Welcome to CalvaryCFN's Exhibition of

The KJV Letters!

I am excited to finally present The KJV Letters to the public, as it concerns a controversial topic which is very near and dear to my heart. In certain "Fundamental" churches, the debate rages over the King James Bible, and whether it is the only true Bible for English speaking peoples.

Is it OK for a Christian to read the NIV, NLT, or NASB? Should we confine ourselves to the KJV as the only reliable English translation? These are questions which many, perhaps most in the Church have never even thought about, yet they are questions about which some in the Church have very grave concerns.

To those who have never encountered the KJV-only controversy, I say your Spiritual life is better off without it, and do not be bothered with this page; but to those, like me, who have struggled with it and against it for most of their lives, I say, I hope you are one day freed from the chains of it, and may this page be used by the Lord to bring liberty and relief!

To all who come to this page, I ask that you leave comments. This may be easily done by clicking on the title of each post, then scrolling to the end where the comment box may be found. I invite everyone to comment, whether you agree or disagree.

It is true that many of my statements presume the reader has read the following books: Final Authority, by Bill Grady, and Which Bible? by Otis Fuller, as well as the various writings by Gail Riplinger on "Hell" and "The Blood". It is not my intention to exhibit these letters for those who have fortunately never encountered Grady or Riplinger, but rather to help those who have been stifled in their spiritual life by the works of these "accusers of the brethren", and the many others who follow after them.

The following letters were exchanged between myself, Michael La Framboise, and Jeremy Munson, and Jared Munson over the last decade. Also included is an e-mail from Dr. Bill Grady himself! 

Challenging 'Final Authority' and the Grady Deceit

November 23, 2011
As iron sharpens iron,
So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.

Iron sharpeneth iron;
so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
Proverbs  27:17

(Early 2004)
Dear Jeremy,
   Indeed you're more than a cousin, you are my friend; and it is a joy to be sharpened by your wisdom.

   Although I will briefly mention the NIV in this E-mail, it is not my intention, nor my purpose to persuade your opinion of it, per se. There are only two reasons I will address it at all: To prove a point I attempted to make earlier to you; and to point out that Grady is misleading, and that to a fault.
   My main purpose in this E-mail is take Grady to task for his outlandish and unsubstantiated remarks. I will focus on the NKJV, as it pertains to us specifically. We are already in agreement over our preference of the Textus Receptus, therefore I will only attempt to show you that the translation of the NKJV is above reproach when it comes to serious scrutiny, and may be trusted every bit as much as its venerated predecessor. I believe that Grady will prove this to you as we look into each of his claims.

  The bottom line on other major translations, in my view, is this: if there be any corruption (and we both recognize the possibility of that, as revealed to us by the early Church Fathers.), it came at the hands of ancient Gnostic copyists; NOT by contemporary English translators.
  So my aim is not to get you ready to purchase your first NIV, but rather for us to take a good look at Mr. Grady's claims against all that is not the KJV. Perhaps along the way, we shall be enlightened as to why I prefer the NKJV; but as long as I know you actually read your o.g.- KJV and enjoy it as God intended you too, I shall never try to convince you to use any other... even mine.
   First, I would like to address Exodus 12:5.
That's where the NIV uses the word "animals" instead of "lamb". Here is the NIV rendering of Ex 12:3-5:

3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household.
4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are.
You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance
with what each person will eat.
5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats.

   Grady uses verse 5 out of context (pg. 289, 5th paragraph) to imply that the NIV translators were attempting to nullify the validity or significance of Jesus Christ being our Passover Lamb. As you no doubt already see, nothing could be further from the truth. Obviously Grady simply didn't notice the 3 "lamb" references in the previous 2 verses, which make it impossible to understand the "animals" in verse 5 to refer to anything but "lambs". Not to mention the fact that verse 5 itself restricts the application of the term, "you may take them from the sheep or the goats." The fact that goats are also mentioned, may give us insight into the mind of the NIV translators. In English "lamb" refers to a young sheep, as "kid" refers to a young goat. So when it came to translating verse 5, the word "animals" was chosen, because in the latter part of the verse it is connected with both sheep and goats; but "lamb" may only refer to the first. This has support from the Hebrew in that the underlying word for "lamb" is a generic term for a member of a flock; whether it be a sheep or goat. Finally, we need to remember that the NIV is a translation of dynamic equivalence: thought for thought; rather than word for word. Therefore the conclusion must be made that, in this instance, the NIV is not only a good translation, but also an accurate one; not to mention fairly literal at that.

  Next I would like to point out a blatant example of twisting the facts. It causes me not only to question Grady's character (as do other parts of the book), but also his intelligence and perceived expertise (as most of the book brings into question).

