasizes “soul
winning.” The greatest hobbyhorse riders o f nineteen
centuries are K enneth Wuest, Spiros Zodhiates, A. T.
Robertson, and the G reek teachers at Fundam ental
schools.)
6. “No translation is inspired; only the original
manuscripts are inspired.” ( There is no such doctrine
found in any Greek manuscript, old Latin manuscript,
or any version or translation in nineteen centuries of
church history. Second Timothy 3:16 is not a reference
to any “originals” at all, and the Holy Spirit told you
that in the context— 2 Tim. 3:15.)
7. “W e need to know the ‘original G reek ’ to find
the ‘rich es’ or ‘deeper things’ in the ‘original’.” (There
is no “original” available to check. The “deeper things”
have never been found by any Cult member. There is
not a case on record where any Greek scholar found
one new truth (that was so), since 1611, that w asn ’t
known to the Body of Christ through the AV before he
found it.)
W e can see by an exam ination of this sevenfold
check list that the average m em ber o f the Alexandrian
Cult is, among other things, a pathological liar.
H o w T h is H y p o c ritic a l P osition
Is M a in ta in e d
1. “The original Greek says . . . .” It says nothing
o f the kind, because you d o n ’t have it to see w hether it
says it or not, so d o n ’t say that it says something you
d o n ’t know it says.
2. “The Greek text says . . . .” You are lying.
There is no such thing as TH E Greek text; there are
 forty by Mills, Fell, W alton, Tischendorf, Griesbach,
Scholtz, W estcott and Hort, Aland, M etzger, Nestle, et
al. The Greek text is the pitch o f a con man.
3. “A better rendering would be . . . .” According
to w hom ? By what standard? For the benefit o f w hom ?
4. “This is an unfortunate translation . . . .” A c­
cording to whom? By what standard? “ U nfortunate”
implies accidental error. Who proved that it was an
error?
5. “This translation brings out the meaning clearer
. . . .” According to whom ? The Holy Spirit is the
interpreter; what if He meant som ething else? Is clarity
the deciding factor, or accuracy? Why a double stan­
dard?
6. “All qualified authorities agree . . . .” A ccord­
ing to whose standards? W hat do you have to do to
qualify in denying the authority o f God? If they did
agree, what then? D id n ’t every leading theological
scholar o f C h rist’s day think He was a blasphem er?
So?
7. “Recognized scholars believe this passage is spu­
rious." Recognized by whom, their own crowd? “Schol­
ars” ? W hat kind of scholars? If they believed it, what
does this prove? Recognized scholars believed that b a­
bies were born again by sprinkling . . . so? Can you
prove the passage was spurious?
8. “Good men disagree as to the genuineness of
this passage.” Is that a reason for rejecting it? Is that a
reason for accepting it? “G ood” meaning what? Good
like Gandhi and Schweitzer? M other Teresa?
9. “Godly scholars labored many years to restore
the original.” How would they know they had restored
it or gotten near it if they never saw it? “G odly” like
what? Gandhi or Schweitzer? “G odly” meaning an im i­
tation of God? Labored in what? D estructive criticism
or prayerful belief?
10. “This translation is reliable because ‘godly m en’
translated it.” W hen was godliness any bulletproof vest
against apostasy (Hezekiah), adultery (David), cursing
(Simon Peter), lying (Gehazi), rebelling (Adam), or
perverting the word o f God (1 Kings 13)?
11. “There are many changes in the different edi­
tions o f the A V .” Not as many as any other translation.
Not as many as in the two manuscripts used for the
ASV and NASV. Not the same kind o f changes as those
between the AV and any other Bibles. N ot any change
that makes a contradiction.
12. “The main thing is soul w inning.” This is the
hypocrite’s last alibi— his last ditch stand. Having aban­
doned the authority of God and then failing in his m in­
istry to get others to abandon it, he must whine “ soul
w inning” so people will quit investigating his lying min­
istry and his habitual sinning against God. W hile con ­
demning Billy G raham for making “ soul w inning” first,
the apostate Fundamentalist will do the same thing if
backed into a corner on his dirty, lying, rotten, double­
standard, two-faced, forked tongue.
The Alibis Given For Sinning
1. “Godly men often changed the text.” Changing
the word o f God is an operation of the old nature in
any “godly” man. All godly men have an old nature.
2. “There was no Textus Receptus till Elzevir.”
By such “logic” there was no Hesychian or Alexandrian
text until Griesbach (1805), no Vaticanus manuscript
until 1430, and no Sinaiticus until 1850. To say that a
thing is not there because one nam e attached to the
thing is put on it after it has been there fifteen centu­
ries is madness.
3. “Erasmus had to publish a pro-Catholic text.”
He not only did not have to, he published the one
Greek text that no Catholic, during his time or since,
has ever recommended f o r anyone to read. The “bibles”
recom m ended by the Rom an Catholic Church are all
 from the Greek texts recom m ended at Bob Jones U n i­
versity (RSV, NRSV, NEB, New American, Jerusalem,
etc.).
4. “G ood men reco m m en d other tran slation s.”
Many g o o d men are interested in posing as bro ad ­
minded, tolerant intellectuals. Many g o o d men are in ­
terested in book sales, and many “good m en” would
get out o f the will o f G od and spend two years in jail
following their own convictions (Paul: Acts 21-25).
5. “W hat about the other languages?” Well, what
about the Greek originals? Think o f all the people that
d id n ’t have them, and all those who co u ld n ’t have read
them if they had had them! W hat is the purpose of
singling out the King James for this “crim e,” when it
was true of the original autographs as well? Cim ino
has a Receptus in Mexico. Pietsch has one in Japan.
Chelli has one in India. Since the AV was translated
into more than one hundred times as many languages as
any Greek Bible was ever translated, why would you
put more confidence in the Greek than the English?
6. “No intelligent person believes what ‘R uck­
m a n ’ believes.” You are quite in error. Jack H y les’
mother believed it; Bob Jones’ mother believed it; Floyd
E lm o r e ,* a H e b r e w te a c h e r , b e l ie v e d it; J a m e s
M cG aughey, a Greek teacher, believed it; Lestor Roloff
believed it; Billy Sunday believed it; and 5,000,000
Am erican Christians between 1700 and 1980 believed
it. By “intelligent,” you mean destructive critics like
you rself or else sample quotations, taken on the spur of
the mom ent, from “good, godly m en” who yielded to
the temptation to sin— like Noah, David, Peter, Paul,
Daniel, Joseph, et al.!
7. “N ot one fundam ental is changed by altering
the AV text in 31,000 places.” Then the RSV and the
NRSV and the Living Bible are certainly as good as the
ASV and NASV, for not ‘‘one single fundam ental of the
* H e d o e s n o t in 1999. H e w e n t to D a lla s T h e o lo g ic a l S e m in a ry .
faith” is altered in them. Anyone can lead a man to
Christ from an RSV or an NRSV or from a New World
Translation (J.W.) or the New American Bible (Roman
Catholic).
No alibi given by any Cult m em ber will “hold
w ater.” This means that the final resort o f the Cult
members will be to engage in gossip and second hand
information in order to defend their untenable (and
ungodly) position. Being absolutely unable to defend
their position from the Scriptures themselves (mainly
because they have no Scriptures; they only have “reli­
able translations”), the Cult now has its back against
the wall. They will have to deal henceforth with p e r ­
sonalities instead o f manuscript evidence, and they will
be forced to abandon their profession that “the main
things are the fundam entals.”
They will have to becom e occupied with personal
gossip, personal mud slinging, or arguments about m ar­
riage and divorce. That is, the authority of the A V Bible
is quite sufficient to sidetrack the entire body o f F un da­
mental Scholarship so they can no longer even practice
what they profess— the im portance of em phasizing the
fundamentals.
The Bible believer may look forward in the next
fifteen years to a barrage o f non-essential, non-funda­
mental hobby horses, ridden by the faculty m em bers of
Bob Jones University, Tennessee Tem ple, PCC, and
eventually Liberty University (Falwell). The A Vis quite
sufficient to overthrow their profession of faith and
force them to become occupied with Humanism in­
stead o f Biblical Authority.
G o d ’s final jok e on these apostate F undam ental­
ists who reject His words is to force them to abandon
Biblical authority and deal with human authority. E ven­
tually, this leads to Bible rejection, and thus, it will be
displayed in this century, before the eyes o f the Body of
Christ, the process by which Liberals, Communists, and
 A theists cam e to be graduated from Christian colleges
(Harvard, Chicago, Yale, Princeton, Colum bia, et al.).
This process never varies once in history (Gen. 3:1). It
is always begun by “good, godly people.” No one could
have been more “g odly” than A dam or Eve before they
fell: there is n ’t one Fundamentalist in America who had
the fellowship with God that they had.
All talk about “godly m en” ceases at Genesis 3:1,
when it com es to believing w hat God said, as He said
it, where He said it. You are either a H um anist or a
B ible-believing Christian. You follow men (“good,
godly m en,” o f co u rse!!), or you follow God; and where
a good, godly man follows God, you are safe in fol­
lowing him (Acts 27:25; 1 Cor. 11:1). No “godly m a n ”
fo llo w s G od when he tries to correct G od
 ARTICLE THIRTY-ONE
“Ezra, Nehemiah, and Cainan”
This is the thirty-first in a series of forty articles
dealing with the modern, apostate “Fundamentalist” who
believes five to twelve things extracted from “reliable
translations” rather than believing that the Bible is the
Scriptures. O f course, the apostate professes to believe
“the Bible is the W ord o f G od,” but upon exam ining
this profession (as we have for thirty articles), we dis­
cover that w hat he means— the profession was to lure
the suckers— is that he believes that an unavailable,
unread, unpreached, unheard o f set o f “original auto­
graphs” were the word of G od and now there is none.
W e have docum ented this from fifteen schools and ten
preachers in this series, and every one of them was a
“leading celebrity” that professed to believe in “the
absolute authority o f the Bible.”
They all lied, fa c e out and fa c e up, and “fa ce
o ff”
Our “problem ,” which we face in this issue, is
why the genealogies in M atthew and Luke do not match
(word for word) the ones given in Genesis 4 - 5 and 1
Chronicles. For example, there is no “Cainan” in G en­
esis 10:24, although he is found in Luke 3:36. He is
also omitted in 1 Chronicles 1:18.
Now, watch the Cult go to work. Here comes the
Alexandrian manuscripts from Egypt written A.D. 3 3 0 -
550 (I said A.D., not B.C.), and they insert the word
Cainan into Genesis 10:24 to make you think that Luke
(New Testament) had a Greek Old Testam ent which he
copied!
See how it is done, boys and girls? W ith no
“Cainan” in any Hebrew manuscript o f any Hebrew
 Bible, the “good, godly, F undam entalists” at A lexan­
dria doctor the Old Testam ent manuscripts up (Prov.
30:13!!) so God will not contradict Himself. This re­
m arkable expedient accomplishes something else: it
makes you think that Greek philosophers at A lexan­
dria had more wisdom than the Jews to whom G od
gave the oracles. To this day, 99 percent o f the faculty
mem bers of every school in the world talk about a B.C.
“Septuagint” just like they thought they had good sense
(see The Bible B eliever’s Commentary on Genesis, Gen.
46). The man who wrote “C ainan” into the Greek S ep­
tuagint wrote it in 100-500 years after Luke had fin­
ished his New Testam ent writings.
Problem: W hy w a sn 't “Cainan” in the Jewish Old
Testam ent written in H ebrew if it showed up in the
New Testam ent Greek?
Well, why w asn’t Josiah mentioned in the heroes
of faith in Hebrews 11? W hy d id n ’t the Lord m ention
Hezekiah and Jeh oia dal W hat happened to C a le b l As
far as that goes, why did the Lord omit three kings out
o f M atthew 1 (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah)? Why
should any destructive critic insist that there must be a
word-for-w ord m atching or there is a “contradiction” ?
Isn ’t this a little “hypercritical” ? In a Book where
sons-in-law are called “sons” (1 Sam.) and great, great
grandsons are called “sons” and “begat” extends to
three generations (Matt. 1) and generations are rounded
out to years instead of the lives of individuals in those
years (Matt. 1), w hat is the clamoring necessity for
making every “son” match?
Well, the “clamoring necessity” is because one must
grab at any straw to prove that the AV is in error so
that the Cult may assert its authority again and regain
control over the student’s mind, bringing him back into
bondage to the educational system o f the Cult.
Does any member of the Cult have a detailed record
of his ancestry back to Christopher Columbus? O f course
not. Does any have a detailed record o f any President
of the United States back to Richard the Lion-hearted?
O f course not. Does any have any record o f any sena­
tor or congressm an back to the time o f Baibars? O f
course not. W hy then the penchant for insisting that a
thing cannot be believed or that it is “u nreliable” when
it sticks one m a n ’s genealogy before your face and
traces it 4,000 years back to the first man who ever
lived?
How does a man correct “irregularities” in such a
genealogy unless he is a first-class hypocrite; he c a n ’t
even examine his own, let alone correct it. If five ac­
counts o f C hrist’s genealogy differed, it could mean
that grandsons were counted as sons, sons-in-law were
counted as sons, official lists might omit “bad eggs,”
official lists might add several sons, and a b ro ther’s
sons replaced the unborn offspring of a sterile brother.
Every case just listed has a chapter and verse to prove
it.
“D iscrepancies,” then, cannot be called “contra­
dictions” unless the scholar is in great haste to get rid
o f Biblical authority. Discrepancies can be due to dif­
ferent time systems and different styles of writing (re­
member the old “ D o d a n im ” bit (Genesis 10:4, The
Bible B eliever’s Commentary on Genesis)? If one m anu­
script says “ sixth h o u r ” (John 19:14) and the other
says “ t h i r d h o u r ” (M ark 15:25), you have what looks
like a contradiction to an infidel. It looks like a clear,
out-and-out, plain-cut case o f contradiction. However,
“ serious Bible students” (who ignore all Greek texts in
solving the p roblem ) know that Mark is on Jewish time
and John is on Rom an time. With four different times
in America for the same events (Eastern, Central, M oun­
tain, Pacific), what is the problem unless you are about
half crazy?
Ezra and N ehem iah seem to be at “logger heads”
with each other.
 Ezra has a list o f the children o f the province
“that went up out of the captivity” (Ezra 2:1), and
they come to 42,360 (Ezra 2:64). Tabulating the same
list, Nehemiah (Neh. 7:6) finds that there were the same
num ber (42,360), but N eh em iah ’s list will not match
E z ra ’s (cf. Ezra 2:8 and Neh. 7:13; Ezra 2:11 and Neh.
7:16; Ezra 2:13 and Neh. 7:18; Ezra 2:14 and Neh.
7:19; Ezra 2:21 and Neh. 7:26; etc.). O bviously— if
you are a m em ber of the Alexandrian Cult (saved or
lost, Liberal or Fundam entalist)— we have a “problem ”
here which can only be solved by saying:
1. The H ebrew m anuscripts are corrupt.
2. The AV translation is corrupt.
3. The original text has been lost or tampered
with.
