The Alexandrian Cult Mentality

The following correspondence between myself (Gary N Alford) and Mark A. Ellis (a typical Alexandrian Cult member) who, in the fall of 1993, was the pastor of _____ Baptist Church in Wylie, Texas will display the Bible believer’s solid foundation for believing that the Authorized King James Version is the inerrant, infallible word of God and the final authority for all matters of faith and practice. And the following will also display the typical insanity and the utter stupidity of the brainwashed fool who is spoiled “through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men” (Colossians 2:8), “making the word of God of none effect” (Mark 7:13)


September 24, 1993

Brother Mark,

When I began our conversation on the Bible, I started with the statement in your statement of faith under the heading of THE SCRIPTURES. I have two questions concerning that statement. 1) Is the Bible the scriptures? (In other words, if the scriptures are only the originals, and not the Bible we presently have, why is the Bible under that heading?) 2) Since you believe that only the originals were without error, shouldn’t your written statement say, “ the Bible was without error ” instead of “ is without error ”? You did say that all translations have errors. (In other words, why use the present tense in your printed statement and then, use the past tense in your oral statement? The tenses should match.)

When I gave Proverbs 22:20-21 as God’s reason for writing the scriptures, you said that was good. But when I explained that if that is the reason for God writing the scriptures, then, He would have preserved the inerrancy of the scriptures so that we can still be certain of the words of truth, you said that I was making a humanistic assumption.

When I last spoke to you (on the telephone), you said that the reason you believe the originals were inerrant is because the scriptures were God-breathed and God would not breath out error. I think I explained that the scriptures of 2 Timothy 3:15-16 are not the originals. I think you agreed. Besides that, 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn’t say anything about inerrancy at all. By using that verse for inerrancy, you are making a bigger assumption than I am.

In fact, when I read Proverbs 22:20-21, Psalms 119:41-43, and Psalm 12:6-7, the only thing I’m assuming is that the words of the King James Bible are the words of truth and that those words mean exactly what they say. And if Proverbs 22:20-21 doesn’t mean what it says (We can know the certainty of the words of truth by what God has written), then, what does it mean? I asked you that in person and you never answered the question. To make it absolutely clear, Paul said, “ Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? ” (I Corinthians 5:6) Then, in verse 8, he said, Let us keep the feast with the UNLEAVENED BREAD OF TRUTH.

When I mentioned the substitution of the word ‘imitators’ for the word ‘followers’ in I Corinthians 4:16 and 11:1, you said that I just have a problem with the word ‘imitate’. You’re right; I do. Do you have any idea why I have a problem with it? Don’t you know that a Christian can be an imitator of Christ without being a follower of Christ? Don’t you know that there are just enough similarities between the devil & Jesus Christ to show that he is an imitator of Christ but not a follower of Christ? While the word ‘imitate’ could possibly mean follow, it is clear that it could also mean mimic, mock, and counterfeit. The word ‘followers’ is obviously more clear and easier to understand (which is the claimed reason for the RSV, ASV, NIV, NASV, etc.). Now, with this in mind, why do the modern revision committees (having the Authorized Version on their tables) have a problem with the word ‘followers’? Who but the devil would have inspired them to change the word to get verses that teach the Christian to follow the devil, by imitating Christ, without teaching the Christian to follow Christ? The two verses we are dealing with in this paragraph are obviously better readings and more clear in the A.V. than in the NASV, NKJV, etc. There are more on page 2.

NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

3. Elhanan killed Goliath
(2 Samuel 21:19)

KING JAMES BIBLE

Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath

4. Mark 1:2 is “written in Isaiah the prophet" (NSAV)

Mark 1:2 is “written in the prophets” (KJV) (See Malachi 3:1)

5. There is no condemnation for Christians (Including those who walk not after the Spirit, but after the flesh)(NASV)

There is no condemnation to Christians who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (KJV)


6. A Christian does not need to study the word of truth to be approved unto God, neither should he make proper divisions in the word of truth (NASV)

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God... rightly dividing the word of truth” (KJV)

7. Once you are in Christ, you could be cut apart from Christ (you can lose your salvtion) (NASV)

“Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever
of you are justified by the law” (you were not saved in the first place)(KJV)

8. The proofs of Christ’s resurrection were convincing, but not infallible (a problem with the word 'infallible'?) (NASV)

The proofs of Christ’s resurrection are “infallible proofs”.
(KJV)

9. It is a sin to be angry (Matthew 5:22), so, Jesus is a sinner (John 2:13-16)(NASV)

It is a sin to be angry “without a cause”, so, Jesus is not a sinner (John 2:13-16)(KJV)

10. Let’s take the Lord out of his own book. (NASV)

Let’s leave the Lord in His Book (KJV)(1 Corinthians 15:47)




Should I John 5:7 be in the Bible? “Yea, hath God said?”

The Trinitarian Bible Society of London attributes the blotting out of the verse to Adamantius Origen. The Society points out that Origen had a tremendous influence over the “transmission of the Greek text” in the period in which most ancient copies were written. Origen revised the Greek texts in Egypt and Palestine.

If the verse was invented and inserted, why wasn’t the Matthew 28:19 formula used? It would have been easier to get the verse to pass as genuine if it said, “ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ”.

With 1 John 5:7 omitted, you have in the text “witnesses” that are masculine with three neuter nouns, and these three masculine witnesses agree as one neuter witness. THE GENDERS DON’T MATCH.

However, with the verse retained, you have two masculine objects to get the masculine witnesses. Furthermore, we know that the Holy Spirit is a male person (John 14:16-17; 16:13-15), so, even as a neuter gender, He would be included in the Trinity, for He is a member of the Trinity. According to the “power of attraction” in Greek syntax, the masculines in the group control the gender over a neuter connected with it.

John Gill says that Fulgentius cites the verse in 510 A.D. Jerome cited the verse in his epistle to Eustochium (450 A.D.) and wanted to know why it was excluded from some texts. Athanasius quotes it in 350 A.D. Cyprian quoted it in 250 A.D. Tertullian quotes it around 200 A.D. The A.V. translators had Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza witnessing to the verse and they also had four Waldensian Bibles, which contained the verse. Other witnesses are Manuscript 61 (1500A.D.), Miniscule 88 (1150 A.D.), Wianburgensis (750 A.D.), Old Latin (200 A.D.), Tatian (180 A.D.), and Old Syriac (170 A.D.). In conclusion, by considering the witnesses for and against the verse, you must believe that the verse is genuine or not by faith. The only other evidence that I’m aware of is the statements made in the three paragraphs previous to this one.

Please, respond by answering the seven questions on page one of this letter, answering the verse comparison above, and also, please, send me a list of the other mistakes in the King James Bible.

Gary N Alford




[Note: As I now follow with Mr. Ellis’ response letter, I feel it to be appropriate to add some comments here and there. These notes will be put in brackets. As you read the following, keep in mind that I asked him to answer seven questions, most of which he did not.
1. If the scriptures are only the originals, and not the Bible we presently have, why is the Bible under that heading?
2. Why use the present tense in your printed statement, and, then, use the past tense in your oral statement? The tenses should match.
3. If Proverbs 22:20-21 doesn’t mean what it says (we can know the certainty of the words of truth by what God has written), then, what does it mean?
4. Don’t you know that a Christian can be an imitator of Christ without being a follower of Christ?
5. Don’t you know that there are just enough similarities between the devil and Jesus Christ to show that he is an imitator of Christ but not a follower of Christ?
6. Why do the modern revision committees (having the Authorized Version on their tables) have a problem with the word ‘followers’?
7. Who but the devil would have inspired them to change the word to get verses that teach the Christian to follow the devil, by imitating Christ, without teaching the Christian to follow Christ?]

