"The Truth About The King James Version Controversy"
By Dr. Stewart Custer – Printed 1981



 (1st paragraph, lines 1-4)

#1) Dr. Custer states: "For years Mr. Peter Ruckman has claimed to know
more than fundamental Bible scholars "on any campus" and has claimed
to have absolute authority to teach and preach" (Custer cites:
The Christian Handbook Of Manuscript Evidence. Pg. 6). A careful
review of the entire page reveals NO SUCH CLAIM is made.

(1st paragraph, lines 4-6)

#2) Dr. Custer claims about Dr. Ruckman: "His claimed life work is to
demonstrate that `the A.V. 1611' is the `Word of God' (Christian's
Handbook Of Manuscript Evidence. pp. II)." Again, NOTHING on the page
comes even close to Dr. Custer's supposed citation.

(1st paragraph, lines 11-16)

#3) Dr. Custer quotes Dr. Ruckman: "Has anyone noticed that Aleph, B, A,
and C are 90% the text of the A.V. 1611?" (Handbook p. 89). Dr.
Custer then states: "This is a candid admission that 90% of the King
James Bible is an accurate translation of the oldest manuscripts that
we possess-manuscripts on which Mr. Ruckman pours such contempt and
vilification." The quote is accurate, but the `conclusion’ {lines 13-
16} is absolutely FALSE! The point that Dr. Ruckman makes is: That a
few MSS are very corrupt and that the modern "bibles" which come from
these few MSS are also very corrupt.  

(2nd Page of Introduction, lines 14-16)

#4) Dr. Custer claims: "There is no fundamental doctrine that is at stake
between these two families of manuscripts. Fundamental scholars
simply want to know which one goes back the closest to the
original manuscripts, and therefore which is the most accurate." The
contention that "Doctrine" is not affected is not the point --- WORDS
HAVE BEEN CHANGED !!! The idea that modern "Fundamental scholars" can
reconstruct the "most accurate" text closest to the "ORIGINALS" by
using a few, a very few, old corrupt MSS is ludicrous!

(2nd Page of Introduction, lines 16-20)

#5) Dr. Custer writes: "Mr. Ruckman does admit that all the early
manuscripts belong to the Alexandrian family, `leaving the Syrian
text standing like a cold cat in the snow, with nothing but late
manuscripts to support it' (sic Handbook of Manuscript Evidence
pg.89)." Dr. Ruckman admits No Such Thing! I quote from the 2nd
paragraph pg. 89 of Dr. Ruckman's Handbook: "In order to magnify the
Vatican manuscript and make it appear more authentic than the
Receptus, Griesbach hit upon the novel idea of dividing the
manuscripts into three families - Western, Syrian, and Alexandrian.
Having done this, he assigned all the early manuscripts to the
Alexandrian family(!), leaving the Syrian text standing like a cold
cat in the snow, with nothing but late manuscripts to support it."  

(2nd Page of Introduction, lines 16-20) (#5 continued)

Dr. Custer's statement and assessment are totally MISLEADING and
FALSE! The quote is Dr. Ruckman's assessment of what Griesbach tried
to accomplish through his ARBITRARY invention of mss "Families"!!!
NOT Dr. Ruckman's own assessment of the MSS Evidence !!! Almost
anyone with minimal reading comprehension can understand the point
that Dr. Ruckman was trying to make. The twisting and wresting of
words and taking them out of context (in just the first 2 pages of
this booklet) is not something that "Christian" Scholars should be
involved in!

From: PART I The Greek Manuscripts

 (Page 1, 1st paragraph, line 15)

#1) The statement that Erasmus "knew almost nothing at all about the
other manuscripts which often are dated many centuries before the
ones he used", is untrue! Erasmus had the opportunity to review many
of the readings from Ms "B" (Vaticanus) and rejected them as being
False and Corrupt!!! Also, having translated a Latin Bible a few
years before the Textus Receptus, Erasmus could recognize the corrupt
readings in the "Latin Vulgate" that lined up with Ms. B (Vaticanus).

(Page 1, 1st paragraph, lines 18-20)

#2) Dr. Custer's placing of all 88 Papyrus MSS in the "Alexandrian
Family" is arbitrary and capricious.

(Page 1, 1st paragraph, lines 21-23)

#3) The statement: "modern translations such as the New American
Standard Bible try to follow a text which takes all the MSS into
consideration" is totally misleading!!! Modern translations have a
major bias in favor of 2 manuscripts (Aleph and Vaticanus) and have
displaced the A.V. text in literally hundreds of places. A brief
study will reveal that should Vaticanus support the A.V. Text the
translators will often prefer Aleph. However should Aleph support the
A.V. Text then the translators will often prefer Vaticanus.