  On pg. 289, paragraph 3, Grady surmises that the NIV translators used the "African" (notice the racist undertones; also see pg. 310, second paragraph of lower section; and pg. 186, line 9) X (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus) manuscripts as their guide in translating the term "nose-ring" in Genesis 24:22. This is interesting since X and B are Greek manuscripts of the Scriptures; while the Hebrew behind Genesis 24:22 refers to a nose ring anyway as Strong's concordance defines it. Grady is plainly misleading his readers as he arbitrarily points to X and B, no doubt trying to imply some "nicolaitan" corruption.
  Chapter 17, which deals primarily with the New King James, is interesting to me in that not a single example that stands any scrutiny is ever employed. To the contrary some examples unwittingly lead one to certain weaknesses in the Old KJV.

  In the first 6 pages no textual criticisms are yet made (only silly conclusions) with the exception of one on page 303, 5th paragraph. It concerns Romans 1:25, and the word "changed" vs. "exchanged": NKJV is the more literal, accurate rendering as any textual analysis will prove. It's here we realize that Grady has done no homework, and the chink in his armor is revealed. He considers a change in the KJV English rendering enough to accuse would-be translators of malevolence and blasphemy. The Old English rendering becomes more important to Grady than accuracy-- this is problematic for one looking to him for truth.

   We understand, however, where he's coming from after reading his ludicrous statements on page 23; the most insane being found in paragraph 4, "...Inspiration can indeed rest upon translation". How about that Darwin, an evolving Bible! For the truth behind the dung of page 23, learn what the Septuagint is; otherwise his arguments would indeed be stumblers.

   Finally on page 305 Grady gets into the text. First at the top of the page, he scoffs at the NKJV for its claim of "clearer meanings". I simply refer you to page 306, 7th example; and 309, top. If you can tell me off the top of your head what a "flagon" is, or perhaps explain, "Ammi-nadib" (If you guess the Queen of Naboo, you're wrong.)-- then you win. By the way, in these references the NKJV is the more literal/accurate.

  In the 3rd paragraph of page 305, Grady declares the NKJV to contain over 100,000 alterations from the KJV, with the comment that, "the [NKJV Translator] scholar can take whatever license he desires." This is a vicious remark with no evidence to support it. Of course there are thousands of differences; that would be the case if ONLY the "thees" and "thous" were updated. Let us remember the NKJV never professes to be identical to the KJV (if it was, it wouldn't be new), rather a new translation after that time honored tradition. These changes, once again refer to the English variations; there simply are no departures from the underlying Hebrew and Greek, and that is what matters, and it is the only thing which should matter to true Bible Believing Christians! This is simply misleading on Grady's part. Another foolish argument with no rationality, nor logic behind it.

  In paragraph 6 of page 305, Grady provides 3 examples where the NKJV variates from the Old KJV. In all three cases the NKJV is true to the Hebrew. In the first instance, Job 17:1, both the old and new KJV renderings are supported by the Hebrew. However, in the next two the NKJV is more literal and accurate. Notice Grady's implication as he refers to, "the pronoun switch of, 'its rising is from...' " in Psalm 16:6. The pronoun in the KJV is "His"; Grady would almost lead you to believe that maybe this reference was originally to God. In actuality, it refers to the sun, and the word "His" doesn't even appear in the Hebrew; here the NKJV is the more literal and accurate. The unicorn example, isn't worth mentioning, since we know that I win on that one already.

    Next we come to Grady's 36 examples from Song of Solomon. (Pages 306-310)

Examples 8, 9, 11, and 23 only deal with the differences between Old English and new. The NKJV has only updated the language.

Examples 1,2,3,7,10,13,14,16,20,21,22,24,25,26,27,29,30, 32,33,35, and 36 all prove the NKJV to be the more literally accurate translation.

Examples 12 and 17 prove to be more literally accurate in the Old KJV.

Examples 4, 5, 6, 15, 18, 19, 28, 31, and 34 are all equally supported by the underlying Hebrew in either translation.

  Grady's point in the above references is that the NKJV agrees more with modern translations, than with the KJV. I could reverse that argument against the KJV in Amos 4:4. In that verse both the KJV and NIV agree in DYNAMIC (Thought for thought) interpretation; whereas the NKJV translates the literally accurate rendering from the Hebrew.

Amos 4:4
bring your sacrifices every morning,
and your tithes after three years:

Amos 4:4
Bring your sacrifices every morning,
your tithes every three years.

Amos 4:4
Bring your sacrifices every morning,
Your tithes every three days.

  On Page 310, lower section Grady waxes eloquent, and that without a shred of truth to back him up!
  Paragraph 2, concerning the "nose ring", has already been addressed.

