Is Shelton Smith a Bible-Believer?
 

The question is simple. Do you consider Dr. Shelton Smith, Editor of the Sword of the Lord, to be a true King James Bible-believer?

Now before you answer, please read this article by Shelton Smith:

http://swordofthelord.com/issueandconflict.htm

No this is not a set up or anything. And yes I have an answer of my own to the question (which I will share at some point on this thread). But I am really interested in the consensus of other Bible-believers out there concerning Shelton Smith's position on the KJB.

God bless.

This page reads good, but I take it there is more and I will be waiting to read your response on it.

Grace and peace

Tony

I can't imagine why this question would be asked if there were not another shoe about to drop.

I don't really care to be honest.. when you start separating from people who are fundamental, non calvinist, Bible believers who happen to differ on a small point (such as whether they think the Greek and Hebrew are also the word of God today), you end up eliminating a lot of potential friends, and find yourself alone in the battlefield. The Christian warfare is more than just holding a King James Bible.

Well I guess I better give my opinion because I really don't have something up my sleeve. I just really want to know what others opinions are on Shelton Smith's position on the KJB.

Personally, I say YES. He is a Bible-believer according to what he wrote in the article. However, I keep hearing from others that Shelton Smith is not a Bible-believer or that he is just taking a compromising position on the KJB that doesn't go far enough. Yet this doesn't jive with what I'm reading in Shelton Smith's writings. So the reason I made this thread is simply to hear (read) the opinion of some of the good brethren here as to what it is that they may think Shelton Smith is lacking in his position that would qualify him to be a true KJB believer (all the way - 100%). Because again, I'm reading his stuff and he is clearly stating that he believes the KJB is the inspired, infallible, preserved, pure words of God in English. So what is that I'm missing?

It depends who you ask. From my experience, it seems that those who don't follow the Ruckman/Gipp/Walker/Stauffer crowd in rightly dividing, are labelled as not real Bible believers. I tend to stay away from that kind of division.

On the flipside, Shelton smith would probably deny those men fellowship, on the grounds of their rightly dividing.

I myself don't care. I agree with most when it comes to rightly dividing, but I don't want to distance myselves from those conservative believers who are free grace, yet don't believe in rightly dividing.

Manny, the most notable observation that I made was that the KJB does not appear to be his final authority. He steps back to the original languages to define his words, and he is far too broad with his position on the TR. I would venture to say that if asked, he would defer to the extant original language manuscripts over the KJB. He also does not indicate any exclusivity with respect to other English versions.

Hi Brother Tim,

Shelton Smith on the original languages:

Notice he doesn't say that you HAVE to go the Greek and Hebrew because you have the KJB. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with referencing the Greek and Hebrew when studying the definition of a word in the KJB. Now I believe the best way to define a word is to study the word in its context, cross reference it, and apply the law of first mention in the KJB itself. But I don't have a problem with someone ALSO looking at the definition of the word in the Greek and Hebrew just like I don't have a problem with someone referencing the 1828 Webster's Dictionary. Even Dr. Ruckman has stated in his book How To Teach the Bible that referencing the Greek and Hebrew is a viable option when studying a word. He's done it himself in some of his commentaries. Yet I've noticed that students of Dr. Ruckman will make the mistake of labeling EVERYONE AND ANYONE who makes any kind of reference to the Hebrew and Greek as a Bible correcter. This is not right.

Shelton Smith on authority:

Seems pretty plain to me.

Bro. Luke, I agree. I believe as one preacher friend of mine said that if at the end of the day we are standing for the KJB we are on the same team though we may differ on some details and mechanics.

RE: " Is Shelton Smith a Bible-Believer?"
 

Aloha brother Manny,

I'll go along with brother Tim's "concerns": :amen:
But on the other hand, the man has testified strongly and clearly enough, that I wouldn't argue with him over his stand, or openly "criticize" or "fault" him for his stand. Nor would I hesitate to extend the right hand of fellowship to him. I have no right to demand that all King James Bible believers hold the exact same convictions that I hold, and I don't want to end up being a "gnat" strainer, but I also believe that brother Tim's "concerns" are valid.

Unless or until he proves otherwise, I will accept that Shelton Smith is a "Bible believer". :)

Manny, (first, I am NOT a student of Dr. Ruckman, just to be clear) the problem with "going to the Greek" is that the tools available today are often very limited (such as Strongs) or are produced by men who themselves do not hold to the same believing view of the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Context and cross-referencing is a far better tool, along with definitions from a dictionary as contemporary with the 1600's as is possible. I use the 1828 Webster's (thanks to SwordSearcher!)

I am not saying that Dr. Smith is not a KJBO, only that some pieces didn't quite fit in my opinion.

Right. That's my whole "beef of contention". We may not agree on every single detail, but if a man takes a clear stand for the KJB we should thank God for another team member. It just baffles me how that some of our brethren will write someone off over a few technicalities.

Having read your posts in the past I already knew you wasn't a student of Dr. Ruckman. If I implied such it was purely accidental and not intentional and I apologize. I brought up Dr. Ruckman simply to make a point.

I agree that we have to be VERY careful with the Greek and Hebrew references that are out there as most of them are produced by apostates. And I also think that God led the KJV translators to translated the Greek and Hebrew in a way that really provides the best definitions of words even in the Greek and Hebrew if you'll study the word in its context and cross references (in the KJB). However, it is TECHNICALLY not wrong if a person seeks out a definition of a word in its source language (Greek and Hebrew). And I just think that people would be better off (and get along better) by recognizing the difference between a preacher who references the original languages simply out of a pure desire to understand a certain word as opposed to the one who is using the Greek and Hebrew to undermine the KJB.

The KJB is not just the best translation, it is a perfect translation, sense for sense.

Smith says, "where the Greek term is theopneustos"

We should accept that the English is right, without having to refer to some Greek monstrosity and then attempt to define the meaning of that barbarian word.

Smith says, "The word pheromenoi means"

Again, God is interesting in letting us know His message in our tongue, not an alien one.

Smith says, "1. We have His inspired Word in the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus text of the New Testament."

Big problems here. First, the KJB men HAD access to the preserved words in those forms, but how can the Masoretic or Textus Receptus be the Word of God for us today, since there is no definite, correct or perfect single form of these in the original languages, and second, those are languages the world does not know today. (Those who think they know seem to disagree with the KJB to some degree.)