(Page 4, Last paragraph, line 4)

#4) ......"it does give the Christian some sense of the overwhelming
evidence God has preserved for us concerning his infallible
Word." Question: What is "His infallible Word?" (Definition Dr.?)

(Page 4, Last paragraph, line 9)

#5) "God has providentially preserved for us His Word in such abundance
of manuscripts that we have great assurance as to the wording of His
revelation for our salvation." What happened to His Infallible Word?
What about the assurance that "His Word" is totally reliable for


From: PART II The Conservative Position

(Page 5, 1st paragraph, lines 16-19)

#1) Question? IF: "Westcott & Hort maintained that out of 500 pages of the
Greek New Testament there was only about half a page about which
any question remained as to the wording of the original." WHY is it
that they introduced over 5000 changes in "Their Greek Text"? WHY is
it that they needed 324 pages of "introduction" to their Greek Text?
WHY have hundreds of scholars since W & H (1881) spent so much time,
and produced SO MANY GREEK TEXTS for just "half a page"?

(Page 5, 2nd paragraph, lines 1-2)

#2) "This comparison of manuscripts led to the discovery of four different
types of texts." The comparison of manuscripts did not "lead" to the
"discovery" of four different types of text. The scholars needed a
VEHICLE to GET RID OF 90% - 95% of the MSS EVIDENCE and so Greisbach
invented the arbitrary MSS Family THEORY!!! (He "found" only 3
different types of text or "families"). Burgon demonstrated the
fallacy of depending on the "MSS Family Theory". Time after time
Burgon demonstrated how MSS within "a Family" often "DIFFERED" more
with each other than they "AGREED" with each other! [The Revision
Revised Pg.12 & 13, etc., etc., By John William Burgon]

(Page 5, 2nd paragraph, lines 2-3)

#3) "All the Manuscripts fall into four different patterns of readings."
False!!! MSS "A" and the Papyrus Biblical fragments have many so-
called "Byzantine" readings. (Even Aleph and/or B have some.) [See
The Revision Revised by John William Burgon]

(Page 6, continued from previous page, lines 2-6)

#4) Speaking about the arbitrary "FAMILIES": "The two earliest are the
Alexandrian and Western texts. They are both found in the second and
the third centuries of the Christian Era. The Byzantine text
originated in the middle of the fourth century." The Author "skews"
the Evidence in his favor by stating that the "Alexandrian" and
"Western" texts are "Older" than the "Byzantine", a statement that
could NOT be proved in court with FACTUAL EVIDENCE! The Fourth
Century Date for the "origination" of the Byzantine text is based
upon "FABRICATED" History (The so-called "Lucian Recension"), NOT
true historical FACTS!

(Page 6, 2nd paragraph, lines 1-2)

#5) "The important thing to note is that each of these four types of texts
is theologically conservative." Please tell me Dr. Custer: What is
"Theologically Conservative"? (Definition Dr.)?

(Page 6, 2nd paragraph, lines 6-7)

#6) "Not one of these texts can be called heretical or apostate as Mr.
Ruckman alleges." If a certain "text" i.e. "Family" can be
demonstrated to be corrupt, it most certainly could NOT be called
"accurate" and could easily be called CORRUPT, HERETICAL, & APOSTATE!  

(Page 6, 2nd paragraph, lines 18-20)

#7) The Statement: "There is no attempt to twist or to disparage any of
the great doctrines of the Faith.", is totally and demonstrably
!!! Church History (almost anyone's) reveals a concerted effort
in the early Church Period (on the part of over 80 cults) to alter
the WORDS OF GOD!!! 

(Page 6, 3rd paragraph, lines 2-5)

#8) How can Dr. Stewart Custer say that: "It is not that the Alexandrian
text is deliberately omitting the title. [In reference to the word
`Lord' being left out]. Rather the MSS from which the Alexandrian
text was copied did not have it in them. That still does not alter a
single doctrine." As neat a bit of Jesuit Casuistry and Sophistry as
you could see -- Either the WORDS belong in the text or THEY don't.

(Page 7, continued from previous page)

#9) ............."and the New American Standard Version (which follows
the Alexandrian text)." Custer writes about the "Alexandrian Text",
but doesn't identify WHICH TEXT"? Which Greek text did the scholars
prefer? Griesbach's, Lachman's, Tischendorf's, Tregelles', Alford's,
Wescott & Hort's, Von Soden's, Nestles'(1-27), Aland-Metzger's, WHICH ONE?