September 30, 1993

Dear Gary,

Thanks for your letter. It is obvious that you took some time in writing it, and I appreciate the effort you went through. Your letter contains lots of accusing, inflammatory rhetoric, which neither poses nor answers questions. They merely add gas to the fire. However, what you sow you reap, and I’ve answered your questions with the same harshness. My purpose is to try to cut through the fog of false spirituality which envelopes your arguments. This is not my normal way of writing.

[Notice that what he calls “rhetoric”, “gas”, and “false spirituality” is a request for honesty (1st paragraph of my letter), a solid faith in what the Bible says (paragraphs 2,3, & 4), a recognition of Satanic inspiration (paragraph 5), a recognition of obvious errors in the NASV (page 2), and clear evidence for 1 John 5:7.]

1. The Bible is the Word of God; the Word of God never passes away. Therefore, even if I do not have the autographs, and even if both texts and translations (including the KJV) have been corrupted, God still knows His Word.

[I guess that is supposed to answer questions 1 and 2. My question (1 & 2) was: Why aren’t you honest enough to put in writing what you really believe? His answer: I am not going to admit that I lie (in my printed statement of faith). Instead I will just say some stupid nonsense in an effort to make you realize that you have no business arguing with someone with my education.]

2. In our conversation you did not state that 2 Timothy 3 was not in the originals, and I would not have agreed with that statement and know of no textual evidence to agree with it. But it does directly attest to the perfect authorship of the autographs.

[He misread my letter. I did not say that 2 Timothy 3 was not in the originals. When Paul spoke of the scriptures in 2 Timothy 3, he was speaking of a copy of the scriptures, not the originals. In other words, Paul did not consider the scriptures of his day (and Timothy) to be any less “given by inspiration of God” than the originals. He said, “It (2 Timothy 3:16) does directly attest to the perfect authorship of the autographs.” without explaining how. What the verse says is, “ All scripture is given by inspiration of God”. Not one time in the Bible does the word ‘scripture’ mean ‘only the originals’. If 2 Timothy 3:16 directly attests to the perfect author-ship of the autographs, then it just as much directly attests to the perfect authorship of the scripture that I hold in my hand.]

3. The challenge you pose with Proverbs 22 is your problem, neither mine nor the Scriptures. Quite simply the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek; if you insist that I choose whether or not the KJV is what Solomon had in mind when he penned Proverbs 22, then the answer is that the KJV is not what Solomon has in mind. I could just as easily argue that he had the NASB in mind. Neither English nor the KJV existed. If you are going to coerce a defense of the KJV out of these verses, and if you are going to argue that the KJV is not merely a translation of the Word of God but is indeed the only manifestation of the Word of God, then we must throw away the KJV as a cheap imitation. Neither Isaiah nor Paul used the KJV. It is a recent arrival in the history of God’s people. Or we must come to some sort of understanding that the KJV is a recreation of the Word of God in English? What do we translate into other languages? The best Greek manuscripts dating back to the third and fourth centuries, or a 17th century translation (KJV) of a 16th century product of text criticism (TR)? Which edition of the KJV do we use? The words were changed as it went through various editions in 1629, 1638, 1653, 1762, 1769 and 1833. Did the Word of God change? Or did men’s translations of the manuscripts change?

[Notice that he still could not answer my 3rd question: What does Proverbs 22:20-21 mean?]

4. Your argument re: imitation is again couched not in lexical considerations, but in your hang-ups concerning the 20th century definition and usage of imitation. The Greek word in 1 Cor. 4:16 is transliterated mimetai, from the root word mimeomai. Liddell and Scott give the following translations for this word: to imitate, re-present, or portray. It was especially used in “mimicking” another’s actions. Scholars do not redefine Greek words based upon what the concept communicates to them, or based upon “cheap imitations”. The one who “inspired” this change in words wasn’t the devil (A highly illogical, inflammatory statement) nor do I imagine it was the Holy Spirit, since I don’t believe the Holy Spirit “inspired” translations in the sense that He chose word for word which words Eng-lash translators were to use. The choice of the word was based upon a human understanding of what the word meant to Paul as he wrote in Greek, and an accurate translation of that meaning in English.

