I believe that pastor, far more qualified than I, was wrong. In a discussion with him or other scholars about biblical manuscripts, I would feel like a mule at the Kentucky Derby. But he is still wrong. In fact, he has to be wrong because God promised to preserve His Word. If He did not, then the Bible is untrue, unreliable, and unnecessary.

Even though that pastor is my very special first grandchild (and the father of four precious great grandchildren), he is still wrong! Of course, he knows my position on this issue.

He also suggested that pastors need to know the biblical languages in order to provide correct instructions to church members; however, if pastors know those languages, they must use the correct manuscripts and reject the corrupt ones. But his suggestion smacks of Roman Catholics who made it illegal for members to keep a copy of the Bible in their vernacular. The Catholics were to come to the priest for a “correct” interpretation. One reason God gave us the Bible in our language was so we could all become Bereans who “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” While it is good to know the original languages, it is not a requirement to be an effective pastor.

Some pertinent questions about the Bible’s reliability will be helpful: Could a sovereign, all-powerful God lead and direct men to write a perfect book? Of course, the question demands a positive answer. Question two: Could a sovereign, all-powerful God, after directing men to write a perfect Bible, then keep scribes and translators from error? Again, the answer must be positive. Third question: Why would a sovereign, all-powerful God direct men to produce a perfect Bible to give mankind directions for life and death, and not preserve its perfection?

Pastors who take the modern approach tell us that the Bible is perfect in the “originals” but they seldom tell their audience that no one has seen the “originals” in 2000 years! Why would God give man the “originals” for a few years and leave following generations with an imperfect book? Why give the human race a perfect book then take it from us?

The disputed passage belongs in the Bible; if the Bible is not reliable in John 7 and 8, it is not reliable in John 3 on which personal salvation rests. The Bible is the Words of the Living God which will stand forever. If our critics are correct and we do not have an available, accurate, and authoritative Word then where on the face of the earth can we find His will?

Admittedly, the issue is one that good, great, and godly scholars have debated for centuries. One of the earliest objections to the John passage is that Christ seems to be abrogating the Old Testament law requiring death for adultery. Ancient Jews were fearful that Christ’s leniency might give succor to their wives about adultery! Ambrose (died 420) mentioned this in a sermon on David and Bathsheba condemning those who were critical of Christ and those who excised the passage. So the passage was in the Bibles of the early 400s.

Many other Latin Fathers including John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo all speak of the passage as being canonical! Augustine (died 430) said some scribes removed the passage because it might seem that Christ was nonchalant about adultery, but Augustine did not advocate removing it from Scripture.

Jerome (died 420), who translated the Latin Vulgate, agreed the passage was legitimate and left it in his translation. Furthermore, he says that the disputed passage was found in “many Greek and Latin manuscripts” in Rome and the Latin West, late in the 4th century.

However, an overzealous scribe decided it would be best to remove the passage rather than cause concern and possibly encourage loose living with scriptural justification! Such scribes were guilty of taking away from the Word of God which is dangerous.

The disputed passage is included in the 1611 KJV, in the 1587 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishop’s Bible, 1539 Great Bible, 1537 Matthew’s Bible, 1535 Coverdale Bible, 1526 Tyndale Bible, and 1382 Wycliffe Bible. Modern Bibles omit it, footnote it, or bracket it so that readers get the message: it is not reliable. It is fake news, a false story by fallible writers.

All liberals and many Evangelicals teach that the John passage should not be in the Bible, yet the new translations keep putting it in the Bible! The RSV even took it out causing a furor, then replaced it in a later edition to make people happy and to continue selling Bibles! (Is it cynical to suggest that modern translations are all about money?) Modern translators know that removing that famous story would precipitate rebellion, revolution, and ruin in their Bible market. So they knowingly use a passage that practically all their liberal experts agree should not be in the Bible! If a passage does not belong in the Bible (according to their research and convictions), they should do the principled thing, but modern translators have taken a stand like a crippled chicken. They place the disputed passage in their translations because of cash, cowardice, and convenience.

