Denying the perfection of the
Holy Bible is not new. Foxe’s
Book of Martyrs (vol. 8, p. 106)
records one burned at the stake
in 1556. Fox recorded:
“John Cavel…answered, that the
cause why he did forbear the
coming to church, was, that the
parson there had preached two
contrary doctrines.→
“For first, in a sermon that he
made…he did exhort the people to
believe the gospel; for it was the
truth, and if they did not believe it,
they should be damned. But in a
second sermon, he preached
that the Testament was false in
forty places, which contrariety in
him was a cause amongst other of
his absenting from church.”
 Recently someone said
that there were problems in
some forty places also.
 Men in 1556 were
martyred before they
would agree with such
comments.
WHY are some now
denying the
absolute perfection
and inspiration of
the King James
Bible ?
WHAT brought
this about
?
THE REASON why some today
deny the absolute perfection
and inspiration of the KJB is
their use of Dictionaries and
Greek-English & HebrewEnglish Lexicons, which
incorrectly allege that the KJB
is wrong in various places or
could read differently.
Some act as if they
have holy and
inspired lexicons,
instead of an
inspired Holy Bible.
Beware of Bibliographies or
Commentaries citing the
following KJV-correcting corrupt
lexicons.
 Strong’s Concordance
 Vine’s Expository Dictionary
 Moulton’s Analytical Lexicon
 Wuest’s Word Studies
 The definitions in these ‘Bible’
dictionaries and the words in
new versions are identical.
 They came from the same
poisoned well, Greek and
Hebrew study tools, all by the
same menacing men.
  
 1 Tim. 5:22 says,
“Lay hands suddenly on no
man”
 1 Thes. 5:21 says,
“Prove all things; hold fast
that which is good”
Many have laid hands on
Greek and Hebrew study
tools by Strong, Vine,
Moulton, Wuest and
others, without a
thorough examination of
the beliefs of these men.
This presentation and the book
Hazardous Materials
demonstrate that the men who
first promoted the English
definitions of Greek Bible words
were evil men “crept in
unawares…ungodly men,” as
Jude 5 warns us.
More documentation is in the 1,200
page book:
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Greek and Hebrew
Study Dangers
The Voice of Strangers
Burning
 Bibles
Word by Word
Beware of the
back pages of
Strong’s Concordance*
 Greek-English Lexicon
 Hebrew-English
Lexicon
 Strong was a member of the
Revised Standard Version (1881)
committee of Westcott, Hort, and
Vaughan.
 On this committee he joined one
Unitarian (Smith), two
sympathizers of Luciferians
(Ginsburg, Stanley), one child
molester (C.J. Vaughan), and a
hoard of Bible critics.
Strong was also a member of the
American Standard Version
Committee of 1901.
Strong joined two Unitarians (Abbott
and Thayer), one followers of
Luciferians (Schaff), and a horde of
bible critics, such as S.R. Driver,
who together changed nearly
10,000 words of the Bible.
ASV
 ASV committee chairman, Philip
Schaff called ‘inspiration,’ “the
moonshine theory of the inerrant
apostolic autographs.”
 He would not chose committee
members who did not agree that
the originals were not even
inspired. Therefore Strong and
Thayer did not even believe in
the inspiration of the originals.
 Strong does not always follow
the Textus Receptus to define
words.
 Strong used the Koran to define
words, being influenced by the
linguistic theories of the higher
critics who believed that the
Hebrews got their culture,
vocabulary, and scriptures from
their pagan neighbors.
 Strong’s definitions are often
nothing more that the words in
his American Standard Version.
 In Strong’s lexicons,
–Devils become deity;
–Lucifer becomes Jesus Christ.
KJB
has:
devils
Strong’s
definition
Demonic
demons
being, deity
Demons are
gods in Greek
mythology
Lucifer
morningstar
Rev. 22:16
Jesus
The morning star
and day star are
Jesus Christ
Godhead
divinity
Strong’s Problem
ASV
day star
2 Pet.
1:19
Jesus
divinity
deity = divinity
devils = Godhead
Strong’s definitions
express, not always a
literal meaning of a
Greek or Hebrew word,
but his liberal
philosophy.
Strong’s
ASV
Problem
too
very
supersti religious
-tious
very
religious
Not translated
(from
deisidaimone
steros, ‘fear
of devils’
heresy party
party
Neutral
word
bottom- abyss
less pit
abyss
More
difficult
KJB
(selfdefining)
Strong’s
definition
KJB
Strong’s
definition
follow imitate
hell
hades
Strong’s
ASV
Problem
imitate A
counterfeit
imitates
hades
Not
translated
KJB
Strong’s
definition
Strong’s
ASV
Problem
temper SelfSelfWorks
ance
control control (self, not
spirit)
charity love
love
Charity is
Christ’s love
shown from
one Christian
to another
Christian.
Verse
Acts 8:37
Col. 1:14
1 John 5:13
1 John 4:3
Col. 1:2
KJB
Strong and
Thayer ASV
omit
I believe that
Jesus Christ is
the Son of God
through his
blood
omit
that believe on omit
the name of the
Son of God
Christ is come
in the flesh
omit
And the Lord
Jesus Christ
omit
Will Strong, a Methodist, give us the
Historic Baptist Position??????????
 The Strong-McClintock Cyclopedia,
by James Strong, charges the
“Anabaptists” with “fanaticism.”
 It charges that one of these Baptists
“persuaded the people to devote
their gold, and silver, and movable
property to the common use, and to
burn all their books but the Bible (Haz.
p. 191).
Therefore, the historic
Baptist position is not
to bring the Holy Bible
under the scrutiny of
man-made books,
especially those written
by non-Baptists.
Harold K.
Moulton’s*
The Analytical
Greek Lexicon
Moulton’s Analytical Greek Lexicon
is the Greek textbook often
used at fundamental colleges
which deny inspiration of the
KJB. Hmmm.
 It is an update of his father’s
Moulton & Milligan Vocabulary
of the Greek New Testament.
 That original Moulton and Milligan
Lexicon was written by Harold K.
Moulton’s father, James Moulton
to defend the words in the Revised
Version, of which his father,
William Moulton was a translator,
along with Westcott and Hort.
