"King James Onlyism" In Action by: Dr. Peter S. Ruckman --------------- For FREE Current Catalogue write: Bible Baptist Bookstore P.O. Box 7135 Pensacola, Florida 32514 (904) 477-8812 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Back somewhere around 1975, Bob Jones Jr, at Bob Jones University, resorted to one more in a series of stratagems to protect his apostate "Bible Department" from a ravages of what he called "Ruckmanism". As we had already documented many times in the "Bible Believers' Bulletin", the extravagant and fanatical extremes to which the Scholar's Union goes to justify its sins of unbelief and willful ignorance, we did not take much time to answer one more charge of "heresy". The word (heresy) comes from Acts 24:14 and is first applied to first century "Ruckmanites" (read the passage!) who believed the Old Testament LITERALLY, without going to any scholar to correct ANYTHING they found in it (Acts 24). "King James Onlyism" is a HERESY according to the faculty and staff of BJU, which passed its mental sickness on to other Christian colleges, seminaries, and universities via its graduates. After failing to get rid of Bible believers in their classrooms by ridiculing the KING JAMES BIBLE and those who stood for it (see the documented evidence in "The Last Grenade" and "Problem Texts"; 1990 and 1978), and after failing to wipe them out by distributing a tract by John McGraw (likening Bible believers to Mormons), and after saying that NO translation was inspired (THUS DENYING MORE THAN FORTH-EIGHT VERSES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AS EVER HAVING BEEN INSPIRED), Bob Jones Jr. and Bob Jones III (followed now by the IV) decided the best thing to do was pretend that Ruckman used nothing but a KING JAMES BIBLE-- which they knew was a lie-- and that he disallowed ALL missionary translations on the foreign field-- which was a lie-- and that you could not correct the Alexandrian Text of Westcott and Hort with the ENGLISH of 1611-- which, of course, YOU CAN. Habitual LYING seems to be a "lifestyle" at BJU, at least when the matter of Final Authority comes up. Now we have demonstrated that believing the Book is NOT Mormonism, that translations of copies CAN be "given by inspiration", that anyone can USE twenty-eight translations for ANYTHING, that Valera, Luther, Diodati, Olivetan, tec., are "reliable translation", and that you can (and SHOULD) correct Nestle's Greek text with ANY EDITION of an AV, both before and AFTER Nestle published his text. This stuff is in print. It is documented chapter and verse, copyright and page number, letter heading and signature in "The Last Grenade", "The Christian's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship", "Problem Texts", and the work on "The Pastoral Epistles". If you are ignorant of the scriptural rebuttals to the false charges of BJU, you are WILLFULLY IGNORANT on grounds of personal, subjective prejudice and PREFERENCE that have to do with maintaining YOUR OWN OPINION as the final authority; that is, BJU gave you the ALIBI TO SIN and you don't want to lose it. Bob Jones University (and institutions like it) has already printed their UNBELIEF in the Bible in official publications. They have made public and open addresses to student bodies stating WHY THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THE BOOK and why you shouldn't believe in any Book, or any version of any Book. Anyone who can read knows what they do NOT believe and why they don't believe it. Nothing is "swept under the rug." They will write you anytime you write them and tell you why they subscribe to "The Creed of the Cult", which we print in every issue of the "Bible Believers' Bulletin", and have for ten years. If you want to know why the AV is NOT the Holy Bible--the Scriptures--the first ten people who would be most anxious to tell you of their infidelity would be Bob Jones III, Curtis Hutson, Wilber Pickering, James Price, Stewart Custer, Arthur Farstad, Paul Ankenberg, Harold Wilmington, Gleason Archer, and Bruce Metzger. They are positively and plainly on record as believing NOTHING ON THIS EARTH IS THE "SCRIPTURES". The record is printed and published (see "The Last Grenade", 1990) where ANYONE can obtain it. If you couldn't find out what one apostate Fundamentalist believed about anything, you could find out what EVERY ONE of them believed about "THE SCRIPTURES". To them, THERE ARE NO SCRIPTURES. They will tell you in less than fifteen seconds (If you don't believe it, WRITE them and get their "confession of faith") Everyone of them confesses INFIDELITY AND IGNORANCE (agnosticism). Now as we said, the gimmick that Bobby Jones (Jr, III, IV, etc.) is now pulling off is "I don't subscribe to KING JAMES ONLYISM." 