Reviewing this book takes a particular twist from normal presentation. It is not actually the work of the author, J.H. Melton, but consists of quotes, letters, articles (by others), and injected statements by the author that are used to answer "the attacks upon the author." The author, Bro. J.H. Melton, does express from the very first the work is not actually his but is the "work of a number of good men." This statement is the very first sentence in the "Appreciations" section and expresses an honesty of source and direction of purpose. The body of material discussed is in three main divisions preceded by the author's "Appreciations" and "Preface" followed by "Appendix I and II," and closes with a "Bibliography" consisting of two dozen books or articles recommended for purchase by any interested reader. The subject matter is of common direction, not however, consistent in its presentation due evidently from the use of various quoted articles. It is rather consistent in its open denial of claims made in view of the King James Version's being the Word of God in English in spite of contradictions in this area of subject matter. It would necessitate another book to discuss problems and positions, therefore our interest in comment will be limited to a select area for the purpose of brevity. Perhaps this is an overstatement, for reviews should be that, a review; yet, when men choose to position themselves as critics of Scripture, it cannot help but produce a response more as commentary than review. So be it.

The "Preface" presents an array of claims and definitions that are explained in a direction more in condemnation of Peter Ruckman than in explanation of "Translation." One would have thought somewhere definitions, guidelines of acceptance, purpose of outcome, limitations of the material translated, objective goals, and defense of the finished product would have been openly stated. The reader is presented with the claim of the author that he is not an "enemy of the King James Version" and a confession of "I AM AN ENEMY OF THE KJV CULT" (emp. by JHM). This Bro. Melton defines in three specific areas and then concludes: "ANYONE HOLDING TO ONE OR ALL OF THESE HERETICAL TEACHINGS HAS EMBRACED RUCKMANISM" (emp. JHM).

This presents a problem the author needs to honestly evaluate. Consider this:

I believe this book I preach out of. It's a King James Version; I believe it's the PRESERVED WORD OF GOD (emp. mine). Don't you? I believe that. But you know, I'm glad that not only is it preserved in English, it's preserved in other languages. If I didn't believe that, I'd throw in the towel. I believe we have the Word of God being preached in other languages and other tongues around the world. Amen? And I'm glad God preserved it and is preserving it. And I believe He will preserve it. And let me tell you something (and I hope you take this in the right spirit.) Whatever you or I do is not going to preserve God's Word. He has already preserved it. Amen! I'm glad He promised to; aren't you? Heaven and earth may pass away but whatever you and I say is not going to preserve the Word of God; He has promised to preserve it and I want you to know, brother, He will preserve it. Some young preachers I get letters from all the time because we have so many missionaries, they want to know my position on the Bible. I've got the same position I've always had and I have always preached out of this old book. It's the Bible! It's the Word of God! I don't apologize for it! I intend to preach out of it as long as I live... This is the Word of God we're preaching and let's get back to preaching it.[Footnote #1]

By the definition of Bro. Melton, this speaker has embraced "Ruckmanism." I know who preached these words and have preached revivals in his church, preached in his Missions Conferences, and have preached with him in conferences we mutually attended. His knowledge of Peter Ruckman is probably about the same as mine and has never been more than a curiosity at best. I mention this simply because this speaker quoted is J.H. Melton's pastor in the time involved. Now my curiosity of Bro. Melton must ask, "What are you doing in a KJV CULT CHURCH and just what does this identify you as?"

Bro. Melton then states, "The material in this volume is not opinion. It is fact." Then follows five so called facts. If these are standards of proof and debate of logic, there are more problems to face. The first fact describing the presentation of material in Bro. Melton's book relates to stating the sixty-six original manuscripts are inerrant, infallible, and verbally inspired. To be honest, I don't know of a person anywhere who confesses the KJV is the Word of God in English who does not totally believe this fact. I would suspect even those who are "Ruckmanites" would agree with this position. The next claim under "Fact number one" is the restriction of the meaning of "are" as meaning "preserved in heaven for us..." If this is the only place where the "Scripture" is preserved, did Jesus lie when He said, "This day is the scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Luke 4:21)? In verse 20 Jesus "closed the book." It would be a rather difficult task to find the article of previous reference, "this," referring to anything but the "scripture" Christ read from the book --- a copy, Scripture, on earth, and years after the original was written. Yet, Jesus admitted it was Scripture, on earth, evidently inerrant and infallible.