  In paragraph 3 Grady asks concerning any true benefit in the NKJV, "where is the treasure?" I would answer that it is in a truly accurate translation, as we have seen the NKJV to be. He speaks of a rehash of Westcott and Hort even though his examples come from the Old Testament, wherein they have no influence in modern translations. (No influence whatsoever in the NKJV)
In the remaining paragraph between pages 310 and 311, the NKJV is proved to be more accurate in all 4 instances.
   If anything, Grady has proved beyond reasonable doubt, the NKJV is worthy of any Christian's (Fundamental Baptist or otherwise) consideration in study and devotion. Grady has furthermore so proven the careful translation of the NKJV, any Independent Fundamental Baptist preacher should feel quite confident in using it for Church. I know I feel better.

  Grady goes on from here to criticize the New Scofield KJV. I have no use for Scofield; when it comes to Study Bibles, I am quite comfortable with the Open Bible. However, I would point out three things which destroy Grady's credibility.

  #1 page 312, 3rd paragraph concerning Deut. 4:2.
The Words” Anything" (NSRB), or "Ought" (KJV) are both unsupported by the Hebrew and unnecessary in the English.

  #2 Page 312, 4th paragraph, 1st example concerning Gen 49:6.
This is hilarious because Grady makes the comment, "Since when is an oxen and a wall the same thing?!" Good question Mr. Grady, now you're thinking analytically. It so happens the KJV translators mistakenly translated the Hebrew word for "oxen" as "wall". Indeed the words look very similar, but the fact remains that the true translation is found in the NSRB, as well as the NKJV.

  #3 Page 313, 4th paragraph, concerning 1 Sam 13:1
According to the Masoretic [Hebrew] text that has come down to us. bªmaalªkow shaa'uwl ben-shaanaah (Hebrew transliteration) cannot possibly be rendered... "Saul reigned one year," but can only mean "Saul was a year old when he became king." This is the way in which the words have been correctly rendered... this is the way in which the text has been understood...but all that follows from that is, there is an error in the text, namely, that between ben (OT:1121, strong's) and shaanaah (OT:8141) the age has fallen out-- a thing which could easily take place, as there are many traces to show that originally the numbers were not written in words, but only in letters that were used as numerals. This gap in the text is older than the Septuagint version (285 B.C.), as our present text is given there.
(from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament)

  This is a can of worms that Grady is undoubtedly unprepared and unable to open. This is very similar to his flat-out dumb statements on page 163. The whole page is non-sensical, but paragraphs 3 and 4 take the cake for idiocy. Talk (as he does) about opening Pandora's box, no kidding! But he is the one who is absolutely unprepared. His argument is COMPLETELY unfounded and impossible to sustain. It's interesting though, because I agree with him concerning the wisdom of the italicized words in that instance; but don't slander those who seek not to add to the text something that truly is not there.
   My point on the Grady book is this, he is setting his readers up for a fall that could potentially destroy their Faith. A person who has adopted the Grady view of preservation will be forced to toss out the Scriptures completely, as they will never fit into his contrived and irrational box. I hope they throw out Grady instead; but more than likely, because of the sensitivity of the issue, they'll be stumbled into disbelief.

 The KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, NLT, will all benefit the believer Spiritually. Why Grady disagrees with that is beyond me, and quite honestly, it's beyond him: as he has no solid evidence to the contrary.

  Let me once again say this, I prefer Textus Receptus for my New Testament (all major translations use the same Hebrew text for the O.T.); however, I do NOT believe the major English translations which use the alternative, to be misleading: and I do encourage you to challenge me on this statement.

  May I say this in closing. I have come to the conclusion (only by testing Grady's own words to the facts) that this Grady book is an instrument of Satan, which only serves to divide the Body of Christ. I say that based upon the fact that this book, as we have both seen, is founded upon lie after lie after deception, after slander, after prejudice, after hypocrisy. I only took you through a chapter or two. But the rest of the book is just as dishonest. Sure, there may be some truth amidst the foolishness, but that doesn't make this book "truthful". Since Satan is the Father of Lies (if I may take a Grady leap), then this book is a product of the Devil. Now don't let me simply get away with these inflammatory remarks! They are purposely and especially fiery, as to invoke a challenge. Friendly Fire that is, designed to get your intellectual juices flowing my way!

  The King James Bible has a remarkable history, and has left its mark and legacy upon the English speaking world. I hate to see it's reputation (for accurately conveying God's truth) tarnished by this nut.

I love talking to you about this subject.
I will wait anxiously for your reply.
Your cousin, Michael

ps. now take me to task if necessary. Don't hold back, just do more homework than Grady did.

