KJB:The Story of the Alexandrian Cult  by Peter Ruckman

   Article One

   The twentieth century Christian is constantly being bombarded with
material on apostasy and modernism. Every Fundamentalist or
Conservative group in America has writers or collators of material
dealing with liberalism, neo- evangelicalism, ecumenism, neo-orthodoxy,
etc. Strangely enough, one can find no material on HOW all of this
infidelity started.

   In vain one will search the History of Fundamentalism in America by
George Dollar or Outside the Gate by Carl McIntyre or any of the
conservative literature from the Ecumenical Movement (even the material
by Webber from Tulsa, Oklahoma) to find out HOW American Christianity
got into the position it now occupies. There is an abundance of
material available about the "apostates" (Blake, Niebhur, Tillich,
Pike, Sockman, Weigle, Potest, Kagawa, etc.) and the "compromisers"
(Campus Crusade, Wheaton College, InterVarsity Fellowship, Fuller
Seminary, etc.), but a tomb-like silence descends on the historians and
authors when they are called upon to tell us HOW these groups and
individuals got to their terminus-- INFIDELITY to the word of God.

   When one reads this mass of literature (I have examined over 2,000
pamphets, 1,000 books, 1,000 magazines, and 300 church bulletins
dealing with these matters) listing and exposing the apostates, he is
struck with the singular thought that none of them dare tell HOW any of
the apostates BEGAN their apostasy. Evidently we are dealing with an
international "conspiracy" in the Biblical realm that would put the
Illuminiati and the Free Masons to shame. Neither Stuart Crane nor
Johnny Todd is able to tell us HOW a Bilderberger or a witch STARTS
down the road to humanism or Satanism. How does it begin?

   It must begin somewhere! How is it that we can find nothing in the
writings of Warfield, Machen, and Wilson (even where they deal with
liberalism) that identifies the starting point of the apostate? Of
course these men reject the Virgin Birth--why? Of course these men
reject the Deity of Christ-- why? Of course they deny the "verbal
plenary inspiration of the unread originals"--why? Does a man just
suddenly pop up at the North Pole after reading an almanac and say, "I
DON'T BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH"? Before Bishop Pike began to fool
with necromancy and seances, did he just decide when he was ten years
old that the "originals" couldn't have been "verbally inspired"? Of
course not. Sin starts somewhere. Where does the sin of BIBLE REJECTION
start? Never mind how it ends or where it is NOW. What we are
interested in is potting its ORIGIN so that we can avoid ever getting
on its track.

   Is that last sentence clear?

   The Japanese say, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with one
step."

   What then is the FIRST step to religious liberalism or
neo-evangelicalism? Never mind wasting paper and shooting off your
mouth about your "stand" against something that is already here (and
has been here nineteen centuries). If you don't know HOW it started,
how do you know that you or your church (or school) has not already
taken the FIRST step in that direction? How are you so arrogantly
"cocksure" of your position when you don't know what the first THREE
steps are?

   The first three steps are discussed nowhere in George Dollar's
HISTORY OF FUNDAMENTALISM IN AMERICA. They are discussed nowhere in
eight volumes of Philip Schaff's HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, and
there is nothing in the church histories of Lagarde, Newman,
Latourette, Eusebius, or D'Aubigne that would clue us in on HOW a
professing Christian becomes an apostate. If one reads these histories,
he will be told that the cause is:

   1. They become formal and sacramental and ceased to practice the
Bible in their lives. (Why did they do this?)

   2. They wereimpressed by German Rationalism and English Deism and
ceased to believe the Genesis account of creation. (Why were they
impressed?)

   3. They became lax in morals and fell away from the Catholic faith.
(Why did they become "lax in morals"?)

   4. They followed a man who questioned the New Birth and the Blood
Atonement. (Why did they do this?)

   5. They tried to build a kingdom on this earth and to control the
state by the church. (Why would anyone who studied the Bible do this?)

   6. They ceased to study the Bible and became occupied with art,
literature, and the "humanities." (What led them to do THAT?)

   No major historian, living or dead, has ever answered the questions.

   There seems to be a "bond of dialogue" between saved historians and
unsaved liberals and apostates when it comes to pinpointing the
BEGINNINGS OF APOSTASY IN ANY AGE OF THE CHURCH.

   Charles Reese, a columnist for the Pensacola (Fla.) News-Journal,
says that he is often accused of using defamatory and libelous language
in referring to Jimmy Carter as a "LIAR." Reese's defense is simple: He
says that a man who says something that is untrue and WHO KNOWS THAT IT
IS NOT TRUE WHEN HE SAYS IT, IS A LIAR, whether he is a President or a
jail bird.