(Page 8, last paragraph, lines 1-2)

#1O) Custer states: "The real question which must be settled is which type
of Text most closely reflects the wording of The Original"? How can
the scholars determine "which type of text most closely reflects the
wording of the Original" WITHOUT HAVING A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL??
Notice the emphasis on "type of text" instead of THE WORDS OF GOD?

(Page 9, 1st paragraph, lines 1-10)

#11) Custer again states: "The Alexandrian text is older and better
attested than the others." He then goes on to site several papyrus in
support of his contention. Just because some of the Papyrus MSS are
old, doesn't mean that they are true to the Original nor does it
mean that they are more accurate than the vast majority of later MSS.

(Page 9, 1st paragraph, lines 11-22)

#12) Dr. Custer sites several "fundamentalist" scholars who agree with his
position - (Tregelles, Gaeblein, Kelly, Broadus, Robertson, Warfield,
and Machen). The appeal to the OPINIONS of Good, Godly, Fundamental
Scholars CANNOT SUBSTITUTE for Factual Evidence!

(Page 9, 1st paragraph, lines 22-27)

#13) Dr. Custer now appeals to the "majority of conservative scholars" to
support his belief in the "Alexandrian Text. "The vast majority of
conservative scholars for the past century have agreed that the
Alexandrian text is the closest to the wording of the original." How
can the Majority of Conservative Scholars for the past century
determine that the "Alexandrian Text" is the "closest to the wording
of the original." - without having a single COPY OF THE ORIGINAL???
These Conservative Scholars can only GUESS what the Original truly
said. That is: they determine what the "best text" is by Arbitrary

(Page 9, 2nd paragraph, lines 1-2)

#14) Custer goes on to say: "The Byzantine Text is later than the others
and is a derived text." Just because a few of the "old" mss differ
from the "Byzantine" text i.e. The Majority Text, doesn't mean that it
is a "later text." There is not a shred of historical evidence to
show that the Byzantine Text is a "derived text."

(Page 10, continued from previous page, lines 1-3)

#15) More of the same: "The plain truth of the matter is that the
Alexandrian text has a two century advantage over the Byzantine text
in age." The "Alexandrian Text" does not have a two century
"Advantage" over the "Byzantine Text" -- Church Fathers, Versions
(Translations in languages other than Greek), Lectionaires support
the "Byzantine Text" and place it back at least at the same time with
the "Alexandrian" and most probably BEFORE. [See Peshitta Version]

(Page 10, same paragraph, lines 3-6)

#16) Dr. Custer's states: "It is also clear that the Byzantine text is a
derived text. It obviously incorporates into itself the earlier
readings found in both the Alexandrian and Western texts."
(underlines are mine.) Nothing is "clear", Nothing is "obvious". We
need facts, NOT unsubstantiated conclusions

(Page 10, same paragraph, lines 14-15)

#17 Custer claims: "The Byzantine Text simply put both readings together
rather than omit one reading." Pure Hypothesis! John William Burgon,
Edward Hills and many others laid this "Hypothesis" to rest long ago.

(Page 10, 2nd paragraph, lines 2-3)

#18) Dr. Custer claims that: "Mr., Ruckman refers to the Textus Receptus as
though it were the original (Handbook pg. 25, 30, etc.)" Pages 25 &
30 SAY NO SUCH THING!!! Anyone, I repeat, anyone who has read Dr.
Ruckman knows perfectly well that he does NOT regard "ANY GREEK
TEXT" in existence as if it were the original. Dr. Peter Ruckman has
stated over and over again in his books and on tape that he believes
the AV English to be superior to ANY Greek Text. 

(Page 11, 2nd paragraph, lines 11-14)

#19) Dr. Custer states: "Tregelles himself described the abusive attacks
to which he had been subjected for setting forth the oldest and best
readings of the Greek manuscripts:" dating which manuscripts are the
oldest and then equating "the oldest" with "the best" is pure
conjecture! Custer couldn't PROVE Tregelles' or his HYPOTHESIS if his
life depended on it! 

(Page 12, Heading near bottom of page)

#20) "The Present Greek Text" - WHICH PRESENT GREEK TEXT? Dr. Custer fails
to identify which Greek text he is writing about[see comments above(Page 7)].

(Page 12, last 2 lines & page 13, lines 1-2)

#21) Again Dr. Custer claims: "Any translation is inspired only insofar as
it agrees with the originals. God's preservation is not a continuing
inspiration, but a preservation so that no teaching of the Bible
would be lost." Psalms 12: 6 & 7 says that God has Promised to
Preserve His WORDS! (NOT His "Teachings")

(Page 13, same paragraph, lines 11-13)

#22) "Therefore the wording of the Greek and the Hebrew is the court of
last resort
to settle the meaning of any given passage in the Bible."
Again just for the record - WHICH Greek? WHICH Hebrew? "Meaning"?
I thought we are supposed to look for WORDS, THE HOLY WORDS OF GOD?