[Addendum; not part of original E-mail.]

I thought to myself, Jeremy would love this!

1 Sam 25:22
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall...
1 Sam 25:34
...any that pisseth against the wall...
1 Kings 14:10
I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall...
1 Kings 16:11
...he left him not one that pisseth against a wall...
1 Kings 21:21
I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall...
2 Kings 9:8
I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall...

I like how Adam Clarke deals with these passages.
This expression certainly means either men or dogs, and should be thus translated, "if I leave any male"; this will answer both to men and dogs, and the offensive mode of expression be avoided; I will not enter further into the subject: Bochart and Calmet have done enough, and more than enough; and in the plainest language too.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary: 1 Sam 25:22)

Of course when I came across this uniquely KJV phrase, it soon came to my remembrance the rantings of one, William Grady. If you would notice the first 3 paragraphs/10 lines of page 2 in Final Authority. Here Grady takes note of an off color translation in the Living Bible which uses the term, "toilet". Once again, I am led to believe that Dr. Grady hasn't done his homework; or simply hasn't read through his own KJV! Certainly "pisseth against the wall" is more offensive than "toilet".

Personally, I'm thankful that in the future when I teach through this passage (I'll soon be in Joshua, so it's on the distant horizon.), I will have the politeness of the NKJV in a mixed audience.



Dear Jeremy:

I am sitting in a motel room working on my new book. My publishing deadline is the first of November. It is an 800 page hardback book that I started January, 1999. I don't even have a copy of Final Authority in my room. I could not begin to get sidetracked scrutinizing this man's long list of complaints about my book. Besides, I obviously am not a "scholar" like he is! Although the only infallible preacher in the world is John Paul I, (i.e., I have never assumed or claimed that my book was inconsistency free) the overall thesis is right regarding FINAL AUTHORITY. His nit picking will NEVER change the facts of the Satanic foundation of the entire modern Bible movement (i.e., Wescott and Hort, the corrupt RV Committee proceedings, the depravity of the Alexandrian text, etc.)

Your friend's silly remark that I am being used of Satan to DIVIDE the body illustrates my point. Satan has been dividing the once unified body (with respect to the singular usage of the KJV) with each new translation (Read my forward about John Burgon)

The main problem is the sprit this guy has projected in his e-mail. He is obviously very impressed with himself and is trying to lord over you. What the two of you have in common escapes me. I'd strongly suggest that you find a Bible believer for a friend (Amos 3:3)

Again, forgive me for not being available to "debate" your "friend" but I rarely take the time to answer any of these kind of people. They are a dime a dozen and if I gave them my time I couldn't keep writing. Tell your "friend" I was too intimidated to answer his objections. Then get in your prayer closet and as God to tell you which version to read.

Dr. Grady

Challenging Which Bible

November 23, 2011
As iron sharpens iron,
So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.

Iron sharpeneth iron;
so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

Proverbs 27:17

Dear Jared,

   Indeed the question is asked, Which Bible? Are they all equally Holy?

   First, I must briefly explain my point of view. I prefer the NKJV; yet I sincerely believe in the integrity of all the Major Bible Translations. I am, however, definitive in my use of that term:

   I refer only to the...

King James Version (KJV-1762 revision, the common and familiar edition),
New King James Version (NKJV-1982),
New International Version (NIV-1973),
New American Standard Bible (NASB-1971, updated in 1995),
and the New Living Translation (NLT-1996).
   While this may seem rather broad in scope, it will become relatively narrow in our discussion.

   Remember, my statements ONLY include the Major Translations. I speak of no others than the one's listed above. Of course, I have a personal affection for the Jerusalem Bible, as you may well remember. But, since it is not a popular translation, I see no reason to include it here.

   The aforementioned is very important in understanding my comments on the [very boring] book, Which Bible? by David Otis Fuller; since he in no way addresses the Major Translations of our day.

   The book speaks to a time long since passed. It was written before the NIV, NKJV, and the NLT were ever published. The NASB was partially published in 1963, and completed in 1971; but it is never mentioned in Which Bible? nor in subsequent revisions of it. (My copy is the 3rd edition, revised in 1972.) The book is fundamentally a treatise against the Revised Version and its American counterpart, the American Standard Version.

   It spends many pages in attempting to prove a Catholic conspiracy
which allegedly lies at the root of the 19th century movement to revise the Scriptures. As usual, the book is heavily weighted in its attention given to Drs. Westcott and Hort, a dire mistake in contemporary debate of this issue. Also discussed at length is the probability of ancient corruption.

   These three themes provide the background for the basic thesis which asserts the weakness and corruption of the RV and ASV .