Bro. Melton's "Fact number two" states: "No reputable person ever claimed that the King James Version is inerrant, infallible, the preserved Word of God, and has advanced revelation until the Ruckman cult ." We will grant for argument's sake there were not "Ruckmanites" before Ruckman who embraced "advanced revelation." We will also grant the so-called "Ruckmanites" the privilege to defend their position in this context. As for others who believe and have been preceded by men who believed they preached the Word of God from their English KJV --- the woods are full of them. No reputable person stood as minister of God's Truth and read from his KJV with explanations of it not being true and thus his message evidently false in various parts. Only "Bible Correctors" who believe their intelligence is superior to God's Providential care of His Word would presume to think God has to wait on them to perfect His Word as a "Bible Corrector." It is perplexing at this point to decide which direction is more dangerous: "advanced revelation" or the priesthood of corrector's elevation.

Bro. Melton's "Fact number three" states: "The KJV we commonly use now is not the KJV 1611, but the KJV 1769 (Dr. Blaney's revision). " I have yet to find anyone who insists the printing errors, typos, and missed construction of the 1611 should not be corrected to coincide with the objective product of the translators. In reading Bro. Melton's book to review its content, I found at least seventy-three errors: 6 problems in the "Appreciation" section, 8 problems in Section I, 3 problems in Section II, and over 50 problems in Section III and the Appendix including a duplicate page at p.167 and p.168. If and when this book would ever be reprinted in the near or far future and these printing errors, typos, and missed constructions are corrected, it will probably still be viewed as the objective product of the author. This is either true or Bro. Melton's correction of "including" to "included" on page 134 of his book would make the fine reference article "Erasmus and His Theology" not the author's work who since the printed edition of Oct. 16, 1985, is corrected in Bro. Melton's book of a later date.

Bro. Melton's "Fact number four" states: "King James himself selected the translators, instructed them, and supervised them not to use 'assembly' or 'congregation' and not to translate the word 'baptidzo'." Let us grant these instructions are true to the letter. We then ask, "So?" These words were not invented by the KJV translators; the English language is historically full of their usage long before the KJV 1611. I possess a word-for-word reprint of the 1611 KJV and a two volume set of the English Hexapla printed in an authorized facsimile by University Microfilms International. In this Hexapla is a copy of Wiclif (1380), Tyndale (1534), Cranmer (1539), Genevan (1557), Anglo-Rhemish (1552), and the Authorized (1611). In Mark 16:16 Wiclif uses "baptisid," Tyndale uses "baptised," Cranmer uses "baptised," Geneva uses "baptized," Rheims uses "baptized," and the KJV uses "baptized. " This means English speaking peoples used these words for over 200 years and knew their meanings. What about "church" being used rather than "assembly" or "congregation?" In Mt. 16:18 Wicliff uses "chirche," Tyndale uses "congregation," Cranmer uses "Congregation," Geneva uses "congregation," Rheims uses "Church," and the KJV uses "Church. " This also shows 200 years earlier "church" was used and Protestants who used "Congregation" did not get "baptized" and join a baptist "Congregation." What's more, 380 years after the 1611 and its "church" and "baptize" usage, Bro. Melton still uses these same words. (See "churches" p.1, "Church" p.3, "baptism" p.7, and "Baptist" p.8 ---etc. Bro. Melton is telling us two things: (1) "Baptism and church" should never be used in the KJV and (2) "Baptism" and "church" were good enough for King James; they are also good enough for J.H. Melton (else why does he use them openly and often?). Bro. Melton's "Fact number five" states: "One panel of translators was assigned to translate the Apocrypha (it was not just inserted between the Old Testament and New Testament). " It is quite true the Apocrypha was translated as is stated but it is quite false that it was not just inserted between the Testaments and was regarded as an "equality" with the Old and New Testaments. The testimony of the translator's church (Anglican) which is credited with this act is totally misrepresented simply to discredit those who accept the KJV as God's Word in English. The fact is historically evident; William Muir states of the KJV translators and the Apocrypha:

Yet in 1604 a company was appointed to translate these books (Apocrypha), very much as a matter of course. Not that the translators of the Authorized Version thought of the Apocrypha as having the same authority or as being of the same value as the other books.[Footnote #2]

This fact is also established in the sixth article of the "Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England." The English 1571 edition states (note this is over 30 years before the KJV translators were appointed):

In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical! bookes of the olde and newe Testament, of whose aucthoritie was never any doubt in the Churche... (Here follows the O.T. Books)

And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche cloth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet cloth it not applie them to establish any doctrene. (Spelling etc. as original--KJ).[Footnote #3]

Thus the historical fact remains; the Church of England and the translators neither confessed the Apocrypha as Scripture, inspired, nor authoritative as the canonical books of the Bible. Bro. Melton is not accurate on this point and should admit this so-called "Fact" is false.

