Saturday, October 12, 2019

Harold L Wilmington Was Not a KJV-Only Advocate

By Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
October 12, 2019

From his own writings, it is extremely evident that Harold L Wilmington (d1918) of Liberty University (Wilmington’s Guide to the Bible) was NOT a supporter in the preserved Textus Receptus and King James Bible. This fact is evident within the text of Guide and textual criticism is oddly not mentioned once.  This is also the teaching of Liberty University which championed Wilmington as a great teacher.

On page 680 of the 30th Anniversary Edition, Wilmington wrote, “Even though the original books are lost, there is overwhelming evidence our translated Bibles today represent amazing copies of the first manuscripts themselves. “Wilmington is NOT referring to either the Greek Textus Receptus or the King James Version or their category! In fact, exactly the opposite is true. “The favorable comparison of all these manuscripts.  Various scholars have estimated how reliable the text of the New Testament is:
Westcott and Hort have estimated it is 98.33% pure.
Ezra Abbott rates it 99.75% pure.
A. T. Robertson rates it 99.9% pure.”
In case you are not aware, these three are avowed supporters of modern textual criticism and sworn enemies of God’s ability to preserve His Word through the Textus Receptus and King James Version!  No KJV-only advocate would ever quote Westcott and Hort to support their position. Westcott and Hort swore to destroy the King James Bible early in life and A. T. Robertson was a disciple of B. B. Warfield. When they speak of 98.33, 99.75 and 99.9% purity, they are referring to the “corrected” Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society Greek texts behind modern versions which have removed 25% of the Textus Receptus.

Behind the first title page Wilmington lists a total of eight (8) versions quoted in the book: KJV, NKJ, NAS, NIV, NLT, RSV, AMP and the ESV.  This is proof positive that Wilmington was not a KJV-only advocate.

From pages 673-675, Wilmington lists famous supporters of inspiration and inerrancy. The problem with this list is that is makes no effort to distinguish between those who supported the traditional text, Jerome’s changed Latin Vulgate or the modern drastically changed texts. Jerome (d420) used questionable texts to re-write the original Latin Bible which had been based upon the traditional text. Augustine (d430) was influenced by Jerome and interpreted the Bible allegorically. Harold Lindsell, Gleason Archer, Paul Feinberg and Millard Erickson are/were not KJV-only advocates.

From pages 675-678, Wilmington quotes the 1978 International Council on Biblical Inerrancy signed by Liberty University. “The Bible”[verson?] is I: authoritative; II: supreme authority over the church; III: revelation by God;  VI: the origin of Scripture is divine; IX: guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance of all matters of which the biblical authors were moved to speak and write;  we deny that these authors introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word; XI: it is infallible, it is reliable in all the mattes it addresses; XII: the Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, falsehood or deceit; III: complete truthfulness; XIV: no errors or discrepancies; XVI: the Church has historically taught inerrancy;  XVII; the Holy Spirit assures truthfulness and XIX: We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith.

However (and this is very important), while KJV-only advocates apply these qualities to the Textus Receptus and KJV, Wilmington and Liberty only apply them to the original autographs which no longer exist. If they only apply to the original autographs, the statements are meaningless.
Article V: “We affirm that [only] the whole of Scripture, and all its parts, down to the very words of the original. Were given by divine inspiration.”
Article X: “We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. “

Again, when Wilmington wrote on page 680, “Even though the original books are lost, there is overwhelming evidence our translated Bibles today represent amazing copies of the first manuscripts themselves,” Wilmington was NOT referring to either the Greek Textus Receptus or the King James Version or their category! In fact, exactly the opposite is true. Article X only affirms “that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. “ In context, “amazing copies of the first manuscripts” are found in “our translated Bibles today” only refers to the RSV, NAS, NIV and other Westcott-Hort-related versions and “first manuscripts” refers to Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A.

Therefore, “The favorable comparison of all these manuscripts” refers to the genre of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A.” Wilmington’s “Various scholars have estimated how reliable the text of the New Testament is” are opponents of the Textus Receptus and KJV-only.
“Westcott and Hort have estimated it is 98.33% pure.
Ezra Abbott rates it 99.75% pure.
A. T. Robertson rates it 99.9% pure.”
These statistics only result AFTER removing 15% of the KJV-based Textus Receptus. This statistic is found in the forewords of New King James Bibles.