   With respect, I say that 50-100 years ago, this book would've been of great importance. I certainly see value in its particular criticisms of the Revision Committee.

   However, I have never met anyone who still uses the RV or the ASV. It would appear that Dr. Fuller accomplished his intended objective. Today the common translations are the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NLT; and in my "humblest opinion", the arguments against the RV cannot and should not be used to refute the newer translations.

   The newer major translations (I continue to use the term "major translation", to distinguish from kooky paraphrases, biased interpretations, and various minor translations; none of which I endorse. In this way the debate remains relevant to the issues at hand.)
   --are not tainted by any Catholic movement to influence Protestantism.
   --lack any evidence that would indicate a lingering Gnostic conspiracy.
   --do not lend themselves toward an alleged perversion by Westcott/Hort.

While I personally view the NKJV as generally superior in every way; I also recognize the value of other translations. They faithfully and accurately represent their underlying Alexandrian texts; and while there are variations, they are neither dramatic, nor significant. The NU-Text (Nestle's/United Bible Societies Text) of the NIV, NASB, and NLT is far superior to its Westcott and Hort predecessor; and at times, I concede to it the better rendering of various passages.

I always come back to these basic truths:
   --We all use the same Old Testament Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text; there really are no competent disputes in this area (variations are well founded).
   --The New Testament Greek text is the point of contention; but if you carefully investigate the matter, all the major translations are doctrinally sound. There is no diminishing of the Deity of Christ, or His Atoning sacrifice, for example. This is often alleged, but has no support.
   --Also, to their credit, they all, even the RV and ASV, include the controversial passages in Mark 1:1 ("... the Son of God");Mark 16:9- 20; and John 8. This, and many other examples, prove an
academic/spiritual balance that should ease any fears of Gnostic corruption or liberal agenda.

   The book is therefore obsolete in that it deals with issues and arguments which have no affect on major Bible translations; it is also irrelevant in that it does not speak to the pertinent issues that do matter, today (to be fair, it could not). The KJV-Only camp needs something up-to-date. But since I have already sliced and diced Grady and Riplinger, I don't know who they can turn to!

   Now, if I may be a little more critical...

   First, I point out a flaw in the research: A non-objective approach.
On page 213, the secondary author, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, (far less capable than Dr. Fuller), announces his faulty mindset. "In the search to which these considerations have led the author, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. it has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed..." The gathering of facts should lead one to his conclusion; not the other way around. If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything! Furthermore, the secondary author is far less civilized than Dr. Fuller, as seen in his remarks against Jerome on page 217. I'm sure ol' Jerome was a fine Catholic fellow. I would personally vouch for his credentials.

   I certainly would, however, applaud Alfred Martin for his respectful comments about Dr. Tregelles on page 150; and his generous evaluation of the venerable Westcott and Hort, on pages 154-155.
On pages 3, 6, 27, 37, the author confuses the distinction between the Received Text (TR) and the Majority Text (M-Text) of the New Testament. I found this to be dishonest and self-serving. The M-Text and the TR do not always agree; and in many places where they do not, the M-Text agrees with the NU-Text (Alexandrian text)-- in omission, addition, and variation! This is especially true in the book of Revelation.

   Let me illustrate this using the KJV and NASB-updated, since they are both literal translations, yet with opposing Greek sub-texts...

Rev 1:5 (KJV= TR)
Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Rev 1:5 (NASU= M-Text/NU-Text)
To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood --

   Here the TR stands alone, while the M-Text (remember this is the majority of Byzantine texts-- from which the TR is derived-- associated with the Antioch school of text, which is the textual source contrary to the Alexandrian school, ie. the Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus.) is in agreement with the NU-Text, or Alexandrian Text.

   Next example...

Rev 1:8 (KJV= TR)
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord,
which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Rev 1:8 (NASU= M-Text/NU-Text)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God,
"who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

   Here the TR is unique in adding, " the beginning and the ending"; also unique in it's omission of God, after Lord. The M-text agrees with the NU-Text in both instances. Here we have examples of additions, omissions, and variations of the Greek text of the New Testament, where the Alexandrian texts and the Majority of Byzantine texts agree, with only the Received Text (a Byzantine derivative) dissenting. Thus, it incorrect to imply that the TR and M-text are synonymous.

   The book does indeed confess this mis-application of the facts on page 194, but only in the footnotes. I think the intention of raising the TR to a mythical status is obvious, and requires no further comment from me.

   I find it self-serving, however, that the KJV-only crowd never mention the places where the King James "omits" the name of Jesus! Check out Acts 5:41 and Jude 25.
   In the Acts reference, the KJV sides with the NIV and its underlying "Westcott & Hort" Greek text and omits "Jesus"; whereas the Majority Text, from which the Textus Receptus is compiled, actually reads, "...rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for the Name of Jesus."

