MY ANSWER to a RUCKMAPHOBIC PIRKLE-LIGHT

MY RESPONSE to a RUCKMAPHOBIC PIRKLE-LIGHT

Feb. 9, 1996

J.C. Settlemoir,

% The Berea Baptist Banner P.O. Box 39, Mantachie, MISS 38855

Dear Brother Settlemoir,

I have read with interest your article on "The King James Controversy" in the February 5, 1996 Berea Baptist Banner. Particularly interesting to me is the "litmus" test, which you put the King James Bible to, regarding its perfection, inspiration, infallibility, authenticity, and purity. Since you write with such knowledgeable certainty on these matters, I would like to ask you a few questions, regarding whichever Scriptures you do consider to be inspired, authentic, pure, infallible, and perfect (of course, using your own axioms as a "litmus" test). I assure you that in this endeavor, I will not get angry or call you any names. The questions are as follows:

(I.) You say, "The KJV is not a perfect version because the lamp of inspiration was extinguished 1500 years before the KJV translators began their work." and "Perfection in any realm for sinful men it is impossible from miraculous power.

1. How many years elapsed between the extinguishing of the lamp of inspiration and the copies of those original inspired autographs, which you now have at your disposal?

2. Are the copies at your disposal perfect?

3. Were the sinful copyists perfect?

4. Were the sinful printers perfect?

5. Did the copyists and printers have miraculous power?

6. Who preserves the Bible . . . man or GOD? How?

(II.) You say, "The KJV is not a perfect version due to the rules under which the translators had to work" and quoting Conant on Baptizein, "'Any Author, purposely mistranslated or obscured, is falsified by his translator.'"

1. Does this mean that when Estus Pirkle (whom you quote as an authority capable of uncovering errors in the King James Bible) endorses the translation, "The New King James Bible," which falsifies, purposely mistranslates, and obscures the word "Hell" by not translating "HADES," Has Pirkle endorsed such a falsification?

2. Does the New Testament Greek purposely mistranslate, obscure, or falsify the Old Testament Hebrew quotes that do not use the exact same wording?

3. Do you think interlinear word for word translations are inspired?

(III.) You say, "The KJV is not a perfect version because of the numerous revisions it has gone through."

1. How many revisions has the perfect Bible, which you have gone through?

2. How many revisions did the Erasmus Greek go through?

3. How many revisions did the Stephanus Greek go through?

4. How many revisions did the Elzevir text go through?

5. How many revisions did the Beza Greek go through?

6. How many versions of the "Received text" are there?

7. Are any or all of the above perfect?

IV. The Baptist position has always been that only the original autographs are inspired." and "No version is inspired! and "We owe our allegiance to the original autographs–and to them alone."

1. Is it fair to quote a couple Baptists and call it "THE" Baptist position? Why cannot John Bunyan's position be the Baptist position? Do you think his allegiance was to the original autographs?

"A university man met Bunyan on the road to Cambridge. Said he to Bunyan, "How dare you preach, not having the original Scriptures?" Do you have them -- the copies written by the apostles and prophets." asked Bunyan. "No," replied the scholar. "But I have what I believe to be a true copy of the original." "And I," said Bunyan, "believe the ENGLISH Bible to be a true copy, too." -- John Bunyan, The Immortal Dreamer by W. Burgess McCreary, copyright 1928, Gospel Trumpet Company

V. The teaching that the King Version is perfect leads to other errors." and "The KJ only advocates will not admit that the originals exist, or if they do they will not admit that the KJ differs from them." and "The original autographs of the KJV were last reported to be at the King's printers. This was in 1655. They have not been seen since!"

1. Would you be willing to explain to the KJ only advocate which scriptures are the original autographs or their whereabouts so that he might admit that they do exist?

2. Which of the over 5,000 manuscripts extant are the original autographs?

3. Do any of the 5,000 manuscripts agree perfectly with each other?

4. Who determines which manuscripts are the autographs?

5. Did the King James translators use the original autographs? How do you know?

6. What else did they use? Did they only use the Greek and Hebrew?

7. If the autographs of the KJB are lost, how do you know that any discrepancies, which you insist upon, between the 1611 and the 1769, are not printers' errors?

Sincerely, (signed) Herb Evans, Flaming Torch, July/Aug/Sept 1996, p. 1, 2; March 1997, p. 2

Settlemoir’s Response and my Comments

This article responds to the second article of the August 5th "Berean Baptist Banner," by J.C. Settlemoir (entitled, "An answer to A Ruckmanite"). In his second article, Settlemoir tries to respond to questions, which I sent both to him and his editor. My questions confronted Settlemoir's original article, "The King James Controversy" (same periodical 2/5/96). After Settlemoir did not respond (4 or 5 months), the “Flaming Torch” published both his article and my letter. Now, it seems that J.C. responded to my questions but only to his editor "Banner" - 8/5/96) without even a copy to Evans. (J.C. also recently wrote an article about ministerial ethics/honesty.) Now, the "Banner" is bellyaching that we have attacked them. See my original letter with my original questions at the end of this exchange.

