39 Answers For The Bible Correctors
Sep 09, 2003 09:47 PDT
FORTY SAVE ONE
Answers For The Bible Correctors
(Questions by Hudson & McHugh; Answers by Herb Evans)
It is said that a "fool" can ask more questions in a day than
a wise man can answer in a lifetime. Gary Hudson and Chris McHugh have sent
Herb Evans and the so-called "King James Cult" the following questions
instead of answering some of Herb Evans' letters. You see, they have been
getting into trouble exchanging letters with Bible believers, and they have
decided to play it safe by using a new strategy - questions only. Since
then, we have offered to answer their 39 questions if they would answer
their own 39 questions. They have refused as of March 28, 1990. We realize
that a challenge like this embarrasses them. Still, we shall answer the
questions ourselves. (Notice how they create straw dummy problems and grunt
and strain to find an error in the King James Bible.)
1. Must one possess a perfectly flawless translation in order to call it
the word of God?
Answer: Only if you do not want to blame God for the "flaws!"
2. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest
[poorest] translation" is still "the word of God?"
Answer: No, they, like Peter, were human and fallible in their
opinions. (Still, they did not refer to modern or corrupt translations;
they were referring to good anti-Catholic, English Bibles that predated the
3. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word
Answer: Which texts? Gary's formula is, the Greek and Hebrew
texts are the word of God in as much as they match the . . . ah . .
. "Original Autographs." Still, more than one printed Hebrew/Greek texts
were used (and also non -Hebrew/Greek texts).
4. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying (misnomer, see 3 and
5) the KJV can correct the English?
Answer: There is nothing to correct! Still, the original
"Autographs" are an acceptable standard, IF you can find them and can prove
that they really are "the" Autographs.
5. Do you believe that the English of the KJV corrects its own Hebrew and
Answer: If you mean, "Does it correct the original
Autographs?", then "No!" If you mean the printed texts that were used,
more than one printed text was used. Besides translating from the printed
texts, they also compared and consulted other manuscripts and other
non-Hebrew/Greek Bibles. It is a misnomer to refer always to the
translation's source as "its own Hebrew and Greek" or "its underlying
Hebrew and Greek." Can one underlying Greek text correct another underlying
Greek text? The English does correct many modern texts, grammarians, and
6. Is the KJV an inspired translation?
Answer: No! It is an inspired Bible that has not expired!
7. A. Is the KJV "scripture?"
7. B. Is it "given by inspiration of God" (II Timothy 3:16)?
Answer: If it can be said of the scripture copies, which
Timothy had, "is given," then, "Yes!" Yet, all would agree that the
"Autographs" were "given" but once and that there is no secondary
inspiration of either copies or translations. Still, there has
been preservation in English of what they were originally given. What was
originally "given" did not expire with the decaying of the "Autographs" or
its copies. The KJB is the living and inspired and preserved scripture!
Nevertheless, why use such a question as argument when you do not believe
that the word "given" is to be found in the Greek? Hmmmm!
8. When was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" -- in 1611 or 1769?
Answer: Neither (see 7)! When were the copies, which Timothy
had, "given by inspiration of God?" The first century? After scripture was
originally "given" (not all at once but over a long period of time in
whatever language), it continued and continues so that scripture "IS"
profitable to Timothy and us (II Timothy 3:16,17). The scriptures that
Timothy had (copies) were "holy" and inspired. Note that which applies to
translations also must apply to Byzantine and extant copies.
9. In what language did Jesus Christ (not Ruckman, Evans, or Edwards) teach
that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?