   With this truism in mind we shall list how the modern Christian
educator and scholar can be located in relation to the SOURCE and CAUSE
of apostasy. The modern Christian educator or scholar ("godly" and
"separated" of course) inherits 1850 years of infidelity preserved
through "Christian" scholarship and passed faithfully on from one
generation to another through what we call the "Scholars Union" or more
accurately "THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT." Cult members can be spotted easily
by the fact that they repeat in their generation three or more of the
following LIES.

   1. The original Greek text says... 2. THE Greek text says... 3. The
BEST manuscripts say... 4. II Timothy 3:16 applies only to the
"original manuscripts." 5. Erasmus' Greek text is a Roman Catholic
Greek text. 6. Westcott and Hort were brilliant Biblical scholars. 7.
If "good men" correct the Bible, you may correct it too, providing you
do it "reverently" and "prayerfully."

   In our next article we will discuss these matters more fully, and we
will also list the seven implications that are used by members of the
Alexandrian Cult to put doubt into the Christian's mind about the
authority of the Authorized Version. Direct lying (see above) and
innuendo (see our next article) are the means of inculcating UNBELIEF
into the mind of the born-again, soul-winning, separated Christian. Any
reader of Genesis 3 would have spotted the SOURCE AND ORIGIN OF ALL
APOSTASY without half trying, for both tactics appear in the chapter,
and they succeed in misleading two people who were more "godly" and
"separated" and "consecrated" than any man or woman reading this page.

   Article Two

   In our last article we discussed the matter of apostasy and its
roots or sources. We pointed out that the modern approach taken by
Christian colleges and universities (and many fundamental churches and
Bible institutes) is that apostasy is HERE, but no one can find out HOW
IT GOT HERE. Various straw dummies are erected and attacked as though
they were the cause of the devilment. The most common of these straw
men is the teaching that apostates deny the Deity of Christ or the
Virgin Birth or the "verbal plenary inspiration of the ORIGINALS." This
fails to deal with the problem on a Biblical basis: That is, the modern
method of "taking a stand" and "defending the faith" begins by AVOIDING
THE BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM. (See any apologetic work by any
faculty member at Bob Jones University, Tennessee Temple, Pensacola
Christian College, Hyles-Anderson, etc.)

   The problem is defined in the Bible in Genesis 3:1-4.

   No analysis of apostasy is scriptural or even reasonable if it does
not begin by presenting three terrible truths:

   1. Infidelity and apostasy begin with a man made in the image of God
and a woman made from that man. They are separted from every type of
"worldliness," and they are in fellowship with God DAILY. That is, they
are more "godly" than R.A. Torrey, J.G. Machen, Robert Dick Wilson,
Kenneth Wuest, A.T. Robertson, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Westcott, and
Hort, or any 4,000 other Greek scholars or fundamentalists.

   2. Infidelity and apostasy are never conceived (or "hatched") by
denying the "faith" or the "fundamentals of the faith." They are
hatched by QUESTIONING WHAT GOD SAID (Genesis 3:1-3).

   3. This questioning begins with subtracting from the word of God
(Genesis 2, 3). Eve omitted "freely" because she believed that the
"original" was an expanded or a "conflate" text, smoothed out by
combining a "number of sources," etc. That is, she approached what God
said, as the revision committees of 1881, 1884, 1901, 1953, 1959, 1970,
1973, and 1978 approach the problem of TRUTH.

   Now the Devil didn't LIE (Genesis 3) until he had first QUESTIONED.
No apostate lies about the "fundamentals of the faith" until he first
questions the SOURCE that these "fundamentals" came from. That is, the
liberal or the modernist is at the END of the line of apostasy, not at
the beginning. Whart we are concerned with is "How does it START?"
There is nothing in George Dollar's A HISTORY OF FUNDAMENTALISM IN
AMERICA that sheds any light on this important question. Why is this?

   The reason is that every "recognized" church historian and Christian
"scholar" is a member of a CULT. This cult is the Alexandrian Cult of
North Africa, and its tentacles stretch from Origen (184-254 A.D.) to
John R. Rice and the faculty members of every "recognized" Christian
school in the world.

   Now returning to the means for identifying the cult. There are seven
lies to which the cult members resort in order to deceive the seeker of
truth. We shall list them again and trust the reader will memorize them
so that he can spot the cultist when he begins the "party line."

   1. "THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT says..." This is an "out and out" lie.
No one has ever seen the original Greek text, and not even a member of
the Alexandrian Cult could know what it said.

   2. "THE GREEK TEXT says..." Out and out lying again. There is no
such thing as "THE" Greek text. The cult members who use this cliche
are always upset about the use or non-use of the "article" in the
TEXTUS RECEPTUS. That is, they are inconsistent hypocrites.

   3. "THE BEST MANUSCRIPTS read..." A lie. The two manuscripts which
the cult members cite are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which contain New
Testament Apocrypha and Old Testament Apocrypha and have more erros,
variations and scribal blunders per page than any other manuscripts
known to textual criticism. (See Zane Hodges, cited in WHICH BIBLE? by
D.O. Fuller and BELIEVING BIBLE STUDY by Dr. Edward Hills.)

