ANSWER: No and no.
EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible have become very frustrated in recent years. This is due to the fact that their entire argument against the Bible has been systematically destroyed by historical fact, their own shortfall of scholastic ability and the consistent blessing of the King James Bible by the Holy Spirit.
In a desperate attempt to "sling mud" at Bible believers, they make the two statements found above.
Do King James Bible believers worship the Bible? No. They do not pray to it as they do to Jesus Christ. They do not preach that "the Bible saves" but that Jesus saves. They blissfully mark notes all over their Bibles, though none would dare to do so to Jesus Christ.
There is not even enough evidence to mistakenly believe that King James Bible believers worship the Bible. Therefore, the charge is unfortunately born of malice not sincerity.
Did God destroy the originals to keep King James Bible believers from someday worshipping them? No. Nothing could be farther from fact.
God allowed the originals to pass off the scene because their only value, was their words, which He preserved through copies. Once the originals had served their purpose and were copied, they received no loyalty from God or His people.
If the originals were somehow to "miraculously" appear today, they would be of little interest to Bible believers since they make little of them now.
If anyone would venerate them, it would probably be the crowd that makes so much of them today, the Bible critics.
ANSWER: 22 No.
EXPLANATION: The charge that King James Bible believers are a cult is similar to the charge that they worship the Bible. It is a result of the same frustration and born of the same malice. Sadly, when facts do not prove them right, character assassination is in order.
Cults are somewhat difficult to define, although there are two outstanding characteristics evident in all cults.
First, a cult has a central body that makes decisions for all of its disciples. Most King James Bible believers are fiercely independent and many times disagree about other doctrines, even with one another. Their only central authority is the Bible, not a college or university.
Secondly, most cults fear that their disciples will investigate their opposition's beliefs and then be converted by the truth. Therefore they make strict rules disallowing books and materials that disagree with their doctrine.
Again, since the facts support the Authorized Version, King James Bible believers are not afraid to study the charges of their critics. In fact, this book attempts to confront all of the Bible critic's charges with complete candor.
Now, it will be noted that, there are some Bible colleges and universities which have a policy of confiscating books which support the view of a perfect Bible. In fact, this book may be on that list someday.
It makes one wonder just who is the "cult" and who isn't.
ANSWER: 23 No.
EXPLANATION: It is amusing yet appalling that a King James Bible believer, who BELIEVES the Bible to be inerrant, is called a "heretic" by people who claim to believe that the Bible is inerrant.
"Heresy", according to Webster, is "an opinion or doctrine contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs."
It is "generally accepted" that the Bible is the perfect word of God. I have often told people, "I don't believe that the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God. I believe that the BIBLE is the inerrant word of God. But if you ask me to give you a copy of that Bible, I'll hand you a King James Bible."
Critics of the King James Bible believe that the "Bible" is the inerrant word of God. BUT, ask them to hand you a copy of that inerrant Bible that they "believe" in, and you will find that it doesn't exist anywhere on this earth!
We King James Bible believers simply believe what they CLAIM to believe. And for that we are called "heretics."
Actually the "heretic" label is designed more to scare young adherents away from the inerrant Bible, than to honestly define the name callers feelings. It is hoped by the Bible critic that the fear of being labeled a "heretic" will discourage zealous Christians from REALLY believing what Bible critics claim to believe.
In fact, if it is generally accepted by fundamentalists that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God" and the Bible critic can find a mistake in every Bible that you put in his hand, then... who really is the heretic?
ANSWER: 24 He was an outstanding 19th century Bible scholar.
EXPLANATION: John William Burgon (1813-1888) was a man of tremendous intellect and ranks among men such a Lancelot Andrews (1555-1626) and Robert Dick Wilson (1856-1930) in scholarship. He became the Dean of Chichester and has since been known as "Dean" Burgon.
Dr. Burgon was contemporary with Westcott and Hort. He was an advocate of the Textus Receptus and was the nemesis of Westcott and Hort's feeble arguments against it. He believed, unlike Westcott and Hort, in basing all conclusions on the solid foundation of facts rather than the sand of theory. He would leave no stone unturned in his quest for truth and no blow undelivered in his defense of it.
His serious scholarship, quick wit and acid tongue drove Westcott and Hort and all other Alexandrian scholars from the field of battle. His arguments against the Alexandrian text and in favor of the last 12 verses of Mark and other questioned portions have proven to be as unanswerable by modem scholarship as they were to his contemporaries.
Today his name is as synonymous with the defense of the King James Bible as the names of Hills, Fuller and Ruckman. He is not only known as a champion of the Authorized Bible, but his works are an example of what honest, objective and thorough scholarship can produce.
ANSWER: 25 A "TR Man" gets his manuscripts from Antioch and his philosophy from Egypt.