4. Since it d o esn ’t affect any “fundam ental,” the
translation is still “reliable.”
5. Good, “go dly” men disagree as to the “correct”
reading; therefore, the AV text can be accepted or re­
je c te d depending upon how you “feel” about it.
The above is what we call “Christian scholarship”
or “ scientific exegesis” or “recognized scholarship”
or, to put it plainer, Pecan nuts.
For a m om ent let us pretend that Delitzsch, Keil,
Gesenius, McClain, Feinberg, Trench, Vincent, Thayer,
D ummelow , Clarke, Ellicott, Jamieson Fausset, Brown,
and the “W ycliffe” com m entators have no more idea
of about what they are talking than a barn full o f chest­
nuts. Then let us take a believing look at the text as it
stands in the Holy Bible (AV, 1611).
Observe that both totals are the same (42,360),
and the difference between the numbers and names given
both total 10,777. This can be seen by observing that
Ezra only lists, by name, 29,818. Nehemiah lists, by
name, 31,089. N ehem iah’s list omits accounting for
11,271 people by their names. E z ra ’s list omits ac­
counting for 12,542. Obviously, then, neither list was
intended to nam e every person in the number; if there
were any “discrepancies” in the two lists as far as names
or numbers were concerned, it would com e to nothing,
unless the two lists are supposed to be written at the
same time by the same person regarding the same group.
However, this is clearly not the case.
E zra’s group is recorded around 426 B.C. (Bull-
inger) or 541 B.C. (Scofield Reference Bible) or 538
B.C. ( Wycliffe Commentary), while N eh em iah ’s gene­
alogy is reproduced in the condition it is found in around
404 B.C. (Bullinger), 4 4 5 -4 4 6 B.C. (Scofield), or 425
B .C . ( W y c liffe C o m m e n ta r y ) w ith S c o f ie l d and
W hitcom b (Wycliffe Commentary) allowing leeways of
forty years following 445 and 541 B.C. It is apparent
that in any set of dates, N ehem iah d o esn ’t have access
to any list o f any returning rem nant under Zerubbabel
(Ezra 2 :1 -2 ) until twenty to fifty years after the list is
originally compiled.
W hen faced with facts such as those listed above,
how do you suppose a “ good, godly, dedicated F u nda­
m entalist” (whose “loyalty to the word o f God is un­
questioned!” ) would handle the “prob lem ” ? Well, John
W hitcom b Jr., Th.D., o f Grace Theological Seminary,
W inona Lake, says simply that “perhaps” the discrep­
ancy can be explained by the fact that “som etim es”
repeated copying alters the numbers. That is, “repeated
c o p yin g ” produces errors.
Do you see how nicely and neatly it is done? No
“railing.” No calling “good m en” by “bad nam es.” No
“unchristian attitude.” Just Genesis 3:1 implanted in
your mind so that you will never again have the confi­
dence in the Authorized Text that you had when you
got saved. That is how W hitcom b does it; that is how
Laird Harris and Barton Payne do it; that is how Alfred
M artin and Robert M ounce do it; and that is how B ib­
lical authority is handled by every Cult m em ber on the
teaching staffs o f Gordon Divinity School, Grace T heo­
 logical Seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary, M oody
Bible Institute, W estm ount College, Covenant College
and Seminary, N orthw estern College, Bob Jones U ni­
versity, Harvard, Yale, Colum bia, California Baptist
Theological Seminary, Pasadena College, Asbury T heo­
logical Seminary, Tennessee Tem ple, Hyles-Anderson,
Berkeley, Chicago University, Union Theological Semi­
nary, Baylor University, and the Central Baptist T heo ­
logical Seminary o f Kansas City, Kansas.
The purpose o f higher Christian education (F un­
damentalist or Neo-orthodox) is to produce the maxi­
mum amount o f uncertainty in regards to absolute au­
thority, and they will use any and all means to carry
this out.
Taking this for granted (after documenting it 500
times under 100 different circumstances), let us put all
graduates and faculty m em bers o f all Seminaries (L ib­
eral or Conservative) in the waste basket, and let us
begin “serious Bible study” by ignoring 100 percent of
the destructive critics who m asquerade as “Bible b e ­
lievers.”
1. Ezra said, “Now these are the children of the
province that went up out of the captivity” (Ezra
2 : 1).
2. Nehemiah said, “I found a register . . . and
found written therein” (Neh. 7:5).
Not once were you told that the register Nehemiah
found was the exact one Ezra wrote. W hy d id n ’t the
“W ycliffe” (God have mercy on your soul, son!) co m ­
mentator mention this?
1. Not once were you told that Ezra wrote any­
thing (Ezra 2:1). His host was “reckoned by geneal­
ogy” (Ezra 2:62). Someone wrote down a list, but it
was not necessarily the register that N ehem iah found
(Neh. 7:5). Ezra wrote Ezra 2, but nowhere were you
told that Ezra 2 was the register found in Nehemiah
7:5. It is obvious that the two do not match.
 2. However, they match so closely (see E zra 2:3,
4 with Neh. 7 :8 -9 ; Ezra 2:7 and Neh. 7:12; Ezra 2:23
and Neh. 7:27; that the differences, where they occur,
are corrections made at a later time on a different head
count. This can be explained (if a Bible believer who
believes the Bible is going to keep on believing the
Bible) by:
a. Realizing that not all o f those who started, f in ­
ished; some did not get to the land, others did not
return to their own “ city” (Neh. 7:6) after they got to
the land, and others died on the way or died before
they got to their own “ city ” (Ezra 2:1). This explains
the subtractions for some families found in Nehemiah
where the num ber given in Ezra (twenty to fifty years
earlier) is larger.
b. Realizing that with 11,000-12,500 unnamed, it
can be highly possible that their nam es were located
after they got to their city, and this explains the addi­
tions in Nehemiah where the num ber given in Ezra
(twenty to fifty years earlier) is smaller.
c. Ezra is giving a head count as far as he can see,
and as far as he can see leaves 12,542 people unnamed.
To say then, that of these 12,542, none o f them could
belong to the families he named, is nonsense. Nehemiah,
twenty to fifty years later, still has 11,000 unnamed;
therefore, to say that some of these could not have
been in the families listed in Ezra and then left them in
fifty years is nonsense: pure, unadulterated, fundam en­
tal, dedicated, recognized, godly, conservative nonsense.
Nehemiah is obviously the work o f a census taker
who managed to locate 1,700 more nam es than Ezra
had found. He also erased from the list any who did not
make the complete circuit: out o f Babylon, to Pales­
tine, to Jerusalem in Judah, and then to every city in
Judah.
When in doubt, throw all scholarship out where it
corrects the AV text.
 ARTICLE THIRTY-TWO
“Word for Word Translating”
We are now discussing the imaginary problem s
invented by the Cult in order to do away with the
authority o f the AV Bible and get the student to m is­
place his loyalty to a school instead o f to the Bible
itself. L oyalty to the H oly Bible w ould be called
“B ibliolatry” by the Cult members, while loyalty to a
university or college would be considered proper, re­
spectable, honorable, and even com mendable. The fact
that the school exists at the expense o f the authority o f
the w ord o f G od never impresses the faculty, professor,
founder, president, vice-president, or janitor. It is taken
for granted, in the m ost blithe and nonchalant manner,
that the Bible is to be used if you “prefer it,” and not a
word is to be said about believing it because it is the
fin al authority. W here this last profession is made, it
has proved to be a lying profession in the case of
twenty colleges and universities and thirty Bible insti­
tutes, even where all their faculty members blabber about
“verbally inspired unknowables.”
Profession of faith, “unjustified by w orks” or re­
sponse, is the profession o f an apostate: an apostate is
a man who professes to believe something that he no
longer believes. We have docum ented this to the tune
o f 400,000 words and have shown that even where a
school advertises publicly that “the Bible” is the final
authority or absolute authority, the school has no B i­
ble, has never seen the Bible, has never read the Bible,
and co u ld n ’t obtain a copy if their curriculum d e ­
pen ded on it.
The “problem s,” then, that we are discussing are
invented by the Cult to get rid of the authority o f the
Bible, even where the school professes to believe in its
authority. The problem that we discuss in this article is
a famous one. This is an old, lame alibi used by all
unsaved atheists and unsaved Comm unists, but it has
been “dressed up” and “rew orded” so it will fit the
mouths o f the faculty members at Bob Jones U niver­
sity, Tennessee Tem ple, and PCC. They use it quite
frequently when trying to destroy a young m a n ’s faith
in the Bible, and they use it exactly as any unsaved
A theist or unsaved C om m unist uses it. (No, we did not
say they were Comm unists or atheists; d o n ’t lie. You
have told enough lies already to destroy your ministry
at the Judgm ent Seat o f Christ. It is time to stop lying.
No one said that they were atheists or Comm unists;
what we said was that they were professional liars.
They are paid their salaries and earn their living by
lying about Biblical authority.)
First, we shall present the Atheist version, and
then we shall present the Fundam entalist version of the
“problem ” so you can see their gross similarity.
1. “W hat about all the people that d o n ’t have the
Gospel and have never heard the Ten Com m andm ents?”
2. “How can God hold them responsible when they
d o n ’t kno w ?”
3. “How can God send a man to Hell when he
never had a chance to hear the truth about salvation?”
Have any of you ever encountered those proposi­
tions in personal work?
If you never have, you h a v e n ’t done enough soul
w inning to talk about it!
Now, is n ’t it odd that the people who use the same
arguments on the A V text (see below) begin to whine
and bleat about “soul w inning” when a doctrinal dis­
cussion comes up dealing with Biblical authority? Why,
if any o f them had been doing personal work, they
would have encountered these three above arguments
more than ten times a year! W hat real “ soul w inner”
 would use any of the arguments above to prove any ­
thing? And yet . . . !
1. “W hat about all the people who d o n ’t have the
Bible in English and have never heard of the Authorized
Version?”
2. “How can God hold them responsible if they
d o n ’t have the absolute truth?”
3. “How can God condem n a man for using an
ASV or an RSV if he never had a chance to use a King
James B ibleT ’
Look at both sets carefully.
Study them awhile.
Notice that all six questions are implanted doubts
(Gen. 3:1).
Notice that all six stem from unbelief in what G od
said (Gen. 3:1).
Notice that all six are attempts to disregard or
slight what G od said (Gen. 3:1).
N otice that human reason and G erm an rationalism
is the source o f the questions and that none o f the six
are based on revelation or the Bible itself.
All six questions are perfectly reasonable and p er­
fectly rational, provided you accept three, non-biblical
propositions:
1. God cannot reveal H im self or His word to a
man who d o esn ’t have something in writing. ( Which is
a lie: see Job 15-31; Num. 12; Gen. 19; etc.)
2. God has no right to be selective and allow an y­
one privileges that He does not allow others. ( Which is
a lie: see Acts 10:1-30; Ezek. 14; 2 Thess. 2; Psa. 89;
etc.)
3. Unless every individual word o f the “original”
is found in every individual word in the translation,
inspiration is impossible. ( Which is a lie: see 2 Tim.
3 :15-16 ; Acts 8; etc.)
That is, to seriously consider any o f the six ques­
tions as “serious,” one must reject the authority o f the
 written words o f G od which he has and can read.
That is, the “questioner” must pretend that he is
agnostic and pretend that he d o esn ’t know the answers
after being given the answers (Ezek. 14:1-10; 2 Thess.
2: 10-11). He also must pretend that God is ignorant of
his pretense (2 Tim. 3:13).
Now, this is how Paine, O ’Hare, Rousseau, V ol­
taire, Ingersoll, Darrow, Darwin, and Huxley handled
the word of God. All of them had access to a King
James 1611 Authorized Version, and all o f them heard
it preached and saw it in print. They just pretended
that their ju dgm ent in these matters was superior to the
author o f Scripture; they were members o f the A lexan­
drian Cult without being “F undam ental” or “Premillen-
nial.”
Shall we cut the deck and deal?
1. To teach that word-for-w ord inspiration has to
be word-for-word preservation because o f word-for-
word “originals” is heresy. The inspired Scripture of 2
Timothy 3:16 were not the originals, and the Holy
Spirit told you in verse 15 they were not the originals.
Yet the Cult (95 percent o f all Christian schools) in
A m erica goes right on with the false teaching, encour­
aged by John R. Rice and others. There is no word-for-
word reproduction o f the “originals,” even where both
copies are the originals (Jer. 36), and the Holy Spirit
showed you that and taught you that, so to teach other­
wise is heresy.
2. The “originals” did not report verbatim, word-
for-w ord, the speeches between Pharaoh and Moses in
Egyptian, nor the speeches between A dam and Eve in
some other language. The inscriptions on the cross are
written in three languages (none o f w hose idiom and
gram m ar match), and they are reported in one lan­
guage that does not match two o f them. This is sound
doctrine, and to teach otherwise is to teach fa lse doc­
trine.
 3. God has always been selective. H e has visited
the sins o f Rom an Catholics upon four generations of
their offspring, without consulting their offspring about
it (Exod. 20), for the sin o f idolatry carries that con di­
tion with it.
God selected Noah to the exclusion o f 20,000,000-
800,000,000 people; He selected Judah out of twelve
brothers; He selected one man to write nearly one-third
of the New Testament; He selected A braham to the
exclusion o f over 50,000 people in his “hom e tow n” ;
and He selected One Man, to the exclusion o f Buddha,
M oham m ed, Lao Tze, Joe Smith, and Zoroaster (and
20,000 others), when it cam e to establishing a true
belief. G o d ’s selectivity is so manifest in Romans and
Ephesians that you w ould have to be an A theist or an
Agnostic (or stupid) not to see it.
These are three, Biblical truths testified to by the
Scripture. W hen Rice says “since the Bible d o esn ’t say
specifically that any translation will be inerrant, etc.”
(and then corrects it wherever he fe e ls like it), he is
simply w asting your good time and talent. This is not
merely a “m oot” point; it is nonsense. W e are dealing
with three positive facts found in the Bible. Rice is
dealing with negative speculation which he cooked up
out o f his own noodle. Typical “F undam ental scholar­
ship” these days.
O nce you understand the “m entality” o f the Cult,
you can predict with reasonable accuracy. For example:
upon having read the three Scriptural facts stated above,
do you know what a Cult m em ber w ould do? Well, he
w ould not look up any o f the references. (See the
muddled nonsense in any Commentary on “ le v ia th a n .” )
Next! He would not make any com m ent on the
fact that the word “ s c r i p t u r e ” in 2 Timothy 3:16 was
no reference to any originals, although the context of
the verse shows that it is not (2 Tim. 3:15). Bible truth
such as this is not discussed in such misleading works
as Theopneustia and Our G od Breathed Book. The au­
thors would not dare tell you w hat the Scriptures say
the Scriptures are (Matt. 2 0 -2 2 ), since Timothy had
them in his hom e (2 Tim. 3:15).