There are some reputable scholars who agree with my grandson about whether or not the passage belongs in John’s Gospel. Among them are: Bruce Metzger, Leon Morris, Merrill Tenney, D. A. Carson, Ed Blum, Colin Kruse, John Piper, R. C. Lenski, Alfred Edersheim, G. Campbell Morgan, and A. T. Robertson.

Some in the above camp consider the defense of the passage and defense of the KJV a “cancerous sore,” “cultic,” “near cultic,” and “deplorable.” Such “scholars” are, in my opinion, “deplorable.”

Other scholars accept the passage as scriptural: Dean John William Burgon, Zane Hodges, D. A. Waite, David Otis Fuller, Edward F. Hills, A. W. Pink, R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, James Boice, J. C. Ryle, and John Calvin. So, there are good, highly qualified men on both sides of this issue.

Evidently, there is some doubt. It is not as clear as the critics say.

According to the number of manuscripts that have and don’t the passage, 1,495 Greek manuscripts include the John passage or part of it, and 267 do not include it. Moreover, the 267 manuscripts are very early. Most people are impressed with the “earliest” manuscripts but valid, original manuscripts were in the hands of early church fathers who quoted from them from A.D. 150 forward! They quoted, for example, from the last twelve verses of Mark so how could they quote from manuscripts they didn’t hold in their hands? Manuscript date is part of the equation, but it is non-determinative. Manuscripts should be accepted unless proved defective.

Even Aristotle’s dictum supports that approach. He said, “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.” However, modern translators think they are more trustworthy than the document in question, but I wouldn’t trust them to walk my dog!

The fathers of modern Bible translations, Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) declared, “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.” These so-called earliest and most reliable manuscripts were polluted at an early age by the Gnostics whose headquarters were in Alexandria, Egypt–the same city where the Vatican manuscript arose. When the Gnostics didn’t agree with some doctrine or passage, they either subtracted it, or changed it in some way to fit their heretical theology. Hence the production of the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts.

Westcott and Hort, like many liberals, gush over the “earliest” and “most reliable” manuscripts but the earliest are not always the most reliable. Both men were unbelieving Anglican priests.

It should also be remembered that the main reason there are so many older manuscripts extant is because they were avoided by the early church leaders because the documents were corrupt. They didn’t get worn out and thus survived to be found and used to confuse Christians today.

Moreover, the “earliest” and “most reliable” manuscripts are identified as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus from the fourth century. Westcott and Hort assumed that both manuscripts were far superior and since those manuscripts did not have the John passage, that was enough for them. However, traditional Greek manuscripts preceded the 4th century manuscripts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and were quoted by many church fathers such as Irenaeus who wrote from 150 A.D.! Since very early church fathers quoted from Mark 16:9-20 for example, then it is false to claim that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were the oldest known manuscripts.

But it gets even worse for proponents of modern translations. Dean John Burgon was a famous scholar and Bible defender (died 1888) and he declared that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are among “the most corrupt copies in existence.” Older does not equal reliable.

According to Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, the African Church corrupted the New Testament as far back as A.D. 150! He also declared of the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) from the 4th Century: “From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written.”

Of the Codex Vaticanus (B) from the 4th Century, he declares that a marked feature is the great number of omissions and calculates that whole words or clauses are left out!

Not a good recommendation for the much vaunted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus–from a scholar recognized as an expert by both sides of the controversy.

Most readers do not know of this Bible disagreement in Fundamentalist and Evangelical ranks. Most religious leaders do not believe the KJV is totally reliable while many do. However, I have noticed for many years the tendency of both sides to demonize the other. Those critical of the KJV are often very arrogant and vicious in their opposition, even calling us “cultists.” They quickly slide by the fact that many of our persuasion hold degrees just as reputable as theirs.

And on the other side, some in our group give good ammunition to the other side by making irresponsible and ridiculous claims. Some claim the KJV is “better than the Greek”; others declare than the KJV must be used in preaching or a person cannot be born again! There are devoted dummies on both sides of the issue.

If a man tells me he sincerely wants to know about eternal things, I will send him to the King James Bible for the truth. I tell him that it is God’s instruction manual for mankind which was accurately translated into English from the reliable and preserved Hebrew and Greek texts and preserved by God therefore, is totally reliable.

