KING JAMES VERSION CONTROVERSY

This Editor, Dr. Walter S. Beebe and Dr. D.A. Waite answer a critic who does not defend the King James Version but condemns one who does. Dr. Beebe comments on Dr. Waite's answers to a college professor who could end up teaching your child. A very scary thought.

By Revelation D.A. Waite, Th.D. Ph.D., Director, The Bible For Today, Incorporated, President of the Dean Burgon Society, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, NJ 08108

A KING JAMES BIBLE RESPONSE TO

An article entitled "How NOT to defend the King James Version" by Professor Ron Minton, Baptist Bible Graduate School of Theology, which appeared in the March/April, 1996 issue, pp. 20-21 of The Baptist Preacher published by The Baptist Bible Fellowship International, Springfield, MO.

As I (Dr. Waite) read the article, I found several topics to which I wish to respond.

(1) Alleged inaccuracies in New Age Bible Versions (NABV); (2) The manuscript basis for the new versions; (3) Mrs. Riplinger's knowledge of Greek and Hebrew; (4) Westcott and Hort as Satanists; (5) Westcott and Hort as alleged typical Anglican scholars like Dean Burgon; (6) The alleged insignificance of the Westcott and Hort Greek text for today; (7) The suggestion to ignore Westcott and Hort in the textual debate; (8) Psalm 12:6-7 and Bible Preservation; (9) Using modern versions to understand the Word of God; (10) The alleged ignorance among Baptist of the Bible's origins; and (11) The statement of Bible Baptist College and Graduate School of Theology, Springfield, Missouri, on the Word of God.

1. Alleged inaccuracies in New Age Bible Versions book (NABV).

a. Minton's Opinion: Here are a few of his statements: "...it is almost inconceivable that Riplinger's book of almost 700 pages and 1,500 end notes could have so many inaccurate details, unique statements, and misleading claims....its author is not merely ignorant of the facts, she chose to ignore them. The book is such a mass of insinuation that it is almost impossible to read and is even harder to critique...Riplinger is guilty of either inexcusable error or misrepresentation of the facts...Unfortunately, the whole book is of this same quality...it is almost impossible to cite any page in this book without finding other errors."

b. Dr. Waite: If this book is really "almost impossible to read," why have so many thousands read it and been so greatly influenced by it? There are at least two elements in this opinion.

(1) The first deals with the alleged "inaccurate details" found in the NABV. I wonder if the author used edition #1, #2, #3, #4, or #5? Mrs. Riplinger has corrected most, if not all, minor spelling errors. Edition #6 is due out this summer. I would like to read Professor Minton's 700-page book with 1,500 end notes and add up all the little mistakes he has made, especially if he wrote it while flat on his back with a muscular disease, yet working on it for over six years.

Dr. Beebe: In reading Milton's article I found the errors he cited to be none-existent in my copy. They were printing errors, quite excusable. (See the 1611 KJV, or Dr. John Rice's Reference Bible, first addition, with 700 errors in the KJV text, very excusable) and not deliberate. Mr. Minton's only claim to fame seems not to be he wrote anything but rather that he criticizes those who do write.

(2) The second element involves Minton's attack on the PERSON of Mrs. Riplinger. Note such words as "ignorant," "ignor(ing) facts," "guilty of....misrepresentation of the facts. "These words charge Mrs. Riplinger as lacking brains, being purposely devious and deceitful, and deliberately twisting truth. Though I have talked on the telephone with Mrs. Riplinger at length and on many occasions, I met her for the first time in person in 1995, at a North Carolina Baptist Bible conference. I listened to her testimony for Christ. I heard her answer to many questions from Baptist Pastors and others. I videoed a 50 minute interview between Mrs. Waite and Mrs. Riplinger [B.F.T. #2545VCR]. After these two hours of listening and observing. I came away with some very firm convictions. She is a very feminine and humble lady. She is anything but "ignorant." I would call her brilliant. I suppose she has read and quoted from more of the pro-New Age books and background than her detractors have even heard of. From my personal observations, I don't believe there is a dishonest, devious, or deceitful bone in her body.