Regarding your last sentence, “The two verses we are dealing with in this paragraph are obviously better readings and more clear in the AV than in the NASV”, this opens a real can of worms for you. The greatest argument against the use of the KJV is that it is archaic English, incomprehensible at many points to the modern reader. In Acts 27, the KJV has Paul running under an island. This is truly a remarkable feat, unless we offer a translation, which is more accurate in that it better suits the language of our day. Imagine the joy short people feel when they read the KJV rendition of the Lord’s promise, “Lo, I am with you always”. “Lo” is only used by archaics. It was not used by Paul, and it is not used by Americans. The KJV is in many places an unclear and confusing translation. It is also inconsistent. Examine the exchange of nouns used to translate pneuma in Acts. Some places it is the Holy Spirit, and some places it is the Holy Ghost. Based upon this inconsistent translation by the KJV, I have had people tell me that based upon the inspired differentiation in this translation, there is a difference between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost. Heresy! And if we want to use your argument concerning “imitation”, (The devil would love that translation) surely you know that there are no “ghosts”, only demons impersonating as departed people. Who else but the devil could have inspired the translators of the KJV to use a word that would one day have reference only to demons! I jest.

[He said I have a hang-up “concerning the 20th century definition and usage of imitation” and then said, “The greatest argument against the use of the KJV is that it is archaic English”. Now, if I shouldn’t be concerned about 20th century definition and usage, then what’s all the hot air about the King James Version being archaic? (The man is self-contradictory.) Then, he tried to explain why the word ‘imitate’ was used after I had made it absolutely clear that ‘follow’ was a better choice for charity. Since he doesn’t “believe the Holy Spirit “inspired” translations”, then, he could not believe that all of the originals were inspired because every time a new testament writer quoted the old testament he had to translate from Hebrew to Greek!

He also said that “The KJV is in many places an unclear and con-fusing translation.” without giving me the list of verses. Also, notice again that he refuses to answer the rest of my questions: 4-7.]

5. Examples 3, 4, and 5 display that you are arguing the very point you are trying to prove. The question is not whether the KJV is different from the NASB. I know that already. The question is not whether we can use the KJV to measure the NASB. The question is which translation reflects the oldest and best readings. And I don’t trust the KJV as a guide. Regarding 2 Samuel, it is very clear since we do not have a single Hebrew manuscript, which contains the KJV reading, the translators of the KJV must have changed the Word of God to avoid possible confusion regarding who killed Goliath.

[Regarding 2 Samuel 21:19, it is very clear since David killed Goliath, the A V reading is true and the NASV reading is false! Therefore, we conclude that the A V has the correct reading and the NASV reading is an obvious error! ]

Regarding Mark 1:2, 35 early Greek manuscripts and early Christian writers support the reading translated in the NASB, 29 support that of the KJV. Both readings have good evidence. So who’s right? Do I just go along with a seventeenth century decision on that question because some people like it?

[Regarding Mark 1:2, the A V reading is supported by the fact that Mark 1:2 is not a quote from Isaiah. It is from Malachi 3:1, which is “written in the prophets” but not “written in Isaiah the prophet”. So, again, the A V reading is true and the NASV reading is false! Another obvious error in the NASV! ]

Regarding Romans 8:1, the evidence is far more clear. The KJV here reflects a late corruption of the text by men who were troubled at the wonderful doctrine of security Paul asserted in the original. It reflects a conflation from 8:4. All the earlier manuscripts have had their contents corrupted by this phrase being inserted much later. I personally rejoice that the truths of grace have been restored to Romans 8:1 in the NASB, truths hidden in the corrupted text reflected in the KJV.