   4. "Only the original manuscripts are inspired." A gross falsehood.
The verse used for a proof text is II Timothy 3:16, and the context of
II Timothy 3:16 is II Timothy 3:15. The word "scripture" is not used
even once in Acts 8, II Timothy, Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John as
referring to "original manuscripts." The "scriptures" in the New
Testament are things that people SEE, READ, and ACT ON.

   5. "Erasmus' Greek text is a Roman Cahtolic text." Gross lying. No
Catholic scholar would dare recommend any edition of the Textus
Receptus in Greek, or in any translation. All Catholic scholars in the
twentieth century recommend the Vatican Greek text of the New ASV and
the old ASV. The Roman Catholic text of the Jesuit Bible (1582) is a
Greek text used by scholars at Tennessee Temple and Bob Jones
University to altar the AV in 5,000 places in the New Testament. (You
understand, however, that for MONETARY purposes--enrollment and
endowment--both schools "USE" the AV because they "PREFER" it. You have
to "prefer" your income even if you would like to alter your "life
style.")

   6. "Westcott and Hort were brilliant Biblical scholars." There is no
evidence that either man was saved; there is no evidence that either
man believed that the Bible was inspired at any time--past, present, or
future. There is no evidence that either man knew any more about BIBLE
scholarship than did any Pope before 1850. (See TRUE OR FALSE? by D.O.
Fuller and THE REVISION REVISED, by Dean Burgon.)

   7. "If `good men' (Torrey, Rice, Spurgeon, etc.) correct the Bible,
you may correct it too." All "good" men have an odd nature. One must
not follow the machinations of the old nature in any "good" man
nomatter how "good" he is (Mark 10:18). David was an ultra
fundamentalist and a godly man after God's own heart, but would you
trust him with your wife? Why?

   Now, having observed that the Alexandrian Cult members are
professional liars--that is, THEY GET PAID A SALARY FOR TEACHING THE
THINGS LISTED ABOVE--we shall pinpoint the exact starting point for
apostasy in any age, where it clearly can be identified from a BIBLICAL
standpoint, by the Scriptures, with clear cut statements in regard to
the matter. That is, all APOSTASY within or without the Body of Christ
begins with ONE SIMPLE OPERATION WHICH ANYONE CAN SPOT WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION.

   Are you ready? (This will be the great issue which is avoided in all
of the history books and all of the apologetic works by every
Fundamentalist and Conservative from Augustine to Reuben Olson.)

   All apostasy begins, after questioning the word of God, with the
elevation or recommendation of more than ONE final authority.

   Now, it is as simple as that. Every apostate began by recommending
TWO authorities that CONFLICTED. In Genesis 3:1-3 the two authorities
are clearly presented and clearly in conflict. This operation has not
ceased once since that day, and it is just as clear in America in 1978
as it was in 3,000 B.C. There is no way that a Christian can go into
apostasy as long as he submits to the Holy Bible as the ONE FINAL
AUTHORITY and refuses to accept any other in its place or on an equal
level with it.

   We shall deal with this at great length in our next article on the
Alexandrian Cult. Suffice it to say here that if PHILOSOPHY (Colossians
2:8) is an equal authority with the Bible, the student will eventually
abandon the Bible. The Bible is a Holy Book: Men are UNHOLY, and even
SAVED men have an UNHOLY OLD NATURE. No man has to "work at it" to
doubt the Bible. Everything in his old nature tends in that direction;
all he needs is "helps." The "helps" come from Christian scholarship
and Christian education, and they form an unbroken chain of infidelity
from the first Christian University at Alexandria (Pantaenus, Clement,
Origen, etc.) to the last monument built in America at the expense of
the foreign mission field.

   ARTICLE THREE

   Now, as we have said, as soon as a man presents a Christian with
conflicting "final authorities," we have a right to question his
"goodness" as well as his motive. Why would any man do such a thing?

   God told Adam "thou shalt surely die"; the Devil said "ye shall NOT
surely die"--two conflicting authorities. Were they both "reliable"?
Would you have been safe if you had "preferred" one over the other
because it was "reliable" ACCORDING TO YOU?

   Now we cannot be too emphatic about this point, because it is much
more important than ANY fundamental of the faith, and far more
important than the salvation of any soul on this earth: God would not
do wrong to SAVE a soul. God is the final authority. The subject matter
of the Bible is a KINGDOM AND A THRONE (see "The Sure Word of
Prophecy") and alongside that monumental, eternal issue, individual
salvation is an afterthought with God. Don't misunderstand me: Thank
God we were saved. Thank God we get in on the blessings of the kingdom.
Thank God we have access to the "THRONE." But from GOD'S STANDPOINT
(and the Bible's standpoint) the issue is AUTHORITY (Gen. 3:1-3). There
isn't one issue or doctrine anywhere in the Bible that doesn't hinge on
what God SAID or what He did NOT say (Jer. 23). To be quite brutal
about it, there isn't one "fundamental of the faith" that is anything
more than pagan superstition if THE BOOK THAT THAT FUNDAMENTAL CAME
FROM IS FULL OF ERRORS.