Originally, Settlemoir complained about the angry faces and name calling within this controversy (those nasty King James Onlys). He even acknowledged Evans' comments (Evans agreed not to get angry or call names). Now, unable to stick to their own pretended standards or to the issue, Settlemoir and the "Banner" have resorted to name calling, i.e., "Ruckmanite" (inconsistency at best, hypocrisy at worst). Our reciprocal title, i.e., "Pirkelite" or "Pirkle-Light," is in honor of the Bible Corrector, who J.C. Settlemoir follows (by consuming his anti King James material).

Settlemoir:"The KJV is not a perfect version because the lamp of inspiration was extinguished 1500 years before the KJV translators began their work." and "Perfection in any realm for sinful men it is impossible from miraculous power. (cf. BBB 2-5-96, KJ Controversy, p. 27 --J.C. Settlemoir)

Evans: How many years elapsed between the extinguishing of the lamp of inspiration and the copies of those original inspired autographs, which you now have at your disposal?

Settlemoir:The question is irrelevant . . . It has no bearing on the subject. Let it be a thousand years, or three hundred years. It makes no difference.

Evans:Settlemoir's first answer (and many others) to a "Ruckmanite" is not even an answer; Settlemoir merely spoke some words. Evans question "Irrelevant?" J.C.'s entire response is irrelevant! Evans sought to find out what J.C. possessed that was so much more perfect and inspired than the KJB. What is more relevant than that? J.C. had said, "Perfection in any realm for sinful men is impossible apart from miraculous power." If J.C. has something perfect, obtained through miraculous power, capable of judging an imperfect KJB, we would like to know about it. That would make a difference, when the Greek/Hebrew, which Settlemoir adores is neither perfect nor inspired. Are the copies at your disposal perfect?

Settlemoir:Again this question is irrelevant? What possible connection could this have to the theory that the KJV is a perfect translation? Let the manuscripts be in whatever condition, this has nothing to do with my proposition that the KJV is not an inspired version! If God had chosen to let down from heaven every century a large white vellum manuscript with the complete Old and New Testaments, inscribed in respective Hebrew and Greek by the unfailing and unerring hand of an angel it would do your theory no good.

Evans:This is J.C.'s answer to a Ruckmanite? The question is very relevant in that J.C. says the KJB is not perfect. Evans sought to find out if Settlemoir believes that there is a perfect Bible or Word of God out there somewhere to compare with the KJB. You will notethat I never said anything about the KJB’s perfection and/or inspiration; I asked Settlemoir if he had perfect copies at his disposal. What we see here is that Settlemoir does not have an inspired or perfect Bible of any kind with which to challenge any Bible.

Evans: Q. 3. Were the sinful copyists perfect? Q. 4. Were the sinful printers perfect?

Evans: Q. 5. Did the copyists and printers have miraculous power?

Settlemoir A. 3, 4, 5 What you need brother, is to focus your attention on the proposition. The proposition is that the KJV is not an inspired version. It does not matter who copied manuscripts or what their condition. These questions do not affect the proposition.

Evans:Comment 3, 4, 5. Telling Evans what he needs to focus on is not an answer to these three questions. If the KJB is not perfect, we should be focusing on what is perfect. Settlemoir, declaring to the world what the KJB is or is not means absolutely nothing. Unbelievers do that. Note how Settlemoir shifts the proposition from "perfect" to "inspired." ("Inspiration” is another matter, and Settlemoir does not even have the slightest idea what "inspiration" means.) If one is going to challenge, correct, judge, criticize, and/or examine the KJB's perfection or inspiration, he had better possess something that is perfect or inspired with which to judge the KJB. These questions do affect J.C.'s proposition (perfection) and are very relevant. What Settlemoir does not want to admit is that he doesn’t believe that anything is or has been perfect since the Autographs have perished. But then is Settlemoir perfect, when he pontificate so?

Evans: Q. 6. Who preserves the Bible . . . man or GOD? How?

Settlemoir: A. 6. God preserves the Bible and He does it through human instrumentality. He purposed to use primarily two languages to do this: Hebrew and Greek. In this great work, God chose to make these two languages the authorized vehicle of His revelation. But He never gave the Jews a perfect translation, even when the lamp of inspiration was still burning, and you need not look for something, when it does not exists. God uses means.