God did not inspire His Word in the Masoretic or Textus Receptus, these are simply collections of critical forms which attempt to reconstruct what was originally inspired. That is why Hills said that the KJB is an independent form of the Received Text.

Smith says, "We have His inspired Word preserved for us in other languages as well."

Actually WE do not have that, since WE use God's Word in English. However, we know that God's Word was preserved even in the Vulgate, and that cannot be said to be "based on the TR" as such. In reality, while there is a general preservation, where in many copies there is a sufficient giving of the Scripture, the only place which is showing the conclusion of the preservation, or an ongoing final form, is the KJB. No other Bible in the world is presenting the very TEXT and TRANSLATION as accurately as the KJB does. This is because while the Word of God itself is perfect, incorruptible, etc., the KJB actually presents it fully and utterly in English today. That cannot be found in any single form in any other language today, including the originals.

Smith says, "I love the Hebrew Old Testament! I love the Greek New Testament!"

I can love God's Word, and love the Word I know, but whatever this means (where is the extant perfect Hebrew OT or Greek NT today?) I know not.

Smith says, "But let’s also be careful that we not diminish or dismiss them either."

I think God, in His providence, has laid aside Hebrew and Greek. It is obvious that Hebrew was not used normally in the NT, and that Hebrew and Greek are not used today as a normal speech. God shows that translations are the way He has perpetuated His Word through history, and since we have the world more and more knowing English, surely the English Bible, which is conceptually perfect, is the one to uphold. We do not have to prohibit Hebrew and Greek, simply rely upon the fact that the translators of 1611 got it right, and that since that time many have vindicated the accuracy of the Scripture in our KJB with reference to the original languages generally. I do not need Hebrew and Greek to know the Scripture, or to know that the KJB is right. That is, God's providential signs do not require the originals any longer, though there remains witness of them.

Smith says, "Very simply, if there were no Hebrew and Greek Word of God, you would have no English Word of God. Remember, that’s where we got the English text (from the Hebrew and Greek)."

But since it has been fully given in English now, why defer to Hebrew and Greek in any way? (Or has God's preservation and power failed in English, so that the Hebrew and Greek are actually still required?)

Smith says, "Using the Hebrew and Greek in your study or in your preaching doesn’t make you a “Bible corrector” unless you have a mind to correct the text."

Actually, by even altering the concepts in English today on the basis of the Hebrew and Greek would be changing the meaning of Scripture, even if it is not called "correcting".

The example of referring to "theopneustos" and "pheromenoi" above is clear enough. In this case, Smith tries to build a doctrine not on what the Scripture says and means in English, but on what those babble words mean. By merely subtly deemphasising the plain English words as they stand by some false allegiance to the Hebrew and Greek, this leads to mistakes in interpretation and doctrine.

Smith says, "There is a vast difference between defining and explaining the text and correcting it."

This is true, but putting emphasis on foreign words does begin to negate that the jots and tittles as they stand in English. The English should be sufficient to communicate God’s message. In fact, we should recognise that the KJB is giving God's Word perfectly.

Smith says, "Remember, there is no conflict between the Hebrew/Greek text and the English Bible"

There is no conflict between what was inspired, but there are textual conflicts in that there is no perfect text being presented in the original languages today, as opposed to the KJB being the perfect text, which happens to be a translation.

Smith says, "we can never attain perfection, because we are mere humans ... we hold that preserved inspiration dear and precious in the King James Bible."

Therefore, the text and translation of the KJB should be seen as perfect and accurate. Every word and its meaning should be right. Why would anyone need to go to the Hebrew and Greek to interpret or understand the Scripture, if it is right there in the KJB?

Smith says, "It is a mistake to so maximize the element of humanity (the human writers, etc) to the extent that we cannot see the true source of it all. The maximum attention needs to be placed upon the divine element that has produced the text from the start."

This argument claims that God inspired originally, but does not lay enough stress on the reality that the preserved form is the correctly gathered form of what was inspired. It is not merely that God inspired once far off, but that God has been able to get the entire Word perfectly here and now by his providential preservation to us.

In other words, if we emphasise the distant source, we have no present foundation to begin from. I cannot teach the doctrine of inspiration if I do not first have an authentic record of what was inspired today. Thus, our doctrines and examinations of Scripture must be on the proper basis that God has given His Word to us today, and then see where and how it came. Then when we say that it was inspired, we can then argue successfully that since this book says it was inspired long ago, we can understand that the same God who inspired would preserve, because that the Gospel today that we know must be the same that was set in motion from its beginning.

Ro 10:8 "But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach"

Manny, every man or ministry has it's supporters and detractors. If you go to Dr. Ruckman's website you can download his monthly bulletin in .pdf file back to the year 2004. For a number of months he ran a series about Smith that seems to contradict this page and statement you posted. You can read Doc Pete's stuff and also Google Smith on this topic. I don't read SOTL simply because I guess, and this may be a character flaw in me and possibly arrogance on my part, I consider my Biblical study and conclusions to be quite a bit advanced beyond what they teach and what their doctrine is. John Rice was a good man but he made no secret of his love for his ASV and though he was a light year wide on his topics he was maybe a half inch deep. Christianity is not a lifestyle, Christianity is warfare. Curtis Hutson didn't care for any kind of conflict or rebuke. Jack Hyles? Fugettaboutit. You couldn;t get me within 20 light years of Hyles. I thought the man was a Pharisee and if Nixon had had Hyles in charge of the Watergate coverup, Nixon would be remembered with praise rather than condemnation.

I'm like Luke brother Manny. I tend to interact and make value judgments on Christians on an individual basis. If you locate any information that runs contrary to this statement of Smith's I'm sure many would be interested in seeing it.

Grace and peace to you

Tony

Bibleprotector,

You read too much into people's words.

Theopneustos is not a Greek "monstrosity". It is simply the Greek word that underlies "given by inspiration of God" in the KJV. That you would refer to what God Himself preserved for us as a "monstrosity" is borderline blasphemous.

I don't see where Shelton Smith emphasized the Greek and Hebrew over the KJB as you imply. What I see is Shelton Smith saying that we should recognize that had it not been for the Received Texts, the collection of God's inspired and preserved words, we wouldn't have the KJV. And this much is true. I don't see that statement as undermining the KJB at all. Rather I see that statement as bolstering the KJV as God's Words in English. Plain and simple.

And I agree that the KJV is more than sufficient to define itself. Yes it is perfect. But again, there is nothing anywhere that says that it is wrong for a person to recognize the Greek or Hebrew word that underlies the KJB.