   In Jude 25 the NIV and its underlying Greek text reads, "To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen." Quite a bit stronger than the KJV which changes "the only God", and omits "Jesus Christ our Lord", and "before all ages". Should I tell everyone that the KJV betrays a Gnostic heritage, and that the translators were attempting to minimize the Godhead, let alone the Name of Jesus?! Yet people who ascribe to the KJV-Only cult continually spew such wretched gobblygook!

   Another quibble of mine may be found on pages 187, 263, and 267, where the author insinuates that the term "Received Text" refers to the whole of the Greek AND Hebrew texts which underlies our Bible. Any giddy ol' schoolboy knows that the term, "Received Text" only refers to the Greek text of the New Testament. I think this gives the impression that the KJV uses a different and superior Hebrew text in its O.T; while in reality, every translation uses the same one. The differences in texts only relate to the N.T. Greek.

   However, on balance, I am surprised with the candid remarks concerning the Received Text on pages 148-150. Here, directly quoted, the author admits that, the Traditional Text is not synonymous with the Received Text, but the latter does embody it in a corrupt form (148); and that, one cannot say that the Textus Receptus, for example is verbally inspired. It contains many plain and clear errors... (149); and finally, that Erasmus wasn't infallible in that, He undoubtedly could have done much better than he did [in formulating his Greek N.T. which became known as the Textus Receptus in 1633] (150). I appreciate the honesty here, but it becomes very confusing when taken with other parts of the book.

   On a similar note, I was disenchanted with page 181, wherein my beloved Septuagint (the Greek translation of the O.T., completed in 285 BC; typically abbreviated LXX.) is maligned, although never named specifically. It is demonstrably fallacious to assert that, "by the time of Christ, the Old Testament was in a settled condition. Since then the Hebrew Scriptures had been carried down intact to the day of printing (about 1450 AD) by... perfect Hebrew manuscripts." This statement can easily be refuted and the LXX vindicated by cross- referencing Hebrews 1:6 with Deuteronomy 32:43.

And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world,
he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Heb 1:6 (KJV)

   The Writer of Hebrews quotes from Deuteronomy 32: 43, which reads in the Hebrew Maseretic Text, and in the KJV, as follows...

Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.
Deut 32:43 (KJV)

   Hey! what's going on here Mr. Fuller? That isn't even a close paraphrase of what the author of Hebrews said in his quotation. What the author of Which Bible? overlooked is the Council of Jamnia!
In AD 90, Jewish scribes came together to standardize the Hebrew Text. They rejected the LXX and the Hebrew version on which it was based, since it had become the Bible of the Christians. They produced a unified text of the Tenach (Hebrew term for the O.T.) and ensured that divergent texts were destroyed. This became the basis of the text preserved by the Masoretes, who handled the responsibility of copying the Scriptures between AD 500-- AD 950; hence the term "Masoretic Text".
The Apostles used and quoted from the Septuagint; this was their Bible!

   Yet, on page 181, the author declares, "whatever perplexing problems there are with the Old Testament, these have largely been produced by translating it into Greek and uniting that translation to the Greek New Testament." I beg to differ Mr. Fuller! It seems to me, that the Hebrew has been tampered with by Jews who rejected Jesus as their Messiah, thereby removing a text which was used by the Writer of Hebrews (30 years before Jamnia) to prove the Divinity of Messiah Jesus to Jews.

   Here is how Deuteronomy 32:43 reads in the Septuagint (which was translated from Hebrew manuscripts pre-dating 270 BC), a reading that is absolutely validated and authenticated by the Holy Spirit, as seen in the book of Hebrews.

Rejoice, ye heavens, with him,
and let all the angels of God worship him:
rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people,
and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him;
for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance,
and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him;
and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.
Deuteronomy 32:43 (LXX)

   He shoots, (SWISH!) he scores... 3 points! He's on fire!

Don't under-estimate the Septuagint.

   On page 275, the author uses the most contrived examples of modern-day Bible translations to prove the superiority of the KJV. He criticizes Moffat's Version for using the phrase, "Eclipse of the sun" in Luke 23:45, which reads, "the sun was darkened" in the KJV; stating that "Moffat and the revisers both used the same manuscript". The problem is that every Major Translation today, and back then (including the RV and the ASV), translates this passage just as faithfully as the KJV.

the sun's light failed

the sun's light failing:

the sun stopped shining

the sun being obscured

   The author falsely implied that the problem was with the Alexandrian Greek text, when in reality, the discrepancy was due to Moffat's own interpretation; which by the way, does have some validity. The fact is that in Luke 23:45 there is a variation in the Greek texts. The TR uses the verb "skotizo" (Strong's #4654), meaning to obscure; "was darkened" in the KJV. The NU-Text reads, "eklipontos" (Strong's #1587), meaning to omit; by implication, to cease; translated elsewhere in the KJV, "fail". Obviously, Moffat simply brought "eklipontos" over into the English, basically untranslated as, "eclipse".