KJV-only supporters do not need the critical-method statistics using unverified documents which were never mass produced by the early church.  God in His Word promised that His word would be preserved forever and would not require man to restore it. The fact that man admits to a need to restore an (un-lost) Word proves they do not believe what God’s Word says about itself. We believe the original autographs have always been faithfully copied and preserved by early Christians and by the Greek Orthodox Church. At first called the Traditional Text, later the Textus Receptus, it was the source of the earliest Latin, Aramaic, French, German, Russian and Gothic Bibles.

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

Monday, August 26, 2019

SDAs Teach That Jesus is Antichrist in Dan 8:9-14


In 1973, at the age of 29 and marred with 2 small children, I became an SDA, quit my job and moved to Collegedale, Tn to study for the SDA ministry. This 4-year degree was achieved in 3 years because of a summer schedule and cost me much in lost sleep working a full-time job and repaying student loans. I accepted a call to North Dakota and later South Carolina. My third church in South Carolina soon grew to overflowing capacity because of my success in soul-winning.  I was an SDA fanatic and found it easy to lead Christians to abandon their previous faith and follow the “truth.” Believe me, I have been in your shoes.

Why did I become an SDA? First, the Southern Baptist’s erroneously teach that “the Ten Commandments are the unchangeable infallible will of God.” Second, the SDA evangelist lied to my face by saying “EGW is not considered as inspired as is the Bible.”

My erroneous logic was “If I have been so wrong about the Sabbath, then perhaps I have been wrong about the other SDA doctrines also.” Upon that false premise I totally immersed myself into SDA theology.

The Southern Baptists’ statement about the Ten Commandments was unbiblical. Except for the Sabbath, all of the other 9 are repeated to the Church after Calvary in terms of the New Covenant. According to Exodus 31:13-18, the 7th day Sabbath of the Law was only a unique sign of the Old Covenant God mad only with national Israel. In fact, He commanded Israel NOT to share its covenant with others.

The SDA evangelist was wrong. One cannot become an honest SDA without accepting EGW’s writings as equally inspired as the Bible. My website documents hundreds of EGW errors and the very worst of them is the Investigative Judgment.  

You ask me to be objective.  I take Daniel 8:9-14 and explain it word by word exactly as SDAs explain it in their commentary and Bible dictionary. I objectively conclude that YOU teach that Jesus personally DEFILED the heavenly sanctuary every time He BEARS sin into it via His own blood! And that is exactly HOW EGW explains the cause of the defilement of the heavenly sanctuary!!!! I then ask you to reply to my deductions in a word-for-word explanation of Daniel 8:9-14.  And YOU un-objectively refuse to do so and call me “un-objective.” SDA theologians are all cowards.

In the final chapters of The Great Controversy, EGW says that Jesus Will KILL all who have the Mark of the Beast (?worship on Sunday?) when He returns.  That will include me if you are correct. Yet you expect me to treat your church with respect when your church has no respect for honest God-fearing God-loving faith-full persons as myself.

I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior decades before becoming a Seventh-day Adventist. The Holy Spirit convicted me as a sinner; I confessed my sins and sinfulness; I accepted Jesus as my sin-bearer and Savior and I asked Christ to save me.  According to His Word, I was saved; my confession and repentance was accepted and I was truly “born again”. Since it is impossible to become “unborn,” I cannot fall from grace because the Holy Spirit is incorruptible.

If you want honest dialog, I ask you again to explain Daniel 8:9-14.  EGW never attempts to explain those texts.

In Christ’s love
Russ Kelly

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Why the English King James Bible is the Most Trustworthy

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
July 30, 2019


Admit it or not, except for the King James Version, most other English Bible versions begin with the un-biblical premise that our Omnipotent God is incapable of preserving His Word. Beginning with this false presumption, they have assigned themselves the task of helping God restore that which He promised numerous times would never require restoration. This fabricated attempt to re-discover God’s so-called lost truth is tantamount to calling God a liar. It is a declaration that His Word has been lost as early as the second century for approximately 1700 years until Westcott and Hort began restoring it with Vaticanus B in the mid-1800s. The very existence of “updated” versions declares that God’s Word cannot ever be wholly trustworthy until it has been wholly restored by them (if such is even possible). Their favorite Greek version, the Nestle-Aland text, is already in its 28th revision.


God Himself in the Bible teaches that, from its beginning He inerrantly inspired holy men to write His Word.  He did not inspire unholy and unsaved men to reconstruct it for their own purposes. This includes the profit motive which is common today.

The New Testament was first written by Jesus’ own first-generation apostles and disciples. Clinging to the Bible’s own promises of eternal preservation, conservative Christians believe that the inerrant Greek Bible has indeed continually existed throughout the centuries and does not require rescue by those who do not believe the promises of the very book they pretend to be rescuing. We also believe that God has preserved His Word for English-reading persons in the King James Version. It is far safer to learn a handful of archaic words from the KJV than to trust entirely new versions based on Greek documents which have no pedigree whatsoever.