EXPLANATION: Under Question #8 concerning Alexandria and Antioch it was pointed out that we derive two things from each of these locations. We derive manuscripts and an ideology through which we judge those manuscripts.
From Alexandria we receive corrupted manuscripts, tainted by the critical hand of Origen. We also receive an ideology that believes the Bible to be divine, but not perfect, not without error.
From Antioch we receive the pure line of manuscripts culminating in what is known as the "Received Text" or Textus Receptus. We also receive the ideology that the Bible is not only Divine, but perfect, without error.
1. Most Bible critics do not believe that the Bible is perfect (The Alexandrian Ideology). They usually also accept the Alexandrian manuscripts as superior to those of Antioch.
2. A King James Bible believer accepts the Antiochian manuscripts or Textus Receptus as superior to the Alexandrian. They also accept the Antiochian Ideology in that they accept the Bible as infallible and do not believe it contains any errors or mistranslations and that it cannot be improved.
3. A Textus Receptus man also accepts the Antiochian manuscripts or Textus Receptus as superior to the Alexandrian. But a Textus Receptus man accepts the Antiochian manuscripts yet he views them with the Alexandrian Ideology.
He does not accept any translation as perfect and without error. He generally feels that the King James is the best translation but can be improved. He usually stumbles at Acts 12:4 and states that it is a mistranslation.
This contradiction is NOT the result of a bad or dishonest heart so much as it is the result of a bad education. Most Textus Receptus men have been taught by others who have been deceived into accepting, unconsciously, the Alexandrian Ideology.
ANSWER: 26 No. About ninety-nine out of one hundred times a Bible college education will either confuse or destroy a student's faith in the perfect Bible.
EXPLANATION: There are many benefits to a Bible college education. A student can learn invaluable lessons on pastoring and church planning. A student weak on doctrine can be grounded in his faith. Friendships and experiences from Bible college days will often last a life time.
Unfortunately, faith that God has a perfect Bible is more often than not a victim of Bible college education rather than a beneficiary. The reason is simple. Most Bible colleges are staffed by very well meaning men, many who do indeed love the Lord, who are victims of Alexandrian teaching.
Others, though set right about the proper manuscript family are still unconsciously afflicted with a faith in the Bible that is weakened by the Alexandrian Ideology. They cannot mentally accept the belief that the Bible, the one in their hand, is truly perfect.
Sometimes, even schools which advertise that they are "King James Only" or "Textus Receptus Only" are still afflicted with this malady. Thus, a student will find himself confused when he hears his Bible corrected in a college that claims to accept the Bible as perfect. Most often, he will succumb to the diatribe and also become a critic of the perfect Bible. If he does not accept the school's position he will usually be branded as a "fanatic" and ostracized and sometimes even dismissed.
This does not mean that a Bible college education does not have its advantages. It does mean however that a Bible college education seldom strengthens a student's faith that the Bible is perfect.
ANSWER: 27 No, although some may abhor the thought of being in subjection to "a Book."
EXPLANATION: In Mark 9:38-41 we find the disciples upset with someone who did not "follow " them. Yet the Lord told them to leave the man alone.
God desires worship and love from His creatures. There are many preachers who, as Bible college students were misled concerning the King James Bible. They may very well love Jesus Christ but through ignorance or deceit use the wrong bible. They certainly do not "hate God".
It has been found however that someone who loves the Lord and uses the wrong bible must one day face the Bible issue and make a choice between right and wrong. If they chose "right" their faith is strengthened and they will cease to use other bibles and usually cease to attempt to "correct" the Bible while reading or preaching.
Some however, upon reaching the point of decision, rebel at the thought that their "Alma Mater" could be wrong. They would sooner believe that the Bible is wrong. One preacher was heard to say, "I accept the teaching that the King James Bible is perfect, but I can't stand for it because my 'Alma Mater' doesn't take that stand."
Sometimes they weigh the damage to their prestige amongst their peers and feel that they cannot afford to take a stand for God's perfect Bible. One can imagine the financial damage a college professor might experience if he took an Antiochian stand in an Alexandrian school.
Unfortunately, you cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore, one who for whatever reason rejects the teaching that the Bible is perfect in English usually becomes antagonistic toward those who disagree with him. Usually, his contempt is generated more as a defensive measure than intellectual conviction. But he dare not let you know this.
It can happen that a Christian simply refuses to be in subjection to what he considers a mere book. He rejects the authority of Scripture in his life. It must be remembered that the Pharisees hated Jesus because He spoke as one with authority (Matthew 7:29) and not as the scholars of His day.
ANSWER: 28 The original autographs were inspired. The King James Bible is those same autographs preserved up to today.
EXPLANATION: The best way to simply describe inspiration and preservation of the Bible is as follows:
Inspiration is when God takes a blank piece of paper (papyrus, vellum, etc.) and uses men to write His words.
Preservation is when God takes those words already written and uses men to preserve them to today.