Therefore, every man teaching that 2 Timothy 3:16
is a reference to the originals, only, is teaching a
non-biblical, anti-biblical fa lse teaching, which is re ­
futed in ten places in the N ew Testament. W hy do they
do it? To establish their own authority over the Book
they are reading.
Now, w hat will the Cultist do upon reading this
paper? Simple! He will grasp at Point 2 like a drowning
Atheist and claim that if such a thing is so, then any
translation (Correction! His own crowd if he is a F un­
damentalist; his own crow d if he is a Neo-evangelical;
his own crow d if he is a Liberal, etc.) can be the W ord
of God because the words d o n ’t have to be the exact
words.
Thatsa how w a it essa dona! Likka dat!
That is, the motive behind the thinking processes
o f the Cultist is “g et rid o f fin al authority any way that
is possible. ” This motive determines his rational pro­
cesses and his logic in any Biblical situation.
No sooner has he sided with the National Council
o f Churches (RSV and ASV) and the Rom an Catholic
Church (NASV and Jerusalem Bible), than the Lord
cuts him off in the following nasty way:
1. W hen the world is a G reek-speaking world,
God has a Book in the Koine Greek o f Antioch Syria
which is carried all over that world, while the A lexan­
drian Cult is perverting that Book in the University at
Alexandria (A.D. 100-400).
2. W hen the world is a Latin-speaking world, God
has a Book in the Old Latin o f the W aldenses and
Albigenses which is carried all over the world while the
Alexandrian Cult at Rome is promoting Jero m e’s re­
vised Vulgate.
 3. W hen the Reform ation breaks out in Germany,
God has a Book in German, which goes into N orw e­
gian, Swedish, Russian, Spanish, Dutch, Belgian, Ital­
ian, and Rom anian and to all of their foreign p osses­
sions, while the A lexandrian Cult is publishing the Je­
suit text o f Vaticanus (1582) in Rheims, France.
4. W hen the world becom es an English speaking
world in the last days (Laodicean to the Advent), God
has a Book in English which goes to the moon while
the Alexandrian C ult is reinstating the D ark-Age Jesuit
Bible o f 1582 in the Christian universities (ASV, NIV,
and NASV).
So if “word for w ord” meant something or n oth­
ing, it would still not deal with the issue o f the fin al
authority in this age. If any Bible in English has any
part of the AV in it, that much o f it is “the word o f
G od,” and the rest o f it is n ’t. “ A little le a v e n ” leavens
“ th e w hole lu m p ” ; therefore, none o f them are “reli­
able.” They are unreliable. They contain the plan o f
salvation and the Fundamentals, so do theology books
and tracts. God has the apostate Fundamentalist “brack­
eted” for “interdictory fire.”
1. If it is a question o f “w ord-for-w ord,” nothing
is word-for-word, so it is not a question “o f word-for-
w ord.” The men who quote “w ord-for-w ord” as au ­
thority never quote from any book that has “word-for-
w ord” in it. M arvelous, eh what? It is a question of
“Do you have the words G od wants you to have?”
2. If it is a question o f who has it and who doesn ’t,
the people have it that G od intended to have it (Rom.
3:2) and excluded others. He did this according to His
“good pleasure,” and your opinion is not a factor in the
problem.
3. If it is a question o f “reliable” translations, ev ­
ery translation is reliable that came from the King James
or Luther’s Reichstext, and any translation that came
from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is an obscene joke.
 So much for “those who d id n ’t have a King James
B ib le” in their day.
 ARTICLE THIRTY-THREE
“Another Summary”
W e have now reached a point in exam ining prob­
lem texts (see the last fifteen issues) where some o f our
r e a d e rs m a y h av e f o r g o tte n th e b a c k g r o u n d th a t
prom pted our study of these matters. In the first ten
issues o f the Bulletin we went to great lengths to d o cu ­
m ent the “stand” o f the A lexandrian Cult as found in
the writings, teachings, and lectures o f Afman, Custer,
Neal, Porter, M artin, M cGee, Rice, W ilbur Smith, T h e­
odore Epp, and others. The unbelievable material con ­
tained in these docum ented articles is from the writings
and promotional material o f the men involved. N ow it
is high time that we review for the reader what is going
on in “bastions o f orthodoxy” which stand “without
apology” for the absolute authority o f “the Bible.”
First, we presented the Biblical analysis o f higher
Christian education.
1. It questions what G od said (Gen. 3:1).
2. It submits a competing authority that differs
with it (Gen. 3:2-4).
From this, we learned that the motive for reco m ­
m ending two conflicting versions was to eliminate final
authority and to leave the school, church, or scholar as
the final authority; that is, the motive was carnal and
fleshy and cam e from the old nature. All “born-again,
premillennial, soul-winning Fundam entalists” have an
old nature, and the old nature in Rice, Porter, Martin,
Robinson, Robertson, Olson, W eniger, and A rcher is
no different than the old nature in M oody, Dillinger,
Bloody Mary, Frank Norris, Billy Sunday, M anson, or
Greta Garbo— flesh is flesh.
Secondly, we showed how those who profess to
believe in “the Bible” have never seen, heard, m em o­
rized, or preached from the book they brag about “b e­
lieving.”
1. The “original” manuscripts.
2. The Vaticanus or Sinaiticus manuscripts.
3. A “reliable translation.”
4. A translation which they used and “preferred”
even though they d id n ’t believe it was G o d ’s final au­
thority anym ore than a used telephone book.
Thirdly, we pointed out (and docum ented) the fact
that the heads o f Bible departments in the major Chris­
tian schools will lie deliberately and continually when
discussing Biblical authority. The following are seven
well chosen lies which will go up at the Judgm ent Seat
o f Christ like Hiroshim a under an “A b om b.”
1. “ The original G reek text says
2. “The original G reek says
3. “The G reek text says . . . .”
4. “The oldest manuscripts are the best.”
5. “W estcott and Hort were Bible sch olars.”
6. “Erasmus published a Catholic New Testament
text.”
7. “ If a Bible has the Fundam entals in it, it is
reliable.”
Next, we pointed out the standard alibis for sin
given by the Cult as they were p a id salaries at Chris­
tian schools to implant doubt in the student’s minds
about the authority of the A V Holy Bible. These lame
alibis, coming from the old nature, went this way:
1. King James was a tyrant; therefore, the transla­
tion could not have been completely right.
2. The translators were Episcopalians, so they
d id n ’t dare translate “baptize.”
3. Erasm us made up the ending on Revelation 22
because he had no G reek manuscripts; therefore, it
couldn ’t be right.
4. “Good, godly” men have often altered the text,
 and Conservatives backed up 31,000 changes in 1885
and 1901; therefore, it must be all right to do it.
5. W here are all the other “perfectly inspired trans­
lations” ? W o u ld n ’t there have to be one in every lan­
guage, even if there was only one to start with?
6. Our know ledge of Greek and Hebrew makes us
smarter than the scholars o f 1611, and translating abil­
ity depends on smartness.
7. A lthough 180 translations “updated” the A V in
ninety years, it still must be “updated” again since the
English language is getting “archaic” once every six
months.
Now, if you have not read the first ten issues o f
the Bulletin, you will not understand any o f that, but if
you will obtain these copies (A lexandrian Cult: ar­
ticles 1-10) you will find why we said these things.
None o f this is “ slanderous accusation,” in spite of
John R. R ic e’s lying correspondence (see “H hheerrees
Jo hnny?” ), for it is all docum ented in the words o f the
Cultists who attacked the King James text.
Finally, we noticed that the “final authority” for
all matters o f faith and practice, for the men who cor­
rect the AV text, is their own opinion, the opinions o f
the men who taught them, o r the opinions o f the men
who taught them. These “opinions” start with Origen in
A.D. 250 and proceed through Eusebius, Augustine,
Jerome, and on through the popes to the Jesuit Rheims
Greek text o f W estcott and Hort, prom oted by Bob
Jones University. (The ASV [1901] and the NASV [ 1969]
are from this Vatican text.) That is not a “ slanderous
accusation.” That can be p r o v e d with documented evi­
dence in court.
So when a Cultist says, “The Bible says . . . ,” he
d o esn ’t really mean, “The Bible says . . . .” To him “the
Bible” is an unavailable, unread set o f “verbally in­
spired unknowables.” W hen he waves an AV (they all
“use” it because they must “prefer” it), what he actually
means is “This reliable translation which I prefer says
. . . But if he said that from the pulpit, Bible-believing
Christians would cut him off, so he simply lies and
draws a salary (or takes an offering) f o r lying.
Professional liars.
O bserve that what these men state publicly is not
what they believe. It is quite similar to Blake, Weigle,
Sockman, and Fosdick taking an ordination oath with a
mental reservation; that is, it is characteristic o f an
apostate. An apostate will continue to profess som e­
thing he doesn’t believe in order to make a living or
gain a hearing. If the A lexandrian Cult were as honest
publicly as they are in their private correspondence,
they would say, before quoting a verse, “a reliable trans­
lation which I prefer says . . . Now, why do you
suppose they d o n’t say that publicly, but instead say,
“the Bible says . . .” ?
Every dime paid to every faculty m em ber of every
fundamental school in the country was given to that
man to aid him in public lying if he got in a pulpit (or
behind a teacher’s desk) and said, “the Bible says,”
when he d id n ’t believe anyone there (including him­
self) had ever seen one o r held one or heard one. A
man who makes his living by attacking the authority of
“the Bible” is a professional. If he claims to quote “the
Bible,” and then says it is a book that no one can quote
because no one has seen it (“the verbal, plenary, in­
spired unknow ables”), he is a liar.
1. A professional.
2. A liar.
3. A professional liar.
If he would talk the same way out of both sides of
his mouth, he would be an honest man, even if he did
attack the Bible and even if he were a destructive critic;
at least he would be an honest one. But when a double
profession is made that contradicts, and one is used to
get income while the other is used to implant doubt
about the book that is the source o f the income, well,
then, boys and girls, “the act is gaffed.”
You are dealing with a con man, and the fact that
he is “g odly” and “separated” has no more to do with
his dirty, rotten, low-down lying about Biblical author­
ity than it has to do with his old nature that sits in
ju d gm ent on the word o f God. W e have no objection to
anyone using thirty versions o f the “Bible” for refer­
ences. W e have no objection to you buying and using
any “version” you want to use. I t’s a free country. But
d o n ’t kid us into thinking that because you are “go od ”
and “godly” you have a right to stand in a pulpit and lie
about what you believe in order to get an offering.
If you c a n ’t quit lying, shut up and g et out o f the
pulpit.
 ARTICLE THIRTY-FOUR
“The Bible is A BOOK:
n o t‘The Word of God’”
O f all the gimmicks and artifices used by the A lex­
andrian Cult, the most effective is the one which runs
as fo llo w s — and this g im m ic k is used by Sew ell,
Sherman, and Terry (Baptist Bible College, Springfield,
M issou ri), exactly as it is used by Price, M artin,
Robinson, and Afman (Tennessee Tem ple University):
1. W e believe the Bible is “the W ord of G od.”
2. The W ord of God, as originally inspired, was
the W ord o f God.
3. We believe the Bible does not contain the Word
of God, but is “the W ord o f G od.”
4. But only the “original manuscripts” are inspired
and inerrant.
That is w hat they call in D isneyland “The Historic
Fundam entalist Position.” It is the position of John R.
Rice and Robert Sumner; to prove this position, quota­
tions are often taken from various Fundamentalists.
(Very often a “historic position” [i.e., tradition] is taken
to get rid o f unpleasant truths or newly revealed truth
from the Bible,) The rational believer will “ p r o v e all
th in g s ” and “ h o ld fa s t to t h a t w h ich is goo d.” He
will not be deceived by a con man palming off a lie as
an “historic position.” Let us analyze this “historic
position” from the standpoint o f fact.
1. There isn’t a Bible scholar anywhere in the world
(saved or lost, Liberal or Conservative) who believes
the “original m anuscripts” were all collected together
as a B O O K — let alone “the Bible.”
2. There isn’t a Bible scholar anywhere in the w o rld
(saved or lost, living or dead) who thought that any
 such book as “the Bible” ever existed in its original
“inspired” condition.
3. There has never lived on the face of this earth
any Bible scholar o f any degree o f learning, in any
profession or denom ination of Christianity, who d id n ’t
know that when Jo h n ’s works were collected in a Book,
the originals o f M oses, Peter, James, M atthew, Paul,
David, and M alachi were no longer in existence.
A “B ib le ” containing the “verbally inspired origi­
nal manuscripts” is the non-existent figment of a sinner’s
depra ved imagination.
There never has been on this earth any book that
consisted o f the “verbally inspired,” inerrant, infallible
“originals.”
And there isn ’t one facu lty member o f one Chris­
tian school in America who d o e s n ’t know that he is
lying when he claims to believe in such a Book. The
original manuscripts were written over one thousand
years apart, and John does not write any “originals” till
nearly tw enty-four years after Paul is dead. To assume
that there ever was on this earth at any time a book
called “the Bible” (see the profession o f the faculty
m em bers as listed above), containing the “verbally in­
spired words o f G o d” in the original autographs, is the
grossest heresy im aginable and can only be explained
by the old unregenerate nature o f the “historic F u nd a­
m entalist” where it seeks to avoid A uthority and estab­
lish itself as an authority.
These men have equated “the B ible” with a book
that was never written and never existed, and they know
it when they profess to believe in it. By confounding
“the B ible” with “the originals” and confounding the
“autographs” with a “B o ok ,” the faculty m em bers at
Bob Jones University, PCC, BBC, Liberty University,
and Tennessee Tem ple have constructed the most fan­
tastic gim m ick for deception ever erected by any Cult.
Their only defense for such fraud is to claim that Bible
believers are “R uckm anites” and belong to a Cult. Such
are the ways o f Bible-rejecting Fundamentalists.
Now, according to a Bible believer (Vaudois, H u ­
guenot, W aldensian, Paulician, Nestorian, Ruckm an-
ite, Hussite, Norrisite, Henrician, et al.), there is a
Book which men can read, study, and preach called
“the Holy Bible.” It is not the “original autographs”
because the original autographs never did constitute a
“book” o f one volum e in any sense o f the word.
The “scripture” that the Ethiopian eunuch had
(Acts 8) did not contain M o se s’ “original” o f Exodus,
Isa ia h ’s “orig in al” o f Isaiah, D a v id ’s “original” of
Psalm 23, etc., and no one but a “crackpot nut” (to
quote the faculty m em bers o f Fundam ental schools)
w ould think it did. You would have to be an “historic”
idiot to think that the Ethiopian eunuch had the “origi­
nal autographs” simply because he had “the scrip­
ture” (Acts 8), and “all scripture is given by inspira­
tion of God” (2 Tim. 3:16).
H arnack believed that the four gospels were first
gathered together in Asia M inor in the second century.
Is anyone stupid enough to believe that the four copies
that were first collected into book form were the four
“original autographs” that M atthew, M ark, Luke, and
John penned? O f course not. That is sheer fantasy—
Funnymentalist Fantasy.