While we admit that Satan has used heretics to create alternate false versions of God’s Word as early as Marcion in A. D. 150, Origen in 250 and Jerome in 350, we hold firm to our conviction that the true infallible inerrant Word has always survived through Divine preservation. We believe that, from the beginning, faithful Greek-speaking Christians meticulously copied and preserved God’s Word. We believe that, with minor spelling and punctuation changes, the preserved Greek Bibles used by and edited by Erasmus in 1516 are essentially the preserved Word of God.

The following texts are a small sample which declare that our Omniscient Omnipotent God has promised that His Word cannot and will not ever be lost to require uninspired and often unsaved men and women to restore it. It is absurd to infer that God’s Word had been lost to the world until Westcott and Hort began rescuing it in the mid-1800s. And, if the world does not currently have God’s preserved Word, then God is a liar, prophecy is false, miracles are not real, truth is unrevealed, the plan of salvation is not known and all mankind is headed for Hell. Yet these are the very doctrines held less and less in churches which have strayed away from faith in a preserved literal interpretation of God’s Word.

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


“Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus A and less than 50 other old documents dating between 350-400 are the oldest and, therefore, the best New Testament manuscripts. They are nearest to the originals. The oldest existing Textus Receptus manuscripts underlying the King James Bible are about 1500 years more recent and are, therefore, not the most accurate.” (my condensed re-wording)



FIRST ELEPHANT: the above lie presumes that God is incapable of preserving His Word as promised in His Word. The lie presumes that unsanctified men are required to rediscover and reconstruct a lost document which states that it cannot be lost.

SECOND ELEPHANT: There are no ancient copies of the Traditional Text because it has been so carefully mass-copied in such great quantities since before the time of Vaticanus B by the Greek Church that worn-out copies have been destroyed. That is why over 5000 newer copies of the Greek manuscripts exist today.

THIRD ELEPHANT: Papyrus P52 is the oldest existing piece of the Bible known today. It is from John 8 and dates to around 100. When translated into English, it reads like the Traditional Text rather than the Vaticanus B.

FOURTH ELEPHANT: Although less than 50 pre-350 partial papyri manuscripts exist, research proves that, when translated into English, about 50% of them quote the Traditional Text.

FIFTH ELEPHANT: Conservatives are convinced that the Old Syriac Peshitta Bible dates back to 150. When it is translated into English, it reads like the King James Bible rather than versions produced from the Vaticanus B after 1881.

SIXTH ELEPHANT: The old Syriac Diatesseron, is a gospel harmony dating back to  152-172. Three copies exist. When translated into English, it reads like the King James Bible rather than modern versions produced from the Vaticanus B after 1881.

SEVENTH ELEPHANT: The Old Latin Bible traces its origin to around 150. The Waldensians used it as early as 157. Jerome began with the Old Latin to translate the Latin Vulgate and replaced it with other sources.  However, the Old Latin was not officially replaced by the Roman Catholic Church until after the Protestant Reformation in 1548.  The Old Latin was the source of the Albigensian Bible of 1150 and still exists in 50 copies. When translated into Englsh, the Old Latin reads like the King James Version and not like modern versions based on Vaticanus B.

EIGHTH ELEPHANT: The Gothic (Early German and Armenian) Bible originated in the 300s came from the Tepi Old Latin. When translated into English, it reads like the King James Version rather than the modern Bibles produced after 1881.

CONCLUSION: The “elephants in the room” conclusively prove that the statements found in modern Bible versions that “--- is not found in the most ancient manuscripts” is a blatant lie! Even the Scofield Reference Bible and the New King James Bible contain this false information in places like Mark 16:9-20, John 8 and 1 John 5:7. The Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A originated in heresy-prone North Africa where Clement (150-215) and Origen (184-254) inserted their false theology. Eusebius (260-340) and Jerome (382) further manipulated Scripture.


As far back as 40 years before the Revision Committee of 1881, two English Anglican priests and professors at Cambridge University (Westcott and Hort) began secretly working on a new version of the Bible based primarily on an un-sourced text discovered in the Vatican library in 1481. It had no pedigree to recommend its validity or importance: Who wrote it? Where did it come from? Why was it stored away and not mass copied?

Westcott and Hort determined to turn the entire Christian world against the King James Bible and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus. The following describes them.

