FINDING A HANDFUL ON PURPOSE

By HERB EVANS, Ltt.D.

157 PATTIES PLACE

PORTERSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 16051

E-Mail: herbevans@juno.com

A very distorted and foolish book entitled, "The Ruckman Conspiracy" has been written by Robert L. Hymers, Jr. This writer misrepresents Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, the history of the battle for the King James Bible, Bible Believers, the problems in the BBF (which go much deeper than the Bible issue), and the King James Bible. Our concern, however, lies mainly In exposing the diminution of the King James Bible. We, therefore, will deal with distortions of the latter.

Dr. Hymers Says the Following

in His Book (Ibid.)

Page 18 - "The originals were thus given by inspiration Copies of these originals are simply copies, nothing more, nothing less they are the product of MAN's WORK, not the product of God's Spirit . . . The King James Bible Is the work of man ALONE. There was nothing supernatural about what they translated . . .

Page 20 - ". . . we must be careful not to say that the King James Bible is the ‘preserved word of God.’"

Page 26 - ". . . in no sense can we accept Ruckman's absurd logic . . . and say that this translation is inerrant and infallible."

Page 82 - "Very few words are poorly translated in the KJV . . . It is very proper, in a colloquial manner, to call the King James Version the Word of God . . . ONLY A MINUTE number of human errors . . . "

Page 83 - "It is perfectly proper, In non-technical language, to call the KJV "the word of God we can honestly call the KJV "the Word of God."

Page 84 - ". . . the number of weaknesses in the KJV is so small (ONLY A HANDFUL . . .)"

Page 85 - ". . . ONLY A HANDFUL OF ‘GLITCHES’"

Page 115 - "Yes, the KJV is translated POORLY in a HANDFUL of places."

Page 151 - "I will simply state that it (KJV) is an accurate translation with a FEW MINOR MISTAKES."

What we have here is a thumb nail sketch of Dr. Hymers’ duplicity and humanistic attitude towards the things of God. God had NOTHING to do with the King James and it has a "HANDFUL" of mistakes per Hymers.

The fact that we are fighting the battle here is a great encouragement to those who have been fighting the battle on much broader ground for more than three decades.

If R. L. Hymers is wrong on his handful of "glitches" or "mistakes" or "errors" or "weaknesses," he has proven, for us, that our Authorized Bible Is inerrant and infallible and absolutely accurate (How Bible Correctors hate absolutes!).

This two-year-old novice never once considers the possibility that it might be he, who has made the mistakes rather than the King James translators (whose superior qualifications he allows). We will deal with this "handful" of mistakes (except for Ruth 3:15, which he implies is now acceptable in its present form). What benevolence!

The absence of scripture, in Hymers’ book (except for corrections), is noteworthy. Humanistic motivation (walking by sight) led to his conversion from the Westcott/Hort text to the Masoretic/TR position ("simply copies, nothing more").

He says on page 2 and 3, "I became convinced of the superiority of the Textus Receptus during a tour of the Sinai Peninsula in the summer of 1987 . . . I was struck by the queer and even demonic characteristics of this monastery. I had the distinct impression (?) that nothing in the way of spiritual light could come from this place.

This impression (?) led me to reexamine the facts concerning the Westcott and Hort text, and to come to the conclusion that their use of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus scrolls as a basis for their new Greek text was spurious." Even back in 1987, Hymers was obsessed with demons, and he was motivated by impressions that were based on that obsession.

Psalm 74:8

Dr. Hymers is unhappy with Psalm 74:8 in the King James Bible. He says, on page 35, Ibid., 'the word 'synagogue' (actually "synagogues"- plural) Is used to translate the word "moade" (actually "Moadeem" plural), which is properly translated as 'congregation,' which the King James translates as 'synagogue' (s) although Jewish synagogues did not appear until 600 years after Psalm 74:8 was written.

Hymers is demanding that Psalms 74:8 reads, "they have burned up all the congregations" when, indeed, the "places" of assembly were burned up, and the context (vs. 7) involves the "Sanctuary" and the "dwelling place."