 Consequently Moulton’s
definitions match the grandfather’s
Revised Version.
 Moulton’s vocabulary is secular,
not spiritual.
 It is based upon secular
materials, found in the “RubbishHeaps” of “Greek-speaking
Egyptians”
 James Moulton says that there is
no such thing as “Biblical
Greek” or the “language of the
Holy Ghost.”
 The Cambridge History of the
Bible show that:
 1.) The Bible brings literacy to
a country,
 2.) The Bible codifies the
language.
 3.) The Bible serves as a
written repository of word
meanings.
 The ensuing dark, secular contexts in
which these words find themselves
cannot shed light on the ‘true’ meaning
of these words, nor usurp the Holy
Ghost’s original meaning.
 They may reveal how a word was
adapted or distorted in secular usage.
But to determine how the Bible uses
the word, one must study the context
of the Bible alone.
 Moulton claims, for example,
that the KJB’s rendering of
Hebrews 11:1, “faith is the
substance” if wrong.
 Based on secular “Egyptian
rubbish” he says it should be
“faith is the title deed.”
 A ‘title deed’ is not the actual
“substance” of which it
writes, but only a piece of
paper.
With the KJB, one gets
the solid substance, the
real thing, not just a
promissory note.
James Moulton
published four books
sympathetic to
Zoroastrianism, a
religion from Iran which
worships a god
named Mazda.
 Following in his grandfather’s
footsteps, Harold K. Moulton was on
the recent corrupt Greek text
committee of the United Bible
Society with Aland and Metzger.
 Harold K. Moulton also helped with
the DICTIONARY in the back of the
corrupt United Bible Society’s Greek
text 4th edition, which underlies the
new versions!!
The Dictionary’s preface
thanks Moulton and
admits, “the meanings are
given in present-day
English, rather than in
accord with traditional
ecclesiastical
terminology.”
James Moulton’s textbook
says, “Correct the following
mistranslations of the A.V.”
With such a history, is it any
wonder that some schools
that use Harold K. Moulton’s
lexicon to teach Greek think
that the KJB is wrong??!
Vine’s*
Expository
Dictionary
Vine Lists his sources as:
 The corrupt Greek text of Westcott
and Hort’
 The Revised Version of Westcott
and Hort of 1881
 Lexicons by members of this RV
committee: Thayer, Strong, Trench,
and Lightfoot
 Lexicon by son of RV member,
Moulton and Milligan
 Following the Revised
Version sometimes
corrupts Vine’s theology.
 Like John MacArthur, Vine
denies that it is the blood
that saves.
 The Old Testament section of
Vine’s Complete Expository
Dictionary is not Vine’s, but
Nelson’s Expository
Dictionary, by NIV and NKJV
editors, with NIV and NKJV
definitions, following the
corrupt Old Testament text!
Vine’s biographer says,
“Among English versions
he gave his exclusive
preference to the
Revised Version…”
 Vine’s definitions are from the
Revised Version of Westcott,
Hort, and Vaughan.
 Vine’s definitions are the very
words used in new versions,
as new versions often copy
the RV and ASV.
KJB
RV etc.
Vine’s
add
again
supply
a second
time
counsel
supply
a second time
will
now
able
already
sufficient
counsel
already
sufficient
7 syllables 14 syllables
14 syllables
 Vine says,
“Correct your rendering from
the R.V.”
“The R.V. rendering is
preferable to the A.V.”
 Vine often defines the word in
the corrupt Westcott and Hort
text, not the Textus Receptus.
The following use words from
the Revised Version of 1881
for definitions:
 Strong’s Concordance
 Thayer’s Lexicon
 Moulton’s Lexicon
 Vine’s Dictionary
 Berry’s Interlinear
 Why were the men on the RV
committee feverishly filing off the
sharp edges of the Holy Bible?
 Westcott and Hort started the
Ghostly Guild to study
necromancy, that is, contacting the
dead.
 RV host, A.P. Stanley (aka Nancy)
was a sympathetic friend of
Luciferian Anne Besant.
 When the hatchers of the
Revised Version were looking
for proven God-hating heretics
to join them in over-ruling the
Holy Bible, they asked C.J.
Vaughan to come out of ten
years of hiding and join them as
a member of the translation
committee.
 Ten years earlier, headmaster Vaughan
had been forced to resign his position
at Harrow School for boys due to the
scandal involving homosexual child
molesting charges involving a student
under B.F. Westcott’s care.
 Westcott opened the door for his old
homosexual and pedophile compatriot
C.J. Vaughan, brother in law of A.P
Stanley (known as Nancy), to work
closely with him on his RV Committee.
 The Journal of Theological
Studies from Oxford University
has recently printed the newly
discovered translation notebook
of Westcott’s.
 It cites “notepaper, on which is
recorded in Westcott’s hand, a
number of humorous exchanges
mainly involving Vaughan.”
Vine says,
“the student should
obtain Nestle’s Greek
New Testament…” a
near copy of Westcott
and Hort’s text.
Textus Receptus
Matches KJB
zelos
Vine defines
Corrupt
Greek
zeal
toil
hagion
ponos
saints aion
Sarkikoi
carnal anthropoi
men
Eleemosune
alms
ages
Dikaiosune righteousness
 Vine thinks words are almost
always “mistranslated in the
Authorized Version;”
 He thinks it “misses the
meaning,” tends to mar the
translation,” “gives the wrong
impression,” and “is
inconsistent with the facts.”
 Now we know WHY formerly
good fundamental colleges
have gone sour on KJB
inspiration, as their
bibliographies cite Vine’s
Expository Dictionary.
 Some think that reading the
English words of the RV in
Vine’s is ‘studying Greek.’
How can a Brethren, like Vine,
give the ‘Historic Baptist
Position’?
Vine does not believe in the
office of the pastor or
deacon!!
How much discernment can
Vine have about other
things??
Wuest’s*
Word Studies
in the New
Testament
 In violation of Rev. 22 which
forbids adding anything to
the Bible, Kenneth Wuest
created an “expanded
translation” which he admits
adds “more English words
that the standard translations
do…”.
