ANSWERING Mchugh's NINE THESIS

FORTY SAVE ONE PLUS NINE

(39 Questions by Gary Hudson & McHugh; 9 by Chris McHugh -- Answers by Herb Evans)

It is said that a "fool" can ask more questions in a day than a wise man can answer in a lifetime. Gary Hudson and Chris McHugh have sent Herb Evans and the so-called "King James Cult" the following questions instead of answering some of Herb Evans' letters. You see, they have been getting into trouble exchanging letters with Bible believers, and they have decided to play it safe by using a new strategy - questions only. Since then, we have offered to answer their 39 questions if they would answer their own 39 questions. They have refused as of March 28, 1990. We realize that a challenge like this embarrasses them. Still, we shall answer the questions ourselves. (Notice how they create straw dummy problems and grunt and strain to find an error in the King James Bible. – Herb Evans 1. Hudson: Must one possess a perfectly flawless translation in order to call it the word of God? Evans: Only if you do not want to blame God for the "flaws!" 2. Hudson: Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God?" Evans: No, they, like Peter, were human and fallible in their opinions. (Still, they did not refer to modern or corrupt translations; they were referring to good anti-Catholic, English Bibles that predated the A.V.) 3. Hudson: Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God?" Evans: Which texts? Gary's formula is, the Greek and Hebrew texts are the word of God in as much as they match the . . . ah . . . "Original Autographs." Still, more than one printed Hebrew/Greek texts were used (and also non -Hebrew/Greek texts). 4. Hudson: Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying (misnomer, see 3 and 5) the KJV can correct the English? Evans: There is nothing to correct! Still, the original "Autographs" are an acceptable standard, IF you can find them and can prove that they really are "the" Autographs. 5. Hudson: Do you believe that the English of the KJV corrects its own Hebrew and Greek? Evans: If you mean, “Does it correct the original Autographs?” then "No!" If you mean the printed texts that were used, more than one printed text was used. Besides translating from the printed texts, they also compared and consulted other manuscripts and other non-Hebrew/Greek Bibles. It is a misnomer to refer always to the translation's source as "its own Hebrew and Greek" or "its underlying Hebrew and Greek." Can one underlying Greek text correct another underlying Greek text? The English does correct many modern texts, grammarians, and Bible Correctors! 6. Hudson: Is the KJV an inspired translation? Evans: No! It is an inspired Bible that has not expired! – Herb Evans 7. A. Hudson: Is the KJV "scripture?" Evans: Yes! 7. B. Hudson 7: Is it "given by inspiration of God" (II Timothy 3:16)? Evans: If it can be said of the scripture copies, which Timothy had, "is given," then, "Yes!" Yet, all would agree that the "Autographs" were "given" but once and that there is no secondary inspiration of either copies or translations. Still, there has been preservation in English of what they were originally given. What was originally "given" did not expire with the decaying of the "Autographs" or its copies. The KJB is the living and inspired and preserved scripture! Nevertheless, why use such a question as argument when you do not believe that the word "given" is to be found in the Greek? 8. Hudson: When was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" -- in 1611 or 1769? Evans: Neither (see 7)! When were the copies, which Timothy had, "given by inspiration of God?" The first century? After scripture was originally "given" (not all at once but over a long period of time in whatever language), it continued and continues so that scripture "IS" profitable to Timothy and us (II Timothy 3:16, 17). The scriptures that Timothy had (copies) were "holy" and inspired. Note that which applies to translations also must apply to Byzantine and extant copies. 9. Hudson: In what language did Jesus Christ (not Ruckman, Evans, or Edwards) teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18? Evans: Gary's previous contention was that the scriptures were "originally" written in Hebrew and Greek, and his Bible Corrector’s cult previously used this passage, due to the "jot" and "tittle," as a proof-text. If this proof-text proves their contention that the original scriptures were written in Hebrew and that only the Hebrew scriptures are to be preserved, then there is no hope for the Greek scriptures. Can't have their cake and eat it too! Evans continued: As for the "jot" and the "tittle," the Greek word "iota," (ninth letter of the Greek alphabet) underlies the "jot," and a Greek word signifying the horn, apex, or point of a letter (some say a Hebrew character) underlies the "tittle." Still, why are not Hebrew terms used rather than Greek terms? Now, the question is a good one, for what does the Greek letter "iota" have to do with the Old Testament or the "law?" Was the law written in Greek? Luther rendered the "iota" as a "letter" of the alphabet (Ger. - Buchstabe). English has letters; English and Greek have an "I" or smallest letter. A horn, apex, or point might apply to Chaldean or other Eastern languages or even Greek or English. Was the law written in these languages? Jesus also said that his "words" would not pass away (Luke. 21:33). If we are not mistaken, English has "words" as do both Hebrew and Greek! Now, if we accept the argument that Jesus spoke in Hebrew and Aramaic and was referring to the Hebrew "yod" and the sharp horn or point at the top of the character and that Hebrew "yod" was "translated" into the "original" Greek, the implication is quite stunning. If the Greek "Iota" can be put for the Hebrew "yod," then the English "I" can be put for the Greek "Iota." (Mercy!) The problems continue to mount for those who are suffering from "FALSE-HYMERS" disease (Bible Correcting)!!! 10. Hudson: Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His word in the form of a seventeen century English translation? Evans: Nowhere! Yet where does it promise to preserve itself in Byzantine Greek? In any kind of Greek? 11. Hudson: Did God lose the words of the originals when the autographs were destroyed? Evans: No! Gary and Chris lost them. 12. Hudson: Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek" (title page of KJV NT)? Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate? Evans: Really, the title page actually says, "Translated out of the Original Tongues and with Previous Translations Diligently Compared and Revised." The need for qualification, here, does not make them liars, but Gary doesn't even believe that they had the "original Greek." Nor does he believe he has it! 13. Hudson: Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611? Evans: The original Greek manuscripts (Autographs and early complete KOINE copies) were lost long BEFORE 1611. 14. Hudson: Did the Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without the word of God? Evans: Only if they did not have one single infallible verse. Judging by martin Luther's beer drinking and persecution of Baptists, Calvin's burning folk, and the Catholic heresies that Protestantism retained, they might as well have been without whatever he thinks that they had. Non-Hebrews and non-Greeks have been without any portion of the word of God, in the past, and some are still without it, both in their own languages and also in the Hebrew and Greek. 15. Hudson: What copy or translation of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? (Their main Bibles are well--known and copies still exist). Evans: Why are we asked for a singular copy or translation that was used by plural Reformers? What Reformers? What countries? What languages? Since we are neither students nor slaves to history, we can only generally answer this multifaceted and general question. Obviously, someone, somewhere, must have had a part or parts of infallible word of God in order to pass it down to us. Unless, our questioner advocates re inspiration! 16. Hudson: If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the English--speaking people have the "word of God" from 1525-1604? Evans: The English--speaking people? Not absolutely in one volume, for then it would not be necessary for a new translation (not edition). Still, they did have a large portion of the word of God with only minor imperfections. No "people" had any kind of printed books, until the fifteenth century, in any language. Did the English "people" have the infallible W.O.G. prior to Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza? Who? What? Where? Do all the heathen tribes, now, have the W.O.G. in their languages? Why not, oh interrogator? 17. Hudson: Was Tyndale's (1525), or Coverdale's (1535), or the Geneva (1560) English Bible absolutely infallible? Evans: Absolutely? No! Still, with their minor imperfections they were more infallible and reliable than anything that has come out since the King James Bible. Hudson 18: If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by "the incorruptible word of God" (1 Peter 1:23)? Evans: This hypothesis is not the case, and since Gary holds folks to hypothetical answers, we will merely say that a man can get saved reading a commentary -- if it has a portion of that which "liveth and abideth forever." The word of God was not written, all at once, in one volume, yet, it still was and is the word of God in part and as a whole. 