All the modern versions are based on corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the work of evolutionists Westcott and Hort, radical unbelievers. They were Anglican scholars who never missed a chance to denounce, deny, and denigrate the Bible; but they did not disprove it. According to Dr. Jack Moorman’s book on Bible manuscripts, Westcott and Hort’s Vatican and Sinai manuscripts of the New Testament contain more than 8,000 differences with the traditional text underlying the King James Bible!

I can’t think of anything more shattering than for congregations to be told that the Bible on their laps is full of mistakes, misquotes, and misinformation. It is not if it is the KJV.

All right, for sake of argument, I could be wrong. If I have placed too much confidence in the Word of God, I will discover that at the Judgment Seat of Christ. I suppose Christ will say, “Don, you were wrong about the KJV being totally reliable. You were too committed to my Word!” I believe He will correct my error but with a smile and nod.

After all, I have only convinced people to place too much reliance on the Word of God–not the worse sin to commit; however, those who burn incense to the corrupt modern translations are guilty of taking away from the Word of the living God who promised to preserve it forever!

If I am to be wrong, it will be in favor of the Word that He promised in Psalm 12:6-7, “The words of the LORD are pure words: …Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Either He did or He didn’t!

So, honest people will look at the issue and come down on the side that is most convincing; however, it takes character to change when one has gone on record for most of his or her life. It’s difficult to admit a mistake. Tolstoy expressed this when he wrote, “I know that most men…can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”

However, having a reliable Bible is not a simple issue but it is sublime. I’ve made my decision and if I’m wrong, Christ will correct me. Same with you!

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse! is Burning! was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Eichenwald would be a little less offensive, obnoxious, overbearing, and outlandish and almost likable if he showed even a small dose of humility. Alas, he does not. He is at war with me and my kind. Worse, he is at war with God.

He charges that there were “no universally accepted manuscripts that set out what it meant to be a Christian,” a statement that is embarrassingly false. From the early days of the church they recognized their manuscripts as the New Testament that we have today. The churches did not vote on it but generally accepted the use of manuscripts that make up our present canon. But Kurt is an unbeliever using his influence to try to dig out the foundations of the Christian church. He attacks the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, declares that Paul did not write I Timothy, and II Peter is a forgery, “an opinion almost universally shared by biblical scholars today.” No, that is only true of most unbelieving scholars.

Kurt declares that Constantine determined what books made it into the New Testament at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.; however there is no historical support for such a charge, a charge made by many with an axe to grind. I have all the extant writings of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene church leaders and none support that popular fiction.

One of Eichenwald’s sycophants wrote, “Nearly everyone who’s studied the matter agrees the canonical gospels were written no earlier than the early 70s CE (i.e. Mark) making it impossible for them to have been written by anyone who actually knew Jesus.” Not so. Remember, Matthew and John?

One of the main reasons for confidence for the New Testament being completed before 70 A.D. (except the Revelation) is that no New Testament writer refers to the destruction of Jerusalem (and hundreds of villages burned to ashes) and the Temple in 70 A.D. That was one of the most horrific, shocking events in history with the destruction of the famous city and at least a million, one hundred thousand people killed. Plus, the most famous place of worship in the world was destroyed, yet not a word mentioned by the Bible authors! Sure, it is the argument from silence, but it is a silence that is deafening.

Kurt declares that the incident in John 7 and 8 of the woman taken in adultery “simply never happened.” However, Jerome reported on this passage after 400 A.D. and he declares that the Latin and Greek manuscripts did contain the disputed passage, so some manuscripts recorded it and some did not. That is not unusual. Believers believe that God kept His promise and preserved His words.

Many manuscript experts tell us that the passage does not belong there but if that is true why do most modern translations use it? Modern translators know that removing the disputed story would precipitate rebellion, revolution, and ruin in the Bible market. They use the passage because of cowardice and cash. They knowingly use a passage that practically all their experts agree should not be in the Bible! Modern translators have taken a stand like a crippled chicken. If a passage does not belong in the Bible (according to their convictions), they should do the principled thing. Most liberals can’t spell principle but they can spell principal–money!