1) I was the ONLY English translation they allowed to be used from their pulpit at the World Congress of Fundamentalism in London in 1990. 2) It is the ONLY translation allowed to be brought into the Rhodeheaver Auditorium (or FMA) on the campus at BJU in Greenville, South Carolina. HYPOCRITES ARE BORN AS WELL AS MADE. Now what is this "KING JAMES ONLYISM"? Well, according to apostates in the Alexandrian Cult, it is teaching that the AV is "given by inspiration" because it is "the scriptures" (2 Tim. 3:16). The "heretic" who believes he has a copy of the "Scriptures" in his hand would thereby be equipped to correct any portion (or part) of another translation (or Greek or Hebrew text) if it went AGAINST "the Scripture". It is obvious that IDIOMS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES do not always need to be corrected, for the God of the BIBLE is the God of "TONGUES" (Acts 2). The "wonderful works of God", spoken in Acts 2, were NOT word by word literal translations of anything said (OR WRITTEN) in Hebrew: but they were INSPIRED. (By the way! THEY WERE INSPIRED WITHOUT BEING RECORDED AS "SCRIPTURE". Did you notice THAT?) However, a "confrontation" takes place when Luke 2:33; Luke 23:42; 1 Tim 3:16; Acts 4:27,30, and Mark 1:2 show up; for these deal with the DEITY of the Lord Jesus Christ and His incarnation through a Virgin Birth. At this point, there pops up THREE "Fundamentals of the Faith"--not "variations in editions", "making a good translation better", "bringing out the meaning of the original", "communicating to the receptor in modern language", or any other God-forsaken alibi for the SIN of rejecting the Holy Bible. Here we have the "fundamentals" which you hear these Fundamentalists always hollering about every time they recommend any Bible but a KING JAMES BIBLE as "reliable". You know the gas bag: "True, there are 30,000 changes in this translation, but good `godly' men did the work and all of them believed in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the original autographs, so NOT ONE FUNDAMENTAL of the faith is affected by the 30,000 changes." That is the wretched alibi used by ALL Alexandrians in the Alexandrian Cult to get you to join them in their infidelity and REJECTION of the words of truth ("WORDS", not "Word"). Are they telling the truth? Wanna check 'em out to see if they are? Good! Let's do it. Let's see if "KING JAMES ONLYISM" is actually a "heresy" or just a spiritual antidote for "DEAD DUCK OTHERISM". For of a truth against thy HOLY CHILD Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of THY HOLY CHILD JESUS. (Acts 4:27,30) This is the reading of "KING JAMES ONLYISM" in 1611, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1629, 1640, 1701, 1762, 1769, 1833, 1847, 1858, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, and 1991. The verses deal with the Deity of Christ and the Virgin Birth. They have nothing to do with "incorrect handling" of the article, the gender of the noun, or the "tense of the verb" (see the video on "Are There Errors in the King James Bible?" with Gary Hudson). If a man were a Fundamentalist he would realize he was dealing with two major FUNDAMENTALS of the faith right in front of his face. What would he do if he knew this? Why, he would recommend some other version immediately--ANY other version--to eliminate a statement on ABSOLUTE TRUTH coming from a FINAL AUTHORITY established in 1611. There is only ONE English Bible on the face of this earth, since 1611, that has "CHILD" in the passage: It is the one printed in 1611. Not even the JESUIT Donway-Rheims Dark Age text of 1582 took out the word "CHILD". The Roman Catholics in 1582 were more militant for the "Fundamentals of the Faith" than pre-Millennial Fundamentalists are in 1992. The ASV, MASV, RSV, RV, MRSV, NKJV, etc., all convert God's "HOLY CHILD" into a "servant" so He will appear in the passage ON THE SAME LEVEL WITH A HUMAN SINNER: David (see Acts 4:25). Observe that the apostate Fundamentalists who recommend ANY version other than a KING JAMES VERSION (any edition), got rid of the Deity of JESUS CHRIST--THEIR FIRST FUNDAMENTAL!