19 Hudson: If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally breathed by God need correction or improvement? Evans: The questioner only assumes God's breath to be Hebrew and Greek. Still, we know of no one who holds that the "inspired originals (Autographs)" can be corrected or even found for that matter. This is a straw dummy question. 20. Hudson: Since you believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" (II Peter 1:20), and II Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus: "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost?" Evans: In the sense of inspiration, no more than we would reason, "For Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus came not in (their respective dates) by the will of man: But holy men of God copied as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Of course, we do not see inspiration every time we see the word "move." However, we would suspect someone who divorced God from any of the inspiration and preservation mentioned above. 21 Hudson: Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture: "whom ye" (Cambridge KJV's) or "whom he" (Oxford KJV's) at Jeremiah 34:16? Evans: Possibly both! Notice how our queerest sets his "straw man" trap by using the expression "word- for-word" when no one, in our crowd or his, insists on that from Hebrew to Greek or Greek to English. Both the "he" and the "ye" modify the previous "ye" in the passage so that the meaning is the same in English. Even if this were not the case, no one guarantees that all the publishers would be free from printers’ errors nor give the same attention to the text. Gary and Chrissy could start their own KJB publishing company and put what they wanted in their so-called King James Bibles, but that would not guarantee accuracy after these fellows were done. 22. Hudson: Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture: "sin" (Cambridge KJV's) or "sins" (Oxford KJV's) at II Chronicles 33:19? Evans: Again (see 21), either is proper. Note the word "all." All his sin and all his sins amount to the same thing; it is merely a "singular" used as a "plural." – Herb Evans 23. Hudson: Who publishes the inerrant KJV? Evans: Oxford, Cambridge, etc. – Herb Evans 24. Hudson: Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1769 made, in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling, many hundreds of words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words, would you say the KJV was verbally inerrant in 1611, 1613, 1644, 1664, 1701, or 1769? Evans: Only 400 basic changes in these editions! The queerest knows that English grammar, punctuation, and spelling evolved. These "editions" (all which are 1611 "Editions" and NOT REVISIONS) and the other earlier English Bibles, reflect that evolution and standardization of English. Only the editions with printers’ errors are to be considered to have slight errors. It makes little difference to the Bible believer whether there was an inerrant Bible in 1450, 1525, 1611, or 1769; he has one now. No one supposes that every one, in every place, at every instant had an absolutely infallible Bible in English or Greek. Did folk have an absolutely infallible, inerrant Bible in one volume before Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus? Were these Greek texts immediately inspired and infallible upon printing without any need of subsequent editions? Go ahead and lie! 25. Hudson: Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving his word in English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises the king as "most dead Sovereign . . . Your Majesty's Royal Person . . . " IF THE HISTORICAL FACT WAS REVEALED TO YOU THAT HE WAS A PRACTICING HOMOSEXUAL ALL HIS LIFE? (Documentation: Caroline Bingham, The Making of a King, Doubleday, 1969, pp. 128-129, 197-198; Antonia Fraser, King James VI of Scotland, I of England, Knopf, 1975, pp.36-37, 123; Otto J. Scott, James I, Mason/Charter, 1976, pp.108, 111, 129, 194, 200, 224,311,353,382; David H. Willson, King James VI & I, Oxford, 1956, pp.36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395; plus several encyclopedias). Evans: Since we have no time for modern (1956, 1969, 1975, 1976, probably Catholic) attacks on James, who probably use the testimony of an embittered enemy of James, and since we never have had a problem with a murderer and an idolater and an adulterer and a polygamist writing the scripture, to begin with, we can hardly get excited about these charges. The dedicatory is neither inerrant nor inspired. 26. Hudson: Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work (Gustavius S. Paine, The Men Behind the KJV, Baker, 1979, pp.40, 69)? Evans: See 25. 