Dr. Beebe: If Minton's opinion of Dr. Gail Riplinger was formed by reading her one book (she has written several), then I may form an opinion from reading his comments. My opinion: he would cast doubts about the KJV, the TR, and would shake the faith of any who studied at his feet. He should be fired from any school that claims to embrace the KJV as the preserved Word of God.

2. The manuscript basis for the new versions.

a. Minton's Opinion: "Unfortunately she misses the truth when she immediately continues with 'New versions such as the NIV, NASB, NEB, TEV, NKJV....are based on....a fraction of 1% of the extant manuscripts.'"

b. Dr. Waite: Since the author gave no footnote citations (in the copy I have in hand, at least), I cannot check his quotation. It is TRUE that the "NIV, NASB, NEB, TEV...." are based on "a fraction of 1% of the extant manuscripts." In my book, DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE - A FOUR-FOLD SUPERIORITY [B.F.T. #1594-P], page 57, I have a chart based on data from Dr. Jack Moorman's book, FOREVER SETTLED [B.F.T. #1428]. The chart shows the number and percent of the extant Greek manuscripts that favored the Westcott and Hort (WH) text (such as form the basis of the "NIV, NASB, NEB, TEV" versions above). It also shows the number and percent of the extant Greek manuscripts that favor the Textus Receptus (TR) (which forms the basis of the King James Bible). The total number of Greek New Testament manuscripts by Kurt Aland's count in 1967 was 5,255. Of that number, the WH has 45 or less than 1%. The TR has 5,210 or more than 99%. As for the New King James Version (NKJV), through the Greek text used in the top of the page purports to be some form of the Textus Receptus (though I have found at least 2 instances that follow the Westcott & Hort text), the footnotes marked "NU," follow "a fraction of 1% of the extant manuscripts" as Mrs. Riplinger is quoted as saying. Dr. Beebe: Hello? Who missed it? It is Minton who misses the truth.

3. Mrs. Riplinger's knowledge of Greek and Hebrew

a. Minton's Opinion: "For example, on page 94 she implies she knows Greek and Hebrew, and says of one phrase [using 'the Mighty One,' instead of 'he that is mighty,' 'the mighty God,' and 'the LORD God'] 'its use is a gross perversion of the original Bible languages.' This is by no means the only time she implies she knows Greek, but she proves she is ignorant of Greek and Hebrew."

b. Dr. Waite: When Mrs. Waite and I went to the North Carolina Bible Conference and met Mrs. Riplinger, she was interviewed by Mrs. Waite for 50 minutes [B.F.T. #2545VCR] where she told of her learning Greek on her own. She also worked with adults in a program known as "English as a Second Language." In this program, there were a number of Greeks as well as other language groups. She acquired much information on the Greek language in this way. With the brilliant mind that she has, it would not be impossible for her to have learned this language as well or even better than as regular college or seminary student. She also mentioned that as a girl, while other girls in her day were practicing to be cheerleaders, she was studying the Latin language. Her mother had hired a tutor for her for the study of the Latin Language when she was in the ninth grade. She also took Spanish in high school. In college she majored in both English and History and always had an interest in languages and LINGUISTICS. She probably knows as much Greek as most Pastors, but doesn't boast of it or put herself forward as a Greek or Hebrew expert. But even one who has never studied much Greek or Hebrew at all can use a Greek/English and Hebrew/English interlinear and a good Greek or Hebrew lexicon and grammar to see whether the NIV or any other modern version is "TRANSLATING" from those languages or merely "PARAPHRASING" by adding, subtracting, or changing the words of the original language texts. I agree with her assessment in these three cases. It is indeed "a gross perversion of the original Bible Languages"!