God's words will always be God's words. They do not expire. And so Shelton Smith is correct in recognizing the Received Texts as God's words in the original languages. You say that God has laid aside the Greek and Hebrew because they are "not used today as normal speech". But by that argument you would also invalidate the KJB because the KJB is not written in "normal speech" either. In fact, what a lot of Bible-believers don't even realize is that nobody EVER spoke the type of English that is used in the KJB, not even in the 1600s.

Now I agree that the KJB is the final authority that God has given mankind today. But to say that the Received Texts magically ceased from being God's inspired and preserved words is absurd. God's words will ALWAYS be God's words.

Actually, I've already read what Dr. Ruckman said in the very editions of the BBB that you referred to, which is part of the reason why I brought up this thread. I see what others say about Shelton Smith and than I read what Shelton Smith himself writes about what he believes in plain English and the two just don't jive.

And I do agree with you and Luke that people should be judged on an individual basis. Trust me, I've spoken in almost 100 churches in the past year and a half and I know quite well the error of judging people based on their camp, college, circle of friends, etc.

A Trojan horse could be described as a "monstrosity". But I was meaning, a large, strange word which has no meaning to a normal English-speaker.

I am sure that God did not inspire with English letters, but Greek ones. Anyway, the issue is not the reality of the existence of the word. The issue is that Greek words are being used rather than the English ones in our Bible. You must agree that the word “Theopneustos” is not in the King James Bible. Since all the Word of God is there, we do not need say “Theopneustos” to teach a doctrine or interpret Scripture.

How could a large, strange Greek word be what God has preserved for us? God’s preservation power is enough to get His Word to us in English. God is not exercising His power to keep the Greek for any special reason. Not one Scripture indicates that either the Greek or Hebrew are needed today, or that God’s preservation is linked into those languages especially.

Look at Romans 16:26 as an example.

By simply using the Greek to teach a doctrine is in some way rejecting the KJB as it stands. Why can’t he teach a sound view of inspiration and preservation without the Greek? The problem isn’t that he uses a Greek word as such, the problem is that the use of Greek is somehow obligatory, defended and required. It is as if it gives authority to the doctrine, or makes the speaker appear learned, or is the right thing to do.

Of course that is not wrong. The problem is that there is no single source in the original languages which is perfect today. And it becomes risky when a person starts to study their Bible with reference to the original languages, especially when they begin to interpret and give doctrines with reference to them, because inevitably this means departing from the KJB as it stands. Since the KJB is perfect, it would logically mean going away from perfection.

But to whom are they God’s words today? Since people do not use those languages, they cannot be the means by which God has chosen to communicate today.

The KJB is in English. That is the language which we speak. Now, the form of English is Biblical English, and that is unique, but it is conducive to normal English. That means that English-speakers can understand the KJB. There is a huge gulf between an English-speaker hearing the KJB and an English-speaker hearing Bible Greek and Hebrew. It is so obvious that Greek and Hebrew have become redundant. Everything has been gathered out of them so that it is all in English now. Their usefulness as sources has been outlived, but this does not mean that the copies and manuscripts should disappear. What it means is that our receiving of Scripture and our studies of it must be today in something we hear and believe, something which we see that we hold in our hand. That has to be the English Bible, not a Greek Testament.

Who said anything about magic? All I say is that the original languages are not God’s Word to us because they are not comprehensible to us. God is not keeping His Word mysterious.

We're on the same wavelength my friend. I don't know Smith, I didn't even know Curtis Hutson had died till a few months ago. There is an entire subculture out there, pardon the phrase, an alternative lifestyle, called "fundamentalism". I don't keep up with it. I know Dr. Ruckman points his rifle at someone and I guess expects everyone else to point their rifle at them too. I know he was right about Gary Hudson; I had a dialog with Hudson till he found out my "position" was that the KJV was given by inspiration and that God worked through it, he called me a "Ruckmanite". which was kind of him since I called him an Original Manuscript Fraud. On the other side of the coin when Jack Hyles got busted for adultery Ruckman took Hyle's "side" because Robert Sumner and several other "fundamentalists" made the silly mistake of accusing Hyles of holding to "the Ruckman position on the KJV". I appreciate and share Doc Pete's zeal for the KJV, Charley Manson held the position that the KJV was the word of God, but that in no way excused him being a mass murderer. Sumner was casting spears, Ruckman was using Hyles to cast spears at anti-KJV folks. With Dr. Ruckman's crowd, Hyle's "problems" didn't seem to be the issue, only that mean nasty anti-KJV folks were attacking him, a "KJVO", so they must have been wrong about Hyle's "other" problems too. Whether Hyles believed the KJV was the word of God or The Godfather was the word of God is not the issue: he was making whoopie with his secretary for 20+ years, ruined a family, and threw even more wood on the fire that was barely put out with the Bakker/Swaggart scandals.

I guess my point is that I'm gonna check out for myself whether or not an accusation against anybody is true or not. I respect and hold Dr. Ruckman in high esteem for his stand and teaching, but he can do and say things sometimes makes a stone statue shake it's head.

Grace and peace brother Manny

Tony

Bibleprotecter,

Since you basically repeated everything you said the first time you posted on this thread I will only respond to a something that continually pops up in your many words.

You keep bringing up this thing about "to us". God's words "to us".

It's pretty obvious that to the English speaker God has provided His infallible Words in the KJB. It is also well understood by everyone that the type of language in the Received Texts are no longer in use. Therefore, it is best for the English speaker to simply trust God's perfect Words in English - the KJB - rather than feel obligated to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar in order to understand God's words. Such is not necessary.

However, just because the Greek and Hebrew is not our language today does not mean that there is absolutely no benefit in the original languages in regards to the definition of words. Many people will argue, "Don't waste your time with the Greek and just look up the word in the 1828 Webster's dictionary." Yet how do you think Mr. Noah Webster came about his definitions of words. He dissected those words and resorted to their origins (many of which was Greek - check it out). The point is that there IS a benefit that can be had in referring to the Greek and Hebrew when studying the definition of a certain word. And by doing so, the Bible student is not undermining the KJV by simply availing himself of the very resources that God Himself preserved. Does he HAVE to do this? No. But is he wrong, or apostate, or a Bible corrector if he does this? Not at all. And there's nothing written ANYWHERE or revealed by God that says he is.

Again, God's words never expire. God's words will ALWAYS be God's words.