Wuest admits he copies:
 Thayer (the Unitarian),
 Moulton and Milligan (who was
supportive of Zoroastrianism),
 Trench (who wrote an entire book
against the KJB, which has his
publisher’s occult serpent logo on
the title page)
 Liddell (Alice’s in Wonderland’s
winebibbing father).
 For example, Wuest says,
“the foregoing estimate of
hagios [holy] is taken from
Greek-English Lexicon by
Liddell and Scott.”
 Imagine taking a definition of
‘holy’ from Liddell, one of the
most unholy lexicographers
in history!
 Wuest continually repeats
that “The A.V. has gone
wrong…”
 He gives a constant
“denunciation of the
translation offered here by
the A.V.”
 Wuest’s translation omits
“through his blood” from Col.
1:14.
 He drops the Godhead.
 He says hades is not hell, but
merely the “Unseen.”
That could be anything from
‘heaven’ to a blind date.
 Wuest uses the
through
the 24th editions of the
corrupt Nestle Greek text.
st
1
th
 When the 25 edition of
Nestle’s came out, it fixed 470
places to match the KJB.
 The KJB was correct and
Wuest wrong.
For example,
Wuest recommends rantizo
(sprinkle) instead of baptizo
(baptize).
Those who use Wuest are
getting the definition of the
wrong Greek word.
Wuest calls Phoebe a “deaconess,”
not a “servant,” not discerning that
one Greek word can have different
meanings, based upon context.
Without an inspired Holy Bible,
where English distinctions such as
this are made, all kinds of
liberalism, such as women
deacons, will creep in.
The way things are now going someone will unearth a deaconess who is the husband of one wife.
Where did these
lexicographers
get their English
definitions?
John Chadwick of Cambridge
University reveals how Bible
Dictionaries are made. He says,
“ The first, the traditional, and
almost universal method is take
another man’s dictionary and use it
as the basis for one’s own…Raids
on other dictionaries will usually
go undetected…” (Lexicographica Graeca)
The words in the
currently popular
dictionaries, such as
those listed in many
‘Bibliographies’ were taken
from earlier
lexicons.
th
19
century
 Each word in current
lexicons and new versions
was traced to determine
which early lexicon author
first widely promoted these
corrupt English definition.
The errors in Strong (1890), Vine
(1940), Wuest (1940), and
Moulton (1914) came from:
 Liddell-Scott’s Greek-English
Lexicon of 1843
 Trench’s Synonyms of the New
Testament of 1854
 Thayer’s Greek-Lexicon of 1887
Also, all new versions and
lexicons took ‘definitions’
from the words in:
 The American Standard
Version of 1901 and
 The Revised Version of 1881
(Westcott, Hort (Spiritualists),
Schaff, Stanley, and Ginsburg
(followers of Luciferians), and
Vaughan (a child molester)
Let’s look at the
problems of each
of the early
lexicographers.
Liddell & Scott’s
Greek-English
Dictionary is a
corrupt
fountainhead.
Lexicographer John Lee says of the
Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English
Lexicon,
“…this is the work on which we
not only still rely heavily, but
which has been, for
generations, the resource from
which everyone, including the
authors of other lexicons, has
derived information. (Hazardous Materials. p. 83).
Scholars now describe the
Liddell-Scott lexicon as:
“amateurish…
incompetent…
inaccurate or misleading
…worthless…questionable…
unreliable” (Haz. p. 87)
 Liddell was the head ‘priest’ of a
church of England church called
‘Christ’s Church.’ He said that he
wanted to make it “broader and
more liberal” (Haz. p. 207).
 He thought the church was leaning
“too much to pure Theology,” so
he began a lexicon at the age of 23
to redirect definitions back to the
pagan Greeks. (Haz. p. 209).
 Henry Liddell’s best friend was Lewis
Carroll, who wrote the book, Alice in
Wonderland, about Liddell’s young
daughter, Alice and her father the
lexicographer Henry Liddell.
 Henry Liddell was the man that
Humpty Dumpty was named after.
 Alice in Wonderland exposed the plot
behind the lexicon. It said,
“When I use a word,” Humpty
Dumpty said in a rather
scornful tone, “it means just
what I choose it to mean –
neither more nor less.”
The question is,” said Alice,
“whether you can make
words mean different things.”
“The question is,” said
Humpty Dumpty, “which is
to be master – that’s all.”
“…adjectives you can do
anything with, but not
verbs – however, I can
manage the whole lot!”
The Victorians, a book by A.N.
Wilson, says of lexicon
author Henry Liddell,
“Alice Liddell, whose father was Dean
of Christ Church, Oxford, befriended
a don called Rev. Charles Dodgson
[aka Lewis Carroll]. The results were
some photographs in
questionable taste and Alice’s
Adventures in Wonderland (Haz. p.
206).
Cambridge University Press’s book on
Lewis Carroll by Donald Thomas said,
“If Charles Lutwidge Dodgson [Lewis
Carroll] had behaved in the second
half of the twentieth century as he
behaved in the second half of the
nineteenth, his rooms at Christ
Church [under Liddell] would surely
have been turned over by the
Obscene Publications Squad.” (Haz. p. 28).
 Liddell and Scott worked on their
lexicon after “wine and talk” sessions.
 Dodgson became Liddell’s “Curator of
Wine” at Liddell’s Christ Church, where
“there was a great deal too much cardplaying, drinking, and
rowdiness….there were wine parties
almost every night.” (Clarendon
Presses book on Christ Church and
Reform.
 Robert Scott, who co-authored the
Liddell-Scott lexicon, was on the
1881 Revised Version Committee
with Westcott, Hort and Vaughan.
 Liddell and Scott took their
definitions from a German lexicon
about the pagan Greeks, but they
really were not proficient in
German!
R.C. Trench’s
Synonyms
of the
New Testament
 Trench is the originator of
many of the corrupt words in
the NIV, HCSB, ESV, NKJB
etc.
 Those dictionaries which
admit copying Trench’s
definitions include:
 Vine’s Expository Dictionary*
 Wuest’s Word Studies*
 Vincent’s Word Studies
 George Ricker Berry’s GreekEnglish Interlinear*
* Asterisk indicates its inclusion in
‘Bibliographies’ cited by those who
deny inspiration.