(Page 13, same paragraph, lines 13-14)

#23) "The truest interpretation of a passage is that which most accurately
reflects the meaning of the original words." AGAIN and AGAIN - We
are not looking for "interpretation" or "meaning" of a passage - We
need to know: What did God SAY! Where can we find God's WORDS? How
can the critics determine any of the above WITHOUT THE ORIGINALS!!!?

(Page 13, 2nd paragraph, lines 6-8)

#24) Again, Dr. Custer claims: "A few others, like Mr. Ruckman, argue that
the "A.V. 1611" is inspired and assume that the Greek text of Erasmus
agrees with it." Dr. Ruckman has NEVER CLAIMED "that the A.V. 1611 is
inspired" and, unlike the modern "Biblical Scholars" i.e. (Bible
Critics), he doesn't assume anything! Over and over again in Dr.
Ruckman's writings he will point out how the A.V. differs with the
Textus Receptus, and where it does Dr. Ruckman claims that the A.V.
is Superior to the Receptus! Why is it that Dr. Custer refuses to
quote Ruckman reliably? And why is it that Dr. Custer continually

(Pages 13-14, entire 3rd paragraph)

#25) In his attempt to rid the Bible of I John 5:7 Custer finally cites
the "majority"
of Greek mss to support his contention (that the verse
doesn't belong there). However he conveniently fails to cite the Old
Versions; the Early Church Fathers; and the Lectionaires as support
for the reading of I John 5:7.(see Michael Maynard's book - A History
Of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8)

(Pages 13-14, entire 3rd paragraph)

#26) Dr. Custer's reasoning for omitting I John 5:7: "There is no reason
to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity. In this context it
distracts from the direction of thought that John manifested." Custer
ASSUMES the verse is "introduced" and then makes a subjective
as to why it doesn't belong there. In this case Dr.
Custer even makes an appeal to: "the overwhelming majority of
manuscripts" to support his contention. WHY DOESN'T DR. CUSTER USE

(Pages 14-15, entire 1st paragraph)

#27) Dr. Custer's handling of Act's 8:37 (Shall we keep it or throw it
out?) is just another Classic Example of the inconsistent manner in
which the manuscript evidence is handled by the "scholars".

(Page 16, 1st paragraph, lines 11-13)

#28) "It is our faith that the present editions of the Greek and Hebrew
preserve the exact wording of the originals in the vast majority of
passages, ...."OUR FAITH"? Dr. Custer has put his "Faith" in scholars
and critics instead of the God of the Bible.

(Page 16, 2nd paragraph, lines 1-2)

#29) "The believer may safely leave problems to the discussion of
theological and textual experts". The believer can safely assume that
the "experts" are no more able to determine what the TRUTH is than
an ordinary believer!


From: PART III The Ruckman Position

(Page 17, 2nd paragraph, lines 1-3)

#1) "Mr. Ruckman states bluntly, Neither Luther's Bible (1532-1545) nor
the Authorized Bible (1611) ever included the Apocrypha" (Handbook of
Manuscript Evidence p.54)". Another Incomplete Quote!!! Why didn't
Dr. Custer finish Dr. Ruckman's quote? - "Neither Luther's Bible
(1532-1545) nor the Authorized Bible (1611) ever included the
Apocrypha as part of the inspired oracles of God." (Handbook, Pg. 54)
Incomplete quotes, misquotes, statements out of context - not a very
honest or forthright approach for a scholar of Dr. Custer’s repute.

(Page 17, 2nd paragraph, lines 4-6)

#2) Dr. Custer Comments on a supposed position held by Dr. Ruckman: "He
makes clear that the mere existence of the Apocrypha in the Bible
proves its corruption" (Handbook Pg. 33) Another misrepresentation
of what Ruckman really wrote: "Where a man (or a group of men)
includes seven to fourteen books INTO the Old Testament CANON -
against the Canonical statements of Jesus Christ ....." (Handbook
Pg. 33) BIG DIFFERENCE! The key being - INCLUDING the Apocrypha as
PART of the Old Testament, instead of placing the Apocrypha BETWEEN
the Two Testaments.