After saying "forgetaboutit" and a reference to the Godfather, you must be an Italian.

As far as the Bible is concerned, there is no need for the original languages to understand the Scripture today, since it is settled that it is a perfect TEXT and perfect TRANSLATION.

If someone comes across an English word, say, “propitiation”, “Ghost”, or “alway”, running to the Hebrew and Greek, or to lexicons as such are NOT a vital step in Scripture interpretation.

I am not saying that. I do not even use Webster’s 1828.

You are talking about an American Bible reviser from 1828.

Will Webster really be able to give us definitions and benefits by going to the Hebrew and Greek?

This is the superior method:

1. Read the context.
2. Compare that passage with other Scripture passages.

Now, a person could also go look at the Oxford English Dictionary, but that is not necessary. On a basic level, any reputable wordlist might be alright. But using the context/conference principle, you will be on the solid ground of Scripture. Also, I would think that it is quite good for people to hear what Bible teachers (and commentators) say when they are sound.

There is a benefit to the etymologist, because his knowledge has increased, but there is no requirement for the normal Christian, because it is ultimately the Spirit of God who guides into truth, not dallying about with (supposed) meanings of Hebrew and Greek words.

Where is the sure, absolute definition of Hebrew and Greek anyway?

Now, how will Hebrew or Greek be helpful to know the meanings of these words?

PROPITIATION. GHOST. ALWAY.

1. These are Bible words in our perfect KJB.
2. These are English words, not Hebrew and Greek, and they do not have Hebrew and Greek meanings. Even dictionaries give their meaning in English!

"Propitiation" comes from Latin. "Ghost" and "alway" come from Old English (Anglo-Saxon).

A person with English only can find out the difference between “alway” and “always” without ever having to consult the original languages.

If the Hebrew and Greek have been providentially preserved by God today, then this would require a usefulness for them, that is, that the perfect King James Bible is somehow incomplete (that is, we cannot fully interpret it), unless we have the Hebrew and Greek. That would be making the King James Bible today in some way dependant upon knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek, or on works which bring that out to us. This is the very scholar-onlyism which the whole KJBO position rejects. We do not still need the Hebrew and Greek to be able to comprehend fully God’s Word, because God has fully given it in English, and is well able to bring us into knowledge as we study it.

This leads us to see that God has not especially providentially preserved the originals today, but the KJB, which has all the signs of the divine favour upon it and throughout it!

The problem is that a person who must consider the Greek and Hebrew somehow must automatically assume that what he has in English is not enough. That is, God was not powerful enough to get all His truth into English alone, but somehow there must be a link back to the original languages. This speedily becomes obvious in the reasons people give for justifying their journeys back to the originals. They think that they will gain more knowledge by it.

Pr 22:21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

Lu 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Bibleprotector,

You are arguing past me or with someone else (beating in the air). Because nobody on this thread said anything about DEPENDING upon the Greek and Hebrew as a necessity to understand the KJB.

What has been said is that seeking out a definition of a word in the Hebrew and the Greek is not wrong. It is a viable option.

But you seem to not be able to differentiate between those who consult the Greek and Hebrew from those who use them to undermine the KJB. There IS a difference.

This is where you are absolutely wrong. God DID providentially preserve His Words. The initial giving of His Words were not done in English. They were given in Hebrew and Greek. God said that He would preserve those pure words from generation to generation. And again, those divine Words have not expired as God's Words. God preserved those initial Greek and Hebrew words through:

1. The tireless copying of those Greek and Hebrew words from generation to generation in multitudes of manuscripts.

2. The accurate translating of those Greek and Hebrew words into other languages. These translations (most especially the KJV) provides for us a resource by which we can IDENTIFY the pure words of God and distinguish them from the corrupt.

When God gave us the KJB, he gave us an inerrant translation of those pure words (that were initially given in Hebrew and Greek) into English. So how do we distinguish what Greek words are the words that God gave? You identify them with the KJB since it IS an "independent variety of the Received Texts". This is exactly what Scrivener did when he produced his edition of the Textus Receptus in 1894. According to the Trinitarian Bible Society:

As far as the Hebrew is concerned scribes have painstakingly copied every word from generation to generation. Ask any orthodox Rabbi in a synogogue today about the Hebrew scriptures that they have today and they will tell you that what they have is an exact copy of the words of Moses and the Prophets. After all, this is what God commanded them to do. And after reading how extreme the Masoretes' copying techniques were (destroying an entire manuscript over just one error and taking a shower every time the name of God came up) I believe them because it matches God's promise that His words (which concerning the OT were given in Hebrew) would be preserved in every generation. These Hebrew words can be found in the Bomberg edition of the Masoretic text.

God's inspired words in Hebrew and Greek are here today because God promised they would be. To say that we don't have the original Greek and Hebrew words of God today is to deny what God said about preserving those words. And English-speakers have these same words infallibly preserved in English in the KJB.

Bibleprotector, it is interesting to me how those of your persuasion will insist that Scrivener's Greek text and the Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text are in conflict with the KJV, yet you never provide any examples. I've been told by several "TR-guys" who actually take the time to read the Received Texts (one of which has been teaching Greek and Hebrew since 1945) that there are no conflicts or differences between those texts and the KJB. Whenever those of the Alexandrian Critical Text persuasion try to point out differences, the so-called "discrepancies" are only manifested to be a misunderstanding on the critic's part of what is actually rendered in the texts.

I contend that we do have the very words that God gave His prophets and apostles based upon the dozens of verses that deal with Verbal Plenary Preservation of the Scriptures. God does not lie. We have those words in the editions of the Received Texts already mentioned. And we have those words in the infallible KJB. In fact, as Shelton Smith points out, God providentially preserved His words in the Received Texts so that we CAN have the KJB. After all, the KJV translators weren't producing words out of thin air.

No. The person who considers the Greek and Hebrew in their studies are acknowledging their weakness in comprehending "the unsearchable riches of Christ" in the Word of God. So out of a sincere desire to learn they are availing themselves of whatever they can so as to help them. Bibleprotector, your problem is that you take certain truths and take them to such a ridiculous extreme. What we have in the English IS enough. But that doesn't mean we are going to grasp it all. Why else do you think God raised up "Pastors and teachers"? Since the "English is enough" perhaps God wasted His time raising up "Pastors and teachers" who can help us to understand the scriptures better. Perhaps we should throw away all of our commentaries since "the English is enough". No, although the English IS enough, God has allowed some things that we can avail ourselves as Bible students. Now I agree that the best way to define a word is through context, cross reference, and the law of first mention. But I also allow that the Words of God that He initially gave and providentially preserved HIMSELF is also a viable option for the sincere Bible student.