Trench says of the
Godhead in Romans
1:20 that it is,
“never absolute
essential Deity.”
Trench is read today via Vine’s
Dictionary and Berry’s Interlinear.
 Trench was one of the first to
write a book against the King
James Bible.
 Trench’s interest in “symbolism
and occult significance” caused
him to choose a publisher that
put a serpent on the title page of
this book.
 Trench also wrote The
Unconscious Prophecies of
Heathendom to promote the
evolution of religion.
 Trench suggested that Acts 17:22
should say that the heathen were
“very religious” instead of “too
superstitious,” the reading now in
the NKJV and all new versions.
(from deisidaimonesteros is literally, fear of
devils).
 Practically every page of
Trench’s Synonyms
references the homosexual
Plato as his source for
defining Bible words.
 Trench was a member of
the secret pro-homosexual
group called the ‘Apostles.’
 In his drive to remove the KJB
as the authority for word
meanings, Trench originates the
Oxford English Dictionary and
its secularization of word
meanings.
 WARNING: Use the OED
carefully. One cannot take a
secular definition and apply it to
a Bible word.
Is there nothing good in lexicons?
 The definition for concrete words, such
as ‘dog’ may be good.
 Their definition for ‘soul,’ spirit,’
‘heaven,’ and ‘hell’ will be evil.
 Only those who think they are “gods,
knowing good and evil” dare try to
discern which is good and which is
evil. (See Gen. 3)
 Abiding with the questioning
serpent under the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil,
where God’s words are
tested and re-defined, as Eve
did, casts a questioning
shadow, not a light over
what “God said…”
J.H. Thayer
Greek-English
Lexicon
(used by Vine*)
 Thayer was a Unitarian who denied
the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and
the blood atonement.
 Thayer was a committee member of
the corrupt ASV, which said that
Christ was a creature, not the
Creator. He was also a member of
the RV committee of 1881. He used
its corrupt Greek text to define
words.
 The preface of Thayer’s Lexicon even
begins with a warning by the publisher
(Baker Book House) of Thayer’s heresy.
 Thayer’s definitions may at some points
underlie The Defined King James Bible by
Donald Waite, Jr., Vine’s Expository
Dictionary*, and other commentaries.
 Beware of Thayer’s definitions in
Commentaries.
 Thayer used the Liddell-Scott
Lexicon.
 Thayer’s list of sources for his
definitions includes well over
300 pagan Greek authors,
whose vile writings include
murder, adultery, occultism, and
homosexuality.
 The secular history book, The
Growth of American Thought,
says Thayer (and Hebrew
lexicographers Brown, Driver,
and Briggs) were among
those who shook “The
foundations of orthodox
belief in supernatural
powers…”
 The Dictionary of Heresy
Trials in American History
cites the negative influence
of Thayer who “introduced
students to recent critical
methods of studying the
scriptures…”
 Thayer spoke on the errors in the Bible
at the YMCA, saying people should not
be “rigid and unprogressive and
imprisoned forever in a book.”
 He said, “no one of them [scriptures]
has his [God’s] personal endorsement
or authentication”
 He denied that “the Bible is absolutely
free from every error.”
The new book,
Hazardous Materials,
discusses many other
lexicons used to
create new versions.
The NIV editors admit that
they used:
Greek lexicons by
 Liddell and Scott
 Nazi Gerhard Kittel (See
New Age Bible Version)
 Nazi Bauer and Danker
(See Hazardous Materials)
The NIV used the:
Hebrew Lexicon by
Brown, Driver, and Briggs,
who was tried and
convicted of heresy and
discharged from his
position as professor
(See Hazardous Materials).
NKJV editor cites the:
Greek Lexicon by
 Frederick Danker, who was also
tried and convicted of heresy
and discharged by his seminary
(See Hazardous Materials).
Hebrew Lexicon by
Brown, Driver, Briggs (See Haz.)
The following is a
refutation of errors
put forth to destroy
confidence in our
Holy Bible.
The context of 2 Tim. 3:16 says:
“This know also, that in the last days
perilous times shall come. For men
shall be …boasters, proud…false
accusers…Traitors, heady,
highminded…from such turn
away… Ever learning, and never
able to come to the knowledge of
the truth…
 “…But they shall proceed no
further: for their folly shall be
manifest unto all men…But
evil men and seducers shall wax
worse and worse, deceiving, and
being deceived. But continue in the
things which thou hast learned and
hast been assured of…
2 Tim. 3:1-14
The “folly” of KJB
critics is “manifest”
by their feeble
attempts at
“deceiving” good
men.
“Folly”
Number 1
“manifest”
 Beware of anyone who says that
“perfect” does not mean “perfect.”
since none of you are perfect,
therefore the word must not mean
‘perfect.’
 In fact, our imperfection does not
change the Bible’s definition of
perfect, which is “as your
Father…is.”
 “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your
Father which is in heaven is perfect.”
Mat. 5:48
 Beware of statements which imply that
the Greek word there does not imply
flawlessness.
 The origin of distrust in the flawlessness of
the KJB can be traced to corrupt Greek
lexicons, by men who appear to hate God’s
call to perfection. Bibliographies, citing the
use of such works critiqued in Hazardous
Materials, evidence the use of these corrupt
tools by those who deny our KJB’s
inspiration.
 The Webster’s dictionary says
perfect does mean “flawless.”
 Beware of statements such as
‘perfect’ means ‘not without
error,’
Beware of a Bible or
Glossary, which
defines “perfect” as
“complete,” just like
the NIV and new
versions.
New
versions
KJB
complete 2 Cor. 13:11 perfect
complete Rev. 3:2
perfect
complete 1 Thes. 5:23 perfect
complete Matt. 19: 21
perfect
 Perfect is qualitative
 Complete is quantitative
 A product made in China may be
complete, having all its parts, but it
will not be perfect.
 College students may complete
their education at a school that
does not believe the Bible is
inspired, but it will not be a perfect
education.
The liberal shift from
‘perfect’ to ‘complete’
comes from corrupt
lexicons by Wuest,
Moulton and other corrupt
lexicographers, cited in
many bibliographies.