Answer: Gary's previous contention was that the scriptures
were "originally" written in Hebrew and Greek, and his Bible Corrector's
cult previously used this passage, due to the "jot" and "tittle," as a
proof-text. If this proof-text proves their contention that the original
scriptures were written in Hebrew and that only the Hebrew scriptures are
to be preserved, then there is no hope for the Greek scriptures. They can't
have their cake and eat it too! As for the "jot" and the "tittle," the
Greek word "iota," (ninth letter of the Greek alphabet) underlies the
"jot," and a Greek word signifying the horn, apex, or point of a letter
(some say a Hebrew character) underlies the "tittle." Still, why are not
Hebrew terms used rather than Greek terms? Now, the question is a good one,
for what does the Greek letter "iota" have to do with the Old Testament or
the "law?" Was the law written in Greek? Luther rendered the "iota" as a
"letter" of the alphabet (Ger. - Buchstabe). English has letters; English
and Greek have an "I" or smallest letter. A horn, apex, or point might
apply to Chaldean or other Eastern languages or even Greek or English. Was
the law written in these languages? Jesus also said that his "words" would
not pass away (Lk. 21:33). If we are not mistaken, English has "words" as
do both Hebrew and Greek! Now, if we accept the argument that Jesus spoke
in Hebrew and Aramaic and was referring to the Hebrew "yod" and the sharp
horn or point at the top of the character and that Hebrew "yod" was
"translated" into the "original" Greek, the implication is quite stunning.
If the Greek "Iota" can be put for the Hebrew "yod," then the English "I"
can be put for the Greek "Iota." (Mercy!) The problems continue to mount
for those who are suffering from "FALSE-HYMERS" disease (Bible Correcting)!!!
10. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His word in
the form of a seventeen century English translation?
Answer: Nowhere! Yet where does it promise to preserve itself
in Byzantine Greek? Or any kind of Greek?
11. Did God lose the words of the originals when the autographs were
Answer: No! Gary and Chris lost them.
12. Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New
Testament was "translated out of the original Greek" (title page of KJV
NT)? Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to
Answer: Really, the title page actually says, "Translated out
of the Original Tongues and with Previous Translations Diligently Compared
and Revised." The need for qualification, here, does not make them liars,
but Gary doesn't even believe that they had the "original Greek." Nor does
he believe he has it!
13. Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?
Answer: The original Greek manuscripts (Autographs and early
complete KOINE copies) were lost long BEFORE 1611.
14. Did the Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without the word
Answer: Only if they did not have one single infallible verse.
Judging by martin Luther's beer drinking and persecution of Baptists,
Calvin's burning folk, and the Catholic heresies that Protestantism
retained, they might as well have been without whatever he thinks that they
had. Non-Hebrews and non-Greeks have been without any portion of the word
of God, in the past, and some are still without it, both in their own
languages and also in the Hebrew and Greek.
15. What copy or translation of "the word of God," used by the Reformers,
was absolutely infallible and inerrant? (Their main Bibles are well--known
and copies still exist).
Answer: Why are we asked for a singular copy or translation
that was used by plural Reformers? What Reformers? What countries? What
languages? Since we are neither students or slaves to history, we can only
generally answer this multifaceted and general question. Obviously,
someone, somewhere, must have had a part or parts of infallible word of God
in order to pass it down to us. Unless, our questioner advocates re
inspiration . . . Gulp!
16. If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the
English-speaking people," did the English--speaking people have the "word
of God" from 1525-1604?
Answer: The English--speaking people? Not absolutely in one
volume, for then it would not be necessary for a new translation (not
edition). Still, they did have a large portion of the word of God with only
minor imperfections. No "people" had any kind of printed books, until the
fifteenth century, in any language. Did the English "people" have the
infallible W.O.G. prior to Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza? Who? What? Where?
Do all the heathen tribes, now, have the W.O.G. in their languages? Why
not, Oh Interogator?
17. Was Tyndale's (1525), or Coverdale's (1535), or the Geneva (1560)
English Bible absolutely infallible?
Answer: Absolutely? No! Still, with their minor imperfections
they were more infallible and reliable than anything that has come out
since the King James Bible.
18. If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant,
could a lost sinner still be "born again" by "the incorruptible word of
God" (1 Peter 1:23)?
Answer: This hypothesis is not the case, and since Gary holds
folks to hypothetical answers, we will merely say that a man can get saved
reading a commentary -- if it has a portion of that which "liveth and
abideth forever." The word of God was not written, all at once, in one
volume, yet, it still was and is the word of God in part and as a whole.
19. If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and
Greek originally breathed by God need correction or improvement?
Answer: The questioner only assumes God's breath to be Hebrew
and Greek. Still, we know of no one who holds that the "inspired originals
(Autographs)" can be corrected or even found for that matter. This is a
straw dummy question.