27. Hudson: Is it possible that the rendition, "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2:3, could give the wrong impression to the modern English reader? Evans: Only to some perverts! 28. Hudson: Did dead people wake up in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV? Evans: No, Silly, the people in the city woke up according to Isaiah 37:36. The quietist’s problem is not with Isaiah 37:36 but with proverbs 21:16, "The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead." 29. Hudson: Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14:8 and Luke 7:20? Evans: Was "Christ" Jesus' last name or was He the Christ (Matt. 16:20, Acts 5:42, 9:34)? Was "Iscariot" Judas’ last name or was he Judas the Iscariot (Mk. 14:10, Luke 22:3)? We suggest a study of biblical as well as English surnames, i.e., John the Miller versus John Miller. 30. Hudson: Does the singular "oaths," occurring in every KJV at Matt. 14:9 and Mark 6:26, correct every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers misplacing the apostrophe? Evans: there was no misplacement of anything. The "oath" was made (singular, Greek and English) in Matthew 14:7, "he promised with an oath." We would, therefore, not expect English grammar to force a plural possessive ("oaths'") to match a singular "oath" just for the sake of mimicking the Greek. – Herb Evans 31. Hudson: Did Jesus teach a way for men to be worshiped according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4:8? (Remember: you may not go to the Greek for "light" if you are a Ruckmanite). Evans: Jesus said to Satan, in Luke 4:8, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Gary only wishes that the word "only" was before the word "worship.") Jesus tells a story, in Luke 14:10, "But when thou are bidden (to a wedding) go and sit in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee." Note: Jesus did not command nor teach anyone to worship anyone here. He simply stated a fact (English passive and not the active). We won't go to the Greek for "light"; yet, we will show how the Greek puts Bible Correctors' "lights" out, but, first, we shall prove in English that the only error here is not in the KJB but among its detractors. God is going to force folk to worship (Rev. 3:9) the Philadelphians. According to Webster (1828), the word "worship" comes from the Saxon ("worth--ship") -- the state of worth or worthiness." Among the ways, in which this word may be and is used, Webster (1828) allows "To respect; to honor; to treat with civil reverence.’ Nor worship'd [Check that apostrophe, Gary!] with a waxen epitaph' Shakespeare." Webster quotes Spencer, "Elfin born of noble state and muckle worship in his native land." Webster (1828) also quotes Luke 14:10 in a similar fashion. Tyndale's Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and the Bishop's Bible all have the word "worship" (or worshippe or worshipp) in Luke 14:10. You see, Gary would like Luke 14:10 to read like the corrupt R.V., "then shalt thou have glory in the presence." However, Gary has some problems both in the English and the Greek because of his nit-picky nature. In 1 Peter 2:10, the Great bible reads, "speake evyll of them that excel in worshippe" the Bishop's Bible reads, "speake evill of them that excell in worship (worth--ship)." The A.V. reads, "speak evil of dignities." The RSV reads, "revile the glorious ones," the reading that Gary likes. In Jude 8, also, the RSV reads "speak evil of dignities," while the Rheims goes with "blaspheme majestie." So, what is the point to all this? The point is that the so-called underlying Greek word, which our friends have on their minds, for all these passages, is "DOXA(S)" (from which we get our doxology). W.E. Vine, our friends' authority and hero, says, under Dignity, ". . . an appearance commanding respect . . ." It sounds like something we just read . . . "worth--ship." If Luke 14:10 contradicts Luke 4:8, then Luke 14:10 ("DOXA") contradicts John 5:44, "How can you believe, which receive honour ("DOXA") one of another." The so-called underlying Greek word, which our friends have on their minds, in Luke 4:8, is "PROSKUNEO." Their final authority, W.E. Vine, says, "'List of readings and renderings preferred by the American committee . . . At the word ‘worship’ in Matt 2:2, etc., add the marginal note ‘the Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to man (see 18:26) or to God . . . ’” Does Matthew 18:26 ("The servant therefore fell down and worshiped him . . . " - PROSEKUNIA) contradict Luke 4:8 (PROSEKUNIA)? We will let Gary and Chris straighten out the mess that they have made. 32. Hudson: Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? (Again: you may not go to the Greek for any "light" if you are a Ruckmanite!). Evans: Of course! If