So that I am not misunderstood, I will put it plainly that in my opinion Dr. Smith has a high regard for the KJB. I cannot tell from his article whether or not he uses it exclusive of any other English Bible, therefore, I cannot label him as a KJBO, a label he has not given himself.

His use of the original languages to aid in the definition of a word troubles me slightly in that it is often indicative of one who may be KJBP (preferred) instead of KJBO. I love Dr. D.A. Waite dearly. I have taken his seminar on the Defense of the KJB. I have a number of his books. I have listened many of his messages. In talking personally with him, I would still have to view him as KJBP instead of strictly KJBO. He is ultimately a defender of the TR, which as Matthew has pointed out is a bit ethereal.

These men are solid men. I am glad for their contributions. There is just a point where we must come to a difference of conviction. When I know that limitation and boundary, then I can still fellowship on the common ground that we have.

Bro. Tim,

In another article in which Shelton Smith upholds the KJV, he says:

On another note, Bro. Tim, I like your approach in dealing with differences amongst the brethren.

I am not familiar with Dr. Smith other than the first article, so he may have covered his position differently elsewhere. I am stating my opinion based entirely on the posted article. In that one he did not unambiguously state that he used the KJB exclusively. The above quote also leaves a bit of wiggle room. (Okay, so I am being picky! :) ) I would ask him straight up, "What Bible is your Final Authority?" Then I can tell you if he is KJBO.

To answer the post question: Yes, Dr. Shelton Smith is a Bible-Believer. Contrary to what some here believe, I do not think that only strict KJBOs are Bible-believers.

I am showing that arguing for Hebrew and Greek, especially defending why it is necessary to talk about “theopneustos” rather than plain English “inspiration” is problematic. Is there any reason why references to “theopneustos” are required for proper teaching on inspiration? Yet, I find TROs have on various occasions used this word.

Viable? Meaning that the English in the KJB alone is not sufficient? If it is viable then the KJB is not absolute, sole authority.

The problem isn’t consulting the Hebrew and Greek, the problem is that TROs are not standing for the KJB as sole final authority. If you can say it is the word of God, teach it and study it without NECESSARY reference to the original languages, then I would concede that you are not undermining the KJB. What you would have to do is agree that the full and utter truth is there in the KJB, and that you might be able to have access to all of it, without ever having to go to the original languages.

You have misquoted Scripture, it actually says from this generation. Anyway, the pure words are present in our KJB, and that is in line with all the promises of the Scripture that it should be made known to all nations for the obedience of faith, etc. This clearly is not limiting preservation or purity to the original languages.

Certainly, I agree that the inspiration took place in the original languages, and that the emphasis of preservation was there until the time of the Reformation, but we all know that the emphasis in the Reformation was upon translating, and that now the emphasis must be on upholding one pure standard for all the world.

Are God’s words in English any less divine? I think Tyndale et al would disagree with you.

Very few manuscripts were copied after the Reformation. Not one of the manuscripts or the TR or critical editions are perfect and exact. In short, there is no perfect Bible matching the Autographs which is extant in the original languages today. (This is besides all the controversy over the meanings of words and grammar in the original languages!)

The identifying of God’s pure words is not by using the KJB to yet find them in the original languages. That is completely backward. God isn’t bothered with the originals today. If we are trying to discover or defend the original languages, we are in the shaky ground which leads to the untenable assertions of TROism. Namely, that God’s Word actually isn’t fully and utterly in the King James Bible alone, but somehow reference must be made to the original languages, and attempts to reconstruct and defend the original words behind the KJB must be maintained. Why? THE KJB WILL NOT FALL DOWN IF WE NEGLECT THE HEBREW AND GREEK! Why? God is upholding His Word, and it is fully and utterly gathered and passed into the English.

This is true, but no single source exists in the original languages that is 100% perfect on its own. Moreover, if the words as were gathered and discerned by the KJB men from the original languages and their utilising of many witnesses were “pure”, would not this mean that 100% purity is also there in English? In short, the KJB MUST BE 100% PURE, and this means that whatever was pure in the originals is neither here nor there, for the English is pure.

We don’t. The 1611 men did that, and what we do is receive the Word in our tongue: English.

The KJB is, but Scrivener’s work is not final nor perfect. You will notice that 1 John 5:7 stands as pure Scripture in the KJB. You will see that Scrivener’s Greek undermines 1 John 5:7. Also, there are other problems with Scrivener’s artificial construction. What is worse is that if you go to it, you are already assuming that the KJB is not fit to stand as the pure Word of God alone upon its own authority. You are deferring to some other form which does not even agree exactly with the KJB.

Notice that even TBS states, “closely underlies”. I can tell you that it is not pure and perfect, because it is not agreeing with the KJB. The reality is that the only kind of acceptable agreement ultimately is that people look at the English itself. There is no true benefit that we would gain as far as doctrine or interpretation by having Scrivener’s Greek. You see, English is the standard.

The universal priesthood of believers, as is now manifest through the Protestant line, is far superior to this rabbinical line which had its place prior to the Reformation.

Ask a KJBO today, and he will tell you that the KJB is 100% perfect. Unlike the variations in the Hebrew scrolls, of which none is 100% perfect today! Moreover, being a Christian, I am inclined to believe people of my religion (e.g. Baptists) rather than people of another religion!

No passage of Scripture reads “in every generation”. I say this because Melchisedec and Abraham did not have the Scripture. In fact, it is we who have an exact text of the Scripture in one form. I am certain that at the Reformation there was no flawless Hebrew copies. The only way we actually know what God’s words are is by trusting and believing the KJB. If the KJB, there is no need to go to the Hebrew today and figure out what Hebrew words the KJB is representing. That is only confusion.

I say that they are not here today in one perfect form accessible to the whole world. And yet the KJB is. There is not one verse of Scripture which specifically promises the preservation to the original languages.

Notice that the following verses specifically require the exact Scriptures in non-original languages:

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Ro 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

Re 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

To this can be added Matthew 28:19, 20 and Romans 16:26 etc.

This means that you do not hold to the perfection of the KJB as an entity, but merely as a derived form, and actually place emphasis upon continuing original language “masters” rather than translation “puppets”.

