The next question answered by Sam Gipp is the following:

Who was Dean Burgon?

Gipp’s answer is given here. My response is below:

Gipp claims that John William Burgon was a man of tremendous intellect and this certainly was the case. This does not, however, make him right in his judgments on the textual evidence. Part of the problem is that Burgon did not have all the evidence as a large portion of the earliest manuscripts were discovered decades after his death. Even at the time, he went under the assumption that the Textus Receptus accurately represented the vast majority of manuscripts – something commonly believed at the time but which has since been shown to be quite wrong. Thus many of his conclusions were based upon the limitations of his era and his work is considered to be, at best, outdated.

Similarly outdated is the work of Westcott and Hort. While they were the first to base their understanding upon textual types, their reliance upon two manuscripts (Siniaticus and Vaticanus) also has fallen by the wayside. While their questioning the Textus Receptus and noting the importance of the twwo aforementioned manuscripts has been vindicated, those manuscripts are not the whole story and do not always represent the earliest form of the Alexandrian textual types. It is only when used in conjunction with other earlier pappyri and uncials that a clear picture of the early state of the textual evidence emerges.

One of the problems Gipp and other KJV Onlyists have in their arguments is that they often draw their evaluation of the data from the arguments between Westcott and Hort on one side and Burgon and his allies on the other. Both represent a long outdated state of the argument and cannot be used in current discussions. For exanple, even in the simple case of what is considered to be an “Alexandrian” or “Byzantine” reading and in what represents the “majority text”, the terms mean something different today than they did a century ago given the manuscript discoveries in the succeeding decades.

Gipp at one point claims that Burgon’s defense of the last twelve verses of Mark as authentic has never been answered. In reality, Burgon’s defense was based completely on faulty premises such as an early date for the existing Syriac text where it is not known to have undergone signficant revisions in the early medieval period. Also, the analysis of the Greek used demonstrates it could not have been the same author as the remainder of Mark. Finally, there are two alternative versions of the ending (one shorter and one longer) that show there were mutlitple attempts to add to the text. Again, either Gipp is not completely honest in his characterization of the debate or, owing to his reliance upon the debate as it stood a century ago, he is simply unaware that Burgon’s views have been shown to be wrong.

Gipp also places Burgon among other supposed defenders of the KJV. Ironically, none of those named hold his views. Burgon believed the Greek and Hebrew texts used in the KJV were the most accurate but that the translation in the KJV could be improved upon and suggested some changes. His problem with Westcott and Hort was that they did not do what they were assigned – an improved translation of the traditional Greek and Hebrew text but instead used a completely new text for their translation.

Another scholar he mentions, Robert Dick Wilson, also was not a KJV Onlyist. Wilson has often been cited by KJV Onlyists as supporting their views against modern textual criticism but this is clearly not the case. His opposition was not to the standard textual criticism but to the “higher criticism” that sought to find hidden texts behind the existing ones. In fact, Wilson claimed some readings in ancient translations such as the Septuahgint and the Vulgate might be superior to that found in the KJV.

The third scholar he mentions. Lancelot Andrewes, was one of the KJV translators of 1611 and certainly was in no position to evaluate the manuscript evidence available today. Furthermore, Andrewes was an avid “High Church” partisan who would have found Gipp’s fundamentalist Baptist beliefs to be heretical at best and likely worthy of a stay at the Tower of London.

Overall, Gipp’s reliance upon Burgon demonstrates, as indicated above, that his view of the status of the debate is outdated by at least a century. As already mentioned. Burgon had the excuse of not having access to subsequent discoveries. Yet even his position was not as extreme as Gipp’s and that should tell you how tenuous is Gipp’s grasp of reality when addressing the subject.

The next question Sam Gipp addresses is the following:

Is it “heresy” to believe the King James Bible is perfect?

Gipp’s answer is here. My response is below.