[Romans 8:1 is not a verse on “the wonderful doctrine of security”. The condemnation of a Christian who walks after the flesh is explained in Hebrews 12:5-11among other places. The NASV reading in Romans 8:1 states that any Christian will have no “chastening of the Lord” including those who walk after the flesh. For the third time, now, the A V reading is true and the NASV reading is false! And as I forewarned, Mr. Ellis has displayed utter stupidity by not recognizing these errors.]

I don’t understand your point in verse six. [2 Timothy 2:15] Your statement in verse seven [Galatians 5:4] reflects a fundamental lack of understanding the argument of Galatians. I have no problem with the word “infallible” [Acts 1:3], but the Word of God does. The original Greek was reflected by the original meaning of infallible to the men translating in 1611, but their understanding of the word means exactly what we mean when we state that the arguments are convincing. If the proofs of the resurrection were infallible in the sense you mean, they would “infallibly” lead men to salvation every time they are used. That would be a lie.

[His statement regarding Galatians 5:4 reflects a fundamental lack of an ability to read plain English. In the A.V., Galatians 5:4 says that Christ has no effect on people who try to justify themselves by the law. In the NASV, the verse says that a person can be cut apart from Christ. So, now, for the fourth time, the A V reading is true and the NASV reading is false! The readings of 2 Samuel 21:19; Mark 1:2; Romans 8:1; and Galatians 5:4 in the NASV are four obvious errors!
“Many infallible proofs” includes “above five hundred” witnesses (I Corinthians 15:1-8) and at least eleven saw him forty days eating and drinking with them and teaching them (Luke 24:13-48).

Mr. Ellis' statement is obvious nonsense. When the Bible says that the proofs of the resurrection are infallible, it means those proofs are perfect and without error. The King James Bible is also perfect and without error. But that doesn't mean it is believed every time it is preached. If what he said was true, then, nobody would ever leave a church lost and everyone in the service would be at the altar during the invitation, either getting saved, confessing sins, or praising God.

Also, if what he said were true, it would be just as true when the word `convincing' is used. However, people are convinced of things that are not true.
Under the law, a man could be put to death " at the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses" (Deuteronomy 17:6). In the case of the Lord's resurrection, we have, after nearly 2000 years, a written account that there were more than 500 witnesses who saw him and handled him (I John 1:1-3). The proofs of it are infallible, although some people are convinced otherwise.]

Regarding Matthew 5, I grant that the Greek word eike (without a cause) is an early reading, but there are numerous first century texts and commentaries, which do not have it. Your extrapolation based upon this verse, that it would make Jesus’ behavior sinful, is probably the best explanation of where it came from. People added to the Word of God to avoid a conflict in the behavior of Jesus. A simpler answer is to notice that the phrase for “being angry” is a nominative use of the present particle, ho orgizomenos. The present tense of the verb indicates denotes continuing action; that what Jesus was condemning was a predisposition of anger without possibility of forgiveness. It was arguments like your own, lacking understanding of Greek grammar, which caused men to add eike to the Word of God, an addition which has made its way into the KJV, showing yet another human corruption of the text.

[Again, Mr. Ellis is ignoring the simple facts of plain and clear English. When it comes to which English reading is true and which one is false, manuscript evidence is meaningless. The NASV makes anger a sin in Matthew 5:22. If anger is a sin, Jesus sinned in John 2:13-16. If Jesus was a sinner, then all of this is pointless and our faith is in vain anyway. Jesus did no sin. Matthew 5:22 in the NASV is another lie. Now, the count is five obvious errors in the NASV!]