20. Since you believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" (II
Peter 1:20), and II Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time
by the will of man; but holy men of God were moved by the Holy Ghost,"
would you not therefore reason thus: "For the King James Version came not
in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost?"
Answer: In the sense of inspiration, no more than we would
reason, "For Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus came not in (their respective
dates) by the will of man: But holy men of God copied as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost." Of course, we do not see inspiration every time we see the
word "move." However, we would suspect someone who divorced God from any of
the inspiration and preservation mentioned above.
21. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture: "whom
ye" (Cambridge KJV's) or "whom he" (Oxford KJV's) at Jeremiah 34:16?
Answer: Possibly both! Notice how our querist sets his "straw
man" trap by using the expression "word-for-word" when no one, in our crowd
or his, insists on that from Hebrew to Greek or Greek to English. Both the
"he" and the "ye" modify the previous "ye" in the passage so that the
meaning is the same in English. Even if this were not the case, no one
guarantees that all the publishers would be free from printers' errors nor
give the same attention to the text. Gary and Chrissy could start their own
KJB publishing company and put what they wanted in their so-called King
James Bibles, but that would not guarantee accuracy after these fellows
22. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture: "sin"
(Cambridge KJV's) or "sins" (Oxford KJV's) at II Chronicles 33:19?
Answer: Again (see 21), either is proper. Note the word "all."
All his sin and all his sins amount to the same thing; it is merely a
"singular" used as a "plural."
23. Who publishes the inerrant KJV?
Answer: Oxford, Cambridge, etc.
24. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1769 made, in addition to
changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling, many hundreds of
words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns,
conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion
of words, would you say the KJV was verbally inerrant in 1611, 1613, 1644,
1664, 1701, or 1769?
Answer: Only 400 basic changes in these editions! The querist
knows that English grammar, punctuation, and spelling evolved. These
"editions" (all which are 1611 "Editions" and NOT REVISIONS) and the other
earlier English Bibles, reflect that evolution and standardization of
English. Only the editions with printers' errors are to be considered to
have slight errors. It makes little difference to the Bible believer
whether there was an inerrant Bible in 1450, 1525, 1611, or 1769; he has
one now. No one supposes that every one, in every place, at every instant
had an absolutely infallible Bible in English or Greek. Did folk have an
absolutely infallible, inerrant Bible in one volume before Erasmus, Beza,
and Stephanus? Were these Greek texts immediately inspired and infallible
upon printing without any need of subsequent editions? Go ahead and lie!
25. Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the
throne of England before perfectly preserving his word in English, and
would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises the king as
"most dead Sovereign . . . Your Majesty's Royal Person . . . " IF THE
HISTORICAL FACT WAS REVEALED TO YOU THAT HE WAS A PRACTICING HOMOSEXUAL ALL
HIS LIFE? (Documentation: Caroline Bingham, The Making of a King,
Doubleday, 1969, pp. 128-129, 197-198; Antonia Fraser, King James VI of
Scotland, I of England, Knopf, 1975, pp.36-37, 123; Otto J. Scott, James I,
Mason/Charter, 1976, pp.108, 111, 129, 194, 200, 224,311,353,382; David H.
Willson, King James VI & I, Oxford, 1956, pp.36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386,
395; plus several encyclopedias).
Answer: Since we have no time for modern (1956, 1969, 1975,
1976, probably Catholic) attacks on James, who probably use the testimony
of an embittered enemy of James, and since we never have had a problem with
a murderer and an idolater and an adulterer and a polygamist writing the
scripture, to begin with, we can hardly get excited about these charges.
The dedicatory is neither inerrant nor inspired.
26. Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked
on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating"
even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the
work (Gustavius S. Paine, The Men Behind the KJV, Baker, 1979, pp.40, 69)?
Answer: See 25.
27. Is it possible that the rendition, "gay clothing," in the KJV at James
2:3, could give the wrong impression to the modern English reader?
Answer: Only to some perverts!