   All the "fundamentals" of R.D. Wilson, and A.T. Robertson can be
found in the mystery religions of Rome, Greece, India, China, and
Babylon before the birth of Christ (see "The Two Babylons" by Hislop).
A fundamentalist who has a phony Bible or a Bible full of errors is a
bigger fool than Tom Paine or Bob Ingersoll. A Bible teacher who is
paid $100 a week to make infidels out of Christian young men and women
is a deluded idiot: Ingersoll and M.M. O'Hare got more than that in one
night for doing THE SAME JOB.

   Final authority in the Universe is not a "hobby horse" or a
"non-essential" fundamental. Wheneverit takes "second fiddle" to
soul-winning and monument-building, apostasy has STARTED. And this
explains why no one can find one word in the history books (written by
Modernists or Fundamentalists) discussing the subject of the SOURCE AND
ORIGIN of the apostates. Final authority has always been the issue in
every country on this earth: in the home, the school, the church, the
library, the laboratory, the Army, the Navy, the government, and the
newscasts. ALL FUNDAMENTALS ARE SECONDARY TO THE FINAL AUTHORITY, FOR
THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY DERIVED FROM THAT AUTHORITY.

   Now what happens when TWO AUTHORITIES that contradict each other are
recommended? (I did not say "variation in editions." I didn't say "word
changes" in updated spelling. I said "WHAT HAPPENS WHEN TWO AUTHORITIES
THAT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER ARE RECOMMENDED?)

   Now if a Cult member is reading this, he will immediately avail
himself of every aid at hand to continue to put doubt into the mind of
the Bible believer about the AV (1611). For example, as soon as the
above has been stated the Alexandrian Cultist will go to great lengths
to prove that if there are VARIATIONS in the Receptus or in editions of
the AV that they MUST BE CONFLICTING AUTHORITIES. We will discuss this
subtle and Satanic "sleight of hand" (Eph. 4:14) very thoroughly in the
next studies.

   Now observe what happens when two CONFLICTING authorities are
recommended (or even "TOLERATED") by the Body of Christ.

   1. The traditions of the Church "fathers" versus the New Testament.

   2. The Church councils verses the New Testament.

   3. The Popes ex cathedra utterances verses the New Testament.

   But why stop here? This merely explains how apostasy began after the
book of Acts and eventually took the Body of Christ into the Dark Ages.
It all hinged on Genesis 3:1. If God said it, then that was the final
authority; if God didn't say it, then one must look to some other
authority. Simple, isn't it? No apostasy begins with denying the
"verbal inspiration" of something nobody can see, read, hear, or teach.
All apostasy begins with QUESTIONING WHAT GOD SAID BY RAISING UP A
SECOND AUTHORITY EQUAL OR SUPERIOR TO IT.

   Shall we try again:

   1. The textual theories of Westcott and Hort versus the New
Testament.

   2. The textual theories of Astruc and Kuenen verses the Old
Testament.

   3. The Greek Grammarians versus the New Testament.

   Do you see how it is done?

   What began as "EQUALLY RELIABLE" winds up as a SUPERIOR CRITIC.

   No need to stop here.

   1. The Mormons have Joe Smith's book versus the New Testament.

   2. The Jews have the TALMUD verses the Old Testament.

   3. The Charismatics have "personal experience" versus the New
Testament.

   All right, as long as none of this CONFLICTS, it is not "versus"
(against), but that is how it works out. What begins as "DID GOD SAY
IT?" (Gen. 3:1) winds up as "NO HE DIDN'T--LISTEN TO ME" (Gen. 3:1-4).

   Then we should have no trouble at all in guessing the MOTIVE of any
Fundamentalist who recommends or tolerates more than one authority. He
WANTS YOU TO LISTEN TO HIM)at the expense of God.

   Every member of the Alexandrian Cult--from Origen to Bob Jones,
Jr.--reasons in this fashion, and that is why every member of the Cult
will accuse a Bible believer of "following a MAN." They want you to
follow THEM.

   Again, the reason why the modern apostate Fundamentalist will accuse
a Bible believer of idolatry (see Cliff Robinson's correspondence,
appendix I) is that he has put an INSTITUTION ahead of what God SAID.
He, therefore, can interpret BELIEF IN WHAT GOD SAID ONLY AS IDOLATRY.
That is, if the Bible is placed above his institution (from which he
feeds his belly), then OBVIOUSLY the Bible must have become a "god" in
the eyes of the man who placed it there. This is the "sick thinking" of
every apostate fundamental Christian educator in America.