The first collection o f the Pauline Epistles was
supposed to have taken place near the end o f the first
century, according to G oodspeed and Kilpatrick. Were
they unsaved Liberals? There isn’t any Fundamental
scholar in the world who could disprove that conjec­
ture, and if he did, he could still not explain P a u l’s
“originals” being put together with M o se s’ “originals.”
M oses’ books are in “the B ib le,” rem em ber? (“W e
believe the Bible is the W ord o f G od,” etc., etc.)?
K enyon thought that the Pauline Epistles were not
jo ined up with the four Gospels until the early part of
 the second century, and this was done in A sia Minor.
Regardless o f Kenyon, Goodspeed, or anyone else, there
is no one but a modern, apostate Fundam entalist who is
fanatical and irreverent enough to think that the “ver­
bally inspired originals” made up a book called “the
Bible.” The term “the Bible” was C hrysostom ’s term
for the Old and N ew Testam ent as he had them in the
fourth century. He called it ’O Biblios— TH E BOOK.
A Bible believer must believe that a Book is “the
Bible.”
The m odern apostates on the faculties o f Christian
schools would have you think they are Bible believers.
They are not. “The Bible” they say they believe does
not exist. It is pure fantasy.
This fantastic gim m ick cam e up during the 1920s
and 30s due to the pressure brought on Fundam ental­
ists by M achen, Wilson, Warfield, Robertson, and o th ­
ers, when confronted with the so-called “errors” in the
King James Bible. R unning to these dead-orthodox
apostates for help, the “leading C onservative scholars”
were furnished with an alibi f o r sin. The alibi was
simple: the Bible was not a book; it was a loose collec­
tion o f “original autographs” which, if they had been
saved till all o f them were written (and then if they had
all been simultaneously placed into one volume), could
be called “the Bible,” if anyone could have gotten a
copy.
No one did.
No one does.
The whole “historic position” is banal fiction, and
every man w ho posits it know s it when he adopts it.
His old nature simply grasps at a straw to preserve its
ow n integrity.
All of this is extremely distasteful to modern apos­
tates, for it deals with fact versus fiction. W hat the
modern apostate wants to do is deal with personalities
vs. institutions or reputations vs. enrollm ent or results
vs. attendance. Lying about Biblical authority is ac­
cepted as proper conduct for anyone whose personal­
ity, institution, attendance, enrollment, tone o f voice,
reputation, or prestige suits the human preference of
the individual.
So continual lying about these matters in the fu ­
ture will be SOP for these faculty members. The best
way to tell very quickly w hether or not a faculty m e m ­
ber o f any school is a professional liar (paid a salary to
lie about Biblical authority) or w hether he is a Bible
believer is very simple. Just ask him to show you a
copy o f the Scriptures. If he cannot produce it, ask him
if such a thing ever existed. If he says it did, ju st ask
him for one piece of evidence, produced by one scholar
in the history o f mankind, that would indicate that at
any time there ever was any Book containing the “origi­
nal, verbally inspired autographs. ” One authority will
do ju st fine.
With over thirty thousand authors writing on m anu­
script evidence, Biblical Theology, Systematic T heol­
ogy, critical texts, corrupt readings, papyrus discover­
ies, N ew Testam ent Introduction, Biblical Introduc­
tion, revisions, and Apocrypha, there has not showed
up one writer who ever claimed that there ever was a
Bible (any Bible) com posed of “original m anuscripts.”
The invention is fantasy, pure and simple, and is to
be classified with Spiderman, the Green Hornet, and
W innie the Pooh. The fact that forty “F undam ental”
and “Conservative” scholars use this fantasy to deny
their sanity (and their com m on sense) is o f no conse­
quence to anyone who is interested in finding out the
truth on any subject. Truth is truth, and the One who
will “guide and lead the Bible believer into all truth”
would never lead anyone to try to palm off a lie that is
so patent and manifest that not one scholar (saved or
lost) from Pliny to Pickering would think of espousing
it.
 If the reader has taken time to carefully read all of
the thirty-four articles in this series which precede this
writing, he will now be thoroughly grounded in the
faith where it deals with the absolute authority of God.
Thirty-four articles have been printed in this Bulletin,
which have documented the clandestine operations of
the greatest Cult in the history o f the Church: the A lex­
andrian Cult, from Alexandria, Egypt, w hose founders
were professional liars, gnostic philosophers, and e g o ­
maniacs of the most dangerous sort.
Their progeny stretches out through the centuries,
being deeply em bedded in the hierarchy o f the Rom an
Church, and they “resurface” following the R eform a­
tion (1800) to reinstate the official bible o f the Roman
Church, the Jesuit Rheim s V ulgate o f 1582— called the
New American Standard Version by the students and
faculty o f Bob Jones University, PCC, BBC, and T en ­
nessee Tem ple University.
 ARTICLE THIRTY-FIVE
“Autographs, Versions, and Revisions”
By now the reader should feel quite at hom e when
approached with the “gim m icks” or “shills” of the Cult.
These articles or stratagems (“ploys” is a very appro­
priate word) are designed to deceive. They are for p u r­
poses of deception at the onset, and they are carried
out in the hope of deceiving the Christian about abso­
lute authority. They are most effective when carried
out by “good, godly, dedicated m en” whose “loyalty to
the w ord o f God is unquestioned,” etc. The best way to
sell a bushel of rotten apples is put a few good ones on
the top.
In this respect, higher Christian education does
not differ from higher Secular education. That is, w her­
ever faculty members are paid to sit in jud gm ent on the
Bible and alter it, freely, with their opinions and prefer­
ences— thus destroying the student’s faith in it— the
end result is the same. Basically there is no difference
between the product o f a Fundam ental college or uni­
versity and the worst Communist University in America,
at least not where that product must deal with absolute
truth. There is no more absolute truth to be found at
M oody Bible Institute or Dallas Theological Seminary
than there is at the University o f Chicago or Berkeley
in Los Angeles.
Consider the humanistic (or Communist) approach.
1. Evolution is a fact, but not an absolute fact,
because not all of the data is provable by experiments.
There are those who believe this or that, and evolution­
ists disagree am ong themselves as to how much was
gradual or automatic and how much was accidental or
accomplished by “leaps.”
 2. There may be a God or there may not b e ; w hat
is useful to you is the important thing, but d o n ’t try to
sell your beliefs to anyone else; everyone has a differ­
ent set o f “ values.” It is true that D arwin and Einstein
d o n ’t always agree, and Paley and N ew ton d o n ’t al­
ways see eye to eye, but we should reverence them for
their intellectuality and ability to question.
3. Only that which can be demonstrated to the
senses is true, but it is not absolutely true. It may vary,
and the senses many not always be reliable, but in the
main we can say there is a “high probability” that, etc.

Now, consider the Bible departm ent o f Bob Jones

University.
1. The Bible is verbally inspired o f God, but you
c a n ’t prove it because no one has ever seen a copy that
was verbally inspired. There are those who believe the
Textus Receptus is the closest, but “good, godly m e n ”
disagree, and it may be that the Alexandrian m anu­
scripts are more accurate.
2. The AV is “reliable” though it contains errors,
but the ASV and NASV are reliable too, although there
are “those who disagree.” It is true that Burgon and
Hort d o n ’t agree, and M iller and W estcott d o n ’t agree,
but we should reverence them because o f their good
intentions and sincere motives.
3. Only the original autographs are “verbally in ­
spired,” but since they co u ld n ’t be collected at any one
time into a Book, there is no verbally inspired Book.
However, it is all right to say that you believe the
Bible (a Book) is inspired in order to make people
think you have an absolute authority. The main thing is
that “not one major doctrine is affected in any transla­
tion”— although the RSV and NIB should not be used
even though their readings do not “affect any major
doctrine.”
 You graduate with no absolute authority in either
system.
You graduate with your opinions and the opinions
o f your professors as the final authority. If it gets too
hot, change your opinion. If your opinions get you in
trouble, accept someone e l s e ’s.
The chief purpose of all higher education (Chris­
tian or otherwise) is to get rid o f absolute authority.
Only in the Catholic Church is this dictum violated, and
there the church is the final authority. The Dark Ages
are the product o f accepting that authority as the abso­
lute and final authority.
A m ong the many “ shafts” which the faculty m em ­
bers slip the students at Bob Jones, Tennessee Temple,
Liberty University, PCC, BBC, and other Alexandrian
offshoots is the one that goes this way: “How can you
claim the A V is inerrant and infallible when there were
more than 10,000 changes (some say 30,000 changes)
betw een the text of 1611, as printed, and the ones you
now preach from your pulpit.”
Sounds nice d o esn ’t it? “Yea, hath God said?”
The motive behind bringing up this problem has
nothing to do with an inquiry for truth. The motive for
m entioning it has nothing to do with a desire to edify
or encourage belief. It is brought up with the intention
of deceiving the student into thinking that 30,000
changes in the AV text in subsequent editions is the
equivalent o f 31,000 changes in the ASV of 1901 and
the NASV o f 1971. N othing could be further from the
truth.
In 1852, the A m erican Bible Society announced
that “the English Bible, as left by the translators, has
come dow n to us unaltered in respect to its te x t” (p. 7,
Report, A m erican Bible Society Press, 115 Nassau St.
N.Y., 1852, adopted 1851).
The “changes” which the modern, apostate F un­
 dam entalist makes so much o f com e under the follow ­
ing categories:
1. Correction o f typographical errors: “the fast of
the beast” for “the fat of the beast” (Lev. 7:25); “Ye
shall not eat” for “ye shall eat” (Lev. 17:14); “and
awoke saying” for “and awoke him, saying” (Matt.
8:25); an accidental omission o f M atthew 16:11; and
an accidental om ission of part o f John 20:25. None of
these had to do with thirty-one deliberate subtractions
from the Greek text. The ASV and NASV make subtrac­
tions and do it deliberately.
2. Orthography: “asswaged” altered to “assuaged”
(Gen. 8 : 1, in some editions), “m orter” altered to “m or­
tar” (Gen. 11:3, in some editions), “strakes” altered to
“ streaks” (Gen. 30:37, in some editions), “sope” al­
tered to “ soap” (Jer. 2:22), “diddest” altered to “didst”
(Acts 7:28, in some editions), and “flotes” to “floats”
(2 Chron. 2:16), etc.
None o f these constitute any change in the H e­
brew, Greek, or English text; they are simply updated
spellings of the same word. Observe how the ASV and
NASV attack the Deity o f Christ (1 Tim. 3:16) and the
Virgin Birth (Luke 2:33), while their readers and pro­
moters are talking about the many “changes” in the AV
editions. Hypocrites should keep their dirty mouths shut.
3. T h e “ s” has b e e n d ro p p e d on w o rd s like
Cherubim s and Seraphims; the “a” has been substituted
for “an” (the indefinite article) in Genesis 25:25; Joel
3:3. Some low er case “h ’s” and “m ’s” and “ s ’s” have
been capitalized (Psa. 21:7; Rev. 4:5; Gen. 6:3; etc.).
Some brackets and parentheses have been added and
titles over the chapter headings (outside of the text)
have been changed.
W hen all o f these “changes” are added up, one
might say that 50,000 “changes” are found between the
text o f 1611 and that o f 1853. But to imply that this
means the ASV and NASV can make 31,000 changes
and still have “the Holy Bible” is to purposely deceive
the reader (Gen. 3:1). The “ch an ges” in the ASV and
NASV have nothing to do with changing semicolons to
colons, and writing “m e e te ” as “ m e et.” They have to
do with attacking the Ascension o f Christ (Luke 2 4 :5 1 -
52), the Omnipresence of Christ (John 3:13), the Virgin
Birth of Christ (Luke 2:33), the proofs for the R esur­
rection of Christ (Acts 1:3), the Blood A tonem ent of
Christ (Col. 1:14), the plan of Salvation (1 Pet. 2:1-4 ),
the Deity o f Christ (1 Tim. 3:16), the G od-given way of
studying the Scripture (2 Tim. 2:15), and the motives
and methods o f Bible perverters (Rom. 1:18, 25).
Any “change” listed above was deliberate and in­
tentional and had nothing to do with “clearer, better
m anuscripts,” “updating the archaic English,” or “help­
ing people find the W ord in the Bible.” The changes
given before (on the AV) constitute a genuine, God-led,
G od-directed “revision” which maintains an infallible
text without proven error.
You see, motive must be considered when dealing
with “revisions.”
A m a n ’s motive is apparent when he produces
corrupt fru it which comes from a corrupt tree. His
motive is to corrupt (2 Cor. 2:17), and this explains
why 2 Corinthians 2:17 has been changed by every
“reliable” translation recom m ended by apostate F u nd a­
mentalists. Corrupters who wish to corrupt must begin
by recom m ending corrupt “bibles.” The AV was incor­
ru ptible in 1611, and it is in c o rru p tib le now . An
incorrupt tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit.
 ARTICLE THIRTY-SIX
“Living a Life of Spiritual Sin”
All Cult m em bers “practise sin” (see their private
interpretations on 1 John 3:9 in regards to this extra-
canonical expression) throughout their lives. They con­
tinually question what G od said; they continually alter
what He said; they continually sit in judgm ent on what
He said; they continually shake the faith o f young men
in w hat He said; and they do not hesitate to let young
Christians know that they are quite com petent to throw
out anything from the Bible to which they object (see
the material in the last four articles).
With this habitual, lifelong practise o f spiritual sin
(1 John 5:17) com es a life-long habit o f alibiing the sin
by appealing to the “historic” positions o f other sinners
or the depraved conjectures o f other sinners or the
occasional transgressions o f other sinners. Studying the
faculty m em bers o f Tennessee Tem ple, Liberty U ni­
versity, Bob Jones, and H yles-A nderson is kind o f like
watching Ham or Shem get drunk because Noah did or
w atching Aaron lose his tem per because M oses did.
Misery loves company.
A m ong the many men to which apostate F und a­
mentalists appeal, in order to justify their own ungodly
devilment, are Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Philip Schaff,
John Broadus, Erasmus, Dr. A. T. Robertson, and John
Gill. O f these men, three were five-point Calvinists,
four were Amillennialists, and (as all sinners) all six o f
them had an old nature exactly like M oses, David, Bob
Jones Sr., Wesley, Peter, James, John, Billy Sunday,
D wight L. M oody, and Demas.
However, when dealing with matters o f Biblical
authority (see the last twenty articles in this series), the
modern, apostate Fundamentalist is always very careful
to circum navigate two important issues.
1. There is never any discussion o f S a ta n ’s p art
in Bible translating. There isn’t one book on the m ar­
ket by any “recognized scholar” in three centuries that
discusses S atan’s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age
Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582 via Fundamentalist schools
and scholars.
2. There is never any discussion o f the two na­
tures o f the believers when discussing critical exegesis,
higher criticism, low er criticism, constructive or de­
structive criticism. Although all Fundamentalists p r o ­
fess to believe that a Christian has two natures, som e­
how or another they overlook this when discussing au­
thority. It is almost as if they had decided that their
own crowd only had one nature (a “good, godly n a­
ture” ) w henever it was confronted with the authority of
the Bible.