 Wuest cites the Unitarian J.H.
Thayer as saying that the word
‘perfect’ means “completeness.”
 He adds, “The word “completeness”
speaks of a well-rounded Christian
character…proper balance…”
 A balance of hot and cold is
lukewarm.
“Folly”
Number 2
“manifest”
Watch bibliographies
which cite
Berry’s Interlinear
and
Machen’s Greek
Grammar.
Machen’s* New Testament Greek for
Beginners.
 Its Greek text is from Westcott and
Hort, who were Spiritualists.
 The English is from Thayer, a
Unitarian.
 The grammar is from Moulton, who
was sympathetic to
Zoroastrianism.
Berry’s Greek-English Interlinear
 Omits an entire verse.
 Infers that Jesus is a sinner.
 Changes the Greek text underlying
the KJB in 80 places.
 Gives the Unitarian, J.H. Thayer’s
lexicon definitions in the back.
 Uses the corrupt English Interlinear
of Newberry, who calls God Allah.
“Folly”
Number 3
Some Disguise
Presbyterians as
Baptists.
 Beware of ‘Baptist’
Confessions of Faith which
claim to express the ‘historic
Baptist’ view of inspiration,
stating that only the originals
were inspired. These
confessions were not by born
again Baptists but by what
appear to be unregenerate five
point Calvinists.
The London Baptist
Confession and its clone, the
Philadelphia Baptist
Confession, were written by
five point Calvinists and were
taken from “the Confession of
the Westminster Assembly –
the creed of all British and
American Presbyterians.”
These Confessions do not represent the
historic Baptist position, as they also
teach a mix of Calvinism and
Charismatic theology. These
confessions require:
1.) “two ceremonial prerequisites to
the Lord’s Supper – baptism and
the laying on of hands,” which are
both required in the Philadelphia
Confession “for a farther reception
of the Holy Spirit” (Philadelphia, Article XXXI).
 According to these
‘confessions of faith,’
salvation is for the “elect
only” and “elect infants,”
since according to them,
only “some men and angels
are predestined or
foreordained to eternal life.”
 The New Hampshire Baptist
Confession said,
 “We believe that the Holy Bible
was written by men divinely
inspired…it has God for its
author…”
 There is no mention of
‘originals’
“Folly”
Number 4
“manifest”
 Beware if someone says that the
KJB 1611 was “very random with
their spelling,” when in fact they
used spelling to right justify the
line length to create even lines.
They would spell it ‘Son’ or
‘Sonne’ to make the line longer or
shorter. They did not have
computer line justification. There
was nothing ‘random’ about their
spelling.
Some disguise spelling
standardization and
insignificant typos by
various printers
throughout the 400 year
history of the KJB as
‘editions’ or lack of
inspiration of the text.
Beware of writers, speakers, or
bibliographies which cite
Scrivener’s and Norton’s erring
books as resources for KJB
spelling errors!
Following books such as these, it is
no wonder some do not believe the
KJB is inspired.
 In an effort to discredit the Holy Bible,
Scrivener and Norton have collected
the typos of various printers.
 They then list these, in an effort to give
the impression that a standard Bible
does not exist.
 They do not tell you that while one
printer is producing an edition with a
typo, many other printers are printing
Bibles without such a typo.
Frederick Scrivener, in 1873,
created a ‘new’ KJB, called the
Cambridge Paragraph Bible
(now published by Hendrickson).
Scrivener made many wrong
changes to the KJB.
To promote his new KJB, Scrivener had
to discredit the real KJB. So he wrote a
book, The Authorized Edition of the
English Bible, Its Subsequent Reprints
and Modern Representatives, showing
typos which had occurred over the
years by various printers of the KJB.
To make the current KJB look bad,
Scrivener used the wrong 1611 as the
standard, based on bad advise from
B.F. Westcott!!!
 All scholars know that Scrivener
used the wrong issue of the KJB
as his standard.
 Even W.F. Moulton in his The
History of the English Bible said,
“Scrivener confused the two
issues of 1611. His first edition
was the second and his second
was the first.”
A.W. Pollard, a leading 19th century expert on the
early editions said,
“A still more serious error was
committed by the distinguished
scholar F.H.A. Scrivener, who in 1884,
in his book…argued strenuously, but in
entire ignorance…that copies of the
(second) edition…dated 1611 preceded
the (first) edition…the true sequence is
obvious. This is now generally
recognized.” (Pollard, Records of the
English Bible)
 Scrivener copied the error of
the first 1611, saying “he went”
in Ruth 3:15 instead of the
correct “she went.”
 He changed the correct “its” to
“it” in Lev. 25:5.
 He put all of 1 John 5:7 in italics
because he did not like it!!
 Scrivener wrongly undid some
of the typographical repairs
made by the original KJB
translators Ward and Boise in
1629 and 1638.
 He completely re-did the KJB’s
paragraphing and italics.
 David Norton, now in the
century, made his own ‘new’
KJB, laden with changes.
 To promote it, he did exactly
what Scrivener did.
 He not only wrote a book, A
Textual History of the King
James Bible, listing typos, he
did it using Scrivener’s
mistakes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
st
21
 Norton’s A Textual History of
the King James Bible has the
incorrect “shewed,” instead
of “hewed” in Hosea 6:5,
following a typo in the first
1611 issue, among other
errors.
 None of the spelling variants or
typos which have been reproduced
have any doctrinal implications or
create untrue statements (I am not
referring to one time typos).
 In Nahum 3:16 we have ‘fleeth’ and
‘’flieth’. If you flieth, you fleeth.
 In Jeremiah 34:16 we have ‘he’
(God) or ‘ye’ (the Hebrews). Both of
them “set at liberty.”
Some editions of Cambridge vs. Oxford
have a few tiny differences:
 In Joshua 19:2 we see “Beersheba, or Sheba” or
Beersheba, and Sheba.
 Either is correct, since “Sheba” is given as a
spelling variant of “Beersheba,” therefore no one
is excluded.
 2 Chron. 33:19 says “all his sin and his trespass.”
Others say “all his sins and his trespass”
 Either is correct since both are plural since the
words “all” and “and” indicate more that one sin.