(1) They began with a deliberate lie. When the King of England was enticed to slightly edit (not revise) the KJV, Westcott and Hort agreed to abide by his rules, remove the massive footnotes from the Bishop’s Bible and only make cosmetic changes in spelling and punctuation. They began the project with a great lie.

(2) Unlike the King James compliers, they worked in secret. The public had no access to their work.

(3) Although they did not revere the pope, they were Roman Catholic in doctrine and practice.

(4) They did not believe or treat the Bible as the verbal Word of God.

(5) The fall of man was an allegory involving long periods of evolution.

(6) The doctrine of the “priesthood of every believer” was a “crazy horror.”

(7) Darwin’s theory of evolutionist was “unanswerable.”

(8) Atonement is through Mary and Christ’s incarnation rather than through His death and crucifixion.

(9) Biblical miracles are doubtful.

(10) The original copies of the Bible may have been corrupted.

(11) Spiritism and ghosts are real.

(12) They break their own rules. P47, the oldest Greek manuscript of Revelation, is not considered the best manuscript by “the oldest manuscripts are best” advocates. Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible, 40-60.

It is highly likely that the north African genre of texts such as Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A were recognized as corrupted and were deliberately not mass produced. Why was Vaticanus B hidden in the Vatican library and not used? And why was Sinaiticus A and its relatives not found and used all over the Eastern Roman Empire?



If you think your modern version is superior to the King James Version, read these changes:  

Isaiah 7:14 (RSV) changes “virgin” to “young woman.” If context is important, there is nothing sign-worthy about a “young woman” having a child. While the Hebrew word for “virgin,” almah, can mean “young woman,” the O. T. context demands it be translated “virgin” by most modern Bibles in its other six occurrences. Almah’s counterpart in Matthew 1:23, parthenos, can only properly be translated as “virgin.”

Matthew 1:25 (NIV, NAS) “Firstborn” is replaced with “a son.” Perhaps an early scribe who wanted to promote the perpetual virginity of Mary changed it.

Matthew 6:13 (NIV, RSV) “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” is missing. This reading offends those who do not believe that God will set up a literal Messianic kingdom on earth.

Matthew 9:18; 20:20; Mark 5:6 and Luke 24:52 replace “worship” and “worshipped.”. Perhaps an early Arian who did not believe in the deity of Christ tampered with an early manuscript. 

Matthew 19:17 replaces “me good” with “what is good.” It is clear from 19:16 that Jesus is referring to how the rich young ruler addressed him.

Mark 1:2-3 “As it is written in the prophets” is changed to “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet.” The KJV is correct because verse 2 is a quotation from Malachi 3:1.

Mark 9:44 “Where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched” is missing. The entire quotation is from Isaiah 66:24.

Inexplicably, both Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A indicate that they have omitted verses 9-20; one has a blank space large enough to hold it and the other changes to a very large lettering to cover up the same space. Also, 5th century Alexandrinus contains all of it. Like Matthew, Luke and John, Mark would have never ended his account of Jesus’ life before His glorious appearing to all.

Luke 1:34 (RSV) “I know not a man” is replaced with “I have no husband.” Since women can have children without being married, the changed text is ambiguous.

Luke 2:14 (AMP, NAS, NIV) changes “peace, good will towards men” into “peace among men of good will.” This is wrong because the Bible teaches that there are no men of good will (Rom 3:10-16).

Luke 2:33 (NIV, NAS) changes “Joseph and his mother” to “his father and his mother.” Yet God’s Word is teaching that Joseph was NOT his father.

Luke 4:4 (NAS, NIV) deletes “but by every word of God.” This omission leaves Jesus’ teaching incomplete; He tells how “not” to live, but not how “to” live.

Luke 9:56 (NIV) omits “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” If this had been retained in the Roman Catholic Bibles, the Inquisition may not have occurred.

Luke 22:64 (NIV) deletes “and struck him on the face.” Without this statement, the text merely says “they blindfolded him.” If they only blindfolded him, why ask “Who hit you?”

Luke 23:38 (NIV) deletes the phrase “in letters of Greek and Latin and Hebrew.”

Luke 23:42 (NAS, NIV) omits the thief’s address to Jesus as “Lord.” This error removes his conviction and realization of Christ’s identify. Yet not one Greek manuscript omits this word.

John 7:53 to 8:12 (WH, most footnotes) is missing or noted as not in the oldest manuscripts. It is the story of the woman caught in adultery. Yet Jerome wrote (c415) “in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.” Hills, The King James Version Defended, p151; Jones, ibid 229. And, since the 4th-5th century, the Roman Catholic Church has read this text each year on St. Pelagia’s Day, October 8th. Jones ibid 228.