--by tying verse 27 to verse 25. This time, if you were stupid enough to take Bob Jones Jr, III, IV, V, et al., seriously (or the "pastor" of the Campus Church: PCS), you became a real HERETIC yourself, DENYING THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL YOU PROFESSED TO BELIEVE IN. Every major, recognized Christian school in America (including all Conservative, Evangelical, and Fundamentalist institutions) did just THAT. 1) The RV and ASV convert Jesus Christ to a servant. 2) The RSV and NRSV convert Jesus Christ to a servant. 3) The NIV and NASV convert Jesus Christ to a servant. 4) The NKJV and the next TEN "new and better" translations will do exactly the same thing. You say, "Well, scholars think that the best text says..." You haven't even looked at any Greek text yet. You are looking at a UNIVERSAL, ECUMENICAL, attack on the Deity of Christ by men who profess to believe in the fundamentals. You say, "The Greek text says... "You lie like a dog; THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE" GREEK TEXT, and five Bibles before 1611 translated the Greek word as "CHILD" or "SON" (Tyndale, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, The Bishop's Bible, and the Douay-Rheims). All five were wrong, were they? And only after 1880 did you get the "true light" on the text? A light that DENIED the Deity of Christ and the Incarnation? You wouldn't "woof us" would you, looneybird? "Well THE GREEK..." Is that so? Well, let's just see about that "Greek". Acts 4 27 sunhcyhsan gar ep alhyeiav epi ton agion paida sou ihsoun on ecrisav hrwdhv te kai pontiov pilatov sun eynesin kai laoiv israhl There are no variations given in Aland, Metzger, Hort, Weiss, Tischendorf, Lachmann, Tregelles, Nestle, Alford, Von Soden, Griesbach, Bengel, Fell Alter, Birch, Bentley, Walton, Scrivener, Elzevir, Beza, Erasmus, or Scholtz. "ton agion paida sou" is "THE" Greek text printed in any Greek New Testament that has a Greek text for Acts 4:27. So the apostates' first crutch is thrown off the trestle. No hanky panky can go on about "the best and oldest manuscripts say `DOULOS'," for they do NOT say "doulos"--servant. They said "PAIDA". Now if a man were reasonable--"good men are always reasonable" (Bob Jones Sr.)--and were a Christian, he would begin to look here for a way to justify a translation that honours the Deity and Virgin Birth of Christ. If he were unreasonable, do you know what he would be looking for? We know. Do you? Why bless your soul dahlin', he would be looking for an alibi to SIN. According to Proverbs 18:1-2, he would be trying to find someone to justify "DEAD DUCK OTHERISM" to get rid of the AUTHORITY OF A TEXT in his own language that honoured Jesus Christ. To do this--to dishonor Jesus Christ and give the honor to "scholarship"--he would have to violate FIVE rational and reasonable rules of textual criticism, Greek grammar, and manuscript evidence. Never fear! He will do it as quickly as breathing air, and with no more conscious about it than Charles Manson sending his teenagers out to kill. No overstatement. Where a man's highest authority is his own preference or opinion, "the law of the jungle" is the final authority and self-preservation- -in this case THE PRESERVATION OF THE COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY--is the deciding factor. Morals and ethics are not involved. Rationality and reasonableness are not considerations, and "fidelity to the fundamentals" is a JOKE. We will document. Consider: does "paida" mean "CHILD" or "SERVANT"? Anything difficult about that proposition? All right, A-B-C, let's take another one. Consider: Could "paida" mean either "child" or "servant"? Would "servant" or "child" be proper ways to translate it? Would both be proper HERE? Anything difficult or "heretical" yet? In keeping with all traditional "historical" cannons of textual criticism, how does the author (Dr. Luke) usually use the word "PAIDA"? After all, he IS the author of Acts 4:27, 30. Any terrible "Ruckmanism" manifest anywhere yet? Anything "heretical" going on around