4. Westcott and Hort as Satanists.

a. Minton's Opinion: "It would be difficult to count the number of times she [Mrs. Riplinger] tries to use the nineteenth century scholars, Westcott and Hort, who were heavily involved in the Revision of 1881, to prove her point. She falsely claims they were Satanists and wicked necromancers, etc.....she is totally incorrect about those two men...."

b. Dr. Waite: As soon as the reader gets his copy of NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS [B.F.T. #2335, 700pp.] I would strongly urge them to turn immediately to pages 616-629 and study them carefully. These pages form APPENDIX A: A SUMMARY: WESTCOTT AND HORT. This is the most complete documentation about these two apostate Anglican clergymen that I have seen all in one place! Most of the quotations are from the letters and documents written by Westcott and Hort themselves, taken from their biographies, compiled by their sons. The titles are: THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF WESTCOTT [B.F.T. #1866, 928pp.] and THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF HORT [B.F.T. #1867, 997pp.]. Regarding the "Satanist" activity of Westcott and Hort, she mentions that Westcott, Hort, and Benson started the "Ghostly Guild" in 1851. Westcott's ties with the "GHOSTLY GUILD" are documented by Arthur Westcott who wrote of this father, Bishop Westcott:

"He devoted himself with ardour, during his last year at Cambridge, to two new societies. One of these was the 'GHOSTLIE GUILD'....the 'GHOSTLIE GUILD'....was established for the INVESTIGATION OF ALL SUPERNATURAL APPEARANCE AND EFFECTS." [Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of B.F. Westcott, Vol. 1, p.117]

This "Ghostlie Guild," as they spelled it then, tied both Westcott and Hort with "Satanist" activities, "necromancy," and the like. They carried on communication with the dead by means of evil spirits. It this isn't "Satanism," what would you call it? The Bible says:

(Leviticus 19:31) Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I {am} the LORD your God. (Isaiah 8:19) And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

Westcott and Hort violated these Bible prohibitions when they often attempted to communicate with people who were dead. They even tried to justify this evil Satanic practice by use of the Apostles' Creed which talks about "the COMMUNION OF SAINTS." They believed this justified them seek to "COMMUNICATE" with the "SAINTS" who had died. The late Episcopal Bishop James Pike was doing the same thing in the years before his death.

5. Westcott and Hort as alleged typical Anglican scholars like Dean Burgon.

a. Minton's Opinion: "Actually, Westcott and Hort were typical Anglican scholars JUST LIKE DEAN BURGON who defended the TR and all of the KJV original translators."

b. Dr. Waite: I don't believe Westcott and Hort (W & H) were "typical Anglican scholars" at all. They were theological apostate and heretical. If you don't believe this, you might like to get two books that give specific proof of this allegation: (1) THE THEOLOGICAL HERESIES OF WESTCOTT AND HORT [B.F.T. #595, 38pp.]. This book cites about quotations from five of their books, showing them to be heretical in every area of theology. (2) WESTCOTT'S CLEVER DENIAL OF THE BODILY RESURRECTION OF CHRIST [B.F.T. #1131, 928pp.]. This book compares two of Westcott's books on the resurrection of Christ, showing, with many quotations, that he denies that Christ rose bodily from the grave.

As for these two apostate Anglican clergymen being "JUST LIKE DEAN BURGON," NOTHING could be further from the truth!! They were WORLDS apart!! Note:

(1) Westcott and Hort were apostate Anglican clergymen, questioning their church's Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith; whereas Dean Burgon was a conservative, fundamentalist Anglican clergyman, affirming and defending the Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith.

(2) Westcott and Hort warred against the Traditional Text (TR) setting forth their own New Testament Greek text which departed from the T.R. in 5,604 places involving 9,970 Greek words; whereas Dean Burgon was in favor of the Traditional Text (TR) and despised Westcott and Hort false Greek text.

(3) Westcott and Hort helped translate and defended the English Revised Version of 1881; whereas Dean Burgon opposed the English Revised Version of 1881, and favored and defended the Authorized Version of 1611 [THE REVISION REVISED, B.F.T. #611, 591pp.].

(4) Westcott and Hort denied the absolute inerrancy of even the original New Testament Greek text [INTRODUCTION TO THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by Westcott and Hort, p.280]; whereas Dean Burgon affirmed and defended the absolute inerrancy of the original New Testament Greek text, insisting that every verse, every word, every syllable, and even every LETTER was inerrant [INSPIRATION AND INTERPRETATION, pp.70,89, cf.B.F.T. #1220, 567PP.].

(5) Westcott and Hort were strongly sympathetic to Roman Catholicism and wanted the Anglican church to return to that church; whereas Dean Burgon was strongly opposed to Roman Catholicism and bent his efforts to stop the Anglican church from returning to that false system and practice.