(Page 18, continued from preceding page, lines 9-11)

#3) "It is quite clear, Mr. Ruckman is factually wrong in claiming that
the King James Bible did not include the Apocrypha." Dr. Ruckman has
never made such a claim! And Dr. Custer couldn't prove his statement
in 100 years!!! And while we're at it, why doesn't Dr. Custer refer
to Dr. Ruckman as DR.? After all Peter Ruckman did EARN his doctorate
at Bob Jones University.

(Pages 18-19, entire 2nd paragraph)

#4) Dr. Custer states: "Mr. Ruckman claims that the Septuagint (the Greek
translation of the Old Testament) "never existed until 100 years
after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ" (Handbook of
Manuscript Evidence, p. 38)." This time the citation accurately
states (finally) Dr. Ruckman's position on a B.C. "Septuagint" (A
supposed Official "Authoritative" Greek Text for Greek speaking Jews
in Alexandria, Egypt.) Ruckman didn't invent the theory that the
"Septuagint" is an Old Testament Greek Text fabricated by some A.D.
"Christians" with a copy of the New Testament in their hands. P. E.
Kahle (1875-1964) made this observation long before Peter Ruckman
came on the scene!

(Page 18, Entire 2nd paragraph - Pages 19-20, Entire 1st paragraph)

#5) Dr. Custer presents his belief in the "Septuagint" by appealing to
the Dead Sea Scrolls and then tries to pass these scrolls off as the
"Septuagint". He also appeals to the A.V. translators opinions of the
"Septuagint". Some of the Hebrew Old Testament might have been
translated before the time of Christ. The possibility of the entire
Old Testament having been translated into Greek is extremely
doubtful, (The so-called "letter" {read "Fable"} of Aristeas aside).
Also, every B.C. Papyrus Biblical fragment in Greek is not
necessarily the "Septuagint". The very remote possibility that the
Lord Jesus Christ or his Disciples would use a corrupt text is
ludicrous! Again, the very idea that a GREEK Translation of the Old
Testament would take precedence over the HEBREW TEXT is PREPOSTEROUS!!!
There are NO "Facts" to "Prove" that the Lord Jesus Christ ever quoted
from the "Septuagint".

(Page 19, 1st paragraph, lines 10-11)

#6) Speaking about his belief in the "Septuagint" Dr. Custer claims:
"Instead they were quoting from the common Bible of the Greek-
speaking world, just as the King James is the common Bible of the
English-speaking world." The "Theory" that the "Septuagint" was the:
"Common Bible of the Greek-speaking world, just as the King James
Bible is the Common Bible of the English-speaking world." is
ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!, and without factual or historical foundation.
This statement SLANDERS The HOLY BIBLE! - The "Septuagint" is
commonly known, by almost anyone familiar with it, for being a very
corrupt text - totally unreliable and untrustworthy
. By making this
unfair comparison, Custer shows his disdain for the A.V. 1611.

(Page 20, continued from previous page, lines 1-9)

#7) Again, Dr. Custer appeals to the A.V. translators in support of his
belief. Just because the A.V. translators refer to the "Septuagint",
doesn't mean that it is what the scholars claim it is. Those of us
who believe that the A.V. is God's Word without proven error have
never said that the A.V. Translators were perfect or that their
judgment on all historical matters was infallible.

(Page 20, same paragraph, lines 19-22)

#8) Dr. Custer goes on to say: "This is the reason that some people have
been saved reading the Roman Catholic Douay Bible. There is no
excuse, however, for using a poor or inaccurate Bible when there are
good ones available." Modern Protestant bibles and modern Roman
Catholic bibles are translated from the same manuscripts. Although
people can be saved from poor corrupt bibles, Christians don't have
to accept "good" bibles when they can use and study the HOLY BIBLE!!!

(Page 20, 1st paragraph, lines 1-14)

#9) Custer's claim that the Wescott & Hort text was written in Koine
Greek and that the Greek mss it was derived from were written in
Koine is totally misleading! Perhaps Dr. Custer would care to explain
a statement from Nestles Greek Text (which displaced W&H), 25th
Edition, page 63 - (II the text. a) "The Greek orthography, which in
HTW was substantially that of the Greek writers of the 4th and 5th
, has now been regulated according to that accepted by
philological scholars for the Time in which the N. T. writings
originated." Which is it Dr.? How about some Truth?