   Dual authorities are recommended to overthrow the final authority.

   Every apostate Fundamentalist (before he became an apostate Liberal)
followed EXACTLY THE SAME PROCEDURE: He elevated SOMETHING or SOMEONE
to a chair of equal authority with the Bible, and when that someone or
something came into conflict with the Bible, HE ABANDONED THE BIBLE ON
THAT POINT. This means every recognized Christian college in America,
while "using" the AV (1611) because they "prefer" it (not "believe
it"!!), must TOLERATE OR PROMOTE some other version that conflicts with
the AV text in 30,000 places. The versions that do this are the ASV of
1901, the New ASV of 1959 and the International Version of 1977. The
MOTIVE for recommending (or tolerating) these is to allow the scholar
or school to be the FINAL AUTHORITY where these apostate corruptions
conflict with the Authorized Text.

   So said; so done.

   Without batting an eye the modern Fundamentalist accepts the first
step to apostasy, justifies it, practices it, and CONDEMNS THOSE WHO
WILL NOT TAKE IT WITH HIM. No Liberal ever became a Liberal if he had
one Bible as his final authority. No Neo-evangelical ever got that way
before he questioned the authority of the Bible that he HAD--not the
originals which he did NOT have.

   In short, no attack by any "bastion of orthodoxy" against any
Liberal or Neo-evangelical is honest, sound, safe, reliable, or
scriptural if it does not show HOW THEY GOT INTO THE MESS THEY GOT
INTO. The reason why the faculty members at Hyles-Anderson, Bob Jones,
Dallas, and Moody never discuss the subject is that they have already
taken the first TWO STEPS IN THAT DIRECTION:

   1. To set up equal authorities that conflict bringing confusion,
indecision, mistrust, and uncertainty about FINAL AUTHORITY.

   2. To lie continually (see the seven lies used by all Cult members
given in our first two articles) about the WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF THE
BIBLE.

   The Bible says "and call no man your father upon the earth." An
equally "reliable" translation which "some PREFER" says "Go on and do
it." The Bible says, "For there is one God and one mediator between God
and men, the man Christ Jesus." Another "godly" authority whose
"unquestioned loyalty to the fundamentals" is "recognized" says: "Go on
and pray `Blessed Mary, Blessed Joseph, Blessed John the Baptist.'"

   The Bible says that New Testament redemption and forgiveness of sins
is only through the blood of Jesus Christ (Col. 1:14, AV). An equally
reliable "authority"-- recommended by many "godly dedicated
scholars"--says that "redemption" is equal with "remission" (see any
blasphemous "bible" such as the ASV or New ASV or International
Version). The Bible says that God was "manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim.
3:16, AV), but you can "prefer" another "reliable" translation that
simply knocks God slap out of the passage.

   Where two authorities conflict, the deciding authority is the THIRD
AUTHORITY. Is that clear? Do you have any problem with it? That truth
is not dependent upon your age, race, sex, education, state, standing,
salvation or damnation, politics, creed, school, church, belief or
unbelief. That is a scientific fact which is proved in court every day,
365 days a year. In a courtroom where TWO CONFLICTING AUTHORITIES have
told "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," the THIRD
AUTHORITY BECOMES THE FINAL AUTHORITY: HE IS CALLED A "JUDGE."

   Therefore, opinions to the contrary by "good, godly, dedicated
soul-winners" are not to be taken seriously where they deal with final
authority.

   If a man recommends more than one final authority to you HE HAS A
MOTIVE FOR DOING IT. And according to church history ("by their fruits
ye shall know them") there is nothing "good" or "godly" about his
MOTIVE.

   ARTICLE FOUR

   As noted previously, "The road to hell is paved with good
intentions." Intentions to give a "more accurate translation" or to
"make the passage clearer" or to clear up "obscure or archaic words"
sound like beautiful INTENTIONS. The road to hell is paved with
beautiful intentions: There isn't one NEGATIVE THING INVOLVED IN EVE'S
FALL (Genesis 3:6). The "tree" is good on three counts and bad on none,
yet it damns the human race (Romans 5).

   What I am saying is that no good, godly, "dedicated" man who
believed in the "verbal plenary inspiration of the originals" is to be
followed where the OLD NATURE in that man is purposely leading others
to SIN by LYING about authority. No one should follow Simon Peter's
example in Galatians Two, although Peter was more "godly" than any
Greek professor a student ever sat under. Neither should anyone follow
Paul's example in Acts Twenty-one--he lost two years of his ministry
(Acts 24:27)--although he had a hold of more "verbally, plenarily
inspired originals" than any professor ever saw in a lifetime. No one
is to follow the advice of a saved man (1 Kings 13) simply because he
SAYS that God said something when He didn't say it.