here? Any sign yet of that heretical "KING JAMES ONLYISM"? No, not one sign on the horizon. So far, nothing but just plain, basic, ordinary, reasonable logic about to search for a TRUTHFUL answer. Does my reader have any problem up to this juncture? What is your problem? Is it, "What about the Bible before 1611?" That is not involved in the text. Is it, "What about the variations in the different editions of the King James Bible?" That is not involved in the text. Perhaps it is, "Ruckman thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong and he calls good men by bad names and slanders godly institutions." That is not involved in the text. Nothing is involved in an inquiry for truth in Acts 4:27, 30 but what we have mentioned. Now we will start on neutral ground. We will assume that even though Bob Jones Jr, III, IV, et al., have been lying like a dog to more than two thousand young people a year, that they are really "well meaning" Christian educators who are trying to propagate THE TRUTH (John 17:17). We will assume that Horton's employees (Pensacola Christian College, 1992) are in the same boat and so are Jerry Falwell's employees (Liberty University) along with Wheaton College: you see, their statement of faith on "The Inspiration and Preservation of Scripture" is IDENTICAL to Bob Jones University, and has been for more than thirty-three years (see "The Christian's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship", p. 260). We will assume that all of the Nicolaitan apostates actually believe in the Deity of Christ and the Virgin Birth. We will take them at their PROFESSION to believe what they say they believe, although of course we have no real right to do this since all of them, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, use a Book they do not believe and call it "Scripture" while denying in public and in private that it IS Scripture. Nonetheless! We ASSUME the Alexandrians all believe in the Virgin Birth and Deity of Christ--even though they took away the authorship of the writer who identified Christ as JEHOVAH in Mark 1:1-2 (see any "Dead Duck" other than a King James Bible), and reduced Jesus Christ to a Jehovah's Witness "created God" in John 1:18 (see the NASV recommended and promoted at BJU). We will overlook these "slip betwixt tongue and lips" (or whatever) and give them credit they do not deserve for actually believing in the Deity of Christ and the Virgin Birth. We assume their corrupt translations (NASV, ASV, etc.) were simply the work of bungling amateurs who didn't always exercise good judgment; nothing harmful was intended. Now here is what we call a "test case". This is one among many, but it will show the Bible-believing Christian how Satan controls the MINDS of the faculties and staffs of schools that worry about "King James Onlyism". Check all the references carefully in English AND Greek and check ALL of the translations carefully on EACH CHAPTER OR VERSE referred to. Don't overlook anything: that is a Nicolaitan attribute found in the Alexandrian Cult to excess. For a moment we are going to give you a "KING JAMES ONLYISM" reading; that is, a reading that is found in ALL the editions and revisions of EVERY edition of an AV that came out since 1611, and including 1611. We are going to examine ALL the Greek texts for this reading and then list ALL the ways this Greek text was translated since 1611 by "DEAD DUCK OTHERISM". The reading we pick will be crucial. It will stand out in brilliant contrast to the fanatical ravings of the Cult about "he" and "she" Ruth 3, or "fats" and "vats" in Joel 2:24. The gnat strainers will have no opportunity here to brag about their infidelity. This test case deals with the Virgin Birth and Deity of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. None of this old "pascha" should have been "passover", or "churches" should have been "temples". No, none of that majoring in the minors; none of that gnat-straining HOBBY HORSE RIDING for which BJU and PCS are famous. No, here we are dealing with a subject dear to the heart (supposedly) of every born-again, militant, "Bible-believing" Fundamentalist on the face of this earth. No man could profess to be a Fundamentalist if he took any reading on this verse from ANY English version but a KING JAMES VERSION. We will demonstrate. Isn't