Again, question ten misses the point. I’m not taking the Lord out of God’s word, merely out of the KJV (in this verse). I want to know if someone else added these words to the Word of God, placing themselves under a curse. Is it all right to add the Lord to any verse you please just because you want to put the Lord in more places in his own book? Athanasius, who lived from the late 200’s to the early 300’s, who was the strongest defender of the trinity and the Lordship of Christ of his generation, quotes the phrase as it appears in the NASB, not in the KJV. And I assure you he would never take the Lord out of his book. “Let’s take the Lord out of his own book” proves nothing. It doesn’t deal with the textual evidence. It is merely inflammatory rhetoric.

The speculations of the Trinitarian Bible Society of London are just that--speculations. There is not one shred of truth to what they are saying. I would speculate this is merely people grasping at any possible argument to support a translation whose textual base is defective.

Regarding 1 John 5:7, read the article you sent me again. Hills admits concerning the three Greek manuscripts which contain this reading that one was manufactured for Erasmus, and in the other two the Latin text is written into the margins of earlier Greek texts which did not have these words in the original. Did you read what I gave you? Hills admits that this verse was only found in the Latin versions, and has to appeal to the flimsy argument that “It was this usage which made men feel that this reading ought to be included in the Greek text”. Not God, men. Not the original Greek, but a translation. The evidence is not that the reading was “dropped out of the Greek New Testament but was preserved in the Latin”, but that it was a corruption which originated in the Latin and was forced upon the Greek New Testament by Catholics who were uptight that their translation (the Vulgate) had clear corruptions. It is depressing to see people appeal to the providence of God in preserving something, which has no other evidence to support its authenticity.

[I had sent with my letter some information about 1 John 5:7 from “Believing Bible Study” by Edward Hills. I don’t remember or still have a copy of what he gave me. You could guess (judging by his letter) that it was probably worthless. Whatever he gave me and I gave him to read about it, he still failed to comment on four paragraphs of evidence for the verse on page 2 of my letter. Two of those paragraphs have to do with Greek grammar. He said, “It is depressing to see people appeal to the providence of God in pre-serving something which has no other evidence to support its authenticity.” He said, “no other evidence” besides the providence of God after I listed 18 witnesses.]

I find the modern arguments for the accuracy of the KJV are identical to those the Catholics were using against the TR and the KJV in the 1500’s to support their favorite translation, the Vulgate. They and you are loyal to texts and translations, which have been shown to be faulty. But rather than admitting the obvious, those who disagree are bombarded with pious sounding arguments which in the end mean nothing. Most are circular. “Your translation must be wrong because it doesn’t agree with my translation.” So what? That’s the very point being debated.

[I have never said, “Your translation must be wrong because it doesn’t agree with my translation.” I said the NASV (et al) is wrong because it contains plain and clear errors.]

----> You have not dealt with the simple issue that we do not have one manuscript, which is in complete agreement with another; all differ. You have not told me which manuscript is the one, which maintains the exact duplication of the autographic text. The Textus Receptus and the resulting KJV are the products of conflation of fifteen different manuscripts, none of which were in agreement. Did the Word of God disappear until Erasmus put it back together again? Why should I hold your translation above any other?

----> I also get back to my point with you two weeks ago. My time is being consumed with witnessing and discipleship, all using the NASB and all evidencing the blessing of God. Your statement that if you were right would not this be an important issue is true if you are right. But nothing you have written supports the assertion that the KJV is the inspired translation of the Word of God, though I grant it is a usable and beneficial translation for people living in the 1600’s. I assume your letter is a garning of your best arguments, and if so please don’t waste my time on this subject again. If you are interested in growing in your Christian life and want to talk about relevant issues like impacting our increasingly pagan society with the gospel of Jesus Christ, I would love to work together with you for the sake of our Lord. But if the KJV is your central issue, you need to find someone who cares about what you care about. I have more important things to do.

Again, please forgive the forthrightness of my style in this letter. It is not my normal tone. Neither should you assume that I think of you anything other than fondness. I would look forward to seeing you again.

Your Brother in Christ,
Mark A. Ellis
2 Corinthians 7:2-4; 11:1-3;
2 Timothy 2:23; Titus 3:9