Dr. Beebe: I, as a life-time member of the Dean Burgon Society, consider "professor" Minton's ignorance of Westcott, Hort, and Burgon, a real revelation of his total scope of knowledge. He is a defender of modern language translations, the texts they are based on, and an enemy of the KJV. >From his writings one must conclude he is a wolf in sheep's clothing and that he has an agenda to cast doubt upon the KJV.

6. The alleged insignificance of the Westcott and Hort Greek text for today.

a. Minton's Opinion: "....the Westcott and Hort text (1881) is insignificant for four reasons. First, others had essentially the same text before them. Second, no textual critic now holds to the Westcott and Hort theories of textual criticism. Third, no current Greek New Testament is like theirs....Finally, the modern versions (NASV and NIV) are not based on the Alexandrian text or on the Westcott and Hort text. They are based on an eclectic text which sometimes favors the TR over Aleph or B."

b. Dr. Waite: The Westcott and Hort Greek text and theories are far from "insignificant" today.

(1) Others did NOT have "essentially the same text." In 1881, when the Westcott and Hort New Testament Greek text appeared publicly, there were the New Testament Greek texts of Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and others, yet, if they had "essentially the same text," why were they all published separately and why did Westcott and Hort come out with their own text?

(2) Textual critics today DO hold to "Westcott and Hort textual theories." Note the following quotations to prove this point:

In 1964, J.H. Greenlee wrote in his Introduction to New Testament Textuai Criticism, p.78: "The TEXTUAL THEORIES of W-H [Westcott and Hort] underlies [sic] VIRTUALLY ALL SUBSEQUENT WORK IN NT TEXTUAL CRITICISM."

In 1979, D.A. Carson wrote in his The King James Version Debate, p.75: "The THEORIES OF WESTCOTT AND HORT....[are] ALMOST UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED TODAY.... The vast majority of evangelical scholars....hold that the basic textual theories of Westcott and Hort were right...."

In 1990, Philip W. Comfort wrote in his Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament, p.21: "But textual critics have not been able to advance beyond Hort in formalizing a theory...."

(3) "Current" Greek New Testaments ARE Like Theirs. Westcott and Hort thought that the true Greek text was based upon manuscripts "B" (Vatican) and, when manuscript "Aleph" (Sinai) agreed or when another appropriate uncial agreed, the true text was based upon "B" plus that other document. [See INTRODUCTION TO THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by Westcott and Hort, pp.171,276, 227 [B.F.T. #1303, 530pp.]. These same Greek manuscripts and theories for the most part are accepted by textual critics today which explains the similarity of Greek texts. Note the following quotations that prove this point:

In 1914, Herman C. Hoskier wrote in his Codex B and Its Allies, Volume I, p.467: "The text printed by Westcott and Hort has been accepted as 'the true text' and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on higher criticism, and others have been grounded on this text."

In 1980, Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering wrote in his Identity of the New Testament Text, P.42: "The two most popular manual editions of The Greek text today, Nestles-Aland and U.B.S. [United Bible Society] really vary little from the W-H [Westcott and Hort] text."

In 1987, John R. Kohlenberger wrote in his Words About the Word. p.42: "Westcott and Hort....all subsequent versions from the Revised Version (1881) to those of the present....have adopted their basic approach...[and] accepted the Westcott and Hort [Greek] text."

In 1990, Dr. Bruce Metzger wrote to Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro, a Baptist Pastor in New Jersey, about how he and the other members of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies Committee began their work on their New Testament Greek Texts: "We took as our base at the beginning the text of Westcott and Hort (1881) and introduced changes as seemed necessary on the basis of MSS evidence." This documentation is found in Metzger's own hand-writing in B.F.T. #2490-P, p.272 in The Dean Burgon Society (1978-1994) Messages From the 16th Annual Meeting, August, 1994.