(Page 21, 1st paragraph, lines 1-15)

#10) Custer States: "Mr. Ruckman dates the Peshitta (the Syriac
translation of the Bible) about 200 A.D." As if only Dr. Ruckman
makes that claim. Dr. Ruckman isn't the only "scholar" to place the
Peshitta at 200 A.D. or EARLIER ! (General Biblical Introduction
1944, by H. S. Miller, page 230 Chapter XXXIII Ancient Versions of
the Old and New Testaments) (436.) The Peshitta Version of the Old
-- " The Peshitta (simple, common, literal) of the Syriac
corresponds to the Koinay of the Greek, and the Vulgate of the Latin.
It was a version in common use, and it was simple, in not having the
critical marks and composite form of Paulus' hexaplaric text (431).
The date is not definitely known, but the Syrian Church began early,
....... Page 231 "The middle of the 2nd. Century (about 150) is the
time generally agreed upon, although some would place it EARLIER" !!!
{The above quote was in reference to the Old Testament only.}

(Pages 233-234) 443. The Peshitta. --"This great standard
version, the Syriac Vulgate, or Authorized Version, has been in
general use for about 1500 years or longer, and exists in many
manuscripts and printed volumes. Formerly it was believed to be the
oldest Syriac text, and the date assigned was around 150 A.D." G. H.
Gwilliam, John William Burgon, Edward Miller, Robinson, Vedder and
many others supported the early date for the Peshitta New Testament.
The fact that the scholars have "re-assigned" a later date to the
Peshitta only proves their bias and inability to judge a matter
fairly and without prejudice. {After all - what will they do with an
Ancient Version that is in agreement with the Byzantine most of the
time?} How is it that at one time it was generally agreed that the
Peshitta was of an early origin (150 A.D., or earlier) and NOW: "on
the contrary, the Peshitta is dated at the beginning of the fifth
." (footnote: "Metzger suggests before A.D. 431"). Is someone
juggling the evidence? How come Dr. Custer neglected to inform us
that the "scholars" have changed the dates to fit their "Theories"?
WHY? Why do "good & godly" men juggle dates & withhold evidence? WHY?

(Page 21, 2nd paragraph, lines 12-14)

#11) Dr. Custer "humbly" writes about Dr. Ruckman: "It is clear that he is
addressing readers who do not know what he is talking about and who
have no academic equipment to evaluate what he is claiming." What is
Dr. Custer claiming? That only those with an "academic" background
can judge and discern these matters? IF that were "True" then we all
may as well go fishing and leave the "UNSOLVABLE" to the Gnat
Strainers & Camel Swallowers
! NO DR. some of us common folk aren't
as dumb or as ignorant as you think we are.

(Page 22, 1st paragraph, lines 17-21)

#12) Custer states: "If the Authorized Version of 1611 is indeed the one
infallible Bible in the world, then all the rest of the world would |be at a serious disadvantage, for no other translation completely
agrees with the A.V." This kind of reasoning is myopic and circular.
The Old Testament (39 Books 2/3 of the Bible) was written in Hebrew,
a language used by only one Nation. What about the "serious
disadvantage" for the poor folks in China? What about all those in
Europe, Asia, South America, and North America? The New Testament was
written in koine Greek, a language used extensively in and around the
Mediterranean. Again, what about all the rest of the peoples of the
world? Weren't they also at a "serious disadvantage"? Dr. Custer's
argument and logic won't hold up to close scrutiny. Look at the facts:

HEBREW = One Nation

GREEK = Several Nations

ENGLISH = The Whole World

Dr. Custer cannot deny that if there is one language in the world
that is used more than any other between peoples that language would
have to be English. And just because everyone in the world can't
speak or read English still doesn't change the fact that English is
the "Universal" language of our day.

(Page 22, 2nd paragraph, lines 8-10)

#13) In reference to Dr. Ruckman, Dr. Custer writes: "Mr. Ruckman is
committed ahead of time to denying that any good could come from any
version other than the A.V. 1611." Again, Dr. Custer is either
ignorant of Dr. Ruckman's works or he is purposely misrepresenting
Ruckman's position on this matter. Dr. Ruckman has stated in his
tapes and books that some people have been saved through the use of
corrupt bibles. (After all - the gospel is in them). However, Dr.
Ruckman's claim is that if you want to Study the Word of God in one
Book without worrying about errors and mistakes - if you want to have
the Pure, Unadulterated Word of God to read and cherish, you had
better stick with the A.V. 1611.

(Page 22, 3rd paragraph, lines 2-3)

#14) Dr. Custer commenting about Ruckman: ".... when it suits his purpose,
he rejects the majority reading to defend the K.J.V." When the
critics of the A.V. 1611 become consistent in ALL textual matters
they can demand strict consistency of it's defenders. However, even a
cursory examination into the "methods" of the textual critics will
reveal wholesale inconsistencies in the way they handle the mss

(Page 23, 1st paragraph, lines 1-2)

#15) Again Dr. Custer on Ruckman: "Mr. Ruckman defends his position with
open prejudice and is completely biased against any opposing view."
Show me the man without prejudice or bias. I have yet to meet someone
without bias, especially those critics who have allied themselves
against the A.V. 1611. ("You've got to stand for something or you'll
fall for anything".)