For if there come unto your assembly [sunagoge] a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment . . . – James 2;2

The words "Kohol" and "Aidoh" are used for "congregation," but the word "Moadeem" is never used for "congregations." Actually, a "synagogue" can be an "assembly," (James 3:2 - see Webster, Vine, or Strong - take your pick), or it can be a "place of assembly" by extension like a "church."

Moreover, "Moadeem" can be "assemblies" (Ezek. 44:24) or "places of assembly" (synagogues - Ps. 74:8) by extension. Notably, the corrupt "Septuagint" translates Hymers’ "congregation" ("Aidoh") to "SUNAGOGE" (synagogue) in Psalm 74:2; 82:1, and 86:14 (Septuagint - Ps. 73:2; 81:1, and 85:14). Man it is in the Greek! Thank you Jesus! Do I have a witness? Praise de Lawd!

John 4:24

Although Dr. Hymers does not come out and say that John 4:24 is an error, he intimates that it should say, "God is Spirit" rather than "God is 'a' Spirit," because the Greek says, "PNEUMA HO THEOS."

Curiously, however, Berry's Interlinear has, "A Spirit God (is)." The word "is" is missing from the Greek. So, after you allow them to take out the word "a," they will be after the word "is," and John 4:24 will read, "God Spirit." What our Bible correcting friends are suggesting is that we submit to "pantheism"; God is in everything the trees, the rocks, the flowers, etc.

When the Bible says that "God is love" and "God is light" (I John 14:16; I John 1:5), the construction in the Greek says, "HO THEOS AGAPE ESTI" and not "AGAPE HO THEOS" and "HO THEOS PHOS ESTI" and not "PHOS HO THEOS."

Now, the correct rendering, "God is 'a' Spirit," found in Tyndale's Bible (1525), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Rheims Bible (1582), the RV/ASV (1881/1901 ). The German Bible reads, "Gott ist ein (a)Geist." The bible that does agree with Dr. Hymers is the corrupt RSV. A strange bedfellow, indeed! (See Addendum)

Acts 12:4

Ah yes, "EASTER!" No good Bible Corrector should be without it. Although others may deal with the reason for the retention of "Easter," we must deal with the word's legitimacy as we have done in the above passages. Quarrel with the reason for the word, if you will, but you cannot quarrel with the word's legitimacy.

Hymers says (page 94, Ibid.) that "there is proven error in the translation" (Acts 12:4). Unfortunately, Dr. Hymers does not prove that there is proven error in Acts 12:4. Hymers is either ignorant of the history of the word "Easter" or he has intentionally ignored it. The history is such that since there was no English word for the word "PASCHA," in the English language.

William Tyndale, when translating the English New Testament, used the word "ester" (Easter -spring) synonymously with "PASCHA" ("ester" and "ester lambe" and "ester fest" and "ester"). When he translated the Old Testament, he invented a new word, "passeover."

The English Bibles, which followed Tyndale, began to phase out "Easter." Nevertheless, they didn't have any problem using both words synonymously. Tyndale’s Bible and the "Great Bible" used "ester lambe/Easter and "pascall-lamb/passeover" in the same passage (Matt. 26:17-19).

The "Great Bible" calls it the "Jewes Easter" (John 11:55). The Catholics solved their problem by transliterating "PASCHA" in every passage. The "Bishop's Bible," like the King James Bible, retains "Easter" in only one place, Acts 12:4. Martin Luther, like Tyndale, uses "Ostern" (Easter) throughout the German Bible.

Acts 19:37

All good Baptists like to remind the Interdenominationalists and Protestants that the "church" is a local, saved, baptized, assembly of people, but no matter how hard we try, our people still go down and work on the "church" and meet at the "church" and have school in the "church."

We have even tried to distinguish between the people and the building by calling our buildings "temples" to no avail (Selah!). Perhaps, Baptists ought to start thinking about including their church property in their definition, if they ever plan to be involved with the lRS and church/state matters.

Perhaps, every good Jew used to remind their friends (in Greece for example) that the "synagogue" was really the people and not the building. Of course, we have already proven, by extension, that the "place" of assembly was also a "synagogue." Really, the word "church" is also flexible enough to stand the same kind of extension. Nevertheless, it is by this avenue that Dr. Hymers plays prejudices in order to convince folk of error In the King James Bible.