   A similar misrepresentation of the truth is found on pages 176 and 309, which both deal with David and Goliath. Well, who did kill Goliath? Was it David or Elhanan?

2 Sam 21:19

Elha'nan... slew Goliath...

Elhanan... slew the brother of Goliath...

   This is interesting, because a good case can be made for either translation. The fact is, the Hebrew text does not contain the KJV addition, "the brother of", which of course is why it is in italics. The KJV, NKJV, and NLT borrow the words from the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 20:5. In this case the other translations contain the most faithful and literal rendering; although I believe the KJV, NKJV, and NLT contain the best interpretation. This, of course, is one of many reasons why I use the NKJV; I think there is wisdom here in the italicized/added phrase. Regardless, both are right; because although David most certainly did kill Goliath, the Hebrew of 2 Samuel 21 states otherwise.
   Allow the commentator to explain:

2 Samuel 21:19
...Where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Beth-lehemite,
slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite...
['Elchaanaan (Strong's OT:445), "God-bestowed"] - one of David's warriors.
[Ya`ªreey-'Orgiym (Strong's OT:3296), "forest of weavers".

It is evident that 'irgiym, is spurious, and has been introduced by mistake from the eye of a transcriber catching the end of the following line, where oregim (weavers) stands.]
This word being rejected, the clause is identical with that in the parallel passage,
1 Chron 20:5. Elhanan, the son of Jair "slew ... Goliath the Gittite."

The incidents associated with the feat of Elhanan show it to have occurred in an advanced period of David's reign; and therefore, regarding the statement of the chronicler as the correct one, we consider the word "brother" as properly borrowed from that passage, and, [the word] a Beth-lehemite, as corrupt; so that the clause should be, 'Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite.'
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)

   The other textual example I found given in the book, is on page 110. Here the author employs senseless Banta-fodder-- or, to quote Sebulba, the great Pod Racer of a by-gone era, "Banta poo-doo". I simply do not see the big deal here. Whether or not the word in 1 Timothy 3:16 is rendered "God" or "He", the context plainly presents Christ as the person in view. For a scholars perspective, I direct you to Adam Clarke and his commentary on the matter; also Barne's Notes for a more thorough examination.

   On page 275, the author puts forth the worst examples possible to illustrate the danger of the modern Bibles. He employs conversation and criticism over the Poly-chrome Bible and the Shorter Bible (also the Fenton Ferrar Translation on page 309). Give me a break! While I agree with the author in his criticism, I must point out that this was a waste of time. Let's argue over Translations, not paraphrases. Let's talk about Bibles that people have actually heard of before.

   Concerning the "Many" changes in newer Bibles (page 298): see my comments in "Challenging Final Authority and the Grady Deceit".

   On page 311 the author advocates for a standard version, namely the KJV. While I think it beneficial to have the same Bible as your pastor in church; I do not see the necessity of an accepted standardized version in general (Isn't this ecclesiastical socialism?). However this is simply "opinion" on both my part and on the part of the author. We may agree to disagree, agreeably here. Frankly, I am very appreciative for the many good and dependable Translations.

   Finally, I come to the most important facet of Which Bible?...
I refer you to pages 151, 247, and 304 where the author establishes the foundation and need for a "New" King James Version.

   On page 151, the author emphasizes the necessity of the textual controversy to be "aired again among Bible-believing Christians"; to the affect that the Textus Receptus might be re-evaluated, so as to be recognized as a worthy Greek text. This re-evaluation indeed took place, and the preface to the NKJV bears this out: "Recent studies have caused significant changes... and a growing number of scholars now regard the Received Text as far more reliable than previously thought. In light of this... the New King James New Testament has been based on this Received Text, thus perpetuating the tradition begun by William Tyndale in 1525 and continued by the 1611 translators in rendering the Authorized Version."

   On page 247, an acknowledgment of the "vast" devolution of the English language since 1611, lays the framework for the comments made on page 304 concerning the great potential and "wonderful opportunity" of a truly sound revision of the KJV: "They might have made a few changes and removed a few archaic expressions, and made the Authorized Version the most acceptable and beautiful and wonderful book of all time to come." No doubt the NKJV has fulfilled this great desire; albeit, those who should most benefit from its qualities, sadly refuse it on baseless absurdities.