28. Did dead people wake up in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the
Answer: No, Silly, the people in the city woke up according to
Isaiah 37:36. The querist's problem is not with Isaiah 37:36 but with
proverbs 21:16, "The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding
shall remain in the congregation of the dead."
29. Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14:8 and Luke 7:20?
Answer: Was "Christ" Jesus' last name or was He the Christ
(Matt. 16:20, Acts 5:42, 9:34)? Was "Iscariot" Judas' last name or was he
Judas the Iscariot (Mk. 14:10, Luke 22:3)? We suggest a study of biblical
as well as English surnames, i.e., John the Miller versus John Miller.
30. Does the singular "oaths," occurring in every KJV at Matt. 14:9 and
Mark 6:26, correct every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural
("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers misplacing the apostrophe?
Answer: there was no misplacement of anything. The "oath" was
made (singular, Greek and English) in Matthew 14:7, "he promised with an
oath." We would, therefore, not expect English grammar to force a plural
possessive ("oaths'") to match a singular "oath" just for the sake of
mimicking the Greek.
31. Did Jesus teach a way for men to be worshiped according to Luke 14:10
in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke
4:8? (Remember: you may not go to the Greek for "light" if you are a
Answer: Jesus said to Satan, in Luke 4:8, "Thou shalt worship
the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Gary only wishes that
the word "only" was before the word "worship.") Jesus tells a story, in
Luke 14:10, "But when thou are bidden (to a wedding) go and sit in the
lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee,
Friend go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them
that sit at meat with thee." Note: Jesus did not command nor teach anyone
to worship anyone here. He simply stated a fact (English passive and not
the active). We won't go to the Greek for "light"; yet, we will show how
the Greek puts Bible Correctors' "lights" out, but, first, we shall prove
in English that the only error here is not in the KJB but among its detractors.
God is going to force folk to worship (Rev. 3:9) the
Philadelphians. According to Webster (1828), the word "worship" comes from
the Saxon ("worth--ship") "-- the state of worth or worthiness." Among the
ways, in which this word may be and is used, Webster (1828) allows "To
respect; to honor; to treat with civil reverence. 'Nor worship'd [Check
that apostrophe, Gary!] with a waxen epitaph' Shakespeare." Webster quotes
Spencer, "Elfin born of noble state and muckle worship in his native land."
Webster (1828) also quotes Luke 14:10 in a similar fashion. Tyndale's
Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and the Bishop's Bible all have
the word "worship" (or worshippe or worshipp) in Luke 14:10. You see, Gary
would like Luke 14:10 to read like the corrupt R.V., "then shalt thou have
glory in the presence."
However, Gary has some problems both in the English and the
Greek because of his nit-picky nature. In 1 Peter 2:10, the Great bible
reads, "speake evyll of them that excel in worshippe" the Bishop's Bible
reads, "speake evill of them that excell in worship (worth--ship)." The
A.V. reads, "speak evil of dignities." The RSV reads, "revile the glorious
ones," the reading that Gary likes. In Jude 8, also, the RSV reads "speak
evil of dignities," while the Rheims goes with "blaspheme majestie." So,
what is the point to all this? The point is that the so-called underlying
Greek word, which our friends have on their minds, for all these passages,
is "DOXA(S)" (from which we get our doxology). W.E. Vine, our friends'
authority and hero, says, under Dignity, ". . . an appearance commanding
respect . . ." It sounds like something we just read . . . "worth--ship."
If Luke 14:10 contradicts Luke 4:8, then Luke 14:10 ("DOXA") contradicts
John 5:44, "How can you believe, which receive honour ("DOXA") one of
another." The so-called underlying Greek word, which our friends have on
their minds, in Luke 4:8, is "PROSKUNEO."
Their authority, W.E. Vine, says, "'List of readings and
renderings preferred by the American committee . . . At the word 'worship'
in Matt 2:2, etc., add the marginal note 'the Greek word denotes an act of
reverence, whether paid to man (see 18:26) or to God . . . '" Does
Matthew 18:26 ("The servant therefore fell down and worshiped him . . . "
- PROSEKUNIA) contradict Luke 4:8 (PROSEKUNIA)? We will let Gary and Chris
straighten out the mess that they have made.
32. Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and
1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? (Again: you may not go to the Greek for any
"light" if you are a Ruckmanite!).
Answer: Of course! If not, why not? Because of some man, made
prohibition or tradition? Jesus is a "that" and God is a "what!"
33. Does Luke 23:56 support a Friday crucifixion in the KJV? (No "day" here
Answer: No! (Matt. 28:1; Mk. 2:27, 3:4, 16:1,2; John 19:31*)
34. Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to
Luke 8:55 in the KJV?
Answer: Yes! But it may not have necessarily been "flesh."
What if Jesus would have also said, "a spirit does not have meat and bones
as ye see me have?"
35. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-Corrector" for saying that Romans
8:24 should be rendered, "in hope" (metropolitan Pulpit, 1881, vol. 27,
Answer: Yes! "Should be rendered" is a term involving
correction, is it not? He was a "cigar smoker" for smoking cigars. Still,
check him out one year before he died when he did neither. Evans has also
been guilty, in the past, of being a Bible Corrector. So what! (see 37)
36. Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible--Corrector" for saying that the correct
rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for
saying "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"
(Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pp. 108, 116?
Answer: Yes! Also, he was a "choir-cusser" for cussing out the
choir. Still, there is such a thing as an explanatory - "and," unless God
"and" the father are different Beings. (see 37)
37. Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907: "No one,
so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is
absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the
Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant,
that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the
scriptures as originally given."? (Difficulties in the Bible, p. 17).
Answer: He was not lying inasmuch as his qualification, "so
far as I know." Yet, the rest of his words, "no one . . . holds that . .
. " should have also been qualified and certainly should never be applied
to lay--folk, most of which lived in "Podunk Holler" and never knew any
other Bible than the KJB. To manipulate the case that there was no KJB
issue among ordinary believers during that time is a disproportionate
exaggeration, which distorts and misrepresents that particular time.
Torrey, no doubt was referring to many of his favorite scholars of that
period. His statement "substantially accurate," although short of lying,
matches the weasel wording that we hear today. That is to be expected from
an R.V. man who believed in a goose-bumpy, willey-nilley, Holy Ghost baptism?
38. Is Evangelist Don Edwards correct "in favor of canonizing" our KJV,
thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek (THE FLAMING TORCH,
June 1989, p.6)?
Answer: This is a very funny question in the light that Gary
Hudson has repudiated any and all inspired or infallible texts today. In
fact, he tells us that he never believed in one. Canonization means to
approve a standard or criterion. God is the only One capable of canonizing
any Bible. Besides, we are not in favor of repeating something that God has
already done. We believe Don meant well. Our friends should be lenient and
give Don time to get stronger on this.
39. Did God supernaturally "move His word from the original languages to
English" in 1611 as affirmed by THE FLAMING TORCH, June 1989, p. 6?
Answer: Did God supernaturally "move His word from the KOINE
Greek to the BYZANTINE Greek?" Either God was involved in the production of
the King James Bible and the sinking of the Spanish Armada or he was not.
If He was involved, He was supernaturally involved. He is a supernatural
Being and does things supernaturally.
It should be very obvious to the reader that these questions
have very little to do with scripture or scriptural support for the Bible
Corrector's position. Only questions 7, 8, 9, and 20 contain any scriptural
argument at all. The other references to scripture, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, and 34 are merely attacks on these passages, a practice not
found among the prophets, Christ, nor the apostles (if you want Baptist
Now, here is the faulty reasoning of Bible Correctors: 1. If
there were no perfect English Bible, at a certain date, there cannot be a
perfect English Bible now. 2. Because, at a certain date, folk had to use
the best available English Bibles, which were not absolutely perfect but
extremely good, it is all right to use English bibles, which are inferior
to the perfect King James Bible. Apples and oranges!!!
Now, answering most of these 39 questions was not very hard -
only time consuming. We await Gary Hudson's and Chris McHugh's answers to
their own questions. Do you think they will answer them? Chris McHugh has
another Nine Questions that he authors. We have answered those questions
also under the title, Answering McHugh's Nine Theses. Originally, we
printed our "Forty Save One" in booklet form. It is now out of print.
Nothing has changed much in twelve years.