The closing two pages of Bro. Melton's "Preface" expresses the author's displeasure in what he defines as those who "violently and viciously attack anyone who is a 'Bible Corrector' (their allegation toward anyone who dares to improve the language of the KJV 1611)." A pointed effort is then made to state and define within certain parameters the "historic orthodox position" as opposed to the "late" and "entire discussion of the Majority Text and KJV is of recent origin."

It is admitted by Bro. Melton that his Volume IV in "Bibliology" does not follow the "traditional order" relative to theological works. This privilege of course is granted to any writer in their pursuit to establish a goal of their book's presentation. It is sad, however, the direction is one of little less than a hyper-quotidian attempt to establish among "fundamentalists" a new priesthood of scholarship made up of those qualified to correct the Word of God for all who have not spent the required ages among the scholastic literates to acquire their sacrosanct position. A position quite undefinable in present terms and for want of anything better described best as "Fundaliberalist"---not really fundamentalist (one who has an inerrant Bible in his hand he can trust) nor a liberal (one who has a Bible, uninspired, that no one can trust).

The "Fundaliberalist" is in an awkward position for sure. When he corrects the Word of God, where does the hearer wind up if this correction is wrong? Bro. Melton marks out by his personal corrections certain words that are "transliterated" and not translated. He then uses the same words in his book; is this a correction, capitulation, or just another "colloquial" reference? (I use the term "colloquial" relative to p.90's statement of Gary Hudson: "...Fundamentalists have always held up their KJV as 'the Word of God' in a colloquial fashion, understanding that the translation itself is not inerrant...")

Bro. Melton also suggest "the word 'with' is also a mistranslation; it should be 'in.' This one glaring error makes any claim for inerrancy of the KJV 1611 impossible." The Geneva Version of 1557 also translates this "with" and this during the life of the children of Henry VIII who had his children "IMMERSED. "[Footnote #4]

Something must have surely gone wrong if these who established the English language at its zenith didn't understand its depth. For the record, the Greek word in the KJV is translated "with" 139 times, "among" 114 times, "by" 142 times, and "in" 1863 times (granted its major meaning and use). Later Bro. Melton complains of this same word at I Cor. 12:13 (see the author's reply page 198). At this verse Bro. Melton has a correct meaning for "Church" against the invisible universal church crowd but misses Paul's meaning by using "spirit" evidently, attitude since Bro. Melton uses a small "s". Paul is showing we are led "by one Spirit" to be baptized into the true Local visible body of Christ (through water baptism). This notorious blunder simply falls into the area of another "corrector's" error.

Bro. Melton speaks of the "proponents of the KJV 1611 inerrancy heresy" as "they" (whoever "they" are) violently and viciously attack anyone who is a 'Bible Corrector'..who dares to improve the language of the KJV 1611. In this book by Bro. Melton are articles by Doug Kutilek (pp. 103-145). In a letter written by Doug Kutilek are found several nice expressions of accusations against Dr. D.O. Fuller indirectly and the Seventh Day Adventist professor Wilkinson in particular.[Footnote #5] One wonders exactly what direction or words are permissible when accused of "heresy" or 1,2,3,4, or 5 point "Ruckmanism." This is especially nascent when one remembers Bro. Melton is a member of a church which has professed the KJV is God's Word preserved in English. One next wonders what constitutes those who "violently and viciously attack." Since all are accused, we may never know.

One remaining area of discussion is presented in Bro. Melton's "Preface." This area concerns the "historic orthodox position" defined by Bro. Melton as "the original manuscripts of the sixty-six books of the Bible were verbally inspired, which means the words were inspired, and this pertains to the whole of the Bible. The claim that any translation was so inspired is a very recent matter." Bro. Melton then quotes from M.L. Moser, the "Dean Burgon News" re. the "Majority Text Society" etc., Wilbur M. Pickering, and the acknowledgment "the KJV controversy is of recent origin."