As with much else in Gipp’s “questions”, this is little more than a “bait and switch” from the real issue. Few if any critics think it heretical to believe the KJV is perfect. They may believe it to be incorrect, highly misguided, and quite silly, but not heretical. It is not the belief that the KJV is perfect that is heretical but the raising of this belief to an essential doctrine of the Christian faith and the blanket condemnation of any modern translation as satanic that is heretical. The latter is certainly found in the wing of KJV Onlyism of which Sam Gipp is a proponent and his avoidance of the real issue again demonstrates his rather skewed handling of facts.

Sam Gipp also displays his dishonesty in handling his oppoenents’ arguments by claiming they could not hand you the inerrant Word of God while he could give you the KJV. In fact, his opponents could hand you many versions of the inerrant Word of God – including the KJV – while he mistakenly insists there must be one sole representative. The fact is that there are two factors in differing translations: the manuscripts used and the translation choices. The differences in manuscripts, despite the bellyaching of KJV Onlyists, give not one single doctrinal difference and so any legitimate scholarly translation of the texts will provide all necessary to salvation. This includes the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, and the KJV. It is only their reliance upon confusion, misdirection, and dishonesty that keeps the KJV Onlyist position afloat. Those who openly examine the evidence must choose to ignore it to maintain a KJV Onlyist position.

The next question for Sam Gipp is the following:

Are King James Bible Believers a Cult?

Sam Gipp’s answer is given here. My response is below.

When Sam Gipp tries to defend KJV Onlyism against the charge of cultic behavior, it is telling that he tries to rely upon semantics rather than addressing the strange antics of KJV Onlyists that give rise to such charges. Instead, he gives two supposed prerequisites for a cult that actually fail to define it properly.

The first property Gipp assigns to cults is the existence of a central body that makes decisions for all of its disciples. While this may be the case with many groups that have been identified as cults, it is not necessary to display cultic behavior. For example, the followers of conspiracy theories concerning the 9/11 attacks, UFOs, and the Kennedy assassination often display cultic behavior without there being any central organization. The followers of KJV Onlyism, particularly the end of the spectrum occupied by Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and others follows the same pattern: a worldview seen through the distorted lens of a conspiracy theory where material is shared in an informal network and a “groupthink” prevails. While this sort of cultic behavior does not apply to all KJV Onlyists, it does apply in varrying degrees among many in the movement.

The second claim Gipp provides is that cults “fear that their disciples will investigate their opposition’s beliefs and then be converted by the truth.” He then goes on to state that KJV Onlyists are not afraid to study counter-arguments since the facts support their position. While the initial claim that cults fear the truth has merit, his response of KJV Onlyists not displaying fear of the truth is quite absurd given the distortions and dishonesty examined thus far in his work. Responses to the accusations of KJV Onylists have been given dozens of times and yet they rarely acknowledge to refutations of their arguments apart from insulting their critics or claiming they are part of some evil cabal attempting to suppress the KJV. More to the point, most KJV Onlyists only read their own material. In fact, it would seem unlikely that anyone familiar with the manuscript evidence would be argued into KJV Onlyism. Most KJV Onlyists come to the movement without much exposure or understanding of the history of the textual transmission of the New Testament. Those who eventually go on to examine the record thoroughly and fairly often end up leaving the KJV Onlyist position although they may still believe the KJV superior.

Finally, Gipp goes on to claim there are Bible colleges and universities who have a policy of confiscating any books supporting the KJV Onlyist position. Of course, he does not name these universities nor explain how such a policy would be enforcable or even legal. Like much of his argumentation, one suspects it has more the air of urban myth than factual information. He certainly has not provided any evidence or through his arguments thus far given any reason to take his word on the matter.

The next question Gipp answers is the following:

Don’t King James Bible believers “worship” the Bible?

Gipp’s answer is given here. My response is below.