“Folly”
Number 5
“manifest”
Beware of any notion that
the typos in the 1611 KJB
were correct and Bibles
we have today are
therefore wrong.
There were some typos in the first printing of
the KJB, since the typesetters were working
in a very poor optical environment.
1.) They worked with a few candles for light,
nowhere near the 32 candles needed to
equal the light from only one 40-watt
bulb.
2.) They set each letter by hand.

2.) Windows apertures were quite small
in the 1600s and embrasures,
allowing for a little more natural
light, were not standard.

3.) This is all compounded by the fact
that until the 1700s, the science of
grinding lenses for glasses, based
on the principles of light refraction,
had not yet developed; there were
no prescription glasses!!
 The following verses have been
wrongly cited as correct in the
1611, but wrong in currently printed
KJBs.
 In truth, the currently printed KJBs
match the Greek and Hebrew texts
and all pure vernacular Bibles,
worldwide.
 The typos were soon fixed and all
editions after 1638 exhibit the reading
in today’s KJBs.
 Genesis 39:16: The 1611 typo “her
lord” was corrected by 1638 and still
stands correct in all KJB’s today as
“his lord” (Scrivener, p. 148).
 Lev. 20:11: The 1611 printers
accidentally omitted “surely.” It was
returned by original KJB translators,
Ward and Bois, in the 1629 printing. It
still stands correct in all KJB’s today
(Scrivener, p. 148).
 Jer. 4:6: The 1611 introduced a typo,
adding an ‘s’ to “standards”; it was
corrected by original translators by
1629 to “standard” and stands correct
in all KJBs today. (Scrivener, p. 168).
 Ezek. 24:7: The 1611 had the typo
“poured it”; it was fixed by original
translators to “poured it not” by the
1613 printing and still stands correct in
all KJB’s today (Scrivener, p. 170).
 Hebrews 3:10: The 1611 had the
typo “hearts” ; it was corrected by
original KJB translators to “heart”
by 1638 and still stands correct in
all KJB’s today.
(Scrivener, p. 193).
 Matt. 12:23: The 1611 accidentally
omitted the word “not”; it was
returned by original KJB
translators by 1638.
 Daniel 3:15: The 1611
accidentally omitted the word
“burning”; it was returned to the
text by 1638 by original KJB
translators and still stands
correct in all KJB’s today.
 1 Tim. 1:4: The 1611 had
accidentally omitted the word
“godly”; it was fixed by original
KJB translators by 1638 (Scrivener, p. 192).
 If anyone has believed that the
1611 was without typos, they went
out and purchased the 1611 printed
by the NKJVs publisher, Thomas
Nelson.
 This will only compound the
confusion as Thomas Nelson, in
what appears to me to be an effort
to discredit the KJB, printed the
INCORRECT 1611 issue (1st, not
2nd).

 Nelson actually printed the 1833
Oxford reprint of the first 1611, not
the correct second issue of 1611,
which corrected many of the typos
of the first run.
 Around 100 typos were corrected
immediately, including, Ruth 3:15
which at first said, “he went,”
instead of the correct “she went.”
A microscopic handful of
current typographical or
spelling variants have
been scrapped together
and marshaled as
weapons to try to prove
our Holy Bible is
uninspired.
Words are spelled differently in
each language.
Implying that the varieties in
spelling disannuls inspiration,
would be to infer that the Greek
Bible was not inspired because it
spells words differently than the
Hebrew Bible or because the
Italian Bible spells words
differently than the Spanish Bible.
Beware when someone says of the 1611, the
Nelson 1611, the Scofield, and the
Cambridge editions “They’re all different.”
 They won’t tell you where or the ‘effect’
would be diminished to no effect at all.
 They are few and MEANINGLESS
differences. Such variances include things
like:





Mispar vs Mizpar
men children vs menchildren
housetops vs house tops
further vs farther
Nicolaitans vs Nicolaitanes
Minute typos of Scofield or Oxford
Rev. 18:14 “lusteth” vs “lusted.”
1 Sam. 17:48 “hastened” vs “hasted”
Deut. 22:3 “lost things” vs. “lost thing”
Deut. 24:10 And when thou dost” vs.
“When thou dost”
 2 Sam. 16:15 “people of the men” vs
“people the men”
 Rom. 8:33 “anything” vs. “any thing”
 Lev. 14:36 “and all that vs. “that all that”




 The only KJBs to avoid, if
possible, are those published
by Zondervan and the American
Bible Society.
 They are beginning to use
American, not International
British spelling, which is
recognized worldwide because
Britain colonized Africa, the Far
East, and the Middle East.
 A great deal has been made
of some variants between
capital ‘S’ and lower case ‘s.’
Some have incorrectly said
that the small ‘s’ was man
and upper case was the Holy
Spirit. This is entirely wrong.
 Early alphabets (such as
Greek, Hebrew, and others)
did not distinguish between
upper and lower case. All
letters were capital letters.
Therefore very early Bible
cannot be used for a
measuring stick for this
development in orthography.
 English is of Germanic origins.
 Even German today
capitalizes all substantives
(that is, nouns and pronouns,
such as dog, cat, etc.)
 The capitalization of the word
‘spirit’ has changed over the
years in Germanic-based
Bibles.
Often the Old Testament
uses the lower case ‘s’
for the Spirit of God,
indicating that the capital
and lower case ‘s’ are
interchangeable, as seen
in the following:
1 Cor. 2 11-12 says, “But God
hath revealed them unto us
by his Spirit …even so the
things of God knoweth no
man, but the Spirit of God..
Now we have received, not
the spirit of the world, but the
spirit which is of God.”
 Beware when someone says,
“you couldn’t understand”
the 1611.
 Actually, all one needs to
know to read it easily is to
know that the font for ‘s’ is
elongated ∫, looking a bit like
our current ‘f,’ without the
cross-bar.
“Folly”
Number 6
“manifest”
Beware when someone
cites Jerry Falwell and
other ‘good’ men, who
corrected the KJB, as
an excuse to do it
yourself.