Both of these actions are DIVINE and are assured by God as recorded in Psalm 12:6, 7.
6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, 0 LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
In Psalm 12:6 God assures us that His originals are perfect. Even though penned by fallible men with the heinous sins of; murder (Moses and David), adultery (David), idolatry (Solomon), and denial of the lord (Peter), God's words are untainted by the sins of the penmen.
That the originals were inspired perfect in their entirety is an undisputed belief among fundamentalists today.
But most fundamentalists argue that only the "originals” were perfect. They say that today we have nothing but copies and translations of those copies. They seem indignant at the thought that any "mere translation" should be considered a perfect copy of the originals. They claim that copies and translations are products of uninspired men and therefore must all contain mistakes.
Fundamentalists clinging to this tenet are mislead. Their folly in accepting this erroneous teaching is fourfold.
1. It is somewhat confusing and unexplainable that a person could claim that God could not use, sinful men to preserve His words when all fundamentalists believe that he used sinful men to write His inspired words. Certainly a God who had enough power to inspire His words would also have enough power to preserve them. I highly doubt that He has lost such ability over the years.
2. Why would God inspire the originals and then lose them? Why give a perfect Bible to men like Peter, John, James, Andrew and company and not us? They had seen, heard, and touched the Lord (I John 1:1). We haven't! If anyone ever needed a perfect Bible it is us, nearly two thousand years separated from a Saviour we have never seen!
Why did God inspire a perfect original if He didn't plan on preserving it? Couldn't He have afforded some error, in His originals just as some believe He has allowed some errors in today's Bible! Or do critics of God's perfect Bible believe that God was unable to prevent errors in the copies. It would seem like only half of a God who had the power to do one but not the other.
3. It is a "convenient" faith which cannot be tested. In other words, it is rather safe to believe in a perfect set of originals which have been LOST. Since they are lost, no one can ever practically challenge such a belief. Adherents to such a shallow persuasion can rest safely in the fact that they will never be proven wrong since the evidence needed to prove them wrong (the "originals") is lost.
But if they dare put the same faith in a Bible available today, they know that they will definitely be bloodied defending their faith.
Thus, to believe in a perfect set of originals, but not to believe in a perfect English Bible, is to believe nothing at all.
4. Regardless of their arguments against the doctrine of a preserved perfect Bible, such a fact as much guaranteed by Scripture as the bodily return of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:8).
Psalm 12:7 plainly states, thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Thus we have God promising to preserve the same words that He inspired. Not too much of a feat to overwhelm such an omnipotent Being.
The fearful fundamentalist launches two attacks on the Scriptural teaching found in Psalm 12:7.
1. They claim, "Verse 7 is talking about the Jews, not the Bible." Then to add credence to their claim they rush out and publish a translation that says just that in Psalm 12:7. Let's look at this verse in the New International Version.
"O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever."
This is an irresponsible and dishonest translation. The Hebrew word "shamar" meaning "to keep" which the New International Version translators render "you will keep us" is found in the future second person singular "thou shalt keep" and is directed to the THIRD person plural "them" and NOT the first person plural "us" as the New International Version translators rendered it. Thus we see it is the King James, God’s perfect, preserved Bible which has accurately preserved the reading of the originals, not the unreliable New International Version.
Psalm 12:7 is not God's promise to preserve the Jews, a promise which flourishes elsewhere in Scripture. It is God’s promise to preserve His words, and is a direct reference to those words as described in Psalm 12:6.
2. Oftimes a Christian, whose faith is too weak to accept the literal truth of Psalm 12:6, 7, will piously quote Psalm 119:89.
“For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.” Then they will state that God actually meant that He preserved His perfect Bible in Heaven, not on Earth. And they say this with a straight face! This escape to a house of straw is embarrassingly humorous.
First, it is foolish for anyone to believe that God inspired a perfect original on earth so that He could have it brought to Heaven. Is that supposed to be the reason that He wrote the originals? The answer is embarrassingly simple. The Bible is addressed to man, not God. God did not write a perfect book directed to man and then put it in a library in Heaven where man cannot benefit from its existence. Again we ask, "What good to us, here and now, is a perfect book locked up out of reach in Heaven?"
Secondly, Psalm 12:6 makes reference to His words being on earth. To preserve them somewhere other than on earth is not to preserve them at all. So we see then that God inspired the originals perfectly. Then over the centuries He has preserved those same word today. They are found in the Authorized Version.
ADDITIONAL NOTE:
In the area of "inspired translations" it might be noted that the double truth of Genesis 22:8 which in a King James Bible is plainly revealed as a prophetic reference to Jesus Christ, is lost in such weak translations as the New King James, the New International Version, and the New American Standard Version.
ANSWER: 29 Yes, God has inspired several.
EXPLANATION: In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23.
"And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter."