For a m om ent I am going to suppose that I am the
head of the Bible D epartm ent (or the head o f the sem i­
nary) in one of the three largest schools in America,
and I desire to assert my authority over the Authorized
Version and convince the students and faculty that my
education and my training has equipped me to correct
the Book.
W hat would be the best way to proceed?
W hy obviously, it w ould be by finding someone
who was highly esteem ed in the eyes of the students
and faculty and prove that that person did occasionally
correct the G od-honored text; therefore . . . ! (The
more “g odly” the corrector, the better I would look in
the eyes of the students and faculty.) So I will proceed
with a “ soul-winning Baptist.”
A. Charles H addon Spurgeon preached from an
RV (W estcott and Hort, 1885) on the eighth o f Febru­
ary, 1891, and told his listeners that translations are
not inspired; therefore, the last appeal is to the “origi­
 nal.” He also added that the AV was “faulty” in many
places and could be corrected.
The Lord took him home the next year.
B. John Gill told some gullible soul that every
translation was to be exam ined, tried, judged, and cor­
rected by the Bible “in its original languages.” Gill
never found this Bible and never read it and never used
it, so he won no one to Christ in a lifetime and stuck by
absolute, double predestination, with Christ dying only
f o r elect Christians.
C. Philip Schaff (the head o f the ASV com mittee
o f 1901) tells us that the 20,000 variations in the A V
editions (see the docum ented evidence for this in the
last two issues) prevent it from being accurate, and that
E rasm u s’ Greek text was from “inferior m anuscripts,”
“defective” in places, “m ade in great haste,” and “full
of errors” (p. 230-231, A Companion to the Greek
N ew Testam en t a n d English Version, N ew Y ork,
H arp er’s, 1883).
Philip Schaff was a baby-sprinkling amillennialist
and a five-poin t Calvinist who never led one soul to
Christ in his entire lifetime and never even professed
to know what “soul winning” was.
D. John D. Broadus professed to have the “true
text” of the Bible (which to him was not the AV), and
he taught that the blasphem ous RV o f 1885 (the E n ­
glish Revised o f the Jesuit Rheims, 1582) was uni­
formly “ superior” to the AV and often “greatly supe­
rior” (Judson Press, Valley Forge, p. 11).
Broadus, in his vast and egotistical ignorance, told
his students they could avoid the spurious passages in
the King James Bible by deleting them with the ASV of
1901 (p. 21).
Broadus rejected the Judgm ent Seat o f Christ, the
pre-Tribulation Rapture, the Restoration o f Israel, the
M illennial Reign o f Christ, and the com ing o f the A nti­
christ. He was heart-and-soul a denom inational politi­
cian in the Southern Baptist Convention and sided with
every politician in the denom ination who sided with
John Rice (back in the 2 0 ’s and 3 0 ’s) and opposed J.
Frank Norris. (Rice graduated from Baylor and went to
the worse Liberal hellhole in America when he gradu­
ated—the University o f Chicago.)
E. B. H. Carroll states that the only text book that
is an absolute requisite at the Southw estern Baptist
Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas (where J.
Frank Norris was) is the English Bible, and the RV of
1885 and the ASV o f 1901 are to be “much preferred”
over the Bible that God used to save Broadus, Carroll,
Spurgeon, and Robertson (p. 5, Genesis, B. H. Carroll,
Baker Book House).
Carroll, as Schaff and Gill, was an amillennial
teacher who rejected the Tribulation, Millennium, Judg­
ment Seat o f Christ, etc.
F. E ra s m u s , as any e d ito r, e x a m in e d “ early
codices” (you are to presum e from this that Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus are “Bible manuscripts”— which they are
not) and distinguished betw een the Scripture, the trans­
lation o f Scriptures, and the transmission of both (how ­
ever, this was when dealing with Catholics who insisted
the Jesuit Rheims o f 1582 was the right text, for this
was Jerom e’s text, officially adopted by Rome).
Erasmus, with all of his holiness and sincerity, died
Roman Catholic.
Now, does the reader get the point? The point is
that no matter how good and “godly” and sincere and
dedicated any Christian is, he can err when he sits in
judgm ent on the words o f God. W e really have no
quarrel with the personal lives o f any men in the list,
nor do we care greatly about their theological beliefs;
we only mention them to show the reader that many of
the people appealed to as alibis f o r sinning (altering
G o d ’s words) are not in the least to be associated with
any preacher or school in A m erica who talks about
“soul winning.”
The point is that the alibis to sin are the remarks
made by other sinners in m om ents of weakness when
they were either trying to im press someone with their
objectivity and sincerity or were trying to gain ad m is­
sion into the S ch olar’s Union by dem onstrating their
acquaintance with destructive criticism and skepticism.
We are not im pressed by such dem onstrations. They
have their root and source in the flesh. They have
nothing to do with the “new creature” in Christ, the
new nature, or the Holy Spirit who gave birth to it.
They are the m anifestations o f the carnal nature o f the
“old man” who wishes to receive “the praise o f m en”
(John 12:43).
“Be sure your sin will find you out.”
 ARTICLE THIRTY-SEVEN
“Fundamental Humanists”
As Afman, Porter, M artin (Tennessee Temple),
Custer, Neal, Panosian (Bob Jones University), Sewell,
Sherman, and Terrey (BBC in Springfield, Missouri)
continue to attack the King James Bible in their classes,
Falwell continues to pay a five-point Calvinist to cor­
rect the w ord o f God.
These “key m en” who lay the groundw ork for the
apostasy in the next generation (Machen, Warfield, Rob­
ertson, Wuest, and others laid the foundations for the
apostasy in their generation) are in “apostolic succes­
sion” with a long line of “key m e n ” w hose jo b in each
generation is to destroy the b e lie v e r ’s faith in the a b ­
solute authority o f the Holy Bible. W e have traced this
line o f apostate F undam entalists and Conservatives
(sometimes called “Evangelicals” ) from Genesis 3:1 to
Bill G othard and Oral Roberts, and we are now well
acquainted with their methods, motives, plans, friends,
associates, associations, alibis for sin, and their affinity
for destructive criticism.
Having substituted the fallible (and oftentimes fool­
ish) opinions of men for the living words o f the living
God, these men encourage (without being fully aware
of it) the prom otion o f the com ing “one world religion”
o f the Antichrist. Theologically, it is called “H u m an­
ism” and simply means the substitution of man for
God. As an ancient demoniac once said, “Man is the
measure of all things.” By such a standard, a m a n ’s
preference or his “opinion” would be the final author­
ity in deciding on any matter.
Now, it is not apparent to a casual observer that
H um anism and Fundam entalism have any affinity for
 each other. They certainly do not as far as their profes­
sion o f faith is concerned, and they certainly do not
have any com m on bond in the preaching and teaching
o f their leaders. However, when that ghastly subject of
Biblical authority is brought up— and we bring it up
here in every issue— suddenly we find the brave, bold,
“defenders o f the faith” in “bastions of orthodoxy,”
along with “ soul-winning evangelists” and “godly Bibli-
cists,” taking sides with N orm an V incent Peale, Harry
Em erson Fosdick, Eugene Carson Blake, Karl Marx,
Bishop Pike, Martin Luther King Jr. (who said he w asn’t
slightly interested in the furnishings o f H eaven or the
tem perature o f Hell), and the N ational E d ucator’s A s ­
sociation (sensitivity training, group therapy, sex edu ­
cation, etc.).
These Fundam entalists may differ in their attitude
towards morals, separation, and prophecy; but when it
comes to fin al and absolute authority, they are as rela-
tivistic as Hugh Hefner, Joe Fletcher, or A lbert E in ­
stein.
All authority is relative to man, according to every
unsaved H um anist alive on this earth; so is all “truth,”
and so are all relative “truths.”
W hen a Humanist backs o ff from saying a thing is
so (that it is the truth), he can always say that it is
“valuable” or “reliable.” That is, it does not have to be
so to be useful or reliable, at least not completely so or
absolutely so. M odern, apostate Fundam entalists sim ­
ply say, “W e use nothing but the King James Bible” or
“I m yself use the King James Bible for preaching and
m em orization” or “It is not infallible but it is reliable” ;
therefore, it has “value.”
Here at the Pensacola Bible Institute, no one “uses”
the King James Bible. W e use tw enty-six different E n ­
glish translations and at least seven G reek texts; I also
“use” D eR ein a’s Spanish Version, O livetan’s French
Version, Luther’s German Version, and several old Latin
texts from Beza. No one here “uses” only the King
James Version. We have one Bible— it is a Holy Bible.
It is called the Authorized Version. W e use a num ber of
translations and texts. We understand that the word of
God (Heb. 4:12) is to use us because it is eternal and
we are temporal (1 Pet. 1:25); it is infallible and we are
fallible (Matt. 24:35); and it is pure and incorruptible
(Psa. 12:6), while we are neither.
The day we “u s e ” God, or “u s e ” G o d ’s word, will
he the day to close shop.
We can preach G o d ’s word and teach G o d ’s word
and publish G o d ’s word, but “using” it is a little too
com m ercial for us, as neither Peter nor Paul, James nor
John, M atthew nor M ark ever thought of such a thing
anyw here in the New Testament.
The Bible speaks o f using milk (1 Peter 2:2), but
that was to feed yourself with (Heb. 5:13); and the
Bible speaks of using the law (1 Tim. 1:8), but that was
for going to Hell (1 Tim. 1:9). That a real Christian
should speak o f “using the Bible” for building a school
or a church is the height o f irreverent com mercialism .
No Christian talks that way. You only “use” the Bible
when you pull it out as a sword (Eph. 6:17) and “use”
it as an instrum ent in the hands o f the Holy Spirit (Eph.
6:17) f o r His purposes.
The thing that turned the m odern Fundamentalists
into Humanists was the television set. Hundreds of these
lukewarm apostates have spent hours sitting in front of
it soaking up the H um anistic slop that pours forth from
it tw enty-four hours a day. They have been infected
without realizing it, and the Devil has done his work in
their hearts without them being aware o f the process.
They have heard and seen man m agnified to the point
where many of them actually believe in the publicity
they put out about themselves and their work, and many
o f them actually believe the King James Bible is out of
date because thirty years o f TV w ould lead anyone to
 think that. The cham pions for the King James on n a­
tionwide television not only use other translations and
recom m end them (privately) but pay scores o f faculty
members and teachers who no more believe the AV is
the word of God than they do the ASV or the NASV.
H um anism on the faculty o f Fundam ental schools
(which eventually turns them into schools such as H ar­
vard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, etc.) is spotted by three
simple manifestations:
1. W hen dealing with the text of the King James
Bible, an appeal is always made to what some man
thought should be done to the text or to what some
man thought was wrong with the text.
2. W hen dealing with docum ented evidence for
the King James Bible and against such atrocious co r­
ruptions as the “Septuagint” and the NASV, the per­
sonal lives o f men are referred to, the opinions o f men
are referred to, and the reputations o f men are referred
to. The documented evidence is never discussed.
3. M an ’s dealings with men (soul winning, atten­
dance, enrollment, counseling, etc.) is considered to be
more important than m a n ’s dealing with G od or G o d ’s
dealing with man (see the second com m andm ent substi­
tuted for the first). Karl M arx began with Acts 4:32 and
M atthew 22:39. W hat men have said about the A u th o­
rized Text is considered to be or more im portance than
what that text says.
“Man is the measure o f all things.”
W hen these truths are brought to the attention of
the modern, apostate Fundamentalist, his cover-up is
that no Book should be exalted to the place where it is
more valuable than men or man. In the eyes o f the
H umanist this would be idolatry, a form o f sacrilege;
and so say all Com m unists, Socialists, Atheists, and
Anarchists. Bible believers are always referred to as
“Bibliolaters” by those who worship man or men. This
overlooks some important things.
1. The Book has survived one hundred genera­
tions o f men.
2. The Book was there before your great-grandfa­
ther was born and will be here after your great-grand­
children are dead.
3. Where nations have gotten rid o f the Book
they have gone into bankruptcy, Socialism, C atholi­
cism, Communism, and paganism.
4. W here nations have kept the Book, they have
prospered not only spiritually but materially and eco­
nomically.
5. W here the Book cannot be distributed or read
(Russia, Cuba, Iran, China, Romania, Bulgaria, C olum ­
bia, Poland, and V ietnam all prohibit Bible distribution
in public by anyone),* neither you nor your church, nor
your school nor your family, would be safe from im ­
prisonm ent or torture ten days a year.
To lower the Book, therefore, to the level o f you
and your silly friends would be the epitome o f folly.
To destroy any one’s faith in that Book would be as
foolish as poisoning clear spring water. To criticize and
find fault with that Book, in view o f your own sins and
failures, would be quite sim ilar to a four-year-old
Negrito telling an astronaut that his suit was made out
of the wrong kind of material. “Children should be
seen, not heard.”
Humanism is idolatry. It is replacing God with
man. Where it appears at Bob Jones, Tennessee Temple,
Liberty University, and Hyles-A nderson, it will appear
first as replacing G o d ’s words with m a n ’s words (Gen.
3:1). All H umanists agree that man is able to correct
A NY Bible if he is “qualified.” “Q ualifications” vary
from one Atheist to another, from one C om m unist to
another and from one Fundam entalist to another. You
erect your own set of standards (since “man is the
* T h is w a s w ritte n in 1982.
 measure of all things”), and then you decide who “quali­
fies” and who d o e s n ’t by the standards you erected.
We maintain that the Book is the measure o f all
things.
If you disagree with it, you are in error.
The Book is able to judg e you (Heb. 4:12), and it
will (John 12:48).
The dea d are ju d g e d out o f books (Rev. 20:12).
None o f them were written by twentieth-century
“Fundamentalists. “
W e maintain that what is in line with what the
Book says (not what it “teaches”— you can make it
teach anything) is right, and what is not in line with the
Book is wrong. W e profess no sinless perfection. We
have gone contrary to the B ook many times, as have all
Christians (Rom. 3:4, 10, 23). W e have an old nature
ju st like any other sinner (Rom. 6:15). However, God
being our helper, we will never justify sin or alter the
Book to condone our sins as long as we breathe on this
earth. Altering the Book to match your opinions is no
different than a homosexual carrying a sign saying “God
lo v e s G ay s t o o . ” T h e p a r tia l truth in s u c h an
anti-biblical motto is apparent to anyone who knows
the Book.
God may use apostate Fundamentalists. That means
nothing except that the grainary is nearly empty. The
Lord has gotten to the bottom o f the barrel (Rev. 3:17).
Partial truth is no alibi f o r sin.
Long live the Book! (Rom. 9:7). All pow er to the
Book (Gal. 3:8).
And may it use its critics in any fashion it (Heb.
1:12-13) sees fit. “Let God be true, but every man a
liar” (Rom. 3:4).