not, why not? Because of some man, made prohibition or tradition? Jesus is a "that" and God is a "what!" 33. Hudson: Does Luke 23:56 support a Friday crucifixion in the KJV? (No "day" here in Gk.). Evans: No! (Matt. 28:1; Mk. 2:27, 3:4, 16:1,2; John 19:31*) 34. Hudson: Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? Evans: Yes! But it may not have necessarily been "flesh." What if Jesus would have also said, "a spirit does not have meat and bones as ye see me have?" 35. Hudson: Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-Corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered, "in hope" (metropolitan Pulpit, 1881, vol. 27, p.485)? Evans: Yes! "Should be rendered" is a term involving correction, is it not? He was a "cigar smoker" for smoking cigars. Still, check him out one year before he died when he did neither. Evans has also been guilty, in the past, of being a Bible Corrector. So what! (See 37) 36. Hudson: Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible--Corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn" (Norris- Wallace Debate, 1934, pp. 108, 116? Evans: Yes! Also, he was a "choir-cusser" for cussing out the choir. Still, there is such a thing as an explanatory - "and," unless God "and" the father are different Beings. (see 37) 37. Hudson: Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907: "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant?"The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the scriptures as originally given."? (Difficulties in the Bible, p. 17). Evans: He was not lying inasmuch as his qualification, "so far as I know." Yet, the rest of his words, "no one . . . holds that . . ." should have also been qualified and certainly should never be applied to lay--folk, most of which lived in "Podunk Holler" and never knew any other Bible than the KJB. To manipulate the case that there was no KJB issue among ordinary believers during that time is a disproportionate exaggeration, which distorts and misrepresents that particular time. Torrey, no doubt was referring to many of his favorite scholars of that period. His statement "substantially accurate," although short of lying, matches the weasel wording that we hear today. That is to be expected from an R.V. man who believed in a goose-bumpy, willy-nilly, Holy Ghost baptism? 38. Hudson: Is Evangelist Don Edwards correct "in favor of canonizing" our KJV, thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek (THE FLAMING TORCH, June 1989, p.6)? Evans: This is a very funny question in the light that Gary Hudson has repudiated any and all inspired or infallible texts today. In fact, he tells us that he never believed in one. Canonization means to approve a standard or criterion. God is the only One capable of canonizing any Bible. Besides, we are not in favor of repeating something that God has already done. We believe Don meant well. Our friends should be lenient and give Don time to get stronger on this. 39. Hudson: Did God supernaturally "move His word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by THE FLAMING TORCH, June 1989, p. 6? Evans: Did God supernaturally "move His word from the KOINE Greek to the BYZANTINE Greek?" Either God was involved in the production of the King James Bible and the sinking of the Spanish Armada or he was not. If He was involved, He was supernaturally involved. He is a supernatural Being and does things supernaturally.

Conclusion It should be very obvious to the reader that these questions have very little to do with scripture or scriptural support for the Bible Corrector's position. Only questions 7, 8, 9, and 20 contain any scriptural argument at all. The other references to scripture, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 are merely attacks on these passages, a practice not found among the prophets, Christ, nor the apostles (if you want Baptist tradition). Now, here is the faulty reasoning of Bible Correctors: 1. If there were no perfect English Bible, at a certain date, there cannot be a perfect English Bible now. 2. Because, at a certain date, folk had to use the best available English Bibles, which were not absolutely perfect but extremely good, it is all right to use English bibles, which are inferior to the perfect King James Bible. Apples and oranges!!! Now, answering most of these 39 questions was not very hard - only time consuming. We await Gary Hudson's and Chris McHugh's answers to their own questions. Do you think they will answer them? Chris McHugh has another Nine Questions that he authors. We have answered those questions also under the title, Answering McHugh’s Nine Theses. Originally, we printed our “Forty Save One” in booklet form. It is now out of print. Nothing has changed much in twelve years.