What you are saying is that the full authority of Scripture cannot be invested into a translation. You are saying that a translation cannot become the new and final form. And what you really are saying is that the KJB can never become the only Bible which we would take alone to believe. That is, you are not King James Bible only, because you deny that the KJB is God’s providentially appointed form of His Word which has all authority and all power. In other words, preservation in English is merely a subset of God’s preservation in the originals.

AND YET, THERE IS A PERFECT TEXT AND TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH, AND NO PERFECT TEXT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD TODAY OF THE ORIGINALS! How strange it must be that God has provided His preserved Word in a TRANSLATION!

I know there are no conflicts, because the KJB gives in English exactly what was inspired, and that the TR and the MT were the conduits by which the exact truth came to be in English.

Exactly, and why would we reject what they have produced by making reference to the general mass of TR Greek renderings and MT Hebrew renderings, when they produced a final form? In other words, why reject that God’s providential preservation passed over into the English by keeping a superstitious deference to “the originals”, when we have God’s Word entire and intact with us in English?

It is plain that such a person will ever be seeking, for that the Scripture plainly said to come and drink, not to be ever seeking. The weakness in comprehending is exactly because there is no firmness in grasping the final, settled and certain words of the KJB. If you link back to the originals, there will be some confusion.

The Spirit of God is powerful enough to help the sincere seeker, and all the more as a person trusts that God have given His Word, plainly, truly and rightly presently with us in the KJB. The Spirit did not say anything about emphasising the originals.

That is true. But the KJB is not only sufficient. It is perfect. If was merely sufficient, God would lead us to the correctness of the originals. But God is leading people to the correctness of the KJB. The use of the originals is something which has fallen away.

To bring five words of understanding from the KJB rather than ten thousand words from the originals!

I do not know which pastors and teachers you mean, but the right teaching is to rely upon the Scripture as given. The KJB is it. Better understanding comes from studying it, not the original languages.

The KJB has the words which God initially gave and preserved Himself, despite that the KJB was not produced by inspiration 1604-1611, and despite the fact that the KJB is in English.

* Please produce the perfect exact text in one form in Hebrew and in Greek, or show how it is possible today to know every last word in Hebrew and Greek with nothing added or taken away.

* Please explain why 100% of the sense could not be fully in English to the point where the English alone preserves 100% of what was communicated in the originals.

* Please state why the English is not sufficient to stand alone without any necessary reference to the original languages today.

Nope, wrong again. The following verses tell us God's words are preserved from generation to generation.

“As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.” Isa. 59:21

“He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.” Ps. 105:8

Also Ps. 78:1-8, Ps. 119:152, Isa. 40:8, and 1 Pet. 1:23-25.

I never said they were. Of course, their is a lot of things I never said but you have the incurable habit of putting words in people's mouth.

No it doesn't. Not in the edition of his text that I have. Try again. I challenge you to show me one edition of Scrivener's text where 1 Jn. 5:7 is not in it's entirety.

Prove it. I double dog dare you. All you have to do is show me any omissions or additions that contradicts the KJB. Just one would do.

No you can't because you cannot provide one fraction of an example of an error in Scrivener's text. Once you can do that, than you can say it is "not pure and perfect". Until then, all you can do is do what you're doing now - blowing smoke.


Prove it. Provide just one textual error in the Daniel Bomberg edition of the Masoretic text. I challenge you.

I know what you are trying to imply. And we've already gone over this before. But no, these verses have nothing to do with the KJB. You are twisting scripture to fit your British Israelism.

No it doesn't. I hold to the perfection of the KJB because it is perfect. There are no errors in it. Plain and simple.

Nope. This is the 1028th time you've tried to convince me that I've said something that I never said.

Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde? Are you listening to you contradict yourself here?

He didn't say that it was wrong to consult the original language texts either.

For Hebrew - The Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, Second Rabbinical Edition, printed by Daniel Bomberg. For Greek - The 1894 NT of Scrivener (Textus Receptus).

These texts are the very Hebrew and Greek words that underlie the KJV word for word.

I never said 100% of the sense could not be fully in English. It IS (in the KJV). I believe the KJB portrays in English exactly what God said to the original writers in Greek and Hebrew.

The KJB is more than sufficient to interpret and define itself. I never said it wasn't. I never said that it was mandatory or a necessity to go to the Greek and Hebrew in order to understand the KJB. You're barking up the wrong tree. You should take up this argument with someone who actually believes these things.

What I said is that I agree with Shelton Smith that it is not wrong if someone wanted to consult the Greek and Hebrew when studying the definition of a word. Does he HAVE to? No. But is it an option. Yes. And when he does so, is he a Bible corrector or apostate? No.

Bibleprotector, here's the fundamental difference between you and me:

1. My position is that the KJB is the FINAL authority.

2. Your position is that the KJB is the ONLY authority.

Blessed is the man that knoweth the difference.

I never said it was absent. If you look up 1 John 5:7 in Scrivener’s text from 1894, you will see that the typography on the words appears different there. You should be able to see that the presentation there makes a distinction. It detracts from the purity and certainty of those words.

The KJB does match the TR, but the KJB does not match any specific extant Greek edition exactly. Even the TBS knew that the KJB is not identical with Scrivener’s TR of 1894.

Huh? That is a completely false accusation. I am not twisting Scripture. I completely reject Anglo-Israelism.

What you have to understand is that the editions you point to are critical apparatuses. As such, they do not exhibit a single text, but one which may be viewed once variants and sidenotes are taken into account (or rejected).

Bomberg’s Hebrew was not the sole basis of the KJB. Scrivener’s TR was made long after the KJB was complete.

There are textual variations and various (albeit minor) issues with these single texts. They are not perfect. They do not perfectly and exactly match the KJB. They are only particular representatives in the original languages which are good, but not pure and perfect.

Are you really saying that these two editions are infallible down to the jot and tittle?

How can you explain the perfection of these editions since the KJB might be following a marginal rendering or a differing word order?

This is besides the fact that no one can be exactly sure when, in every last place, what words the KJB men might actually have been following.

Moreover, there are yet controversies over the meanings of words in the original languages. It is true that the KJB resolves this, but we do not actually have an identical form in the original languages for final and complete comparison.

Then why do you need the Hebrew and Greek, since it 100% in the English?