The next topic on Sam Gipp’s agenda is the raising of the KJV as an idol by KJV Onlyists. Gipp flatly denies this and claims there is no evidence this occurs. However, even a cursory examination of the KJV Onlyist movement makes it quite obvious that the KJV is primary and Christ secondary to their faith. All one needs to do is examine the output of KJV Onlyist authors against Christians who oppose KJV Onlyism. While KJV Onlyist critics such as D. A. Carson and James White have written books and articles on a large number of topics and the status of the KJV is raised in only a few, KJV Onlyist supporters are often obsessed with the topic as a significant percentage of their output relates directly to the KJV Onlyist question and somehow the status of the KJV is inserted even in their work on other topics.

As for the question posed by Gipp, it may be too strong to say they worship the KJV rather than Christ, but it is certainly the case that they worship Christ as presented in the KJV and interpreted by the peculiarities of their own tradition (even when these are in conflict with the actual beliefs of the KJV as understood by its translators) and this Jesus takes precedence over the true risen Lord. That is, they worship a Jesus created in the crucible of their own traditions rather than the Jesus who is God Incarnate. In that sense, one might say they worship the KJV.

A second topic raised is the allegation that opponents of KJV Onlyism claim the originals were destroyed in order to prevent their being venerated. Gipp claims that God destroyed the originals because their only value is in their words. There are two odd things in this supposed disagreement: the first is that the former is a distortion of the position of KJV Onlyist opponents; the latter is the fact that the second sentence does not actually contradict the first but actually complements it.

Some KJV Onlyists have argued that if the originals were important, God would have preserved them while others have countered that he did not preserve them because they would have been made into idols. Claiming God did not preserve something is not the same as claiming God destroyed them. Furthermore, both sides see value only in the words and the loss of the originals affects KJV Onlyists as much as anyone else. If God preserved the words, then where is the evidence that the words preserved were those in the KJV? The KJV is, after all, a seventeenth century translation dependent upon a small selection of late manuscripts that are at odds with the mansucript evidence. Both sides believe God preserved His word, but are at odds on the method and the exact content. The difference is that KJV Onlyists lack any convincing evidence for their interpretation of events and rely upon conspiratorial elements lacking any factual support.

Sam Gipp next considers the following question:

Aren’t all King James Bible believers name callers?

Gipp’s answer is given here. My response is given below.

Sam Gipp next tackles the accusatioms against KJV Onlyists that they engage in “name calling.” He denies this but then does not even address the question in his answer. Instead, he launches into a defense of his mentor Peter S. Ruckman. The reason is quite clear: the bombastic Ruckman has made a career of resorting to ad hominem attacks in lieu of providing evidence for his bizarre views on the King James Bible. While his modus operandi is certainly not employed by all KJV Onlyists, it is quite common among the conspiracy theorist wing of the movement represented by the likes of Ruckman, Gipp, and Gail Riplinger.

It gets even more absurd when Gipp defends Ruckman by comparing him both to the Apostle Paul and to the nineteenth century defender of the Textus Receptus Deam Burgon. While both men were forceful and clearly did not mince words, their criticisms were not the purely polemical posturing that Ruckman et al use to mask the lack of supporting evidence for their claims.

It is true that not all KJV Onlyists are “name calleers” but it is also true that a significant percentage are and that they tend to be from the same wing of the movement led by Peter Ruckman – the one Gipp defends. Even fellow KJV Onlyist David Cloud has called Ruckman on this point and has catalogued such terms as “jackass,” “poor dumb stupid red legs,” “silly asses,” “apostolic succession of bloated egotists,” “two-bit junkies,” “two-faced, tin-horned punks,” “incredible idiots,” “egotistical jack legs,” “conservative asses whose brains have gone to seed,” “cheap, two-bit punks,” and “stupid, little, Bible-rejecting apostates” among Ruckman’s epithets thrown at anyone who disagrees with him. That Gipp felt compelled to defend Ruckman’s attacks on other Christians even though the question never mentioned Ruckman at all only underscores the often cultic responses to criticism of this end of the KJV Onlyizt spectrum.