(4) The NASV and NIV ARE based on the "Alexandrian" text and that of Westcott and Hort. As mentioned in "(3)" above, modern textual critics have adopted as their chief Greek manuscript authority "B" and "Aleph" (or another equally as valid). So did Westcott and Hort before them. It is no wonder then why the NASV version and the NIV version are based upon these same "Alexandrian" texts and that of "Westcott and Hort." In my book, DEFENDING THE KING JAMES VERSION [B.F.T. #1594-P. 340pp.], Chapter V, I set forth 158 doctrinal passages where the NIV, NASV, NKJV (footnotes), and New Berkeley follow almost entirely and almost in unison manuscripts "B" (Vatican) and/or "Aleph" (Sinai). The places where a new version "sometimes favors the TR over Aleph or B" are few and far between indeed!

7. The suggestion to ignore Westcott and Hort in the textual debate.

a. Minton's Opinion: "It would be better to just ignore Westcott and Hort. They are not that significant in textual debate."

b. Dr. Waite: In view of Points #4, #5, and #6 above in which the author has given false information and opinions concerning Westcott and Hort and Dean John William Burgon, it is impossible to "just ignore Westcott and Hort." They are two apostate clergymen responsible for dethroning the Textus Receptus Greek text from its once held place of prominence and respect.

Dr. Beebe: The TR was not questioned until over 250 years after the KJV was published. Higher criticism from Germany started the ball rolling towards modernistic views of the Scriptures that eventually led to an attempt at redoing the Bible, 1881-85 REVISED EDITION, 1901 ASV, etc. All of which did not last!

To "ignore" them in the historical context of "the textual debate" would be similar to "ignoring" the New Testament teachings from the "modernist/ fundamentalist" debate today. We must go back in history to know where the false ideas came from and why they have taken over the minds and thinking of large numbers of people. These people so deluded include not only the laymen and laywomen in the churches today, but also and most especially teachers and professors in colleges, universities, and seminaries.

8. Psalm 12:6-7 and Bible Preservation.

a. Minton's Opinion: "By the way, she [Mrs. Riplinger] also uses Psalm 12:6-7 as evidence God promised to preserve the Bible, when both the Hebrew and the context prove without doubt that the passage cited teaches it is the faithful people God will keep, not the Bible! Preservation is a firm biblical doctrine, but it is not taught in this verse."

b. Dr. Waite: I am glad to see that the author believes that "preservation is a firm biblical doctrine." He is in error, however, regarding Psalm 12:6-7. In point of fact, "both the Hebrew and the context prove without doubt that the passage" deals with only the preservation of the Words of God!

(1) The Hebrew of Psalm 12:6-7 (7-8). One of the best studies on the defense of the Bible Preservation taught in these verses is B.F.T. #2524 (5pp.) by Dr. Jack Moorman. The Hebrew text for these two verses becomes Psalm 12:7-8, one verse different than in our English Bibles.

(a) The Incorrectness of "Us" in Psalm 12:7. Perhaps the author has read the New International Version's rendering of these verses. There is NO Hebrew support whatsoever for their interpretive paraphrase of verse 7 (v.8 in Hebrew).

Psalm 12:6-7 - (6) And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. (7) O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever. (NIV)

If this false rendering is to be believed, the "US" cannot be referred to the "WORDS OF THE LORD." If the author believes this has foundation in the Hebrew language, he is mistaken. The chief editor of the NIV, Dr. Kenneth Barker, on the John Ankerberg TV show aired in the summer and fall of 1995, commented on these verses. From the transcript of the telecast, page 11, Barker quoted the NIV and reasoned from their ERROR in Psalm 12:5 to go to Psalm 12:7 with a similar ERROR which is ABSENT in the Hebrew text. Here how he read the NIV version of Psalm 12:5: "Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise," says the Lord. "I will protect [them] from those who malign [them]." (NIV)

In the Hebrew text, there is no pronominal suffix of any kind after either "protect" or "malign." There is certainly NO "them." This is sheer paraphrase and adding to the verse what is not therein the Hebrew text. It is inexcusable! Then Dr. Barker quoted the NIV version of Psalm 12:6-7 with his ADDED words "US" both after "keep" and after "protect," even though "US" does not once appear in the Hebrew text!