This matter of history is going to invade the thinking of Text Critics with a vengeance in days of future considerations. The Alands have given credence to this fact in three places.[Footnote #6] They have stated openly "...the Byzantine Imperial text type which expanded its influence rapidly from the fourth century to become increasingly the dominant text of the Byzantine church."[Footnote #7] This is not an insignificant statement. Future studies will center around the Egyptian school at Antioch and its gnosticism which influenced early theology and MSS. The Alands conclude:

To understand the textual history of the New Testament it is necessary to begin with the early manuscripts. By this we mean manuscripts no later than the third/fourth century, for in the fourth century a new era begins. Every manuscript of the earlier period, whether on papyrus or on parchment, has an inherent significance for New Testament textual criticism: they witness to a period when the text of the New Testament was still developing freely.[Footnote #8]

Following this evidence is a list of forty-three papyri and five (4) uncials: two from the second century, four from about 200, one papyri and two uncial from the 2nd/3rd century, 28 papyri and two uncials (0212 is admitted to be a Diatessaron text and shouldn't be counted), and eight papyri and two uncials from the 3rd/4th century.[Footnote #9] This total group of MS evidence is stated to be from Egypt.[Footnote #10] One is moved to ask whether all this is ONE or forty-seven witnesses of evidence. If the thousands of MSS that speak to TR evidence are considered ONE, why cannot this witness be treated equally?

We acknowledge the voice of our "correctors" when they again and again voice preference for their "oldest and best" MSS. But, Sturz has presented evidence for early Byzantine papyri even among the critics' evidence which dates the Byzantine reading as early as the second century:

The Byzantine text-type has preserved second-century tradition not preserved by the other text-types. These readings are evidence that the Byzantine text has preserved at least portions of the second-century tradition of the New Testament independently of the Egyptian and Western text-types. Until the discovery of these papyri, the Byzantine text had been the sole repository of these readings from the second century. In view of this circumstance, it would seem, at least in so far as papyri-supported distinctively Byzantine readings are concerned, the Byzantine text-type can no longer be ignored in textual decisions. This is not meant to suggest that the K readings should be considered original when they are papyri-supported. It does suggest, however, that because of their proven age, at least such papyri-supported ought to be put on an equal level with the readings of the Alexandrian and the Western texts for the applying of internal evidence of readings. But what of Byzantine readings not supported by early papyri?

(5) Lateness of other Byzantine readings now questionable. With so many distinctively Byzantine readings attested by early papyri, doubt is now cast over the "lateness" of other Antiochian readings. This doubt brings to mind two questions: 1) What about Byzantine readings which occur in parts of the New Testament where there are no papyri, as yet, to confirm them? 2) What about Byzantine readings in places where papyri exist but the papyri support other readings not the Byzantine? Should distinctively Byzantine readings in such places be considered early also?

Zuntz faced the first question and answered in the affirmative for all Byzantine readings (cf. above, p.60). In a rather striking way Zuntz's remarks have vindicated in cases where more recently discovered papyri have supported Byzantine alignments in places where Chester Beatty (which he used) did not exist. (See the list in those areas in Luke and John where p66 and p75 attest Byzantine where p45 is not extant, as well as the places in I and II Peter and Jude where p72 supports the Byzantine reading.) As for the second problem (i.e., where the papyrus supports a reading other than the Byzantine), such passages as Luke 11: 50, where p45 reads with B 33 69 but the Byzantine reading, had no early attestation until p75 was discovered. Another example is John 2:15, where p66 reads with the Alexandrian but p75 with the Byzantine. See also John 10:19; 10:31; 12:36; Hebrews 10:17 for additional instances where papyri published in later years have been found to attest a Byzantine reading where another than the Byzantine had formerly been supported by a papyrus.

Numerous distinctively Byzantine readings now proved early would seem to reverse the burden of proof. Instead of assuming that characteristically Byzantine readings are late, it may be more logical and more in accord with the facts to assume that they are early. The burden of proof now appears to rest on whoever claims that a Byzantine reading is late. Furthermore, making textual decisions on the basis of how three or four "old" uncials read should be abandoned because they do not give a complete picture of the second century traditions.[Footnote #11]

Again we must point out the Egyptian origin of many of the MSS in reference. The dry air conditions of Egypt are such to preserve the documents in contrast to areas which tend to decay and the destruction of MSS documents. I concur with the Alands that the matter of history is yet to reveal all its secrets.