-- by Herb Evans ANSWERING McHUGH'S PLUS NINE THESIS 1. McHugh: What version of the Bible was the exact, inerrant, infallible, inspired-translation prior to A.D. 1611? Evans: None! The question is misleading, for there were no complete English Bibles prior to 1525. Good, non-Catholic English Bibles did exit between 1525 and 1611, but they did have minor blemishes. Still, they used the best non perverted English Bibles that they had (unlike Bible Correctors today). 2. McHugh: If there wasn’t an exact, inerrant, infallible, inspired-translation produced before A.D. 1611; then why would God wait more than 1500 years to provide His church with an exact, inerrant, infallible, inspired--translation supposedly found in the King James? Evans: Why did God wait thousands of years to complete the Bible? Why did God wait thousands of years to provide a Bible in one volume? Why did God wait thousands of years to give the Greeks a Bible? Why did God wait thousands of years to give us “printed” Bibles? Why did God wait until 1525 to give us an English Bible? Could it be that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years? Why do black cows eat green grass and excrete brown mud-pies and give white milk? Why did the chicken cross the road? We do not pretend to know the mind of God. His thoughts and ways are so much higher than ours. 3. McHugh: If there was an exact, inerrant, infallible, inspired-translation produced before A.D. 1611, is it IDENTICAL, (grammatically & textually), to the King James? 4. McHugh If it is IDENTICAL (grammatically & textually) to the KJV, then why was it necessary to produce the King James in the first place? 5. McHugh: If it isn't IDENTICAL, (grammatically & textually), to the KJV, then how can both be exact, inerrant, and infallible? Evans: 3, 4, 5: Questions 3, 4, 5 are not applicable due to our answer to question one (Such an English Bible did not exist). – Herb Evans 6. McHugh: How can anyone maintain the KJV to be INSPIRED, or maintain the KJV to contain "ADVANCED- REVELATION,” (not found in the original, inspired-text), and still maintain that the CANON OF SCRIPTURE, (or period of time when God was: "MOVING MEN BY THE HOLY GHOST,” II Peter 1:21), ended with the Book of Revelation? Evans: 6. A. Inspiration did not end with the writing of Revelation. The inspired Bible did not expire, after it was written, therefore the Bible is still inspired. While being written, the complete inspired Bible was never publicly available in one volume nor was it publicly available after completion until the arrival of printing (15th century). Evans: 6. B. The queerest has his self appointed terminology mixed up. No advanced revelation has been advocated by anyone in the sense of additional scripture. Still, men are continually and constantly illuminated, by the scriptures, especially to current issues. Evans: 6. C. The Holy Ghost still moves men but not to writing inspired scripture. Evans: 6. D. Advanced revelation did not fix the canon of scripture as far as the Books nor the Text. The Holy Spirit fixed the canon of both Books and Text. 7. McHugh: If the A.V. 1611 is INFALLIBLE, then why were numerous revisions and WORD CHANGES made to its TEXT? Evans: We reject the term "revisions" and count it inappropriate here. The quietist’s use of the term "edition," in Q. 8, is more appropriate. Any writing of substance, involving non cognizant labor, requires "editing" of the printer's and transcriber's errors, therefore, "editions." The Bible Correctors must carefully "edit" their attacks on the King James Bible. Even the early Hebrew and Greek Bibles required "editions." Yes, Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus all have "editions," but they hardly could be called “revisions.” 8. McHugh: Which EDITION of the A.V. 1611 is the exact, inerrant, and infallible edition? Evans: The one we "have" and use . . . now! 9. McHugh: How can anyone maintain an answer to any of the above questions that is favorable to Dr. Ruckman's THEORY concerning the KJV being "GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD,” and his THEORY concerning the KJV containing "ADVANCED-REVELATION" not found in the ORIGINAL INSPIRED TEXT; and still maintain that the canon of scripture ENDED with the Book of Revelation? (Revelation 22:18) Evans: This question is the coup de grace for McHugh, who has just embraced an advanced revelation in that the word "given" is not in any Greek nor Hebrew manuscript. We deal with this term "given by inspiration" in question #7 of the 39 questions by McHugh and Hudson in our booklet, “Forty Save One.” Actually, there is really nothing in the nine that is not included in the thirty nine. Dr. Ruckman can answer to his own theories as we do ours. McHugh has not defined what the "ORIGINAL INSPIRED TEXT" is and would not know it if he saw it or could find it. Take the question for what it is - the rantings of a disillusioned mind! -- Herb Evans