Word etymology has it that the Scottish "kirk," the German "Kirche," and the English "church" are from the Greek for "temple of God" and "pertaining to God" (Webster - 1828).

The Greek, which underlies Acts 19:37, contrary to Hymers’ thinking, is a combination of "HIERO" (holy or sacred) and "SULAO" (rob or despoil). It is found in Romans 2:22 in the singular form and in Acts 19:37 in the plural. This is also where Hymers’ word "SULAO" (the looser word for temple, as opposed to "NAOS") originates.

"HIEROS" (holy or sacred) is also used in 2 Timothy 3:15 for "holy scriptures" and Titus 2:3 for "holiness" and for Jerusalem ("Hierusalem in the older English Bibles), in other words, "Holy Shalom." Actually, "holy" or "robbers of sacred places" would be more literally correct than ''temple robbers." In Romans 2:22, we read of robbers of legitimately "holy" or "sacred" things (note-idolatry/covetousness), and it called "sacrilege." However, in Acts 19:37, we find sacrilege, "in general," being discussed.

The "Tyndale Bible," the "Great Bible," and the "German Bible (‘raubest Gott’)" say "robbest God" in Romans 2:22, while the "Geneva Bible," the "Bishop's Bible," the "Rheims Bible," and the "King James Bible" use the word "sacrilege." The corrupt RV/ASV and RSV agree with Dr. Hymers and say "rob temples."

Regarding Acts 19:37, the "Tyndale's Bible," the "Great Bible," the "Bishop's Bible," the "German Bible" ("kirchenrauber"), and the "King James Bible" all have "robbers of churches," while the "Rheims Bible," the "Geneva Bible," and the "RSV" (believe it or not) stick to "sacrilege."

The RV/ASV says "robbers of temples." What are we saying? Hymers prefers the readings of the RV/ASV and RSV bibles. Is Dr. Hymers really a "King James" man or a "TR" man, when he follows neither? We think he is a RV/ASV/RSV man!

The word "sacrilege" is from "sacer" (sacred) and "lego" (steal) and, according to Webster, it is the "crime of appropriating to oneself or to secular use, what is consecrated to God or religion (religious thievery): as robbery of a church Is a sacrilege."

Bible Correctors, who use the concordance approach to the scriptures, are unable to see that the translators were led in such thesaurus type choices. In this case, should the crime be emphasized or the literal act?

Must it be a legitimate "sacrilege" or a general one? We think that any fair minded person, who didn't have an ax to grind with the King James Bible or those who believe in it, would give the benefit of the doubt to the King James Bible (rather then just "doubt" it).

Conclusion

We have tolerated Dr. Hymers and Gary Hudson's concordance approach to mistakes in the King James Bible long enough. Their expectation is that every word, in the Hebrew/Greek, must have an exact synonym, in every place, uniformly translated throughout our English Bible (in other words, a word for word translation).

It is easily shown that the Hebrew/Greek Texts themselves, when quoting them (Hebrew to Greek), do not demand the same degree of strictness that Hymers and Hudson demand.

King James Bible Correctors might well be consistent and preach either from the Hebrew/Greek or from "Berry's interlinear." Ah, yes, even "Berry's Interlinear" cannot meet their requirements. Nothing can meet their requirements (which is the way that they like it).

If an exact "word for word" (English twins) were possible and could really qualify as a ''translation," what then would these Bible Correctors have to do? Hymers and Hudson discount, from their theories, idioms and available synonyms for specific contexts, cultural mind sets, and customs from being taken into consideration. (Indefinite and definite articles alone would be enough to cause havoc among Russians who say, "I put book on table.") This is why they err so foolishly.

Dr. Hymers and Evangelist Hudson should-spend more time investigating the TR's quotations of the Masoretic Text rather than the petty fault finding, of the King James Bible to which they have engaged themselves.

For instance, why does the TR say, in Hebrews 11:21, "RABDOU" (staff) when the Masoretic says "mittah" (bed)? Or why does Acts 7:43 call the god of Psalm 45:6, "REMPHAN," while the Masoretic Text calls him "Kiyuwn" (Chiun)? In other words, why not engage themselves in solving some problems instead of being problems. Amen?