it strange how SIDETRACKED you can get when listening to these apostate Christian educators in the Alexandrian Cult? Isn't it amazing how they can shift, duck, feint, and dodge; yea, verily, turn inside out to keep their control over your MINDS so you will not be able to believe THE BOOK? It's "awesome", isn't it?) Here is a single problem in "selected readings" with "alternate possibilities", with no translator claiming to be inspired and no grammatical or exegetical problems involved except the POSSIBILITY of one or both translations ("child" and "servant") being permissible. Are both of them permissible and possible with "paida" as the source? What have you done with the Virgin Birth and the Deity of Christ if one ("servant") is used to the exclusion of the other ("child")? Is it possible that this is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 42:1, 19; 43:10, and 49:5, 6? With DAVID as a servant, right in the context (vs. 25), "PAIDOS", why shouldn't you reduce Jesus Christ to his level? Isn't the same Greek word used both times? Why all the fuss about the power and authority of the Authorized Version if the same Greek word is used for David and Christ, albeit Christ is in the context (vs 26) of "THOU ARE MY SON; THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE"? You see, the quotation from David was from Psalm 2--NOT ISAIAH--and the context of verse 24, 25, and 26 is a Davidic Psalm--NOT ISAIAH--concerning the Incarnation and Virgin Birth (Psa. 2:7, 12) of Jesus Christ. Somewhere in the process of attacking the Holy Spirit and the Holy Bible, the BJU "Fundamentalists" went just as nutty as a pecan pie. The men who recommended this blatant perversion of content, context, subject matter, Greek and Hebrew, and English texts--in order to avoid "King James Onlyism"--were Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Bob Jones III, Luther Weigle, Bishop Oxnam, Eugene Carson Blake, Arlin Horton, Reinhold Niebuhr, Dayton Hobbs, Harry Emerson Fosdick, R. A. Torrey, Bishop Pike, Pope Paul VI, James Price, Arthur Farstad, Pope John XXIII, Cardinal Spellman, Robert Sumner, John R. Rice, Pope Pius XII, J. Gresham Machen, A. T. Robertson, Stewart Custer, Benjamin Warfield, and the faculties and staff of EVERY MAJOR, RECOGNIZED SEMINARY AND COLLEGE IN THE UNITED STATES. Now watch how documented evidence dealing with the scriptural truths involved shows that KING JAMES ONLYISM is not a "heresy", but is the greatest corrective and purgative for Nicolaitanism that the world has ever seen. Watch how King James "Onlyism", as opposed to "Dead Duck Otherism", simply does away with EVERY TRANSLATION recommended by EVERY faculty member and graduate of EVERY major college, university, and seminary on the continent. 1) PAIDA is "a little CHILD" or "young lad" in Matthew 14, 15; Mark 7,9,10; Luke 7,11; John 21; 1 Corinthians 14; Hebrews 2, and Matthew 2 and 21. [This word is given in the plural as "children" whereas TEKNON is given as "children" in Matthew 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 27; Mark 7, 10, 12, 13; Luke 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, etc. (about seventy times)]. 2) In the singular, PAIDA is translated as "child" (or young lad) in Mark 9; Like 1, 2, 9; John 4:16; Matthew 17; Acts 7; Revelation 12, as well as Matthew 18, 19; Mark 10, Luke 18; 1 John 2, etc. PAIDION is used for a "child" in Matthew 2 EIGHT TIMES IN A ROW, AND PAIDION is used by the author of Acts as "CHILD" TEN TIMES IN HIS GOSPEL. In connection with Christ's virgin mother, the medical doctor (Luke), who knew all about the Virgin Birth (Luke 1-2), never says "SERVANT" one time in ANY Greek text or ANY English text, translated from ANY Greek text, for the word in Luke 1:59, 66, 76, 80; 2:17, 21, 27; or 9:47, 48. In Luke 2:43, it is "THE CHILD JESUS"--not anyone's servant". The word "teknon" can be translated as "child", and so can the word "huios"; see for example Matthew 10:21, Luke 1:7, Acts 7:5, Matthew 23:15, Acts13:10, and Revelation 12:5, but Psalm 2 is not about a "SERVANT", it is about a SON and the SON is the "CHILD" of the MOST HIGH" (Luke 8:28) and a "KING" (Psa. 2:6). Here is the Greek layout: PAIDOS: "A CHILD in relation to PARENTS, or in respect to age; a boy, youth, girl, maiden, a servant or slave, an attendant or