 ARTICLE THIRTY-EIGHT
“An Overview of ‘Ruckmanism’”
Since the publication of Problem Texts (1980)*
we have had no need to deal further with the m achina­
tions o f the Alexandrian Cult in regards to “apparent
contradictions” or “errors” in the King James Bible.
These have been answered, and as the Cult goes about
thinking up new ones— after all, that is their lifelong
ministry— we will answer those, without reference to
any Greek or Hebrew text to prove anything. Where
the G reek or Hebrew texts (there are several dozen of
each) corroborate and amplify the correct reading (AV,
1611), we may refer to them, but the “proof is in the
pudding,” and the pudding is the English Bible we
teach, read, preach, and believe.
In these last three articles on the Cult we will
bring the reader abreast of its operations in the tw enti­
eth century. This will deal with practical matters, as
we have already docum ented the Scriptural matters that
deal with Biblical authority to the place of boredom in
the eyes o f those who have taken time out to study the
material in the last fifteen issues o f the Bulletin.
The following are sample cases from the twentieth
century. Since it is never our purpose to engage in
m udslinging activities, we are purposely omitting some
details regarding individuals. Some o f them were al­
ready docum ented in our w ork on Problem T ex ts* To
give the Bible believer an “overall view ” o f the ravages
o f Christian education on the higher level, we present
the following “timely” illustrations.
1. Trum an Dollar, in Kansas City, wrote to us and
told us that we were doing more dam age to the cause
 o f Fundam entalism (he called it “the cause o f Christ” )
than any other preacher in the country. It turned out he
had been hired to revise the King James Bible. I in ­
vited him to com e to Pensacola, and I would have
given him my pulpit for Sunday morning to preach
anything he wanted to preach: specially why he b e ­
lieved I was the “ most dangerous man in A m erica,”
etc. D ollar declined the invitation, though we offered
to p a y his way and get him a motel.
2. A fo r m e r s tu d e n t o f ou rs, a certain Jo h n
M cG raw, paid for an ad in the Pensacola News Journal
( a lth o u g h he liv e d in C a lifo r n ia !) w h ich w a rn e d
Pensacolians of the “dangers o f R uckm anism .” John
M cG raw was asked by the trustees and deacons o f the
church to leave (1968) because of continuous destructive
criticism and gossip about m em bers o f the church. I
refused to ordain him because, although he thought he
knew the Bible, he was a novice and emotionally im m a­
ture. He wound up in the state insane asylum in Cin­
cinnati after informing a dozen people by letter that he
was called o f God to fight “R uckm anism .”
His tract was published on the church ad page of
the Pensacola News Journal below (and in the same
column with) an ad by the Campus Church (Arlin H or­
ton)— which advertised itself in the phone book as an
independent B aptist church. L ow ery and Yoho, at
Pensacola Christian College, recom m end the ASV and
NASV and teach every student they have that there are
errors in the A V *
3. A writer, up north, wrote a paper to prove that
“Peter R uckm an” was against (“versus”) the AV b e­
cause he d id n ’t agree with the translators on their atti­
tude toward the Septuagint and because o f two m a r­
ginal notes in the AV. The credulous dopes who read
this paper (and believed it) never stopped to consider
that our position deals with the text o f the A V. We have
never been “versus” or against one word of the AV text.
This writer just dealt with the Preface, instead o f the
text.
4. A fter twenty years o f blabbing about the neces­
sity for not getting hung up on non-essentials and not
riding “hobby horses,” some graduates o f Bob Jones
and Tennessee Tem ple were suddenly confronted with
a problem.
Tw o o f our graduates went out on deputation to
drum up support for the mission field, and they ran into
graduates o f these institutes.
At this juncture a strange thing happened. Both of
our young men were clean-living, separated, soul-w in­
ning, Bible-believing witnesses. N either o f them were
“trouble m akers,” neither o f them used coarse or crude
speech, and both of them were diplomatic and tactful in
their presentations. Do you know what happened?
In both cases (and it happened more than twice for
both young men), they were surrounded with graduates
from these schools (and one or two other schools) and
held at bay thirty minutes to two hours on nothing.
1. There w asn’t any discussion o f soul-winning—
the big “issue” !
2. There w asn’t one discussion on planting local
churches.
3. There w asn ’t one m ention o f the Fundamentals
o f the Faith.
4. No one even inquired as to the Deity o f Christ
or the Virgin Birth.
5. The entire time was taken up in a bull session
about marriage and divorce. (Neither o f the young
men were divorced, nor were their wives.) For thirty
minutes to two hours, these “giants o f the faith” from
“bastions o f orthodoxy” spent their time trying to prove
that 1 Tim othy 3 :1 -2 should have read as it read in an
edition by the RSV, published by the National Council
o f Christian Churches!
 6. After shooting off their mouths about soul-w in­
ning being the main issue (Bob Jones III, Afman, Hyles,
et al.), instead o f believing the AV was the word o f
God, Bob Jones Jr. suddenly decided the m ost danger­
ous man in A m erica was a premillennial, soul-winning,
Fundamentalist Baptist p a sto r o f a local church— Jer­
ry Falwell— and said so. Having justly earned what Max
Rafferty used to call “the Jackass A w ard o f the Y ear,”
Bob Jones Jr. did not repent o f a word o f it. The “most
dangerous man in A m erica,” according to Jones Jr., is a
man who took a stronger stand on the fundamentals
than Bob Jones University did (three fundamentals o f
the Baptists are omitted from the creed recited at Bob
Jones), led more people to Christ than Jones had, and
took a stronger stand for the AV than Jones did! W hat
curious people “Fundam entalists” are.
Simultaneous with his nomination as “the most
dangerous man in A merica,” Falwell blandly announced
that his College would soon outnum ber the enrollment
at Bob Jones by about two to one.
You can see why he is a real “threat” !
7. A fter calling Mrs. Ford a “slut,” one of the
Jones Boys (BJU) suddenly decided that it would be all
right for one of his faculty members (Stewart Custer)
to write a book condem ning the unChristian speech
and vulgar talk o f “B rother R u ck m an .” [It alm ost
matched John R. Rice saying he thanked God for Johnny
Cash and Oral Roberts, but had an obligation to warn
all Christians about “Peter R uckm an ” since he was a
deadly heretic!]
A long standing friend o f m ine had an expression
for some Fundam entalists which I have found to be
very appropriate at times. He said, “The trouble with
some o f them is they have lace on their britches.”
8. I had a fine meeting up in north Alabam a with a
graduate o f Tennessee Tem ple w ho loved the Lord and
believed the Book. During the m eeting I noticed a sour-
faced lemon on the front row with his wife (whose face
looked like a dried-up persim mon). Through every ser­
vice they sat unflinching and unblinking— through gales
o f laughter, tears, choruses of amens, and solemn m o­
ments o f conviction. I asked the pastor who they were.
They were the couple that ran his A C E school. I was
then told that they objected to the meeting, and not
only had “toughed it out” to keep from losing their
jobs, but they had also spent weeks before the meeting
encouraging the members not to attend.
I inquired what the ghastly problem could be. The
problem was they had been trained by Porter, Price,
and Afman at Tennessee Temple, and those “good godly
gentlem en” had evidently taken a great deal of time in
their classes to split a local church if it invited “R u ck ­
m an” in to preach the Bible. The pastor was having to
pay a Christian educator to split his church because the
educator was hanging on the strings o f his puppeteer
back at his college. M ost church splits these days begin
like that.
9. I have been preaching over the radio here in my
hom etow n for over twenty years. First, we were on
W PFA , then W M EL, and now we are on W M EZ.*
W H Y M has been trying to sell us time, but since it is a
rock-and-roll Charismatic station, we d o n ’t fool with
it. In those twenty years I have asked our audience one
thing about once every month. I have asked them to
show me anything in any version o f the Bible (that is
true) that I couldn’t find in a King James Bible in
twenty seconds. No one has ever written or phoned.
The remarkable thing about this is that since I
came to Pensacola, two Christian colleges, seven Chris­
tian day schools, and a secular college have suddenly
appeared, along with a jun ior college and a seminary
and thirty independent Baptist churches.
How do you suppose it is that nearly every outfit
* S e e B ulletin fo r c u rre n t ra d io an d T V sc h e d u le s.
 nam ed above denies any absolute written authority, and
every outfit named above recom m ends conflicting au­
thorities, and every outfit above talks about “C L E A R ­
E R ” translations, and yet not one man, woman, or child
connected with any outfit nam ed above could do the
simplest thing asked of them by a Bible believer: ju st
find something in their Bible that you co u ld n ’t find in
an A V because the A V is “archaic.”
Simple, isn ’t it?
You would think that twenty years w ould produce
one item, w ou ld n ’t you?
Here is a town with 20,000 Christians, Scriptural
billboards all over town, one BJU graduate running an
interdenominational bunch of Charismatics, and another
BJU graduate running an interdenom inational school
for sissies, 4,000 college level students (with faculty
mem bers) in two secular schools, thirty-five Southern
Baptist churches recom m ending five to ten translations,
thirty independent Baptist churches “using” the King
James, with about fiv e o f them believing it, and not one
man, woman, or child, in twenty years, could find one
that was so, out o f a “clearer” or “new er” translation,
that could not be found in a Book written 370 years
ago!
Remarkable, isn ’t it?
 ARTICLE THIRTY-NINE
“A Typical Alexandrian Apostate”
In this article we shall take up a review of a typical
Cult production. W hen we say “typical,” we mean that
it voices the sentiments o f the leading faculty members
at Pensacola Christian College, Bob Jones University,
Hyles-Anderson, and Tennessee Temple University. The
article to be reviewed was written by Brad Allman and
is called “The KJV — Can it be Totally T rusted?”
The purpose of A llm an’s article is to destroy the
faith of the reader in the AV text; this is sheepishly
worded as “to respond to claims made by those who
hold the erroneous view of the KJV as the only accu­
rate and trustworthy version of the Holy Scriptures. ”
Naturally, the article has nothing to do with anyone
here in Pensacola. We teach many translations are “ac­
curate” in many respects, and many are “trustw orthy”
in many respects. W e use twenty-eight translations here
at the Institute and six different Greek texts. However,
we believe the AV is “without error,” and that errors
can be found in the ASV, NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV,
NEB, etc.
A German missionary has a “trustworthy transla­
tion” in L uther’s translation o f the Receptus. An Italian
missionary has a “trustworthy translation” in D io dati’s
translation o f the Receptus. A French missionary has a
“trustworthy translation” in O livetan’s translation of
the Receptus, etc.
The ASV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, and NEB are
not in the least “trustw orthy,” as they come from the
wrong text, in the wrong location, done by critics with
the wrong motive for selling books. (See how this m o ­
tive has been covered up in the “N e w ” King James
 Bible in 2 Cor. 2:17, exactly as the translators o f the
ASV, NASV, RSV, and NRSV tried to cover their tracks.)
Allman begins by listing “archaic w ords” which
can easily be updated in the margin o f any King James
Bible and often are. The list Allman gives is a standard
list o f twenty words which would take up less than one
pag e o f marginal notes. A llm an ’s alibi for listing these
words is that he and a man nam ed Edw in Palm er think
that the word o f God is covered by an “indelible impen­
etrable crust” in the A V version.
Sunday, Torrey, M oody, Finney, Spurgeon, L ar­
kin, Paton, Carey, Goforth, et al., evidently never found
that much trouble with it. N either have I nor Bruce
C um m ins nor Lester R oloff nor John Rawlings nor
Harold H enniger nor Jack Hyles. W e had no trouble
“ penetrating the crust” and feeding our souls and the
souls of 400,000 people from the “fo ssilized text” (cit­
ing Edwin Palmer).
The first thing Allman does is correct Genesis 1:28
with the Hebrew and thereby loses the record o f Job 1,
38; Psalm 82; 2 Peter 3; and 2 Corinthians 4:4. This
lands A llm an flat on his back with Henry Morris, where
both men mistake the w ater o f 2 Peter 3 with N o a h ’s
flood. A worse mistake could not be made in the fir s t
two verses o f the Bible.
To Allman, the use o f the masculine possessive
“his” for “its” (Exod. 40:11) is an “extrem ely poor and
incorrect rendering.” The silly boy evidently co u ld n ’t
find the sun as “his” in M alachi 4 or the sun as “his” in
Psalm 19. Both references are to Jesus Christ, w ho is
called “it” in Genesis 3 in any Hebrew text. Allman
pretends M alachi 4:2 is not a reference to Jesus Christ.
In his search for problem texts, A llm an takes the
position o f an unsaved infidel in 2 Chronicles 15:1-8
(although Allman, as Afman, Yoho, Lowery, and Price,
is an apostate Fundamentalist) and decides that “the
prophecy o f Oded” co u ld n ’t have com e from Oded
because it came from Azariah, “the son of O ded.” [This
is so typical o f the Mickey M ouse type of “scholarship”
we have in A m erica today that we have included about
twenty cases of these Disneyland-logic type of things in
our book on Problem Texts (1980).]*
Imagine a man in a court o f law— apostates oper­
ate outside the laws of jurisprudence— claiming that 2
Chronicles 15:1-8 was a contradiction, when the text
stated two prophecies— one from Azariah and one from
Oded (v. 8). Imagine a man so deficient in remedial
reading that he worries about “a fossilized crust” on
the AV, and he can ’t even read the plain English that
doesn’t need updating! Look at it, “ A n d w h en A sa
h e a r d th ese w o rd s, a n d th e p r o p h e c y o f O d e d .”
Now, imagine a man who thinks he is smart enough
to correct God taking a corrector o f the AV seriously
who c a n ’t read the conjunction “ a n d ” in his own lan­
g u a g e! Is n ’t that the limit?
A llm an also seems to think that if you give an
idiomatic translation in your own language that it is bad
because it should have been word-for-w ord in a literal
translation. Since this ancient chestnut is thoroughly
answered in the appendices of Problem Texts (1980),*
w hat is the point in discussing it? No translation of any
Greek text w ould be a go od translation if it were “ word
for w ord.” If it were word for word, it would be ex ­
actly what Allman claimed for the AV. It would be
“extremely poor, archaic, and incomprehensible:' We
have given a list of ten samples in the work Problem
Texts. *
Allman is worried about the “ article” in M atthew
7:24 and 25 and claims that we w o u ld n ’t find out that
Christ was the Rock without putting in the article. Since
the rock in M atthew 7 is not Christ, but is a reference
to His teachings (see M att. 7:24) and doing His
teachings, works, A llm an broke his Scriptural neck on
 the passage, and d id n ’t have to do it, for Christ is
called the “ R o c k ” in 1 Corinthians 10. N ot know ing
the Biblical difference between Old Testament discourses
given to Jews under the Law (Matt. 7) and Christians in
the Body (1 Cor. 10), A llm an did the only thing that a
Cult m em ber could do: he denied the word, changed
the word, bragged about the change, and then lost him ­
self in fa lse doctrine. The “ r o c k ” in M atthew 7:24 is
doing what Christ taught.