The problem is that by looking up the lexicon to define a GREEK word, to form a doctrine, is going to be different to looking up the English as to the definition of an ENGLISH one. Surely, “God breathed” is not the exact meaning of “inspiration”. That Hellenised view will lead to the idea that God was speaking to the authors of the Scripture, and not using them to actually write with pen and ink. In other words, it allows for errors in the writing of the Autographs even though God “spoke”. Thus, going to the Greek to “help” in this manner is actually a hindrance in defining doctrine.

The problem is not that the Greek is wrong. The problem is that today’s view of the Greek is insufficient. The KJB translators got it right for us, many believing scholars since that time have vindicated their work, so why would we have to go to the Greek to get extra light on our native tongue?

Now, why does the definition for “theopneustos” differ to the KJB’s definition. The KJB says, “inspiration”. It does not say, “God breathed”. Therefore it is safe to stay with the KJB which we know is perfect, and in a language we understand, than to delve into matters no one today can be absolutely certain about!

1. My position is that the KJB is the FINAL authority. It is the final form of the TR.

2. It is not my position that the KJB is the ONLY authority. There is authority in other forms and places. All sufficient forms of Scripture have authority. God personally has authority. Etc.

Since the KJB is the perfect text and translation, it is best to adhere to it than to stay with works which are only secondary in authority.

I could care less about typography. The fact of the matter is that 1 Jn. 5:7 is there. Period. End of story.

Who cares about whether Scrivener believed it belonged there or not? If I was supposed to care about that perhaps I should also worry about what all 47 of the KJV translators believed about renderings they may have questioned in their own text. Fortunately worrying is not necessary because the fact is that these men did an honest work by simply adhering to the evidence.

Scrivener's goal as commissioned was to produce a Greek text that matches the KJV word for word. And that's what he did. And until you can provide specific examples (additions or omissions) where his text conflicts with the KJV your claim that it doesn't is false. His text is innocent until proven guilty.

Yes it does. Scrivener's 1894 Greek NT.

Wrong. The Masoretes didn't use critical apparatuses as they believed they were copying the very words of Moses and the Prophets in Hebrew handed down from generation to generation (Ps. 78:1-8).

LOL. The Masoretic text doesn't contain variants and sidenotes. (I have a copy of Bomberg's Hebrew Masoretic text.) Where do you come up with this stuff?

There you go again, putting words into people's mouth. Shame, shame on you. There is no single text that the KJV translators based their work on since they used a wide variety of texts for their work. That's not the point. The point is that the Bomberg Masoretic text is the Hebrew text that contains the very Hebrew words that underlie the KJV.

So what? Big deal. The point is that there is an edition of the TR that matches the KJV exactly and its Scrivener's text. And if this is not so all you have to do is provide specific examples where Scrivener's text conflict with the KJV. This can be done with other editions of the TR (though on very rare occasions). But not with Scrivener's since the whole purpose of his text was to produce an edition of the TR that matched the KJV exactly.

Prove it.

Prove it.

Prove it. Specific examples please.

Got evidence?

You're saying they aren't. All you have to do is PROVE IT with evidence. Specific examples. Additions or deletions. What are they?

Forget about what "might be"! I want specific examples (evidence) that proves that the texts mentioned above conflict with the KJV. Give it to me.

Quit speaking with ambiguities and tell me where the Hebrew and Greek texts I mentioned above conflict with the KJB. If you can't, swallow your pride and admit you're wrong.

Proof please.

For the umpteenth time I NEVER SAID YOU NEEDED THE HEBREW AND GREEK TO UNDERSTAND THE KING JAMES BIBLE. What I said is that consulting the Hebrew and Greek is an option if the student wishes to do so and that he is not a Bible corrector in doing so.

Now until you can provide specific examples to prove your claim that the Bomberg Masoretic text and Scrivener's edition of the Textus Receptus doesn't line up with the KJV 100% of the time this conversation between you and me is over. God bless.

Jesus does. “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18).

This is naïveté. Scrivener’s text only closely underlies the KJB, which he made by constructing a supposed Greek text which lays underneath the KJB. Yet, in reality the KJB men drew from many sources and witnesses.

His text shall be judged by the standard of the KJB itself. There cannot be two standards. But we have to see why Scrivener’s Greek is not “the standard”. The reasons include that the world does not know Greek, and that controversy covers the exact content of the Greek. (Why would God providentially raise up Scrivener’s Greek since he turned the globe to English anyway?!!)

Of course, it is not up to me to show every last problem with Scrivener (though they may be few and slight), but to lift up the perfect standard of the pure KJB.

No it doesn’t.

One example I know of is Philippians 2:21 which Scrivener has made, in his Greek, “Christ Jesus”. When in fact the proper rendering is “Jesus Christ’s”. Now people can say that the word order is different in Greek, but in reality, the order of “Christ Jesus” or “Jesus Christ” is right in the KJB, and seems to match to the KJB in other passages.

I don’t doubt that they were accurate, but they certainly used NOTES which form a critical apparatus in the traditional sense.

a. The Masoretic text gets its name from the notes. Holland says, “Masoretic comes from the Hebrew word masora, referring to the marginal notes added by Jewish scribes and scholars of the Middle Ages (known as the Masoretes).”

b. Scrivener says, “Where the variation in the reading was brought prominently into view by the Masoretic notes ... Respecting the Hebrew text which they [1611] followed, it would be hard to identify any particular edition, inasmuch as the differences between early printed Bibles are but few. The Complutensian Polyglot ... was of course at hand, and we seem to trace its influence at some places, e.g. in 2 Chron. 1:5 ... Job 22:6 ... 1 Chron. 6:57 ... Ps. 64:6 ... In Job 30:11, 22 the Authorized Version prefers Keri to Chetiv.

c. Hills says:
"Along side the text, called kethibh (written), the Jewish scribes had placed in the margin of their Old Testament manuscripts certain variant readings, which they called keri (read). Some of these keri appear in the margin of the King James Old Testament. For example, in Psalm 100:3 the King James text gives the kethibh, It is He that hath made us and not we ourselves, but the King James margin gives the keri, It is He that hath made us, and His we are. And sometimes the keri is placed in the King James text (16 times, according to Scrivener). For example, in Micah 1:10 the King James text gives the keri, in the house of Aphrah roll thyself in the dust. The Hebrew kethibh, however, is, in the house of Aphrah I have rolled myself in the dust.

"Sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament. For example, in Psalm 24:6 the King James text reads, O Jacob, with the Hebrew kethibh but the King James margin reads, O God of Jacob, which is the reading of the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and also of Luther's German Bible. In Jer. 3:9 the King James margin reads fame (qol) along with the Hebrew kethibh, but the King James text reads lightness (qal) in agreement with the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate. And in Psalm 22:16 the King James Version reads with the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate, they pierced my hands and my feet. The Hebrew text, on the other hand, reads, like a lion my hands and my feet, a reading which makes no sense and which, as Calvin observes, was obviously invented by the Jews to deny the prophetic reference to the crucifixion of Christ."

Bomberg certainly has more than just Scripture printed on each page.

This implicitly denies the possibility of using the Vulgate, LXX, Chaldee etc. as sources. The KJB men were not locked to a witness printed in 1525.

The 1611 men themselves said: “Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin; no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch”. And of course the former English Bibles. This means they were not Bomberg-onlyists!

Except it doesn’t.

This is what Burgon said, which may shed some light on the issue: “the plain fact being that the men of 1611 — above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them — produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English”

Moreover, “But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say a prophetic?) consciousness, that the fate of the English Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation. Hence their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves ‘to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.’”

There are textual variations and various (albeit minor) issues with these single texts.

With the NT this is easy to point out: the editions of Erasmus all differ to each other, as do the editions of Stephanus and Beza. And Scrivener’s TR differs also. The Vulgate differs to them all, NT and OT. With the OT the Complutensian differs to the Bomberg. So which edition of these is the right one? ANSWER: THE KJB!

They differ one to another. They differ to the KJB. Therefore no extant edition in the originals is perfect.

The KJB is standard. The KJB is different to these editions. Therefore the KJB is perfect.

I have not made an exhaustive inquiry into all the defects of the Scrivener TR, but I suggest that some of the problems with it could be found in the listings I have at http://bibleprotector.99k.org/S.htm

The issue is this:

I am saying the KJB is primary, final, total authority.

You are saying that Bomberg and Scrivener are equal with the KJB.

I am pointing out that NO Bible OR any original language document is equal to the KJB today. None of them match the exactness and perfection of the KJB. They exhibit textual, translational, presentational and (in various individual cases) conceptual variations.

Manny, one question that I have had about Scrivener's edition is that since it was produced well after the KJB, and was "retrofitted" to the KJB, if Scrivener referred to the KJB for matching wording, then the KJB takes authority over his Greek edition. If Scrivener used other sources to produce his edition, then those sources become the authority. Which direction did he follow? (I have a copy from Dr. Waite, but it is Greek to me. :) [sorry] )

How can Scrivener's Greek be jot and tittle perfect?

Scrivener was not infallible. So why should some think that his TR is? At least with the 1611 men, we can successfully argue that the providence of God was there at work to gather a whole group of the right men with access to the right materials to make the right result.

In their words, to make "one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures in the English tongue".

Why should "exactness" be with Scrivener's work? There seems to be a mist over men's minds when it comes to the Greek. Somehow it is more sanctimonious and scientific if it is Greek.

Burgon shows something really interesting about the English, "If would really seem as if the Revisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the English phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of expression characterises the original Greek. When we find them turning ‘goodly apparel,’ (in S. James ii. 2,) into ‘gay clothing,’ (in ver. 3,) — we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English."

http://www.jamesdprice.com/images/Re...ffrey_Khoo.doc

Although I do not agree with James Price, he points out some failings in the TRO view.

By having the KJB alone as standard, and knowing what is the correct edition, this effectively answers Price's attacks in this regard.

Actually brother, I'm Appalachian-American. A little Shawnee, a little Cherokee, just enough to make me mean. I did maintain a casual friendship with a man who was Italian who loaned money at exorbitant interest rates, along with other aspects of what is known as The Underground Economy. After asking me to work for him I politely declined, pointing out I am not Italian. He said(because I was once a mortician) that was true, but he could at least give me my street name of Tony Bones, friend of "Donnie".

My mother's family is Irish-American Indian, Dad's goes back through North Carolina to England and then Scotland, and I am a direct descendant of Bloody Mary and her brother, Charles, the Pretender to the throne, according to a friend who had a subscription to Ancestry.com. Soon as my finances are better I think I will return and reclaim the throne of Scotland, as a former mortician, I will be fighting under the name of Graveheart. My lineage disappears after the Bourbon *hick* kings of France.:cool:

Grace and peace brother

Tony, Spleen Of Scots

Bro. Tim, Scrivener used the KJV as the standard (since the goal was to produce the exact Greek words that underlie the KJV in order to compare it to Westcott & Hort's text which underlied the RV 1881). He simply collated 18 different editions of the Greek TR to find the Greek word that matches the KJV. The end result was the reading in Greek that matches the KJV.

The following is something I wrote that has yet to be published:

The following is the statement by the Trinitarian Bible Society:

The following is a statement by Dr. Edward Hill's:

Thanks, Brother Manny, for the information that you gathered. Reading between the lines (so to speak), it seems to me that there is nothing truly gained by returning to the original languages, the GNT in particular, when the final authority reverts back to the KJB anyhow.

One small part of me agrees that any enlightenment of a word or phrase would be beneficial in finding the intimate details of the message, and that includes seeing from what Greek word (I'll stay with the more disputed NT for now) the particular English word was derived. That same small part of me wants to go to the commentaries and see how some "scholar" (that is, someone able to produce a book and then gain a following) explains the passage, since that person must have a better intellectual skill than I.

That small part of me is shrinking more and more as I find that these methods of understanding push me away from prayerful and intense comparison of Scripture with Scripture. Most commentaries are written by men who themselves question the purity of our present Bible. Further, to seek out the nuance of some word written in an ancient and no longer active language, one must depend again on men whose belief in a pure Bible is virtually non-existent.

If it were possible to be someone who was so steeped in the language as to be able to function completely within that language, then I might agree that using the original could be accomplished without possible seepage of unbelief, but that is extremely rare. Dr. Waite once told me that he did not believe that there were five such men alive today who could qualify. What we are left with is dependence on some "scholar"s lexicon, dictionary, Greek textbook, or such, to be used as our "authority" on the meaning and nuance of the word.

As for me, I will trust that God accomplished all the meaning and nuance needed with that group of men divinely selected to produce the AV1611 and those editors whose later reviews and minor alterations brought about the Bible which I hold as I study and preach.

Amen Bro. Tim. The goal of any Bible student should be to be in tune with the Lord enough that we can go to the Scriptures and simply let God speak to us. Thank God for good commentaries and study aids that help us who are children in understanding. But God's guidance as we compare scripture with scripture is so much better.