   1. The issue is not godliness or reputation.

   2. The issue is not service or fruitfulness in the ministry.

   3. The issue is not the character of the witness.

   4. The issue is not the reputation of the school or faculty.

   5. The issue has never been and never will be the "fundamentals."

   6. The issue has nothing to do with what anyone THINKS.

   7. The issue has nothing to do with grammar, education, or talent.

   The issue is FINAL AUTHORITY.

   Where TWO FINAL AUTHORITIES are recommended (see any correspondence
on the matter of final authority by any leading Fundamentalist in this
century) the motive for recommending them is that the "recommender" be
accepted as superior to EITHER. The motive is carnal and fleshy; it
comes from the old nature in the believer; and it is not to be admired,
respected, tolerated, or imitated.

   When the Alexandrian Cult began the practice of establishing dual
authorities for the New Testament, they began to develop the
"curriculum" or "implications" which survive to this day in the
classrooms of Midwestern, Hyles- Anderson, Fort Worth, Pensacola
Christian College, Liberty, and Springfield. This "curriculum" consists
of a series of facts or PARTIAL facts listed APART from their
background and future history, and spoken (or written) in as to produce
the maximum amount of INFIDELITY in the reader (or student) in regard
to absolute authority. I will list the most common of these used by the
faculty members of "Fundamental" or "Orthodox" or "evangelical" schools
(the cult controls all three sufficiently well) to get the student to
reject THE AUTHORITY OF THE WORD OF GOD:

   1. "King James was egotistical; therefore..."

   2. "Erasmus was a Catholic; therefore..."

   3. The AV does not match all of its editions word for word;
therefore..."

   4. "Some words in the AV are archaic; therefore..."

   5. "The TEXTUS RECEPTUS was printed after the AV; therefore..."

   6. "The AV translators didn't claim inspiration; therefore..."

   7. "We have found OLDER MANUSCRIPTS; therefore..."

   8. "Westcott and Hort were `conservatives'; therefore..."

   9. "The Russian and Chinese had no AV until 1800; therefore..."

   10. "The RSV and NEB were translated by Liberals; therefore..."

   11. "Godly men recommend the ASV and the New ASV; therefore..."

   12. "Over 36,000 changes in text didn't altar the `fundamentals';
therefore..."

   13. "If a Bible contains the `fundamentals,' it is reliable;
therefore..."

   Observe in all this that the "facts" are presented to produce
implications. First of all, dual authorities were recommended to water
down and weaken absolute authority, and then a curriculum was erected
to get students not only to take that authority lightly but eventually
to ABANDON it.

   This is how apostasy begins. This is the motive behind Bible
rejection, and it doesn't vary once in the history of apostasy. All
apostates begin with TWO AUTHORITIES, and wind up with no authority but
tradition and their own opinion. Every UNSAVED LIBERAL AND LOST
MODERNIST in the National Council of Churches began his defection by
taking some man's word OVER THE AUTHORITY OF A BOOK WHICH HE HAD IN HIS
HAND AND WHICH HE COULD READ. There isn't one unsaved liberal in the
eighteeneth century (English Deism and German Rationalism) who ever was
concerned or upset with any theory about how ANY Bible was written.
When he rejected the "fundamentals," he rejected them as they were
found IN THE BIBLE THAT HE READ.

   Is THAT clear?

   How is it then that Gaussen, Smith, Rice, Wuest, Zodhiates, and the
"World Congress of Fundamentalism" kidded suckers into thinking the
issue was the "ORIGINALS"? The "originals" don't figure as the main
issue one time in the history of the church from 325 A.D. to 1900.

   Someone is giving a "graffted act." Now who could it be? (Genesis
3:1)

   Origen and Clement accepted PHILOSOPHY as the competing authority
with the Bible they READ. Iraeneus and Eusebius accepted TRADITION as
the competing authority with the Bible they READ. Augustine and Jerome
accepted TRADITION and the Church Fathers as the competing authority
with the Bible they READ. The Popes and Colleges of Cardinals accepted
TRADITION and SUPERSTITION as the competing authority with the Bible
they READ. Aquinas, Abelard, Anselm, and Peter Lombard accepted
PHILOSOPHY and TRADITION as competing with the Bible they READ. No man
in the list worried two minutes about any unattainable "originals." No
heretic or apostate from 200 A.D. on, ever had to deny or affirm
"verbal inspiration of the original" to be a heretic or an apostate.
NEITHER HERESY NOR APOSTASY BEGIN THAT WAY. They begin by denying what
God said (Genesis 3:1) and by accepting an equal authority as
"reliable" because they "prefer" it (Genesis 3:3-4).