Psalm 12:6-7 (6) And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. (7) O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever. (NIV)

The liberals under Philip Schaff who translated the American Standard Version of 1901 didn't even have a problem with "keep them" and "preserve them" in these verse:

Psalm 12:6-7 (6) The words of Jehovah are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, Purified seven times. (7) Thou wilt keep them, O Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever. (ASV)

(2) The Context of Psalm 12:6-7. Both in English as in Hebrew, the general rule of grammar is to take the CLOSEST antecedent possible from the reference to pronouns unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise. In these two verses, there is a complete context which is self-contained. There is no need to venture to verses 1-5 in order to invent an antecedent for the "THEM" in verse 7. Verse 6 has "WORDS" two times, and clearly, the "THEM" refers back to "WORDS."

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, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (KJB)

The verbs "keep" and "preserve" are properly referred to the "WORDS OF THE LORD."

Here in this verse, God has promised to PRESERVE His very WORDS! This is indeed VERBAL PRESERVATION!!

9. Using modern versions to understand the Word of God.

a. Minton's Opinion: "Finally, Riplinger denies the common practice of using and comparing other versions to help gain a better understanding of the Word of God."

b. Dr. Waite: Why should a person "use and compare other versions" when trying to "gain a better understanding of the Word of God"? Why should not the person rather go to the Hebrew or Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible to gain his "better understanding"? This could be done either directly, if the individual has a working knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek and can use lexicons, grammars, and concordances in these languages, or indirectly by use of the Strong's numbers and the Englishman's Greek and Hebrew Concordances. It is most unsafe and even dangerous to resort to the New King James Version or to the New American Standard Version or to the New International Version if you wish to "gain a better understanding of the Word of God."

These new versions are most untrustworthy sources! The reason for this is twofold: (1) These modern versions either use (NASV, NIV, and others) or make reference to (NKJV) false Hebrew and Greek texts. (2) These modern versions, to a lesser or greater extent, make use of the false technique of translation known as "dynamic equivalence" or "paraphrase." By this process they think they are justified in either ADDING to God's Words, SUBTRACTING from God's Words, or CHANGING God's Words in some other way. From my own careful, time-consuming, exhaustive research on this theme for the three versions mentioned, NKJV, NASV, and NIV, I found instances of "dynamic equivalence" as follows: Over 2,000 examples in the NKJV [Cf. B.F.T. #1442, 95pp.]; over 4,000 examples in the NASV [Cf.B.F.T. #1749-P, 284pp.]!! Because of these versions' citation or use of the heretical Egyptian Greek texts, and their mishandling of God's Words, they are as undependable as the "bruised reed" mentioned in the Bible:

2 Kings 18:21 Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, [even] upon Egypt, on which if a man learn, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so [is] Pharaoh king of Egypt unto all that trust on him.

We must not put CONFIDENCE in such UNFAITHFUL versions as Proverbs cautions us:

Proverbs 25:19 Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble [is like] a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint. (KJV)

10. The alleged ignorance among Baptists of the Bible's origins.

a. Minton's Opinion: "How could a book [referring to New Age Bible Versions by Mrs. Gail Riplinger] that constantly distorts the truth sell 50,000 copies? The tragedy is that Christians today (and it seems especially so with Baptists) are ignorant of their Bible's origin and of historic fundamental Baptist views."

b. Dr. Waite: In the first place, I do not believe, as the author, that Mrs. Riplinger "distorts the truth" in order to "sell 50,000 copies" of her book. Mrs. Riplinger told me that it is closer to 100,000 copies, by the way. I have found that the most caustic criticism of this book comes from those who have not finished all 700 pages of it. I believe she states thousands of FACTS from her 1,500 end notes of documentation. She also includes her OPINIONS which, to her, follow from these FACTS. We readers are under no obligation to agree with ALL of her OPINIONS. There are SOME with which I disagree. (Dr. Beebe: Who agrees with everyone's opinion? Dr. Waite and I disagree on some opinions but I deem him a friend and concerning the KJV, I couldn't agree more!) She has every right in a free society to hold her opinions, to state them publicly in a book, and to disseminate such opinions as widely as possible! Let the people read the New Age Bible Versions and judge for themselves. I am NOT a "BOOK BURNER"! The Bible For Today carries her book [B.F.T. #2335, 700pp.] (as does Beebe Publications) and encourages its readers to read it for much valuable information contained therein. I encourage readers to read books like they eat fish. Enjoy the meat, but, if there are any bones, leave the bones on the plate!