To point to men, instead of the Bible,
one must forget that:
 Many of the kings in the Old
Testament, which God described
as ‘good,’ were also described as
failing to take down the high
places.
 The great man if faith, Joshua, was
deceived by the moldy bread of the
Gibeonites.
 Solomon had 700 wives and 300
concubines.
 Moses murdered a man, etc.
 Great men’s shortcomings do
not disannul the good they did,
but their shortcomings need not
be an excuse to do likewise.
Multiple
“Follies”
About
Historical Facts
Made “manifest”
Beware of the old liberal’s
‘concept inspiration,’ when
someone says that the Greek
and Hebrew are the contents
and vernacular Bibles are
only the ‘container’ which
carries or conveys the
‘message.’
Beware when Jerome’s vile corruption of the
pure Old Latin Bible is described as a
“good” translation from “the” Greek. In fact,
Jerome used the corrupt Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus type Greek, not the pure text.
Beware when the Septuagint is extolled as a
good Greek Old Testament, written before
the time of Christ. In fact it is actually
Origin’s fifth column, written in the third
century after Christ. All currently printed
editions (e.g. Breton’s) admit they follow
A.D. documents, such as Vaticanus and
Alexandrinus.
 Beware when someone says that
the KJB had the Apocrypha until
1880 (except 1629).
 In fact King James himself said in
his book Basilikon Doron, “As to
the Apocryphal books, I omit them
because I am no papist.”
 In fact as early as 1612 Barker of
London printed it without the
apocrypha.
I noted the following editions, without the
Apocrapha, available from an antiquarian
bookseller.
1.) quarto edition of the Great Bible of 1549,
2.) many copies of the 1599 Geneva,
3.) a quarto edition of the Bishops’ of 1577
4.) KJBs from 1637, 1653, 1662, 1682 etc.
It had never been a part of the signatures in
many other editions between 1611 and 1880:
(Go through the catalogues of Peter Cresswell, Antiquarian Bibles, South Humberside, England: Humber Books,
Catalogue 23 et al; TBS, No. 31, et al.)
 Beware when someone says that
Wycliffe used the corrupt Latin
Vulgate when:
1.) In 1378 Wycliffe said in his book
On the Truth of Holy Scripture that
the corrupt Latin was corrected by
“Hebrew manuscripts” and
“corrected according to the Greek
exemplar” (pp. 143, 157).
 2.) Wycliffe’s bones were dug up by
the Catholics for writing an English
Bible that did not match the Latin
Vulgate.
 3.) The myth began because the
1850 Madden and Forshall, edition
edited by Purvey, is misnamed
‘Wycliffe’. It contains Purvey’s
corrupt Vulgate readings.
Beware of anyone who says that
Erasmus’s text was seriously flawed
and only followed 6 manuscripts, backtranslating some of Revelation from
Latin.
The Cambridge History of the Bible says,
“It is an exaggeration to maintain, as
some do, that Erasmus only used the
Greek manuscripts that he had found
in the library of the Basle Dominicans
for his edition.” (vol. 2, p. 498).
The book In Awe of Thy
Word has an entire
chapter disproving the
myth that Erasmus
relied on few Greek
copies to create his
Greek text.
 Beware of those who have not
studied history and merely copy
errors from other books (e.g. that
Henry the VIII was followed on the
British throne by Queen Mary).
 In fact Henry was actually followed
by King Edward, the greatest royal
promoter of the pure Bible, outside
of King James.
 Beware of those who say that the
KJB translators met at Hampton
Court.
 In fact, Hampton Court is where
James was asked to produce the
new translation. The translators
were not there; they did their
translation work at their respective
universities, not at Hampton Court.
 Beware of those who give a
long list of early English
Bibles (Tyndale, Coverdale,
Tavener, Great, Bishops)
subtly giving the impression
that the Bible can change all
the time. In fact the words in
these Bibles were generally
identical, except for spelling.
Beware of those
who say that
Wycliffe and
Tyndale gave us the
first English Bibles.
There was a readable English Bible before Wycliffe. This was a
portion from John 1:12-15 in 1350 before Wycliffe
 “his name/which not of blod. Nether of the will of
fleish. Nether of the will of man but be born of
God/ and the word (this is God’s Son) was mead
fleisth (or man) and hath dwellid…us/and we han
seyn the glorie of him the glorie as of the oon
bigetn of the fadir the sone ful of grace and of
treuthe/ John bear witnessig of him and cryeth
seyige/ This… See p. 743-744 of In Awe of Thy Word for an actual facsimile of this Bible.
 Beware of those who give the KJB
translator’s preface more authority
than the Holy Bible. They act as if it
should be followed jot and tittle,
but the Holy Bible is not flawless.
 In fact, when the translators spoke,
outside of the Bible, such as their
preface, their words bear no more
weight than those of any Christian.
 Beware of those who
misunderstand the word
“meanest,” as used by the KJB
translators, pretending that it
means “low” and “vulgar.”
 Any dictionary says it means –
“common” “average,” like an
arithmetic mean.
 Beware of anyone who gives
the impression that the few
marginal notes of the
translators prove that they
were not sure what rendering
to put.
 God has not preserved their
notes for all; but he has
preserved his word for all.
Beware of those who imply that
the KJB translators were talking
about the KJB, when they were
talking about other versions,
when they said “imperfections
and blemisher may be noted in
the setting forth of it”
 That sentence about
“imperfections and blemishes” is
in the midst of the translator’s
history of the Bible. The next
translation they mention is the
corrupt Septuagint, of which they
say, “it dissenteth form the Original
in many places.” They proceed to
mention faulty translations by
Origin, Symmachus, Theodotian
and Aquila.
 When the translators history
of the Bible is ended several
pages later (in my printing),
they say, “But it is high time
to leave THEM, and to shew
in brief what WE proposed to
ourselves [emphasis mine].”
 Of their translation they said their
intent was to translate ―
“…one principle good one, not justly
to be excepted against, that hath
been our endeavor, that our mark.”
 In plainer words, they wanted to
make a translation that was
flawless, of which no one could say
it was good, ‘except’ this and that
blemish.
Beware of books and
articles which repeat the lie
of KJB enemies that King
James killed Baptists.