Evans:Comment 6. Well, we finally have an answer and one to which we can partially agree. J.C. says that God preserves the Bible (Praise the Lord!) Still, I think before this is all over, J.C. will tip his hand in that he doesn't think God preserves the Bible "perfectly." (And Settlemoir is a Sovereign Grace Baptist?) J.C says that God does it through human instrumentality. Amen! Good Arminian preachin', J.C.! Still, does J.C. mean the human instrumentality of the King James translators or his Bible Corrector friends? Huh? So, God never gave a perfect translation to the Jews, even when the lamp of inspiration was still burning. Why in the world would "Jews" need an inspired "translation”? Why not say it, J.C.? God is not able to preserve it "perfectly" in any language other than the transmitted languages. Nevertheless, we get the impression that J.C. doesn't even believe that God can preserve it perfectly in the originally transmitted languages. Is this why J.C. cannot tell us "How"?God preserved the Bible. Does Settlemoir believe in any perfect Hebrew or Greek text? Has there ever been an inspired Bible in one volume, J.C.? Huh? So, God purposed to inspire (preservation was my real question) the Bible, using primarily two languages, Hebrew and Greek (perhaps with a smattering of heathen Syriac/Aramaic?)? And God chose these two languages to be the "authorized" (and they chastise the KJO's for this word) vehicles of His revelation. Does J.C. have a verse and chapter for that? Unwritten decree? Did God authorize Hebrew and Greek only? Perhaps, Settlemoir is a Ruckmaphobic Hebrew/Greek only? Forgive me for editing J.C.'s historical reasoning and ignoring his pontification and noting his lack of a proof text for all these pontifical declarations. I deem them, ah, irrelevant. Hurrummpph!

II. Settlemoir:"The KJV is not a perfect version due to the rules under which the translators had to work" and quoting Conant on Baptizein, "'Any Author, purposely mistranslated or obscured, is falsified by his translator.'" (cf. BBB 2-5-96, KJ Controversy, p. 27 --J.C. Settlemoir)

Evans:Q. 1. Does this mean that when Estus Pirkle (whom you quote as an authority capable of uncovering errors in the King James Bible) endorses the translation, "The New King James Bible," which falsifies, purposely mistranslates, and obscures the word "Hell" by not translating "HADES," Pirkle endorses such a falsification?

Settlemoir: A. 1. Again, Brother Evans you just can’t seem to get a handle on this thing of relevancy. Suppose the New King James Bible does obscure the word hell. At least it does distinguish between two different words in the Greek— which the King James does not. So whatever you may make of this treatment of the word hades it will come to roost on KJ Onlyism.

Evans: Comment 1. Oh! Oh! Evans can't seem to get a handle on (what is that word?) relevancy? What is more relevant than Settlemoir talking about transliteration and then Evans getting his turn to talk about transliteration? Settlemoir worries about "Baptizein" being transliterated or obscured in the KJB but not so worried about "HADES" being transliterated or obscured in the NKJB. When playing on Settlemoir's non-level, Bible Correcting ball field, Bible Correctors can appeal to anything they want. We simply are paralleling their inconsistent arguments and conclusions. Imagine witnessing to a lost man and threatening him with a place called "HADES!" Why does one English word have to distinguish between two different Greek words as J.C. suggests? Huh? Who died and left J.C. rule-maker (boss)? What difference does hell #1, hell #2, hell #3, the "final hell," or the "lowest hell" (Deut. 32:32; Psa. 86:3) make? For J.C.'s info, Evans answered Pirkle's Folly a year ago (a copy was sent to Settlemoir's editor). The "Flaming Torch" printed my entire Pirkle book critique. The "Bible Believer’s Bulletin" published a portion of it. Evans exposed many of Pirkle's so-called facts, which turned out to be Pirkle errors. Pirkle has not been heard from to date.

Evans: Q. 2. Does the New Testament Greek purposely mistranslate, obscure, or falsify the Old Testament Hebrew quotes that do not use the exact same wording?

Settlemoir: A. 2. It all depends on whether the person making the quote was inspired or not. If the one speaking was inspired, then the quote is inspired even though it differs from the Hebrew.

Evans: Comment 2. It has nothing to do with the subject, huh? J.C. makes a fuss about exact wording, but when Evans talks about exact wording it has nothing to do with the subject. So, it all depends on whether the person making the quotation was inspired or not? Well, what have we here? "Inspired people?" What scripture informed J.C. that writers are ever inspired? Evans referred to inspired N.T. Greek quotes of inspired Hebrew passages, with words that do not satisfy Settlemoir's translation demands. (Settlemoir believes that the writers of the N.T. quote the LXX. Where? Can J.C. even prove that the LXX even existed in these writers' lifetimes? Are there a verse and chapter that give us this info? Where? Oh, you read that somewhere? Is the LXX, ah, really, ah, “relevant” to the issue?)

Evans: Q. 3. Do you think interlinear word for word translations are inspired?

Settlemoir A. 3. No. Interlinears are not inspired unless made by an inspired hand. Only the Original documents were inspired.

Evans: Comment 3. Well, to his credit, Settlemoir gave a definite "no" to this one. We even agree, but we just had to ask to see if J.C. insisted on any inspired "word for word" translation. Yet here is the rub, J.C. tells us that "Only the original documents were inspired!" Of course that would make any contemporary photocopies (if they would have had photocopiers then) uninspired. Remind us to discuss the meaning of "inspiration" with Settlemoir sometime. Scripturally!

III. Settlemoir: "The KJV is not a perfect version because of the numerous revisions it has gone through." (cf. BBB 2-5-96, KJ Controversy, p. 27 --J.C. Settlemoir)

Evans: Coninues Questions