Extremely Educated

Extremely Educated?



It is claimed that our critic is “extremely educated in the topic and has researched plenty”.

Does 'extremely educated' mean that he has read the 5 major works of Dean John William Burgon? I don’t know if I could dare say that anyone is “extremely educated in this topic” who has not read Burgon’s “Last Twelve Verses of Mark” (1871), “Revision Revised” (1883), “The Traditional Text” (1896), and “Causes of Corruption” (1896). John Burgon proved beyond any doubt the worthlessness of Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament and the Revised Version of 1881-1884, that they were detrimental to the body of Christ, and that they should never have been published. He proved beyond doubt the authenticity of the last twelve verses of Mark. And he proved that the traditional text was the text revered and passed down by the body of Christ as the word of God.

Surely an extremely educated Bible critic would have read Edward Miller’s “Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament” (1886). Edward Miller recommended that those who may be disposed to enter more deeply into the important subject of it to prosecute further research in the learned works of Dean Burgon, and in other well-known sources of information upon Textual Criticism.


Has the Bible critic read “In Awe of Thy Word – Understanding the King James Bible” by Riplinger? This book is quite essential in understanding the King James Bible and the history of Bible translations, English and others.

When an extremely educated Bible critic recommends James White’s “King James Only Controversy” (1995), does he also recommend Dr. Peter Ruckman’s “Scholarship Only Controversy” (1996)? Why not?

How about Dr. Ruckman’s Handbooks on “Manuscript Evidence” (1970) and “Biblical Scholarship” (1988)?

An extremely educated Bible critic will not recommend any works on this subject that show the modern versions to be extremely corrupt. For example: “Satan's Masterpiece! The New ASV” (1972) - Peter S. Ruckman, “The NIV An “In-Depth” Documentation of Apostasy” (1990) - Peter S. Ruckman, “About The New Scofield Reference Bible” (1979) - Peter S. Ruckman, “About the New King James Version” (1983) - Peter S. Ruckman, “The Paraphrased Perversion of the Bible” (1974) - Gene Nowlin, “Which Bible Can We Trust?” (1982) - Les Garrett, and “New Age Bible Versions” (1993) - G. A. Riplinger.

An extremely educated Bible critic will not recommend any works on this subject that is presented from the viewpoint of a Bible believing Christian who believes the King James Bible to be the word of God. For example: “Archaic Words and the Authorized Version” (1996, 1999) - Laurence M. Vance, “The King James Version Defended” (1956, 1984) - Edward F. Hills, “Believing Bible Study” (1967, 1977) - Edward F. Hills, “The Bible Translations Test” (1983) - James H. Son, “Final Authority” (1993) - William P. Grady, “Bible Version Manual” (1975) - Donald T. Clarke, “The Language of the King James Bible” (1998) - G. A. Riplinger, “In Awe of Thy Word” (2003) - G. A. Riplinger, “The Monarch Of The Books” (1973) - Peter S. Ruckman, “The Book” (1975) - Dick Cimino, “Crowned With Glory” (2000) - Thomas Holland, “The Answer Book” (1989) - Samuel C. Gipp, “The Bible Believer's Book of Truth” (1998) - James L. Melton, “Which Translation Should You Trust?” (1993) - Timothy S. Morton, “The History Of The New Testament Church” (1982) - Peter S. Ruckman, “One Book Stands Alone” (2001) - Douglas D. Stauffer, and “Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible” (1987, 2000) - Samuel C. Gipp.

An extremely educated Bible critic is extremely prejudiced in favor of the works of the devil; Bible corruption. He only recommends works that are presented from the viewpoint of men who want the body of Christ to have no written final authority. I recommend that you read “Ruckmanism Exposed” (1998) by R. L. Hymers, Jr. It is one of the stupidest and funniest pieces of junk you’ll ever see. I recommend that you read Carson’s book (1979) and James White’s book (1995). Also, read Dr. Ruckman’s “Manuscript Evidence”, “Biblical Scholarship”, and “Scholarship Only Controversy”. The mentality and methods of Bible critics are quite laughable when compared to Bible believers and plain Biblical truth.

If, however, you are determined to ignore the truth and plain, logical sense, I recommend that instead of studying the subject of the Bible read “Alice's Adventures In Wonderland” and “Through The Looking Glass” (1946) by Lewis Carroll.