History needs to be involved for several reasons. It should be considered in finding what MSS were used by various people down through history. It should be considered in the testimony of what they believed doctrinally to involve their MSS of translation as opposed to MSS that were rejected and left to gather dust in disuse. This is the area which will prove to be valuable in solving Bro. Melton's claim of the KJV controversy being of the last 25 to 50 years. The fact is the controversy did not start over the KJV but was initiated in the action of text critics to depose the Greek MSS and their translations which are in contradistinction to the Aleph, B. and Alexandrian type MSS. MS controversy goes back even to Jerome who was accused of using the wrong Greek by Helvidius.[Footnote #12] What we are experiencing today is the conflicts faced by Warfield, Hoskier, Noland, and others of the late l9th and early 20th centuries. Warfield abandoned the "Reformed" position and embraced the "critical" position relative to preservation and Greek MSS evidence. A.T. Robertson (writing "To the Memory of B.B. Warfield) said:

...I have come back to it that my own class and others also may have the method of Hort with sufficient fulness for the student. The book is in no sense a revision of the work of Warfield, but a new attempt to apply my own long experience in teaching this fascinating subject and to utilize modern knowledge since Warfield wrote.[Footnote #13]

An excellent treatment of this historical aspect is found in a Masters' thesis written by T.P. Letis. Letis deals with the position held by E.F. Hills in particular which is considered the "Reformed" position of Hodge, Dabney, et.al. It is ably documented to reveal Warfield's position on inspiration and preservation.[Footnote #14] The turn of the century saw many embrace the text critics position while also trying to hold to belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. The results are with us today in "Fundaliberals" who would correct the Bible. They are neither fundamental nor liberal but somewhere in between trusting to individual or corporate scholarship to define and establish the "inerrant" Word of God.

After the "Preface" of Bro. Melton's book, the body of matter is given in three Sections and Appendix I and II. This material is far removed from the author's work but evidently express his position by being the major amount of material involved. Section I consists of twenty pages in form letters by J.H. Melton to individuals (3) and one open letter to "Baptist Brethren" which is a longer article and develops most of Bro. Melton's comments to those he addresses in critical terms. Section II consists of articles labeled "Evidences" and is material of eight authors from pages 21 to 54. Section III is the largest section (pp. 55-187) and is made up of "Contemporary Writings." These consist of a total of seven writings taken from various sources. Next follows "Appendix I" involving five articles and comments by Bro. Melton and "Appendix IT'' containing ten letters sent to Bro. Melton written to express various degrees of criticism of his anti-KJV position.

Summarizing the review of materials which are not the author's work, pointing out details and interest, and coming to a concluding area is a point of choice of direction. Bro. Melton's book is simply an editorial attempt to mass arguments based on one's desire to correct the faults alleged in the KJV. Writing of words mistranslated and then using the very words to convey theological input is not just inconsistent but surrenders the point trying to be made. Defining that which is "inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired" as the "originals" (and they were and are) then taking steps to correct the KJV without presenting a copy of the originals for comparison is an act of pure sophistic misery. Debate of this nature should have the evidence "in hand" (not a phantom) and in this way one is able to compare exactly what Bro. Melton means when he "corrects" in the pulpit what he contends is the perfect Word of God inerrant in its details. Else one is then forced to define "preservation" and demonstrate it by faith.

It is strange indeed that Bro. Melton refers to the "KJV Cult" as anyone who holds to one point of "Ruckman." The church he is a member of qualifies under this point and thus places Bro. Melton squarely in the midst of those he identifies and condemns. This is almost as ridiculous as the question on page 7---"...what did English-speaking people do for the Word of God for sixteen long centuries before the King James Version?" [They were waiting for English to be developed so they would have something to say and write.] On p.3 Bro. Melton remarks, "Calvinism is a Satanic Protestant teaching. The claim of inerrancy for the KJV is in the same category." I assume Bro. Melton believes in the "security of the saints." One must then ask, If a "one-point Ruckmanite" makes one a follower of this man, does a one point Calvinist make Bro. Melton a "Satanic Protestant" teacher? [For the record, I would contend Bro. Melton's remaining three volumes are Semi-Pelagian in theology and never touch the theological thrust of true Baptists' Confessions of Faith. What little poor Calvin got right, he learned from Waldensian Baptist sources of whom he was at one time connected.