(Page 23, entire 2nd paragraph)

#16) Writing about Ruckman, Custer states: "He is alleging that anything
that comes from Alexandria, Egypt, or Rome, Italy, must be wrong
anything that comes from Antioch, Syria, must be right. This is
geographical prejudice." Dr. Ruckman's position that ANYTHING that
comes out of EGYPT or ROME is CORRUPT, is based on clear BIBLICAL
, (is GOD also guilty of geographical prejudice also?), not
"Geographical Prejudice". Conversely: that which came out of Antioch
should be a whole lot better since Pauline Christianity began there.

(Pages 23-24, entire 2nd paragraph)

#17) Dr. Custer claims that: "This evident bias that Mr. Ruckman has
against anyone who disagrees with him leads him to utter some very
intemperate words against some very good men. He attacks Augustine,
and Origen as "responsible for more error in the Body of
Christ than any ten atheists, or infidels, who ever lived
" (Handbook
p. 56)." Dr. Custer's defense of the "Alexandrian" and "Western"
Fathers is pitiful. The fact that they defended the Deity of the Lord
Jesus Christ doesn't mean that they were Biblically sound in
doctrine, belief or practice. The concern that Bible Believing
Christians everywhere should have is: Are those "intemperate words"
TRUE? And if those words are true it matters not WHO is being
condemned by them. Do I detect some respect of persons? The Pope and
the Roman Catholic Church defend the Deity, the Trinity, the Virgin
Birth, the Miracles etc., is it Dr. Custer's position that the Roman
Catholic Church is sound Biblically or Doctrinally?

(Page 24, continued from previous page, lines 3-10)

Dr. Custer writes about Ruckman's "intemperate words against some
very good men. He attacks Augustine, Eusebius, and Origen as
responsible for more error in the Body of Christ than any ten
atheists, or infidels, who ever lived." Does Dr. Custer refute Dr.
Ruckman's charges? NO he doesn't. Why? Could it be that Dr. Custer
knows that the charges are true? Could it be that Dr. Custer has
forgotten the Apostle Paul's warnings in Acts 20:28-31? "Take heed
therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy
Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he
hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my
departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the
flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse
, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and
remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every
one night and day with tears." The greatest danger to any Christian

AUGUSTINE - Laid the Foundation of the Roman Catholic Church.

EUSEBIUS - Was Emperor Constantine's Personal Religious Envoy,

ORIGEN - Was the FIRST "TEXTUAL CRITIC". And he was probably
responsible for more textual corruption than any other
man who has ever lived!!! (Read Church History: Philip
Schaff, Kenneth Latourette, Eardman’s, etc.)
And Dr. Custer calls these men "Very Good"? What are we to do? ....
As Christians, are we to admire men for their Great Intellect,
Scholarship, Education, and Mental Capacities? OR should we admire
men who Love the Scriptures, who are Fair, Honest and Just; who have
Integrity; and who live by Biblical Convictions and Principles? It's
amazing how clear an issue becomes when things are put in the proper

(Pages 25-26, entire 2nd paragraph)

#20) Dr. Custer's defense of Drs. Wescott & Hort is inexcusable: "Most
of the things quoted against Wescott and Hort come from their Private
." What better place would you suggest Dr.? Wouldn't
this be one of the best sources to find out what these men REALLY
think and believe
? And if their own words condemn them, how can Dr.
Custer defend them? Unless he knows that his own position and stand
will be weakened if it can be demonstrated that these men were not
Biblically Sound. Read John William Burgon, Edward F. Hills, and David
Otis Fuller. If you won't accept Dr. Ruckman's testimony, the
aforementioned men produce enough evidence to show that both of these
men were "Wolves in Sheep’s" Clothing" that is Apostates!

(Page 29, entire 2nd paragraph)

#21) Dr. Custer says: "The real question, however, is not whether Wescott
and Hort can be approved of on all points. It's whether the
principles on which they drew up their Greek New Testament were
valid. The greatest Greek Scholars that America has ever produced
were firmly convinced that their Greek New Testament was based on
correct principles. A.T. Robertson, a strongly Conservative Baptist,
and Gresham Machen, a strongly Conservative Presbyterian, were both
defenders of the Alexandrian text and the principles on which it was
based." So all of Christendom MUST follow them? Dr. Custer's appeal
to Robertson and Machen as being "strongly conservative" is totally
fallacious. Why didn't he mention John William Burgon, who in the
1880's totally refuted the so-called "principles"? Why didn't Dr.
Custer mention Scrivener, Miller, or Hoskier?, who, along with Burgon
were all contemporary with Wescott and Hort, and who were all more
in the "science" of textual criticism than W & H! Every one
of the above men were "great scholars" having personally collated
many of the mss personally (something that W & H never did!) Every
one of these scholars and many others strongly disagreed with the so-
called "Principles" propounded by W & H. Why didn't Dr. Custer give
us BOTH SIDES? Why didn't he at least mention some of these men and
their works so that we could compare BOTH SIDES and decide for
what the TRUTH is!