   Westcott and Hort accepted TRADITION and IMAGINATION as competing
authorities with the Bible they READ. Schaff and A.T. Robertson
accepted EDUCATION and GRAMMAR as competing authorities with the Bible
they READ. Joe Smith accepted Moroni's "golden plates"; Mary Baker
Eddy, the "Key"; and Nestle and Metzger, DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM and
HALLUCINATIONS as equal authority with the Bible they READ. And on it
goes into the night.

   Where a man recommends TWO AUTHORITIES, the purpose he has in mind
is to eliminate one or both of them. (See Machiavelli's "The Prince".)
"Divide and conquer." If the two disagree (compare Acts 8 and 9 in any
new "bible" with the same chapters in the AV), the SCHOLAR or the
SCHOOL or the CHURCH (Rome has always acted as a final authority for
her followers) must decide which is right or tell the follower to "MAKE
UP HIS OWN MIND," in which case the follower is indebted to the school
or scholar for "liberating" him FROM THE WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD
ALMIGHTY AND FOR SETTING UP THE INDIVIDUAL AS HIS OWN GOD. Eve all over
again (Genesis 3).

   Article number five will discuss the thirteen misleading "facts"
listed above and show the student the MOTIVE behind their construction
and the result of taking them at face value without investigation
(Proverbs 14:15).

   On the last excursion into "cloud land" (to cite Dean Burgon) it was
discovered that all members of the Alexandrian Cult resort to little
statements of "fact" that are designed to lead to a falsehood--by
IMPLICATION. The thirteen that have been prevalent since the
publication of the AV may vary from the set used by the Popes in 1,000
or by Augustine in 450 or by Eusebius in 330 or by ORIGEN in 230, but
the modus operandi is the same: Two authorities are given "first place"
(quite a trick if you can do it), and then where they contradict (which
they will sooner or later), the third intervening authority plays "god"
(Genesis 3:1-4) and decides which is right, thus proving that the THIRD
party is the final authority.

   ERA, Gay Liberation, the NAACP, and the Communist Party are all
built on this simple principle. There are TWO AUTHORITIES (ERA: men and
women; Gay Liberation: "heteros" and "homos"; NAACP: black and white;
the Communist Party: the Comintern and "THE PEOPLE") which will sooner
or later conflict. At Bob Jones and Hyles-Anderson it is more subtle:
The AV is "reliable"--so also is the New ASV. Or the AV is reliable, as
is the ASV. What happens when they conflict (as they do in Luke 2:33,
Acts 1:3, Luke 24:50,51, II Timothy 3:16, Acts 9:5,6; 8:37, John 9:35,
etc., etc.)? Simple: THE SCHOOL PLAYS GOD AND TELLS THE STUDENT WHICH
TO GOBY OR "GO BY BOTH," when they don't match.

   The first of the thirteen "boo-boos" runs like this: "King James was
egotistical; therefore..." From this one is to presume that God could
not have protected the translating committee from James' domination.
The "proof" produced for this remarkable conjecture is that BAPTISM
should have been IMMERSION and CHURCH should have been ASSEMBLY. The
white- washed cult members who project this nonsense on the student
keep right on calling themselves "BAPTISTS," and they have the word
stuck in over the CHURCH bulletin and the front of their schools!
Strange interlude! Many of them also fail to tell the student that the
apostates who translated the New ASV failed to translate HADES. They
transliterated it. What "Egotistical Monarch" had the pressure on them
in 1959?

   The second fun story is: "Erasmus was a Catholic; therefore..." From
this piece of partial information the student is to PRESUME that the
TEXTUS RECEPTUS of the King James committee was a PRO-ROMAN CATHOLIC
TEXT. Nothing could be more deceptive and misleading. Erasmus' text is
THE text that no Catholic will recommend to anyone. The only other
translations recommended by Catholics today besides their own (Douay,
Challoner, Jerusalem, American, etc.) are the ones that come from the
Westcott and Hort text used by Aland and Metzger. The statement that
"Erasmus wanted to dedicate his Greek New Testament to a pope" has no
bearing whatsoever on ONE WORD IN THAT TEXT. That Greek text has been
anathematized by every pope since its publication, and the Vatican text
has been substituted for it and adopted by Robertson, Warfield, Schaff,
Machen, and Wuest.

   The third funny bunny runs like this: "Editions of the AV vary in
spelling and punctuation and in one or two words; therefore..." It is
to be presumed from this that if there is ANY variation between
editions, they CONTRADICT, and, therefore both cannot be INFALLIBLE.
The sick thinking behind this is that if ANY WORDS differ, they must
CONTRADICT. This is the liberal theory of 1850 used to prove that the
inscriptions on the cross contradict or that God could not write two
infallible records if they disagreed in SPELLING. The silly billies who
project this kind of nonsense never tell the student the glaring and
horrible fact that Moses and Pharaoh did not converse in Hebrew, yet
the "VERBALLY INSPIRED ORIGINAL" (cult cliche) reports their words only
in Hebrew idiom. [Surely something must have been "lost in the
translation." Failure to inform the student that TWO INSPIRED ACCOUNTS
CAN DIFFER (Jeremiah 36:32) is never mentioned in cult circles.
Cultists are not BIBLICAL SCHOLARS.]