Secondly, I question strongly the advisability of stating that "Christians today (and it seems especially so with Baptists) are IGNORANT of their bible's origin...." I believe this statement "distorts the truth." Is the author seeking to start a fight with the Baptist Bible Fellowship International? Is he berating his own brethren because perhaps thousands of them have bought and read Mrs. Riplinger's book? I believe it will come as a slap in the face to all "Christians today" as well and especially to the "Baptists." I don't think people generally like to be referred to as "IGNORANT." In his own mind, does the author think that HE is the only one who is INFORMED about the Bible's origin? Does he think that all the "Christians today" and all the "Baptists" who have bought Mrs. Riplinger's book, read it, and find it profitable, are "IGNORANT"? Is he the only one who has the WISDOM necessary to bring all "Christians today" and especially the "BAPTISTS" up to his understanding of the TRUTH on this theme? I don't believe this is so. One of the reasons that Mrs. Riplinger's book has caught the attention of so many tens of thousands around the world might be so that "Christians today" and especially the "Baptists" might no longer be "IGNORANT of their Bible's origin." If the readers don't like Mrs. Riplinger's conclusions on the King James Bible and its origin, she magnanimously and graciously list 21 other sources for "additional information" on this subject. She is the first to realize that she does not have a "corner" on the truth! Does Professor Minton think he has such a "corner"?

Dr. Beebe: I find most Bible correctors love the uppermost seats in the college of knowledge. They are indeed those who we must go to (they think) for real truth and teaching. Dr. Bob Jones Sr. used to call them, "Mind worshipers".

11. The statement of Bible Baptist College and Graduate School of Theology, Springfield, Missouri, on the Word of God.

a. An Opinion: The author, editor, or possibly someone from the staff of The Bible Preacher, included in the article a portion of the position on the KJV of the Baptist Bible College and Graduate School of Theology as follows, under the caption of "BBC's position on the KJV":

"Every faculty member of the Baptist Bible College and the Baptist Bible Graduate School of Theology subscribe [sic] to the statement of the approved Bible text stated on page 26 of the college catalog. 'We believe that our students should be undergirded by an unshakable faith in the Word of God. We believe that the King James Version is God's Word kept intact for the English speaking people. This statement does not preclude the study of the individual Greek and Hebrew words in the original languages... The Textus Receptus is the approved Greek text of our curriculum.'" -- Leland R. Kennedy, President

b. Dr. Waite: The statement above, so far as I'm concerned is a good and helpful statement IF it is implemented at ALL levels! However, after reading this article by Professor Ron Minton of the Baptist Bible Graduate School of Theology. I would strongly suggest that President Leland R. Kennedy research the faculty files to see if Professor Minton has signed an up-to-date "subscribing" of this statement. From my impartial Baptist point of view, it would appear that one of at least three things might be true: (1) Professor Minton has not signed this "subscribing" statement. (2) Professor Minton has signed this "subscribing" statement and he thinks he "subscribes" to it. Perhaps he doesn't understand the ramifications of it. (3) Professor Minton has signed this "subscribing" statement with tongue-in-cheek. He knows fully what it means and the implications thereof, but he does not fully agree with it. I don't know which of these three is correct.

One thing is true from my own perspective. I would not hire Professor Minton to teach at our Bible for Today Baptist Bible Seminary or Bible Institute. I say this for at least four reasons:

(1) The article evidenced great respect for a pair of theological apostates such as Bishop Westcott and Professor Hort, defending them as "typical Anglican scholars." Such misinformation is not to be expected from one teaching in a professedly fundamental Baptist institution. One who might follow in their beliefs of theological apostasy could hardly be called a fundamentalist Baptist. There was SILENCE on this.

(2) There was an absence of any condemnation whatsoever for Westcott and Hort's woefully defective Greek text, or of manuscripts "B" and "Aleph" on which it is based. Such strong condemnation would be expected if indeed Professor Minton was a solid, strong proponent of the King James Bible and the Textus Receptus on which it is based. There was SILENCE on this.