It is, of course, an accepted fact that no translation can be "word perfect". Therefore we know that the Hebrew translation of Joseph's Egyptian statements as found in the Old Testament manuscripts cannot be an exact word for word copy. We are left with quite a dilemma. WHOM did God inspire? Did He inspire Joseph's Egyptian statements, the Egyptian interpreter's verbal translation, or Moses' written translation as found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament?
If God inspired Joseph, was his "original" statement marred by his Egyptian interpreter, or by Moses' translation? Or did God inspire Moses to pen an "inspired translation" which would fly in the face of many Fundamentalist's charges of "progressive inspiration?"
This same question arises in Exodus chapters 4-14 in Moses' contest with Pharaoh. Moses, though speaking for God to an Egyptian king in the king's native Egyptian tongue, translates both his and Pharaoh's statements into Hebrew when he records the account in writing. Which did God inspire? The verbal statement made in Egyptian, a copy of which NO ONE ON EARTH HAS? Or did He inspire Moses' Hebrew translation?
The problem of inspired translations refuses to go away.
In Acts 22 Paul speaks to his Jewish tormentors in the Hebrew language (Acts 21:40, 22:2). The testimony found in verses 1 through 21 is all given orally in Hebrew. Yet there is NO manuscript extant of Acts 22 which records Paul's statement in Hebrew. Luke wrote it all out in Greek. Which did God inspire? Paul's verbal statement or Luke's "progressive inspiration"?
The answer is simple and is found in II Timothy 3:16.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
The word "scripture" by its very root, "script" is a term for written words. Therefore, we can rest assured that the various translations (there are more than the few I have pointed out) we have in our Bible are the inspired words of God. If a fundamentalist chooses not to believe in inspired translations, he will have to do it contrary to the Bible practice.
ANSWER: 30 A translation cannot only be "as good" as the originals, but better.
EXPLANATION: There are three "translations" spoken of in the Bible. In all three cases, the translation referred to is better than the original. Since we accept the Bible as our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, ITS "practice" will have more authority than any "mere human" opinion.
1. The first translation mentioned in scripture is found in II Samuel 3:7-10.
7 "And Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah: and Ishbosheth said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father's concubine?
8 Then was Abner very wroth for the words of Ish-bosheth, and said, Am I a dog's head, which against Judah do shew kindness this day unto the house of Saul thy father, to his brethren, and to his friends, and have not delivered thee into the hand of David, that thou chargest me to day with a fault concerning this woman?
9 So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the LORD hath sworn to David, even so I do to him;
10 To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba."
After the death of King Saul in I Samuel 31, Abner, who had been the captain of Saul's army installed Ishbosheth as King instead of David. (II Samuel 12:8,9)
Later Ishbosheth and Abner had a falling out. Abner, in anger, announces to Ishbosheth that he is going to "translate" the Kingdom of Israel from Ishbosheth to David..
It is obvious by Abner's statement of II Samuel 3:9 that the LORD wanted David to be king over all twelve tribes of Israel. Therefore the "translation" of the kingdom of Israel to David was BETTER than the "original" state which has a split kingdom with David rightly ruling over one portion and Ishbosheth wrongly ruling over the other section. (Remember the law of first mentions.)
2. The second translation spoken of in scripture is found in Colossians 1:13.
"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:"
Here the "translation" spoken of is the conversion of a lost sinner to a new life in Jesus Christ. No one in their right mind could even pretend that this translation is not a massive improvement over the "original" condition.
3. The third translation found in the Bible is located in Hebrews 11:5.
"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."
The word "translate" only appears five times in scripture. Once in II Samuel, once in Colossians and the remaining three times here in Hebrews 11:5.
A Christian with even a shallow knowledge of the Bible is familiar with the story of Enoch from Genesis 5. Enoch walked with God and is known to have pleased God. He was a prophet (Judges 14) and a man of faith. God saw fit to physically take Enoch to heaven so that he would not have to experience death. This individual action is a miniature version of what Christians call "The Rapture," mentioned in I Corinthians 15, I Thessalonians 4, Titus 2 and various other places in the Bible. Since the word "Rapture" appears nowhere in scripture a more proper name for this future occurrence might be "The Blessed Hope" (Titus) or "The Catching Up" (I Thessalonians) of "Our Translation" (Hebrews).
It is obvious that Enoch's translation was an improvement over his "original" condition.
Thus we see that every translation mentioned in our final authority in all matters is an improvement over the original.
If you are a simple Bible believer you will have no trouble accepting this. If you worship education or just hate to be wrong you will reject this Bible fact as easily as you have rejected every Bible fact that you couldn't agree with.
It should be noted here that the perplexed translators of both the New American Standard Version and the New International Version, when faced with this glaring contradiction of their own personal prejudice, could not bring themselves to allow the word "translation" in any of the above mentioned passages.
Which will you follow, the Bible or men?