   The fourth alibi for sin runs as follows: "The AV has archaic words
that need to be updated; therefore..." From this, one is to presume
that the MOTIVE for altering the text in 31,000 places (ASV, New ASV,
or International) was to help poor dumb folks to understand the Bible.
Skulldrudgery is afoot. All translations since 1611 have used this
alibi. None profess to update each other. All the "archaic words" could
be listed in the margin and given the modern equivalents, and the
entire list would not come to even one hundred words. Someone is lying
about MOTIVE.

   The fifth Alexandrian Cult line states: "The TEXTUS RECEPTUS was
printed after the AV; therefore the AV could not have come from the
TEXTUS RECEPTUS." This Disneyland logic is put out daily in two dozen
Christian colleges and Bible seminaries. The Mickey Mouse logic behind
it is that if Elzevir CALLED the received text (received by the church
from God and preserved in the Antiochan Syrian Church, Acts 11, 13, 16)
by a Latin name in 1633 that there could not have been any real
"received text" BEFORE THAT TIME. Suckers are supposed to buy this just
like they buy the beer that has "gusto." By such inane bungling one
would presume that no Alexandrian text existed until Griesbach (1800)
because no one referred to the Roman Catholic Vatican Greek text BY
THAT NAME until THAT TIME.

   From the sixth partial truth that goes, "The AV translators did not
claim inspiration; therefore..." one is to assume that God could not
inspire scripture after the original manuscripts were written although
the proof text for this premise (II Timothy 3:16) is NOT A REFERENCE TO
ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. Paul was referring to a Bible that Timothy READ
(II Timothy 3:15). If the AV translators did not claim inspiration what
would this mean? The verse used to prove that the ORIGINALS were
inspired is NOT QUOTED FROM THE ORIGINALS. It is quoted from Greek
texts (never "THE" Greek text) or from an English translation. Try that
one in court and see if the "third authority" (the judge) will buy it.

   The seventh shaft comes in like this: "We have found older
manuscripts; therefore..." The sucker is to presume from this bare
statement that manuscripts have to be closer to the original in CONTENT
and QUALITY merely because they are closer in TIME. The manuscripts
referred to are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and payrus fragments (usually
P66, P46, P75, etc.) although many cult members will refuse to LIST THE
MANUSCRIPTS in the fear that the student will check them out to see if
they are lying: They are. The CONTENT and QUALITY of the "oldest
manuscripts" are a shameful disgrace to the science of textual
criticism and a mockery of Biblical orthodoxy. (See "The Christian's
Handbook of Manuscript Evidence" and Burgon's Last Twelve Verses of
Mark Sixteen.) No more grossly corrupt and heterodox manuscripts are
known in the history of Biblical literature.

   The eighth dodge is: "Westcott and Hort were conservatives;
therefore..." One is to deduct from this that THE TEXT WHICH THEY
PUBLISHED had to be a CONSERVATIVE TEXT. It was the most radically
heretical text published since the writing of Vaticanus and Sinaticus
(330 A.D.). The two grossly corrupt uncials on which the New ASV is
based differ between themselves 3,000 times in the Gospels alone; and B
differs with the Receptus 7,587 times; and Aleph, 8,972 times. There
are more variations between the two "oldest" manuscripts than there are
between THE COMPLETE PRINTED GREEK TEXTS OF STEPHANUS, ERASMUS, AND
ELZEVIR. (See Hill's "Believing Bible Study.")

   Number nine: "The Russians and the Chinese had no AV until 1800;
therefore..." The nasty implication of this Satanic alibi is that since
they didn't, the AV couldn't be the infallible authority, otherwise the
Russians and the Chinese wouldn't have been without one. Notice how
Ingersoll, Paine, Voltaire, and Celsus all used the SAME ARGUMENT in
regard to the "heathen's" not having ANY Bible. More serious thinkers
will observe that the "originals" could not have been infallible or
inspired either, BECAUSE THE RUSSIANS AND THE CHINESE DIDN'T HAVE THEM
EITHER. It is amazing how a little common sense will dissect a
professional liar when he attacks the authority of the Bible.

   The next article will take up the last four "appetizers" put forth
by the Alexandrian Cult to talk the believer out of his faith in the
King James Bible. All of these cute little "facts" bear the same stamp:
They are designed to DESTROY faith in the written authority of God
ALMIGHTY. Every one is a half- or quarter-truth (or in some cases only
an eighth of the truth), and every one is given out of context where
the student cannot CHECK the background of the statement or the facts
that are relative to it.