(Pages 29-35, Entire contents to end of pamphlet)

#22) The rest of this Booklet degenerates into an "acceptable" personal
on Dr. Peter Ruckman, his personal beliefs and teachings, and
his personal life. I guess it's "Christian" to run down a man as
long as you don't use "intemperate" language and as long as you do it
in a "nice" sophisticated manner. Having read, in the last 29 years,
most of Dr. Ruckman's books & pamphlets, I would venture to say that
there is more "personal" vilification and criticism in the last 7
pages of this little booklet
than in all of Dr. Ruckman's works put
together. Keeping in mind that Dr. Ruckman RARELY ever criticizes a
man on a "personal" basis. He saves all of his criticism, admittedly
, for the critics of the A.V. 1611!!

One of the things that I have learned by observation in the last 39
years is that there are two (2) kinds of Teachers (Secular or
Religious) in the world. There are those who love the recognition,
who thrive on the position, who revel in the power, who desire to
make disciples after themselves, who think they are better than the
"unlearned", and who keep knowledge to themselves so that they might
be the "interpreters". These "masters" teach in such a manner as to
prevent their pupils from thinking for themselves. These are the
"teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears
from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." The world is full
of these teachers and sad to say - so are the churches, Christian
schools, and especially the "Christian" colleges!

On the other hand there are a few, a very few, who love to teach
because they genuinely want to see people learn, they love to see
students acquire the ability to think and reason for themselves,
and their greatest joy is when those under their tutelage grow to the
where they no longer need them.

I do not believe that Dr. Peter Ruckman is infallible. Neither do I
think that everything that he teaches is without error. I am not
going to defend or criticize his personal life, his ministry, or his
style. "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own
master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is
able to make him stand." (Ro 14:4) I certainly am not going to try to
imitate him. I am not a Ruckmanite in any sense of the word. However,
I thank God that back in 1968 my pastor handed one of Dr. Ruckman's books
to me and said that "I ought to check him out". I have "checked him
" for the past 29 years, along with many other Christian writers.
Having read and studied almost all of Dr. Ruckman's books I can say
without any hesitation that Peter Ruckman is one of a very few Christian
writers that I have read who obviously is both gifted and talented and
who has an uncanny ability to teach the Bible in a manner that is
both spiritual and practical. Instead of complicating an issue, Dr. Peter
Ruckman continually strives to make the Bible simple and understandable
to the reader.

(Pages 29-35, Entire contents to end of pamphlet) (#22 continued)

I believe Dr. Custer's pamphlet is an attempt to isolate Dr. Peter
Ruckman from the main body of Fundamental Christianity and to make
him appear to be a radical and outside the mainstream of Christian
Scholarship. In trying to isolate Dr. Ruckman, Dr. Custer misquotes,
fails to finish quotes, attributes other men's statements
to Ruckman,
takes Ruckman's statements out of context, and generally twists and
wrests much of what Dr. Ruckman says. He skews the evidence to favor
only his side of the issue and fails to inform
the reader of the
other side. This kind of "scholarship" is shameful and inexcusable,
and only reinforces my convictions about modern "Christian"
scholarship. There are those, especially in "Christian Educational
Circles", who ridicule and rail against Peter Ruckman and his
ministry. However, in 39 years of study, I have never met or read any
man who has so clearly discerned the METHODS & MOTIVES of the
"scholars", "critics" and "educators", both in the past and in our
present time. Also, I know of no one who has been so relentless in
APOSTACY, in this age or in any other for that matter, as
Dr. Ruckman has been. His honesty is unquestionable and his sense of
fairness is remarkable. I think the "measure" of this man must be
made on the basis of this Scripture: "By their fruits ye shall know
them." There are many Christians throughout this country and
the world who love the Bible, who trust It implicitly, who honor and
have reverence for "The Book", and who have faith that God has
preserved His Words in the A.V. 1611 because of this man's ministry.
I may not know much, but this much I do know, The GOD of SCRIPTURE