Sections II and III are articles of interest in the matter of this Bible conflict. Bro. Melton quotes two statements from Kenyon to answer "A Response" in May, 1988, Plains Baptist Challenger. No point is made or answered; there is simply a page of quotation leaving much room to read between the lines. The remaining articles follow the path of Bro. Melton in the main points of his arguments re: the Divine originals, the "Historic Baptist Position," and various minor side issues. The two articles by Kutilek on Erasmus are interesting reading and do inform. There were Baptists long before Erasmus so it seems very doubtful much of their faith came from him. Hudson's article on why he rejects Ruckmanism is informative to us who do not receive nor have read the works of Dr. Peter Ruckman. [Hudson's expose seems almost a vendetta, it would be interesting to receive Ruckman's publications and literature to inspect these charges of this former student.] This article along with Hymer's tape message on Ruckmanism and "Advanced Revelation" will have to depend on Ruckman's defense as Baptists who are Baptist hold the Canon closed with the completion of the New Testament. Van George's booklet was xeroxed and sent to me after having been given to the brother who sent me my Xerox copy. It is odd that this was distributed at the church where Bro. Melton holds membership since they do not confess what is in George's material. One would conclude Bro. George never asked permission for this privilege or if he obtained permission, the church didn't perceive much danger from what was written.

After all the smoke and dust settles, several questions remain in reference to this translation debate:

1. When one preaches, what can he hold in his hand to honestly say, "This is the Divinely, Inspired, and Inerrant Word of God"?
2. If the original MSS and only the "Original MSS" are the Word of God, where is it and who can show it to me with authority to prove the claim?
3. Who gets the privilege to keep these MSS and how might we trust their honesty not to sell them or permit Satan to make them idols?
4. Is it a "lie" to preach from "the Word of God" using the English language?
5. Is it honest to stand to preach from a Bible the preacher claims contains errors and mistranslations?
6. If God's people are too ignorant to know what is the true Word of God, how could they ever know what is NOT the Word of God?
7. If the Word of God was not complete until Aleph, B. and the Sinaitic MSS were found, does this qualify as continued revelation and make all the "eclectics" and followers of Westcott and Hort quasi "Ruckmanites"?
8. If we cannot trust God by faith to keep His Word to preach in its entirety, who is able to give us the minimum that is necessary and how can we know they are correct?
9. If men are Bible correctors, who are the Bible Corrector judges?
10. If we are left to the abilities of scholars to give us the Word of God, does this qualify as the creation of a new priesthood and does this new priesthood possess infallible, inerrant, Divinely inspired knowledge? If so, who will name the men and how do we know they are correct?
11. If one believes it is all right to preach from a Bible with a few errors in it, who shall judge how many constitute the "few" that is acceptable? (Or we might say limited errancy.)
12. If one believes it is all right to preach from a Bible that is sufficient in its inspired parts, who shall judge what constitutes the sufficiency? (Or we might say limited inerrancy.)

"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever. Amen" (Jude 25)

1 Taped message at the Bethel Baptist Church, Lawton, OK, Missions Conference. Pastor Charles Thomas, Preaching.
2 William Muir, Our Grand Old Bible. (London: Morgan and Scott Ltd., 1911, pp. 145-150.
3 Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977, Vol. III, pp. 489-491.
4 John T. Christian. A History of The Baptists (Texarkana: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1922), Vol. I, pp. 292-293. Robert Robinson. The History of Baptism (London: Couchman and Fry, 1790), pp.534,535.
5 Letter to yours truly of June 6, 1986, reference is made to Fuller's quoting Wilkinson and how terrible it was to not be able to find any of the references as noted in the quote from Which Bible. Wilkinson is denigrated as "culprit in propigating misinformation." Then later it is stated, "The chief problem in this whole text/translation issue is getting factually correct information. Sadly, much of the literature is plaqued (he means "plagued") by gross carelessness, factual inaccuracy, sloppy research, distortion, and misrepresentation, (to say nothing of rancor, bitterness, vendetta [,] and slander).
I responded to this author's "words" by reminding him these were the things he had written. His words to me were I had written with "malicious nastiness." The fact is he first sent those words to me criticizing others, and I simply quoted them back as his to remind who had used them, SO, let the onomatopoeia proceed.
6 Kurt and Babara Aland. The Text of The New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989) pp. 49, 52, and 142.
7 0p.Cit. p. 56.
8 Ibid, p. 59.
9 Ibid, p. 57.
10 Ibid, p. 59.
11 Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), pp. 64, 65.
12 Philip Schaff, ed. "Jerome," Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), VI. p. 338.
13 A.T. Robertson. An Introduction To The Texual Criticism of The New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1952), p. vii.
14 Theodore P. Letis, "Edward Freer Hills Contribution to The Revival of The Ecclesiastical Text" (Unpublished Masters' Thesis, Candler School of Theology, May, 1987).