   Without question, the KJV is an excellent Old English translation, as pages 246 and 284 detail quite efficiently. Furthermore, I confess that the Pastors and Bible teachers I most admire use the KJV: Jerry Osborne, founder of the Community Bible Church of Norwalk; Chuck Smith, founder of Calvary Chapel; Jon Courson and Chuck Missler among others. And I must say, It works just fine... as you certainly know.

   In my case, I need the best I can get, so I use the NKJV.
   Now look who's biased, shame on me!

   Bottom line, I completely enjoy going back and forth over this awesome controversy.
Thank you for your time, dear cousin.

Response From Jared R. Munson
An E-mail entitled, “I’m Tickled”

Believe it or not I've been reading your work on Which Bible and must say it's always enjoyable to hear how you can take a complicated subject and so eloquently put it down on the bottom shelf for us simple folk.

No doubt you've done your homework and have worked hard on this to find the truth. I really believe God has blessed you with a great gift in communicating what you have learned into writings. You seriously need to work on a book, anything you write I think would be a help to Christians because of the way you write. With some writers they get stuck on hearing themselves talk and get too intellectual but you don't do that it's like a perfect puzzle or a masterpiece painting, music to my ears, I think I'm rambling now, anyways I'm trying to say it flows together very nicely.

When you do write your first book I got dibs on the first autographed copy.
Now if I can challenge anything or not remains to be seen. I have my work cut out for me.

Challenging Riplinger: The Controversy over “Hell” and the “Blood”

November 23, 2011
   Dear Jeremy,

   I have been diligent of late to develop a comprehensive answer to the Riplinger accusations against major modern translations. More specifically, I have taken her to task concerning the comments she made about “Hell” and the “Blood” being removed maliciously from the Biblical text. I will try to be concise in my argument, yet thorough in my evidence.

   First let me dismantle Riplinger’s case as it pertains to the Blood.
   In the KJV O.T. the Hebrew word “dam” (strong’s #1818), is translated as “blood” 342 times. The discrepancy of 4-- as the KJV has 346 references to “Blood” in the O.T.-- is due to 3 unsupported uses (strong’s 9999), and another instance where “Blood” is used to translate a different Hebrew word (Is 63:3/ strongs #5332).

   In the KJV N.T. the Greek word “Haima” (strong’s 129) or a derivitive (strong‘s 130; 131), is translated as “Blood” 101 times; which is every instance the word is used.

  Now, what’s the deal with the modern translations? Is there a conspiracy to cover up the “blood”? Let’s see.

   In the NKJV, every instance where there is blood in the KJV is accounted for, and in every instance the translation is valid, accurate, and truthful.

   In the NIV, the same may be said, with two exceptions. The first, In the O.T., Ezekiel 16:6. Here, there is missing the final and redundant clause which repeats a reference to “Blood”.

'Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood,
and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, "Live!"


And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood,
I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live;
yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.

However, the NIV does have textual support:
[Five manuscripts, the LXX (Septuagint), the Old Latin, and the Syriac omit the second,
"yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live".]
From The Wycliffe Bible Commentary
The second omission is found in the N.T., Colossians 1:14.

 “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:”

   This of course, goes back to the whole debate between the two schools of Greek text: the Byzantine text (TR) and the Alexandrian texts. But, rather than doing all that, I simply draw your attention to verse 20 of Colossians chapter one, in the NIV:

19. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
20. and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.


   Because of this verse, the context and understanding of verse 14 remains the same in both the KJV and the NIV.
If Gnostics tampered with the text, they didn’t do a very thorough job. If Westcott and Hort meddled with the doctrine of the Atonement, they were not only unsuccessful, but even unnoticeable; as they still left the message very much intact.

   All in all, these two “omissions” are hardly worth any one’s time. They are both meaningless in doctrine and worthless for criticism.  

  The topic of “hell” is even less relevant as we shall see.
   Riplinger supposes that serious attention needs to be given to the blatant removal of “Hell” from modern translations; however, in both the NKJV and NIV all references are accounted for, and properly translated. If there is a problem, it lies in the KJV’s indiscriminate use of “Hell” as it translates the original words. I think this creates confusion in understanding the nature and doctrine of “Hell”.
  If there is a debate, it probably lies with the NIV’s O.T. use of the word “Grave” instead of “Hell”. Yet, the KJV uses the same term to translate the same word 31 times. So, I don’t think that is a valid argument.

I have invested much time and research into this very brief synopsis; and I have complete paperwork, including all verse references, on all that I have suggested and declared. Feel free to e-mail me, and I will send it to you.