(3) Professor Minton failed to make any distinction whatsoever between Westcott and Hort and one of their most vocal and earnest opponents, Dean John William Burgon who defended the very Traditional Text that the College and Graduate School of Theology profess to follow as the "approved Greek text of our curriculum." Professor Minton showed no conviction or solid defense of the Textus Receptus in face of its many enemies both ancient and modern. Such would have been expected given the professed stance of his institution. There was SILENCE on this.

(4) Professor Minton failed to show any conviction or solid defense of the King James Bible in view of its multitudes of enemies all over the world. He should have struck a blow both for the KING JAMES BIBLE and for the TEXTUS RECEPTUS Greek text that would resound throughout the BAPTIST BIBLE FELLOWSHIP INTERNATIONAL all over this nation and around the world!!! This would have been expected considering the written position of his school which appeared in his very article. There was SILENCE on this.

As many have stated before with "FRIENDS" of the King James Bible and its Textus Receptus like this [Professor Minton], these two faithful documents need no "ENEMIES"!!

Dr. Beebe: Thank you Dr. Waite for your good response. How dangerous it is for us to have people called, "professors" in Bible colleges who do not believe what their parents and home churches have taught them about the Word of God. How often this results in a shipwreck on the spiritual sea of life.

Why would I print this article in the CHURCH BUS NEWS? Because, if our Bible (KJV) is not true, then there is no reason to win souls, preach, or live a separated life! But I believe we have a SUPERNATURAL BOOK that God has placed in our hands to guide us and comfort us through this life. May we make every effort to defend it to all who would criticize and try to harm it.

At Beebe Publications we have tried to put together a wonderful group of books and pamphlets that defend the King James Version and reinforce our faith in God's Word. You may purchase these, using our 800 number (800-828-4595) and any credit card.

NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS by Dr. G. A. Riplinger, $14.99 each. In case lots of 14 copies, only $130 plus postage, (sale price of $9.29 each.
WHICH BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD by Dr. G. A. Riplinger, $9.99.
BLIND GUIDES by Dr. G. A. Riplinger, $6.99.
NEW AGE BIBLE CHART by Dr. G. A. Riplinger, $.35 @.
THE KJV DEFENDED by Edward F. Hills, $14.99.
LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Barton, $4.50.
THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME by Dr. Mickey Carter, $7.00.
GOD WROTE ONLY ONE BIBLE by J. J. Ray, $5.95.
COULD THE NIV BE THE TRUE WORD OF GOD? by Dr. Paul Heaton (a sequel to God Wrote only One Bible) $8.95.
THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, Trinitarian Bible Society, $1.20.
THE LEARNED MEN translators of KJV, $1.20.
MYTH OF THE EARLY REVISIONS by David Reagan, $1.99.
THE FOUNDATION AND AUTHORITY OF THE WORD OF GOD, by Dr. Bruce Cummons, $5.00.
POSITION PAPER ON THE VERSIONS, by David Otis Fuller, $2.00.
WHICH VERSION OF THE BIBLE SHOULD I USE? by Dr. Walter S. Beebe, $.95.
THE EYE OPENER, 200 key references compared by J. J. Ray, 5 for $1.00.
IS THE NEW KING JAMES BIBLE THE WORD OF GOD, by Robert J. Sargent, 5 for $1.00.
GOD WROTE ONLY ONE BIBLE, by Dr. David Otis Fuller, 4 for $1.00.
WHICH BIBLE?, by Dr. David Otis Fuller, $11.99.
COUNTERFEIT OR GENUINE Mark 16?, John 8? by Dr. David Otis Fuller, $11.99.
TRUE OR FALSE?, by Dr. David Otis Fuller, by Dr. David Otis Fuller, $11.99.
HERESIES OF WESTCOTT AND HORT, by Dr. D. A. Waite, $4.95.

END OF ARTICLE

Sojourners of the Lord Home Page	Bible Studies, Articles, Links, More...
Sojourners' King James Bible Page	Large Collection of Manuscript Evidence
Sojourners' NoteTabbers' Page	Loaded with Libraries, Clips, and Images...
Sojourners' Site Index	Listing of Most Pages on All Sites