Romans 8:1 (NAS, NIV) deletes the second half in all modern versions because it does not exist in either Vaticanus B or Sinaiticus A. “Who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

Colossians 1:14 (NAS, NIV, most) is either missing or suggests removing “through the blood.”

1st Timothy 3:16 (NAS, NIV) replaces “God” with “he who.” The erroneous translation offers no precedent for the pronoun “he” and diminishes the deity of Christ.

2nd Timothy 3:16 (NKJ) is an extremely important text which declares that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God.” The NKJ reads “every inspired scripture” which implies that not all Scripture is inspired.

Hebrews 1:3 (RSV) changes “the brightness of his glory” into “the reflection of his glory.” It denies the deity of Christ.

1st John 5:7 does not appear in modern versions and even Scofield says it is not legitimate. Although few, there are 19 cursive manuscripts and 60 lectionaries which contain the text. The 1666 Armenian Bible which quotes it is based on a 1295 Greek manuscript. The Old Latin Bible contains it from the 2nd century. It is referenced by Tertullian (d220), Cyprian (d228), Priscillian (d385), a 5th century Old Latin manuscript, Eugenius of Carthage in 484, Vigilus of Thapsus (490), Cassiodorus (c530) and Fulgentius (d553). Since something that does not exist cannot be quoted, it must have been removed early after 553 --- after Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A were written between 350-400. Moorman, Where the KJV Departs from the Majority Text, 119, 121, 168, 171 and Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible, p231-235.

Finally, the Greek syntax demands an insertion of something between 1st John 5:6 and 5:8. Otherwise, a masculine “three” modifies three neuter words – “Spirit,” “water” and “blood.”



First, it is evident that both the Traditional Text of the Textus Receptus (KJV) and the Vaticanus B genre versions existed as early as the year 200. Second, it is also evident that deliberate presumptive changes occurred as early as 150 by Marcion and others. Third, since God promised in His Word that He will preserve it forever, we must conclude that one line of manuscripts was preserved and another line was corrupted. It is the opinion of fundamental conservative Bible-believing Christians that God has kept His promises and has indeed preserved His Word from the beginning. It is inconceivable that so much time and effort has been wasted in attempting to restore the Bible when the Bible itself says that it will never need to be restored because God will not allow it to be lost.



(1) Makes no statement about the Bible’s teaching that God will always preserve His Word as He promised.

(2) Uses an newer Hebrew O. T. than the KJV. While the KJV uses a 1525 Masoretic text from the 500s to the 900s, the NKJ admits to using the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, the Bomberg, the Greek Septuagint and the (Roman Catholic) Latin Vulgate. This is a very serious departure from the Textus Receptus and the O.T. Masoretic text. It also breaks the Westcott-HOrt rule that “older is better.”

(3) The NKJ recklessly states that nothing has really changed in God’s Word even after the thousands of changes made to the Textus Receptus by Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A by Westcott and Hort and those who continue to follow them. The NKJ states “There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics and by Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals. Minor variations in hand copying have appeared through the centuries before mechanical printing began about 1450.” I seriously doubt that anybody actually believes that statement!!!

The NKJ states that “two paragraphs” are missing in the Gospels” (Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:53 to 9:12) but those are a small fraction of what is really missing. It also says “It is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five per cent of the New Testament Text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text and the Majority Text.” If that were true, then God is not Omnipotent and is only able to preserve 85% of the truth for mankind; the other 15% is error. Also, who determines which 15% is corrupted?

(4) Changed 64,000 words. The new words are brought over from the NIV, RSV, NAS and other modern versions.

(5) The NKJ replaced “thee,” “thou,” “thine” and “ye” with “you” and “your.” This change makes it impossible for the reader to know if the pronoun is singular or plural and causes confusion in understanding scores of texts like John 3:7.

(6) The paid compilers of the NKJ were not passionate for the Textus Receptus Greek from which the KJV was translated. They were divided in their loyalty to either the Textus Receptus or the Vaticanus B and their genre of documents. Many of the same compilers of the NKJ also worked on compilations of other modern translations.

(7) DELETES “God” 48 times (4444 vs 4396), “Lord” 66 times, “repent” 44 times, “damned” completely, “heaven” 50 times, “devils” completely, “blood “23 times (Col 1:14) and changes 2289 NT words.

(8) OMITS 14 TEXTS: Mt 6:13b; 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Lk 17:36; 23:17; Jn 5:4; Acts 8:37; 28:29

(9) Suggests deleting Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53 to 8:12 and 1st John 5:7