 Bartholomew Legate and Edward
Wightman, the men James is
charged with sentencing to
capital punishment, were not
Christians, let alone Baptists.
 The Commission and
Warrant for Legate’s
execution said he said,
among other blasphemous
things that “Christ is not
God…”
 This is not a Baptist.
 The Commission and Warrant
for Wightman said he said,
“Christ is only a man and a
mere creature, and not both
God and man in one
person…that the person of
the Holy Ghost is not God
coequal…
 “…and that he the said Wightman is
that person of the Holy Ghost spoken
of in the scriptures; and the Comforter
spoken of in the 16th of St. John’s
Gospel. And that those words of our
Saviour Christ of the Sin of Blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost, are meant of
his person.”
 Wightman said he was the Holy Ghost!
This is not a Baptist.
30 pieces of silver
 Why are Greek professors reluctant to
admit the errors in current printed
Greek editions and lexicons? Some
say,
 Greek is ‘bread and butter to me.’ ‘I’m
just trying to justify my job here,’ at the
college, seems to be their thought.
Jesus said, “ye
cannot serve
God and
mammon.
How do apostates deal with
words, such as inspiration, word
of God etc.?
They use neologisms:
“A new, meaning for an
already established
word.”
 They say that the “Bible is
the inspired word of God”
 They do not mean the Holy
Bible (KJB), but the originals
 They do not really mean that
it is God’s words, but the
words of the KJB translators
to express God’s thoughts.
“Open your Bible to…”
 Bible: “The sacred book of
Christianity.”
 Book: a set of written or printed
pages fastened on an end and
enclosed between protective
covers.”
 (It is not lost animal skin originals
or rolled scrolls in museums.)
Oxford English Dictionary
 Bible: “The scriptures of the Old and
New Testament.”
 In normal usage, “All scripture is given
by inspiration of God” means that the
Bible “is given by inspiration of God.”
Normal
usage
Neologism
Bible: Holy Bible in Lost originals;
your lap
Greek or
Hebrew
manuscripts
Word God’s words God’s
of
thoughts in
God
man’s words
B.B. Warfield and Carl Barth
were two liberal
‘theologians’ who were
among the first to invent
imaginary castles outside of
the tangible ‘Holy Bible’ to
house the word of God.
 Barth said that the word
of God was really Jesus,
not the Bible, so he
capitalized W.
 Warfield (and his teacher
Hodge) moved the locus
of inspiration from the
Bible to the originals.
 Warfield studied under
German rationalists who had
been influenced by the
‘enlightenment’
philosophers who exalt
human reason and rule out
revelation as a source of
knowledge.
“Spoil you through philosophy”
Col. 2:8
 They were influenced by
philosophers Schleiermacher,
Hume, and Kant, who denied
any miraculous intervention
by God.
 Warfield said the originals
were lost and could be
reconstructed by Westcott
and Hort who Warfield said,
“furnish us for the first time
with a really scientific
method” which “will meet
with speedy universal
acceptance.”
Naturalistic empiricism
 The natural sciences, falsely so
called, demands evidence of
linear causation.
 To get from point ‘A’ to point
‘Z,’ they demand physical
evidence.
 The theory of evolution is just
one example.
Theology Departments
 Their counterparts in the
‘religion’ department at
seminaries, now demand
physical proof, like doubting
Thomas, of the mileposts
marking God’s intervention
in the history of the Holy
Bible
 But without faith it is
impossible to please God.
 Eccl 11:5“As thou knowest
not what is the way of the
spirit.”
 “[B]lessed are they that
have not seen, and yet have
believed” John 20:29
 God said he would “do
wonders” to carry his word
forward in Josh. 3:4-7.
 There is no physical proof
that the waters of the Jordan
opened to allow the passage
of the ark, containing the
word of God, yet we have
those words today.
Warfield should have listened
to his elders
 Thirty years earlier, Warfield’s
grandfather had single handedly
stopped the wavering American
Bible Society from redoing the KJB.
“With the ancient is wisdom; and in
length of days understanding”
Job 12:12
These naturalistic philosophers all
moved their ‘faith’ from the Holy Bible
to faith in men.
 Translators & Textual critics
Warfield invented a plan whereby he
could still say ‘The Bible is the inspired
word of God.’
He used Semler’s theory of
accomodation, using the familiar word
‘Bible,’ but ascribing to it a different
meaning.
 We have ‘theologians’ and
fundamental pastors who are now
following this non-soulwinning
Presbyterian Calvinist saying, ‘The
Bible is the inspired word of God,’
when they mean only Greek and
Hebrew originals, not real ‘Bibles.’
 They use these words to
deceptively ‘accommodate’ to what
they believe are the naïve views of
their members.
 These men have become
rationalists, naturalists, and
modernists in practice by exalting
man’s role in the transmission of
the Bible and denying the
miraculous intervention of Go
 “Thou shalt preserve them.” It is
his work.
 “What shall he preserve? “The
words of the Lord,” not the words
of men.
What does
‘word of God’
mean?
1 Thes. 2:13 says,
“…when ye received the
word of God which ye
heard of us, ye received it
not as the word of men,
but as it is in truth, the
word of God…”
 One cannot call the King
James Bible the word of
God unless he believes that
it is God’s unchangeable
words, not the words of the
KJB translators.
1 Cor. 2:13 says,
“Not in the words which
man’s wisdom teacheth, but
which the Holy Ghost
teacheth, comparing
spiritual things with
spiritual”
Word of God
 Those who say that their non-inspired
Bible is the ‘word of God’ are changing
the meaning of those word from their
usual usage.
 The words of John are John’s words,
not Tom’s words.
 The words of God, are God’s words,
not those of the KJB translators.
The Bible’s built-in
dictionary defines
 the word of God
as
 the scriptures.
 John 10:35 says, “the word of God
came, and the scriptures cannot be
broken.”
 John 5:38, 39, “And ye have not his
word abiding in you...search the
scriptures”
 Acts 17:11 says, “they received the
word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the scriptures…”
God’s, not translators words
 “when ye received the word of
God which ye heard of us, ye
received it not as the word of
men, but as it is in truly, the
word of God…” 1 Thes. 2:13