A Grievous Wolf - Time for Truth

5
being wilfully ignorant. See also Dr Gipp’s analysis of the God-guided nature of the King James italics,
samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=11.htm.
Concerning Wolf’s insinuation of “guesswork” on the part of the King’s men and his unsubstantiated
supposition that an individual reader is free to “determine if a better word fit [sic] the case at hand,” Dr
Mrs Riplinger states in In Awe of Thy Word pp 560ff, her emphases ““Seven” times “they purge…and
purify it…” (Ezek. 43:26) – not eight. The KJV translators did not see their translation as one in the
midst of a chain of ever evolving translations. They wanted their Bible to be one of which no one could
justly say, ‘It is good, except this word or that word…’ They planned [as stated in the Preface to the
1611 Holy Bible]:
““...to make...out of many good ones [Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Geneva, Bishops’], one
principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.””
With respect to having achieved their mark, the translators also stated in their preface, this writer’s emphases:
“Ye are brought unto fountains of living water which ye digged not; do not cast earth into them with the
Philistines, neither prefer broken pits before them with the wicked Jews. [Gen 26:15. Jer 2:13.] Others
have laboured, and you may enter into their labours; O receive not so great things in vain, O despise
not so great salvation! Be not like swine to tread under foot so precious things, neither yet like dogs to
tear and abuse holy things...”
Or “grievous wolves.”
13. In defending the KJV’s use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must
use an old English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading to understand such words
as “let, suffer, or hinder”; which in today’s English often does not mean at all what they meant in
1611? These are only three of many other words?
Again, Wolf is displaying wilful ignorance. The 1611 Holy Bible defines its own terms e.g. consider
Isaiah 32:2 for the definitions of the words “covert” and “tempest” and Mark 13:11 for the definition of
the important word “premeditate.” Supposed “archaic language” with respect to the 1611 Holy Bible
is therefore another non-issue. See The Language of the King James Bible and In Awe of Thy Word,
both by Dr Mrs Riplinger, for insight into the 1611 Holy Bible’s own built-in dictionary. That the 1611
Holy Bible does define its own terms and these definitions are therefore independent of the vicissitudes
of secular word usage is one reason why it will not pass away, according to the Lord’s words in Matthew
24:35.
Only rarely does the word “let” depart from contemporary usage, Romans 1:13 being an example. The
context clearly indicates that Paul was hindered i.e. blocked/obstructed from visiting the Romans, according
to modern usage and corresponding to 1 Thessalonians 2:18. The location of cross references
to define Biblical terms is not a problem to anyone who obeys John 5:39 to “Search the scriptures.”
“Suffer” likewise often retains its contemporary usage and is defined when it has a different connotation
e.g. in Matthew 19:14, where it clearly means in essence to “forbid not.” The word “hinder” can
obviously mean the rear part, as the embedded word “hind” indicates in the context and as the context
also indicates in 2 Samuel 2:23, 1 Kings 7:25. It also means to block or obstruct, as above. These
words can take on different meanings according to context, as is the case for many words in English,
e.g. bolt, bow, fair, fast, fluke, knot, left, race, stalk etc. Such words are called homonyms,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym. Wolf is being stupid.
Wolf should also answer the question why modern “alternates” like “Nephilim,” “sheol,” “Magi,”
“hades,”* “demons”* are improvements on “giants,” “grave/hell” according to context, “wise men,”
“hell,” “devils” if he thinks the 1611 Holy Bible is archaic. *Wolf raises these terms in Question 22,
where they will be re-addressed in this work.
14. Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the Textus Receptus (TR) disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR
has errors, but the KJV doesn’t? Is this not the ultimate example of “worshiping a translation”?
Isn’t the opposite therefore the ultimate example of worshipping “that Greek TR” precisely because it
differs from the 1611 Holy Bible?