(O ften , c o rre c tin g the AV w ith H e b re w and
G reek— see both samples ju s t cited[Gen. 1 and Matt.
71— produces heresy. It is a very com m on thing today
am ong faculty members o f Christian schools who view
the Bible believer as a “heretic.”)
A llm an thinks that M a ry ’s cover-up for C hrist’s
family life (Luke 2:48) is the same as a professional
physician writing a history by the Holy Spirit (Luke
2:33), so he justifies the RSV reading o f the ASV and
NASV on that verse.
The rest o f A llm an ’s allegations are answ ered in
our work Problem Texts. *
He concludes his paper by calling the Holy Bible
“an archaic loaf o f bread.” Little cuties like “ c ro w n s ”
should have been “diadem ” (Rev. 19:12) are to make
you think that “d iadem ” is easier to understand— not
“archaic,” rem em ber?— like “ c r o w n s .” “ A d m ir a t io n ”
should have been “am azem ent” (Rev. 17:6); “ fe tc h e d a
c o m p a s s ” should have been “circle,” etc., only show
the am azing capacity that m odern apostates have for
lack of common sense and scholarship. A llm an's troubles
may be summed up as:
1. An inability to read marginal notes.
2. An inability to understand one syllable words
used in the twentieth century.
3. An inability to read a Greek lexicon (the word
“k ai” can mean “e ven” or “and” or a num ber o f other
things: See 2 Pet. 1:1 and Titus 2:13, etc.).
4. An am azing ignorance of religious history (see
comments on “Easter,” Acts 12, in our Com m entary
or in Problem Texts).*
5. An inability to discern right and wrong in moral
issues. (The main objectors to the AV when it cam e out
were not Bible-believing Baptists; the objectors to the
ASV and NASV are.)
And so it goes. Allman bases his cockeyed posi­
tion on the opinions o f Robert Sum ner (p. 12), N ew ­
man and M acRae (p. 12), D. A. Carson (p. 12), F. F.
Bruce (p. 13), Ralph Earle (p. 11), H. Dennett (p. 11),
and other m embers o f the Alexandrian Cult. There isn't
a Bible believer in the entire list. Birds o f a feather
flock together.
 ARTICLE FOURTY
“A Typical Case History”
W e have discussed at length in the Bulletin the
gyrations o f the A lexandrian Cult. Through the months
and years we have reproduced for the reader much of
the correspondence of the Cult, although not all o f it.
Any reader with any degree of intelligence may
well be asking himself, “In view of the documented
evidence, running into volumes (Pickering, Fuller, Hills,
Waite, Burgon, W ilkerson, Clarke, Cimino, C um m ons,
Miller, Phillpot, et al.), why is it that not one m em ber
o f the A lexandrian Cult has ever repented, cleaned up
his life, and returned to his faith in the Book by which
he was saved?” Afman, Price, and Roberson were all
saved through the teaching and preaching o f the King
James Bible (Tennessee Tem ple); Custer, Neal, and
W isdom were all saved through the preaching and teach­
ing of the King James Bible (Bob Jones University);
and the same may be said for the faculty members at
Pensacola Christian College and Hyles-Anderson.
“The mystery of iniquity” is that no matter how
much evidence is produced by anyone using any ap ­
proach (subtle, blunt, Christian, unChristian, smooth,
slick, crude, shallow, direct, etc.), the faculty members
go right on turning out Bible-rejecting apostates who
think that separation is dedication, discipline is spiritu­
ality, and smooth slick nonsense is intelligence. No
Bible believer should be naive enough to suppose that
any am ount of evidence presented will ever stop these
apostates from correcting the Holy Bible frequently,
continually, and thoroughly. Their egos are their stan­
dard o f final authority.
O ne might further ask himself, “If Ruckm an is the
vicious, negative critic that he is painted to be, how is
it that he has not found something wrong with a Book
after reading it through ninety-nine tim es?” * Surely if
“R uckm an” is a vicious critic, he certainly would have
enough discernm ent to pick up an error in a text after
reading it in German, Spanish, Hebrew, Greek, and
English, and checking it with thirty Commentaries, three
Lexicons, fo u r Grammars, twenty Greek texts, and 300
scholars. But no, the vicious critics turn out to be the
people who talk about others using “unChristian lan­
guage.” They quietly proceed to correct the Lord in
31,000 places (assuming the Holy Bible is G o d ’s Book
which He w rote and preserved) on the grounds that
they are capable critics.
N ow, up until here we have only dealt with docu­
m ented facts that can be proved in black and white. We
have learned that belly worship is the motivating force
behind m odern F undam entalism where it corrects the
AV and that, having made an idol out o f Christian
education, these apostates assume that anything above
education is a “god.” Since we place the AV well above
any educator or any school or any institution or any
scholar from any institution, we have earned for our­
selves the title of “B ibliolater” in the eyes of the belly
worshippers. Fair enough. Any time we c a n ’t dish out
more than we have to take will be a cold day in July.
But there is something even deeper than belly w or­
ship involved here and something ever deeper than G en­
esis 3:1. W hat we will point out is how and why the
m odern, apostate Fundam entalist fell for the “original
G reek” line and the “verbally inspired autographs” line
and all the other cute little doo-hickeys that m ark the
Cult mentality. To do this, we will outline the course
for a young man who has ju s t been saved and called to
preach, and we will m ark how Satan guides and directs
him to “higher education” so that he can “qualify” as a
* O v e r 140 tim e s b y 1995.
“recognized authority” (in the language o f Gen. 3, “be
as gods, knowing” ).
1. The young man is led to Christ by a preacher or
personal w orker (or relative) who “uses” the AV and
“uses” it when he leads him to Christ.
2. The soul winner may or may not believe the A V
is the word o f God when he “ uses” it. However, this
makes no difference in the results. The young man
believes it is the word o f God (1 Thess. 2:13) and gets
saved. (These first two steps will account for 90 per­
cent o f all the conversions that took place in A m erica
in the last 300 years.)
3. The young man begins to read the AV and b e­
gins to grow in grace, and the Holy Spirit begins to
deal with him about the ministry. He is led to believe,
by all his counsellors, friends, relatives, and associates,
that a minister must be educated to preach. (The fact
that David, Peter, Amos, James, John, A ndrew, and
Elijah were uneducated never occurs to him.)
4. He im mediately seeks out a B ible-believing
school where he can learn the Bible so that he can
preach the Bible, for this is what he feels called to
preach.
5. Straightway, he is presented with a page in the
Sword o f the Lord (or an ad in M oody Monthly or a
page in The Christian Herald or an ad in Pulpit Helps,
etc.) where he may choose from a dozen “Bible-believ-
ing” institutions which teach the Bible, so he can preach
the Bible. In his haste, he fails to notice that most of
them advertise “high educational standards” or “high
ethical sta n d a rd s ” or “ B ib le-b ased c u rric u lu m ” or
“B ible-centered curriculum ” and say nothing about b e ­
lieving anything. If “beliefs” are listed, the ad carefully
avoids saying that anyone there believes the AV is the
Scriptures. They may “u se” it or “p refer” it or want to
be “identified with it,” but b e lie f is out of the question.
6. As the young man doubts what to do, he is
presented with a series o f fleshy motives for attending.
Like pretty girls? Look at the trio! Like well-dressed
boys? Look at the brass quartet! Sports minded? Look
at the new “fie ld hou se”! Hung up on culture? See the
pretty m useum and hear the opera singers! Interested
in building a big work? See all the money?
The Bible d o esn ’t enter as a factor one time.
7. The young man picks his school on the basis
that it is “recom mended by good, godly m en.” It is
supposed to guarantee that he can build a large work or
becom e a “soul w inner” (no such thing is possible, but
it is taken for granted); it has a reputation for being a
“bastion o f orthodoxy” or “true to the F undam entals,”
etc.
The Bible d o esn ’t enter as a factor one time.
S om ew here along the line our young preacher has
been sidetracked. He d o esn ’t know it, but Satan has
already finished his ministry as a Bible-preaching min­
istry by a Bible believer. He is now in the education
circuit and will major in culture. If he gets any Bible it
will be the Scofield notes from 1909 or the Larkin
notes from 1929. If he graduates believing the Book, it
will be in spite o f the faculty members, not because of
them.
8. He graduates. He gets a church or a teaching
position. N ow is his golden opportunity to “fulfill the
will of G od,” etc. and “build a great w ork,” etc. P rob­
lem: How does he preach and teach the Bible? No one
he studied under ever saw or read the Bible. They only
had w hat they called “reliable and unreliable transla­
tions,” and all o f them had errors and archaic words;
none o f them were perfect. All that was “perfect” was
the teaching of the translations or the message o f the
translations or the fundamentals found in the transla­
tions. Since all three of these (teachings, message, and
fundamentals) are found in the worst translations on
the m arket (ASV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, Living Bible,
NEB, and NIV), what is there left to preach but teach­
ings, messages, and fundamentals?
The Bible d o esn ’t enter the equation one time.
9. Here is our young preacher in the pulpit. In
fo u r months he runs out o f material. All the F u n d a­
mentals can be listed on a playing card. The main “teach­
ings” o f the Bible can be listed on fo u r sheets o f paper,
and the “m essage” o f the Bible can be found in one
verse (John 3:16). Problem: how do I preach the Bible?
Answer: you d o n ’t. You have no Bible to preach.
Then how can he keep his congregation (or class)
interested? Quick!
He m ust dig up something they h a v e n ’t heard!
(Satan has accom plished his work through good,
“godly,” dedicated Fundam entalists and has pulled it
off without a hitch, so that being exposed to nothing
but soul-winning, premillennial Fundamentalists, our
young man is [to all Biblical purposes] out of the m inis­
try, permanently. This is the story o f 5,000 pupils in the
U nited States, England, and Canada. The men behind
this m onstrous apostasy would call a Bible believer a
“R uckm anite.” They are self-deluded hypocrites.)
10. N ow here com es the message, “A better trans­
lation should be . . .” “The word here is archaic and is
updated in the N ew Rinso . . .” “There is only one
Devil but many dem ons . . .” “People in the Old T esta­
ment were saved by looking forward to the cross . . .”
“Everyone who was ever saved was saved by grace
through faith . . .” “It is a sin to wear slacks . . .” “The
N eed le’s Eye was a gate in Jerusalem . . .” “W estcott
and Hort were conservatives . . .” “The oldest m anu­
scripts are naturally the best . . .” “D o n ’t stir up divi­
sion over translations . . . ” “D o n ’t ride hobbyhorses . . .”
“The word in the original actually meant
The Bible d o e s n ’t figu re anywhere in the p rea ch ­
ing.
The man is not preaching the Bible.
 He is preaching the traditions taught him in the
“Christian” college.
Why?
Simple: he has nothing else to preach. He never
learned the Bible because no one at the college had
one.
He has to fill the air with something twice on
Sunday and once on W ednesday, so he talks about
“ soul w inning” and the “F undam entals.” D o n ’t preach
or teach a Book you don't have. If you never had it,
how do you even know what it says?
The apostates (1 70 0-1 99 0) have done their work
in the name of Christian education. They have p ro ­
duced a self-righteous Pharisee who has nothing to
preach and nothing to teach. He must fill the space with
something, and if he has to arouse interest after his
people have heard the Fundam entals 4,000 times (all
Catholics believed in the “Fundam entals” from A.D.
325 to A.D. 1990), then he will have to pick up little
psychological nuggets from Narrimore or little intellec­
tual nuggets from Thiem e or little emotional adjust­
ment tidbits from G othard or little Greek nuggets from
Kenneth Wuest.
The Bible is not a fa c to r in his ministry.
This accurately describes the course of 3,000 gradu­
ates a year that graduate from more than 100 Christian
colleges and universities in America. It is the course
follow ed at every major Fundamental school in America
where the facu lty is made up o f members o f Bob Jones
University.
It is the bedrock foundation o f the modern apos­
tasy in the Body o f Christ. It amounts to the fact that
having lost his Bible, the m o dern F u n d a m e n ta list
preacher must fill the air with something else— any­
thing else. This operation is justified by the educators
as they are the authors and finishers o f the apostasy.
Sitting secure in their air-conditioned offices, they d e­
stroy the local church (and the Body o f Christ through­
out the United States, attending those local churches)
by destroying the church’s p a sto r before he ever gets
in the pulpit.
This is (and has been) the root and source o f all
apostasy in the Body o f Christ since 1611, and it will
continue to be till the Advent.
 EPILOGUE
W ith the current raft o f periodicals, articles, p am ­
phlets, and xeroxed sheets o f paper sailing all over the
country trying to convince the Body of Christ that B i­
ble believers are a “Jim Jones Cult,” one should not be
surprised to find great “gaps” and “holes” in the con­
tent of these polemics. The contemporary feeling is that
if you have proved that the AV translators d id n ’t pro­
fess to be putting out a perfect Bible, and if “good,
go dly, dedicated m en ” found fault with it, that all m at­
ters end here— the track is clear for a replacem ent of
the AV with the ASV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, and
similar vulgar corruptions o f the word of God.
The Christian who “looks well to his going” (Prov.
14:15; 1 Thess. 5:2) and “proves all things” should now
begin to exam ine these periodicals carefully and notice
the glaring omissions that occur in them. W e will list
the missing items so that they can be checked on when
a m em ber of the Alexandrian Cult writes an article on
“ How W e Got Our Bible” or “Verbal Inspiration” or
“The History of the Transm ission o f the T ext” or “No
Perfect Translations,” etc., or any o f the cute little
do-hickeys that they rig up to keep the issues from
being dealt with.
The issue is not “verbal plenary inspiration” of
“original autographs.” That never has been the issue
one time in 1,800 years. That was an issue invented in
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by Conservatives
and Fundam entalists to avoid dealing directly with the
critics o f the Bible where those critics were criticizing
the A V text. No M odernist wastes five m inutes criticiz­
ing “originals.” He has better sense. The “issue o f in­
spiration” is the apostate F undam entalist’s alibi (or
 cover-up) for avoiding the issues. W e will list the is­
sues:
1. The issue concerns the fact that the NIV and
NASV (as the RSV and NRSV) are basically from the
same Greek Alexandrian text of the Roman Catholic
Jesuit Rheims version o f 1582. In at least fifty crucial
places these versions read with Rom e against Protes­
tant Christianity or even go beyond Catholic versions
in perverting the truth.
To avoid dealing with this issue, the Alexandrian
Cult has been pretending that since some readings in
the AV match some readings in Jerom e or the Rheims
Bible, the AV— not the ASV, NASV, RSV, and NRSV—
did the borrowing. They are lying. Even Jerome had to
use the Old Latin o f the W aldenses and A lbigenses for
many o f his Vulgate readings. W hat is correct in the
Rheims and Vulgate is retained in the AV, and w hat is
incorrect will be found in the ASV, NASV, NIV, RSV,
and NRSV. You will notice there has been no discus­
sion o f this all im portant issue in any o f the pam phlets
by Rice, Sumner, Bob Jones, Custer, Neal, Schraeder,
M acRae, N ew m an, Brown, Provan, or Clark.