Bible Correctors, armed with a concordance, need only takes a sentence to cry "wolf! (mistake!)." However, it may take pages to undo these attacks on the King James Bible and a believer's faith. They, of course, will continue to find their "Handfuls on Purpose" (errors), and we will continue to believe God's Book!

We would like to request our Bible correcting friends to explain how the wording in Hebrews 1:8, in the Greek Textus Receptus, "TON AIONONA TOU AIONOS" (the age of the age), when quoting Psalm 45:6, "Oulom" (forever), is superior to our uninspired English "forever?"

Now, we do realize that both Hudson and Hymers are also without a "cross" to preach or to bear; they, like Jehovah's Witnesses, only have a "STAUROS" or torture STAKE (possibly, they also have a "tree" without "branches" - Acts 13:29; Gal. 3:23; Deut. 21:23). But then, again, why not worry more about "Easter" and "churches" and "synagogues?" Ho hum!

NOTE

The external, extra scriptural material and sources, which we have quoted, are not to be considered to be our final authority on these matters. We are satisfied with the internal evidence within our Authorized English Bible.

We have quoted these external sources, in answer to specific challenges and objections in order to expose (on their own turf) the deception and duplicity of those who would grasp at any straw and go to any length to find an error in the King James Bible. We are not impressed with history, external source material, or even our own research. We are impressed with God's word, our final Authority, which THROUGHLY furnishes the man of God unto ALL good works.

Addendum, God Is A Spirit

Gary Hudson, the Bible Corrector, faulted the above article in our use of 1 John 4:16 and 1 John 1:5 to support our defense of "God is a Spirit,' a supposed KJB error, rather than Gary's "God is Spirit" in John 4:24, which we offered 'God is love' and 'God is light' (1 John 4:16; 1 John 1:5)" as the construction (English) that Gary was trying to force into John 4:24.

Gary ranted and raved about the missing "ESTI" in John 4:24, flooding us with Greek grammars (in the Light of Historical Research - of course) to prove that the Greek word for "is" does not have to be in the text, something we already knew and indicated but is not the case in the passages, which contain the English construction that Gary needs.

Gary's argument emphasizes the missing Greek article in John 4:24. So, after you allow Bible Correctors to take the indefinite article, "a," they will be after the word "is" for removal, and it will then read "God Spirit." Any way you cut it, the Greek construction is different in John 4:24 from the other two passages.

So, why the fuss that the English is also different in John 4:24? The Greek word order is also different, "HO THEOS AGAPE," "HO THEOS PHOS" as opposed to PNEUMA HO THEOS in John 4:24. So what? Who makes the Greek Grammar rules anyway? Bible Correctors?

Gary Hudson says, "There is not a single work on Greek grammar in existence, not an 'interlinear,' nor Greek scholar that would back the incredible reasoning of 'DR.' Evans on the Greek of John 4:24!"

You see this Bible Corrector believes that the Bible must follow the rules that the Greek scholars, interlinears, and grammars ponificate to us, after the fact, although such grammars and interlinears did not exist in 1611, only the Greek scholars that translated the 1611 KJB.

And so, the modern Greek grammars and interlinears change in the light of HISTORICAL RESEARCH along with their modern bibles.

Well, poor Gary does not know that George Ricker Berry in his interlinear does support the indefinite article "a" being left in John 4:24. He renders it "A Spirit God [is]." Imagine that! But is our critic after only one indefinite article because it does not occur in the Greek or all of them?

Should "a man in soft clothing" in Luke 7:25 have the "a" removed? Well, It is not in the Greek. Should "who was a sinner" in Luke 7:37 have the "a" removed? It is not in the Greek. Should "if he were a prophet" in Luke 7:39 have the "a" removed? It is not in the Greek. Oh, you would not carry a half truth that far

Oh, by the way, Gary, the old German Bible has John 4:24 rendered, "Gott ist EIN Geist" - God is a Spirit. Of course, the modern German bibles have changed John 4:24, like the modern English Bibles have changed it.

Isn’t that something, Martin Luther made the same exact error as the King James Translators almost a hundred years before they did. What a coincidence! Hmmmmm! V