Conversely, scholars focused on preservation, find the passage in the oldest trusted manuscripts and believe it belongs there. Since God promised to preserve His Words, I believe He did just that. The manuscript issue is about “words.” Jesus said in Mark 13:31, “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.” And Jeremiah 23:30 says, “Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbor.”

Kurt then takes his knife and cuts the last 12 verses from Mark 19. He says they were wrongly added much later by an interpolator; however, Dr. C. I. Scofield tells us, “The passage is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.” Hippolytus in the years from 170-236 A.D. had these passages in his works. Also Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in 180 A.D., used these verses in his writings. Since a preacher that close to the Disciples quoted those verses, don’t you think he would have objected if he read corrupt verses in Mark? Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna). Polycarp had been a Christian for eighty-six years, was martyred in 156 A.D., and was a disciple of John the Apostle. No, the last twelve verses belong in Mark as the Bible shows. Bible haters are wrong.

Furthermore, it would be very strange for Mark to end his Gospel of good news without mentioning any of Christ’s post resurrection appearances or His ascension; and to close his book with “for they were afraid” is unimaginable. The Good News of the Gospel is to expel our fears!

Daniel B. Wallace is a New Testament professor at Dallas and during a debate with unbeliever Bart Ehrman, Wallace reported that a first century fragment of Mark had been found in Egypt. The same as our common Mark! The traditional ending of Mark is the true ending.

Eichenwald attacks I John 5:7 telling us that the Trinity does not exist in the Scripture and that verse is an interpolation–added by a fanatical scribe wanting to add the Trinity to the teaching of Scripture. However, this verse is in the oldest manuscripts going back to Vaudois or “Waldensians” in northern Italy who were visited by missionaries from Antioch in the 120s. They translated the Bible into Old Latin in 157 and would not change a letter of their manuscript. There is little doubt that the manuscript used was at least a first generation copy of the original, if not the original, and the Waldensian translation was passed down from generation to generation until the Reformation. When Erasmus added I John 5:7 to his third edition of the Greek New Testament it appeared in the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible.

Moreover, leading early church leaders such as Tertullian wrote “which three are one” in 200 AD and Cyprian of Carthage wrote, “And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: “And the three are One.” Sounds as if they were quoting I John 5:7.

Kurt makes the silly assertion that “The New Testament doesn’t proclaim homosexuality the most heinous of all sins. No, every sin is equal in its significance to God.” He wrote that statement to deflect from sodomy, known today as homosexuality or by those unconcerned with accuracy as “being gay.” Kurt declares that homosexuality is no worse sin than lying, greed, and other sins thereby making perversion, pride, prejudice, and prayerlessness the same in God’s eyes! What insanity! He did not get that from Scripture even with his ability to twist Bible verses like a pretzel. Another thought: while this is no defense of pride, you won’t get AIDS from pride.

Yes, sin is sin as far as eternity is concerned; however, there are present life consequences that are deadly. Non thinkers say that one might as well commit adultery as to think about committing it but that is stupid. Thinking about adultery does not impact others while physical adultery divides families, devastates children, and may destroy health.

The pitiful prose of Eichenwald easily demonstrates a writer who is desperate to prove the impossible. His writing screams desperation: “I have to find some of those Bible contradictions, after all I have to crank out 8,539 words for Newsweek.” He even says the Bible forbids debates so Congress is disobeying God! Christians can’t wear pearls or gold. Public prayer is wrong. He equates criticism of government to resistance to government. The writer evidently knows nothing about proper research, especially biblical research: Who wrote it? When was it written? To whom was it written? What were the circumstances? There are many more examples of his egregious perversion of Scripture.

Eichenwald declares that his missive was not an attack upon the Bible or Christians but it is exactly that. A poor attack to be sure but an attack without any doubt. And to think they killed a bunch of trees to print such tripe!

An honest, liberal journalist should be willing to look at all sides of an issue. Kurt refused to do so as do most radical leftists.

But then, it’s in their genes!

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”