minister." PAIDON: "an infant or babe." PAIDARION: "A little boy or child or lad." PAIDELA: "Correction, instruction or nurture of children--not "servants". PAIDEUTES: "A teacher or instructor of boys". PAIDEUO: "To educate, teach, learn or instruct." PAIDIOTHEN: "From a CHILD or childhood-- not "servanthood". The word in verse 25 (David) is PAIDOS. This is a genitive singular matching "pneumatos hagiou stomatos". The word is from "pais". The word in verse 27 is PAIDA, an accusative singular from "pais". This word (pais) is only translated as "SERVANT" in ten out of more than ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY PLACES in the New Testament. One of these places is Luke himself, the author of Acts, who calls David a "servant" (pais) in Luke 1:69. Luke will use "pais" for Israel and David, but not when speaking of Jesus Christ. When Luke says "SERVANTS" right in the context of Acts 4:27 he uses DOULOS (Acts 4:29). When you hit PAIS in "Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" you get only a passing mention that the word could mean a "servant" on occasion. Instead, you get eighty pages on "The CHILD from the natural and Ethico-Religious standpoint... The CHILD in Antiquity... The Rediscovery of the CHILD in Hellenism... The CHILD in the Cultus... The CHILD in the Old Testament and Judaism... The Estimation of the CHILD... The Participation of the CHILD in religious exercises... The CHILD in the New Testament... The Affirmation of the CHILD as a creature of God, etc." The only other thing that is mentioned is "SONSHIP". So could "paida" in Acts 4:27, 30 really be translated as "servant"? Yes it could, if you deny five things: 1) The style and intention of the author. 2) The basic root meaning of the word it came from. 3) The context of the passage and the Old Testament Scripture it was based on. 4) The mathematical odds against it being "servant" (twelve to 1). 5) The difference between David as a mortal sinner (vs. 25) and Jesus Christ, who was "God manifest in the flesh". Could "paida" be translated as "CHILD"? Yes, if one goes by the context, the quotation, the author, the basic meaning of the word, the Old Testament passage it is from, the mathematical odds, and one is zealous for the FUNDAMENTALS of the Christian faith. There is ONE English Bible that obeys these laws of common sense, math, reason, grammar, history, scripture, and faithfulness to the scriptures. It is not ANY Bible recommended at Bob Jones University, Tennessee Temple, Liberty University, Baptist Bible College, Moody, Fuller, Wheaton, Denver, Dallas Theological Seminary, Grace or Union Theological Seminary, Piedmont, Maranatha, Cedarville, or Louisville unless it is a KING JAMES 1611 AUTHORIZED VERSION--as in 1611. In this case (as in the case of 2 Tim. 2:15 and 2 Cor. 2:17) there is ONE BIBLE, and ONLY one Bible, that will tell you the truth to the glory of God. The rest of them--every cotton pickin' one of them--either denies the truth or perverts the truth. "Dead Duck Otherism" is the surest way on God's earth to assimilate heresy and false doctrines. What the Jones boys (Jr, III, IV, V, et al.) call "KING JAMES ONLYISM" is simply the pure words of God Almighty PRESERVED INTACT WITHOUT PROVEN ERROR, AND PRESERVED INSPITE OF THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT'S "godly SCHOLARSHIP", which isn't worth a "fiddler's...." You cannot find the Deity of Christ and the Virgin Birth reinforced in Acts 4:27-30 in any modern translation at a place where it is absolutely ESSENTIAL that it be reinforced. Every known rule of grammar, exegesis, textual criticism, "intrinsic evidence" and common sense dictates what word to use. The word is "CHILD". It does not appear in any translation recommended by any apostate "Fundamentalist" in the United States. Only--did you get that word?--ONLY in an AUTHORIZED VERSION will the correct reading be found; the rest of the garbage RV, RSV, NRSV, NNRSV, ASV, NASV, NNASV, NIV, NNIV, NWT, TEV, NEB, NKJV, etc.) is just that: garbage. Good "godly", dedicated, pious, "doubly separated", SATANIC REFUSE. What the Jones boys call "KING JAMES ONLYISM" is the only safeguard you have against believing some desperate liars. They make their living by lying and they want you to "join the club". You are a deceived fool if you do.