There isn ’t going to be either.
2. The issue is that the present copy of the AV
which we preach and teach has never yet been proved
to be “guilty beyond the reasonable shadow of a doubt.”
All attempts by the Alexandrian Cult to call your atten­
tion to previous editions, to foreign translations, or to
the profession o f translators is ju st so much baloney in
the deep freeze. In our work Problem Texts, * we dealt
with the AV text that we teach and preach. There was
not one word from the Cult about it except perhaps
they d o n ’t like “Easter” in Acts 12:4. Too many b u n ­
nies.
3. The issue is that there was never any B.C. Sep-
tuagint written by anyone no matter who thought there
was or who said there was: the fact is there w a sn ’t.
With the evidence docum ented right before their faces
for eleven years (The C hristian’s Handbook o f Manu­
script Evidence, 1970) the Cult is as quiet as a sick
cow in a snowstorm.* N ot one word from one faculty
member of any university or college in the United States,
regardless o f any profession of any kind. Do you know
why this is? Because a professional liar who is making
his living implanting doubts in the minds o f young men
about the Holy Bible cannot deal with an issue on
Biblical authority when he is fa c e d with it. In two
hours o f taping, M. H. Clark d id n ’t even attempt to
discuss the matter. There is nothing to discuss. There
was no B.C. “Septuagint.”
4. The issue is that we have already dem onstrated
the impotency and sterility of the ASV and NASV in
over 200 places in the Old and New Testam ents (see
the com m entaries on Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, M inor Prophets, Matthew, Acts,
G alatians-C olossians, Pastoral Epistles, Hebrew s, and
Revelation) by dealing with specific words in specific
verses in specific passages and have demonstrated more
than 200 times that the ASV, NIV, and NASV are not
“im provements” in any sense over the AV, no more
than are the RSV and NRSV. The Alexandrian Cult
h asn ’t broken the binding in on those Com m entaries
since they were printed, or if they did, they m anaged to
read through 4,500 pages without being able to answer
one item produced. Clark, Provan, Schrader, Custer,
Neal, Brown, M acRae, and N ew m an d id n ’t deal with
any o f the material in the C om m entaries where they
corrected the ASV and the NASV.
5. The issue is since the AV is the living word of
the Living God, and contains the living words o f the
Living God, it is the living Bible, the living Holy Bible,
and since we have demonstrated in writing (on at least
* N o w tw e n ty -n in e y e ars.
 three dozen occasions) that it is able to correct Hebrew
and Greek scholarship (M achen, Warfield, Gregory,
Nestle, Hort, Aland, M etzger, Robertson, Zodhiates, et
al.), why d o n ’t these members o f the A lexandrian Cult
com e up with something new? W e have docum ented a
dozen “new ” items from the old A V o f 1611 that are as
sound doctrinally as eternal security or baptism by im ­
mersion. W hy the silence?
C an ’t one o f these incredible idiots denounce Tribu­
lation salvation by faith and works? C a n ’t one o f them
denounce Millennial salvation by sight and works? C an ’t
one o f them denounce male angels that are thirty-three
and one-half years old? C a n ’t one o f them prove how
that teaching the original forbidden fruit was from a
vine tree is a heresy?
W here is the bold fundam ental “defender o f the
faith” who will stand up and prove that Acts 13:48 is
not a reference to Romans 2:7? The Trinitarian Bible
Society d o e s n ’t believe that it is. W hy all the silence,
children? Cat got your tongue? We put out a book on
the Mark o f the Beast in 1959 with eighteen items in it
that no G reek or Hebrew scholar had been able to pick
up in nineteen centuries o f Bible study. If they were
just lies why d id n ’t somebody prove it l Fifth A m en d­
ment “soldiers of the faith” ? In the Com m entary on Job
we gave the reader tw enty-four verses that every out­
standing Premillennialist in America and Europe missed
in dealing with prophecy. If the inform ation was “her­
esy,” why w a s n ’t it dealt with? W hy all this nonsense
about “verbal plenary inspiration o f originals” ?
I ’ll tell you why.
Because these dirty, deceitful, treacherous, lying
rascals know pow er and authority when they run into
it, and when they do, they tuck their tails between their
legs and run f o r the bushes. W hen it com es to the
issues listed above— especially the fir s t three— the Al-
exandrian Cult is as quiet as a turkey farm on T hank s­
giving afternoon.
And d o n ’t worry your pretty little head; they d o n ’t
have one m em ber who can deal with those issues. Cult
members always major in “hobby horses” that no one
can put in any stable. Proving “verbal inspiration o f the
originals” is about as expedient and as spiritual as prov­
ing that Paul was a dw arf or that Christ had red-brown
hair.
Now, what we have done, by the grace o f God, is
extract about one hundred “new teachings” from the
old Book, by comparing the AV with the AV, and by
sidestepping Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and Greek
and Hebrew scholars. If the A lexandrian Cult is right in
their position, then it would be no effort on their part,
at all, to prove that all of these “new ” teachings are not
only “novel” but heretical, since they were arrived at
by using the AV as the final authority over (and often
against) the “original languages.”
Well, where is the proof?
W hen these hypocrites mention it, they handle it
exactly like a Catholic historian writes church history.
They say, “R uckm an teaches that you can correct the
Greek with the English.”
Period.
W h a t’s the matter, sonny? ‘Fraid to give us an
exam ple? The examples are given. You mean to tell me
you aren ’t going to discuss them? No siree! W hat they
are going to do is try to prevent any young man or
woman from reading the PR O O F of that statement, as
dem onstrated on a dozen occasions, so that he will not
know what is involved in it. These hypocrites say,
“Ruckm an says that m arriage is always, and only, a
fleshy affair.” Proof?
The only proof they will give is half o f one quota­
tion off one page of a forty-page Scripture-with-Scrip-
ture study that shows exactly what “R uckm an” teaches
 about marriage. Their only hope is to ban the books or
else put out enough gossip and slander so that a Chris­
tian would not think the books were worth reading.
They c a n ’t fa c e the print. They say, “Ruckm an says the
A V is superior to the originals.”
Well, com e on, aren’t you going to list the fo u r
reasons that Ruckman listed? ’Fraid somebody will see
why the proposition is reasonable? Then if not, why not
list what “R uckm an” listed when he made the state­
ment?
Easy. They are not seeking the dissemination o f
truth or knowledge. They want an ignorant group o f
“ laymen” following their lead.
How about God feeding Israel again in the w ilder­
ness with m anna? They d o n ’t recall seeing Revelation
12 and M icah 7 and Jerem iah 5 0 :1 9 -2 0 laid alongside
each other in the last 500 years. C a n ’t someone prove
that is a heresy? H ow about Christ dum ping your sins
in Hell (not “h ades”) so that when He appears the
second time there are no sins on Him? Surely that must
be a heresy; I mean no Greek or Hebrew scholar ever
fou n d it in any set o f Greek or H ebrew manuscripts.
How about that partial post-tribulation rapture o f
Jews (Matt. 25 and Rev. 16)? That is n ’t very “h istori­
cally Fundam entalist,” is it? Since it was in prin t thirty
years ago, how come no one has ever p ro v e d it was a
heresy?
Having been shown fo u r dozen things from an
English Bible that they never saw before, these Hebrew
and Greek scholars, with their “reliable translations,”
not only have to confess that the Greek and Hebrew
illuminated nothing, they have to confess that they can ’t
answ er the dem onstration with a similar dem onstration
from Hebrew or Greek.
No Greek or Hebrew scholar in America or Eu­
rope, f o r 200 years, has been able to give any light on
the Scriptures that w a s n ’t already in the English text.
Vertical studies done into one word to prove som e­
thing that has already been proven in the English text is
neither light nor illumination. It is confirm ation of a
text that illuminates without grammatical studies.
Taking the Bible B elieve r’s Commentary Series as
a series (nine volumes) we have slapped these Jim (Bob)
Jones people in the face with over 200 items they missed
while they were arguing about “verbal, plenary inspira­
tion.” Furthermore, their teachers missed the items.
Now, where is the rebuttal? If Ruckm an is a her­
etic and his teaching heresy, where is the proof? If a
marriage is really flesh-joining-flesh, plus leaving father
and mother, plus spiritual union (as taught by John
McGraw), every saved woman in America is living in
adultery if she is m arried to an unsaved man: there is
no spiritual union. If M cG raw was right (they distrib­
ute his tracts at BJU) in his teaching on marriage,
every young m arried couple living with either of their
parents has never been married.
Such are the ways o f those who try to handle
“R uckm an’s” material after calling it “heresy.” After
being told by the Holy Spirit that if an unbelieving wife
departed from her husband he was no longer bound to
her (1 Cor. 7:15), one pastor in N ew York said he
would quit the ministry permanently if his wife left him
f o r any reason. W as he lying or ju st a. cow ard!
W e teach that dem ons are “devils” (plural). C a n ’t
anyone prove that is a heresy? Is n ’t there only one
Devil? Did any scholar even attempt to handle that with
John 6:70-71 staring him in the face? In any language?
We teach further that devils have wings. Surely this
could be proved to be a “heresy.” U nger d id n ’t say
that; there are no Systematic Theologies (see Demon-
ology) that say that. Surely “R uckm an” must be wrong
and all the others right. Well then, why isn ’t it d is­
 cussed? It should be easy to prove that dem ons (devils)
d o n ’t have wings. What could be easier to p ro ve than
that?
Why, these silly asses co u ld n ’t prove it with any
G reek text.
They couldn ’t prove it if they had the “verbally,
plenary inspired originals. ”
Do you know why?
Because God has showed them nothing: absolutely
nothing.
So when these destructive critics begin to try to
talk the Body o f Christ out o f their God-given birth­
right to read and believe G o d ’s words and accept them
as the Suprem e A uthority for all matters o f faith and
practise, all they can say is “so-and-so” said this and
“so-and-so” said that, and surely if “ so-and-so” and
“so-and-so” believed this or that, then R uckm an’s teach­
ing co u ld n ’t be right.
W here is the Scripture study on w hat “R uckm an”
teaches?
They h a ven ’t g ot any Scriptures; they c a n ’t dis­
cuss any Scriptural problem.
And you w o u ld n ’t believe the alibi these rascals
use for failure to pick up a Bible and turn to the p as­
sages and deal with them. The alibi they use is that
since these advanced revelations cam e from a Book
that they had already condemned, they were “hobby
horses,” “ irrelevant,” after all, “the main issue” is soul
winning, etc.
W hy, you h a v e n ’t seen one article attacking the
King James Bible in 300 years that was written by a
consistent soul winner. Consistent soul winners who
spend their lives in tract distribution, street preaching,
jail and hospital visitation, witnessing, and personal evan­
gelism are not in the same bracket as institutional ex ­
ecutives w hose lives are given to prom otion, morale
building, and preservation o f machinery.
 W hen listing the great soul winners o f the nine­
teenth and tw entieth centuries, no one would think of
listing Machen, W arfield, Robertson, MacRae, N ew ­
man, Schaff, or Hort with Billy Sunday, Walter Wilson,
Clifford Lewis, Pappy Reveal, or Lester Roloff. Poppy­
cock! It is possible for a teacher in a school to win a
soul to Christ now and then, but to use that as an alibi
for not facing the truth and dealing with the truth and,
even worse, calling the truth a “heresy”— without being
able to discuss it— is a disgrace and a blasphem y to the
name of Jesus Christ.
For twelve years two small paperbacks have been
circulating over the world. They state that there are
eighteen types o f Antichrist in the Bible and give his
name, number, letter, mark, religion, sign, and race.
N ot a peep from the Cult. They state that the ASV and
the NASV are Roman Catholic Bibles. Not a peep from
the Cult. They state that there was no B.C. “L X X ” that
any apostle used. Not a p eep from the Cult. They state
that the Scofield note on Romans 8:1 is a lie. Not a
peep from the Cult. They show that the NASV is the
twin sister o f the RSV and NRSV. Not a p eep from the
Cult.
They state that the historic position on the number
“five” was that it was the num ber of grace, and that
this “historic position” is cockeyed. “F ive” stands for
death. W hat was the answer to all o f this by those who
believed that the “verbal, plenary, verbally inspired origi­
nals” were superior to the AV? Not a word. W hatever
Greek texts these Jim (Bob) Jones people had, they
were not “close enough to the original autographs” so
that they could find out anything about the num ber
“five.”
All is quiet on the Alexandrian Front.
To fill in these gaping holes in their defenses, these
Cultic Coons wasted your time on (1) W hat the AV
translators professed, (2) W hat some scholar thought
was wrong with some word, (3) Trying to define “ scrip­
ture” as “originals only” when the only verse that dealt
with inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16) said “scripture,” not
“originals,” (4) Arguing about revisions and transla­
tions, (5) Listing “historic positions.”
The Bible w a s n ’t fa ced . W e used the Bible in pre­
senting the material. It was the Scriptures that gave the
material, and the material was in the Scriptures. It was
not answered with the Scriptures by any faculty m e m ­
ber; it was not answ ered from Greek manuscripts, E n ­
glish translations, Spanish translations, G erman transla­
tions, Coptic and Syriac translations. It was avoided. It
was avoided for tw elve years,* and there is a raft of
material in the Com m entaries that was being taught in
the local churches twenty-five years ago and was put
on reel-to-reel tape. N ot a peep from the Cult.
“R uckm an teaches there will be no w om en in
heaven.”
All right, sonny. List the verses. “Ruckman” listed
and deal with them.
W h atsa’ matter, honey, c a n ’t you fin d them? They
are right on the page where you read. Refute the verses
with the right verses. I mean really, if the AV is so full
o f m istakes that it is not the “S cripture” and the Scrip­
ture is only “verbally-inspired autographs,” surely you
sho uldn’t have any trouble refuting the position as you
stated it. O f course, you lied about how Ruckm an states
it, but d o n ’t let that bother you! You had no intention
of dealing with it anyway. You ju st wanted to be sensa­
tional to get some attention!
So from now on the Bible believers may prophesy
on the nature of the literature they will receive from the
Cult. It will not be docum ented Scriptural discussions
on sound doctrine com paring Scripture with Scripture.
It will be a general statement taken out o f context from
one of “R u ckm an’s” books, and then all the evidence
in the book f o r that statement will be omitted. W hat the
reader will read is the w r ite r ’s opinion o f that isolated
statement and the opinion o f someone else who holds
the same opinion. W e call this being “opinionated.”
Readers o f the Bulletin are encouraged to buy the
Commentaries, and especially the book on The “Er­
r o r s ” in the King James Bible, and see exactly what is
going on. These works point out, document, and dem ­
onstrate the fatuities and false teachings o f the Funda­
mental schools and their faculty members, and docu ­
ment and demonstrate the duplicity and deceit p rac­
tised by revision com mittees com posed of C onserva­
tives and Fundamentalists. The material will be an­
swered by no one.
All will remain: “Quiet on the Alexandrian Front.”