Bob Ross' Only Begotten Perversion
Sep 14, 2003 05:50 PDT
BOB ROSS' ONLY BEGOTTEN PERVERSION
By Herb Evans
The following is a very interesting article written to a hard-shell Baptist
in Pasadena, Texas, who has been putting letters out all over the country
to the effect that "Ruckman is a Jesuit implant trying to divide the body
of Christ over Pedobaptism, and take Baptists back to sprinkling babies in
the Roman Catholic church." The idea that Ross is putting out is that
Ruckman is a Roman Catholic "secret agent" planted in the Body of Christ
because he backs up Roman teaching. The following is an interesting
analysis by Herb Evans on Bob Ross' choice of Bibles. Bob Ross chooses the
official Vatican text of the Vatican manuscript in the Vatican library, in
Rome, for his "final authority." --Peter S. Ruckman
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. -- John 1:18
"The Greek text of John 1:18 refers to Him as the 'ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD.' Note
that it says 'God,' not 'Son' - the only begotten God." - Bob L. Ross in an
article in R. Sumner's July 1991 "Biblical Evangelist" (who also sponsor
it in a tract Form)
What Greek texts does the above corruptor of scripture refer? To the Textus
Receptus (any edition)? No! Does he refer to the Majority Text? No! Does he
refer to the Byzantine Text (any edition)? No! Well, does he refer to any
type set Bible before the King James Bible? No! Still, is he not involved
with a group, who is supposed to believe in the infallibility of the
underlying Hebrew/Greek text of the King James Bible? We are not really so
sure about that. In fact, we doubt it very much. Still, they must need
excuse this corruptor and his perverted translation.
We are not merely talking about a change to the English Bible; we are
talking about a challenge to the infallibility of the Greek texts of TR,
Byzantine, and Majority text defenders. The issue is the Greek word for
"SON" versus the Greek word for "GOD" and the notably different Greek texts
in which these different words appear.
The Greek text, to which Ross refers, is the sort that is found in Papal
libraries in Mount Sinai waste baskets or in eclectic texts. You see. Ross'
roots are Alexandrian; he is a link chain descendant of Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Wescott, and Hort, who supposedly attempted to restore, for us
our lost Bible. Actually, Bob L. Ross has been an admirer of Wescott and
Hort for quite a while. On page 5 of his pre 1973 (undated) book,
"Ekklesia, the Church not Universal and Invisible," Ross applauds, F. J.
A. Hort, of Wescott and Hort fame, as "a noted scholar," proclaiming him an
"eminent linguistic master." (Ibid., p. 10)
It is a most noble cause to defend any aspect of the deity of Christ. How
can you find fault with an apologetic, which contends that Jesus Christ was
the same essence as His Father, even God! Even though the teaching can
easily be found in the term, "only begotten Son." Still, it is highly
suspicious, when one begins to change the Bible, even if it is to establish
some correct doctrine.
Suppose that some little popeling discovers a text with the rendering "only
begotten God" instead of "only begotten Son" in John 3:16, 18 and 1 John
4:9. Could it be said that we opposed some aspect of the deity of Christ
because we opposed these corruptions of scripture? Of course not!
Similarly, we do not oppose any aspect of the deity of Christ because of
our opposition, to Ross' perversion, of Holy Writ, in John 1:18.
Since there is no question about all of the other passages in which John
uses the term, "begotten Son" as opposed to "begotten God," it is
reasonable to believe that John's particular phraseology also applies to
John 1:18 (especially in that there is absolutely no other cross reference,
in the entire Bible, in which the term "ONLY BEGOTTEN" God is used). The
mere availability or occurrence of a higher or nobler word in some text
does not demand its automatic accuracy nor its insertion into our Bible.
Actually, Bob L. Ross prefers the perverted "New American Standard bible"
rendering and the Alexandrian texts that underlie that rendering to that of
the Authorized Bible. Since he has chosen a corrupt rendering of John 1:18
to defend an aspect of the deity of Christ, we must believe there is
another motive or reason, for his apologetic. We think he is more
interested in undermining the KJB and the movement that are so successfully
defending it than he is in promoting the deity of Christ. What do you think?
The Bible Believer's Bulletin - January 1992, p. 3