HO ESTUS - Landmark Bible Baptist



ANSWERING “HO ESTUS” PIRKLE

  

The following pages contain a compilation of a series of articles, which critique Estus Pirkle’s infamous book, "The 1611 King James Bible, A Study by Dr. Estus Pirkle." Dr. Pirkle, like many other Bible Correctors, displays a double minded, double standard as he faults the 1611/1769 King James Bible in various matters, while excusing and/or ignoring the same criticisms in modern Bibles (and even in the Textus Receptus). In this case, the New King James Bible (1982) is Estus Pirkle's choice, as he answers the so-called Ruckmanites, King James Onlys, and fellow travelers. We trust that you will be amused at his vain attempt to discredit our English Bible. – Herb Evans

HO ESTUS

The 1611 King James Bible, "A Study by Dr. Estus Pirkle," is a new book and a new attack on the traditional King James Bible. Pirkle makes no bones about his desire to supplant the present KJB with the New King James bible. Estus’ 674 page denunciation has 320 pages of appendices (almost half the book), ample source material with which to rub his nose in for some time to come. One need not read more than the introduction to gain some insight to the motive, methods, and madness of the prophet.  

The Motive of the Prophet Pirkle?

Did pride motivate Pirkle's book? Or did wounded pride? On page l3, Estus says, “. . . I was publicly rebuked by both the camp moderator and the pastor for bringing a Textus Receptus New Testament to the pulpit and encouraging the preachers to acquaint themselves with and make use of it." Apparently, Estus likes to flaunt his Greek proficiency. Still, public rebuke can really upset scholarly and pompous Southern Baptist Convention preachers.

The Methods of the Prophet Pirkle?

Pirkle begins his book's introduction with a pantomime. He portrays Latin Vulgate "only" folks as blindly resisting Wycliffe's and Tyndale's "up to date" English Bibles, likening them to KJB Onlys. Yet, Wycliffe's 1380 English Bible was up to date, because it was the very first English Bible. Unfortunately for Pirkle's allegory, it was translated from Latin rather than the so-called "original" languages. A Bible from Latin to English is not the same as a Bible from Greek or Hebrew to English (Tyndale). Ask any Bible Corrector! Tyndale's 1525(35) Bible was "up to date," because it was the very first English Bible from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

The five major English Bibles prior to 1611 do not afford a license to dump the AV for the NKJV any more than the hundred subsequent, unsuccessful, English bibles. The times of 1380 and 1525(35) were not the same nor were the 1950's, 1980's, and 1990's. Christendom's rise from "dark age" apostasy is not the same as Pirkle’s Southern Baptist denomination and its descent into apostasy. An English Bible with non standardized 1611 spelling, punctuation, and grammar is not the same as a standardized 1769 English Bible. The irony of Pirkle's logic is that after scorning the folly of those who resisted Wycliffe's and Tyndale's translations from non-English into English (in England), he then turns right around and scorns folks for refusing to leave our English, while urging them to go back to non-English. What does the NKJV say about a double tongued, double minded man?

Pirkle argues (p. 6) that the Holy Spirit originally spoke the 0.T. scripture in 2,000 B.C. Hebrew (Malachi also? -- Evans), something he only assumes but does not prove but. Only in Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek, according to Estus, can the scriptures be said to he inspired, inerrant, and infallible (p. 4, 6). Yet, Estus allows all bibles to bear the title "Word of God" (p. 5).

Therefore, Pirkle suggests both an inspired, infallible, and inerrant "Word of God" on one hand and an uninspired, fallible, and errant "word of god" on the other. Pirkle says (p. 6) regarding the "jot" of Matt. 5:18, "He (Jesus) did say that not one iota [sic] (The Hebrew letter yod) . . . would not pass from the law till heaven and earth pass." Yet is an "iota" really a "yod?" Or is it a translation of a "yod?" Neither! An iota is the Greek vowel "I." A "yod" is a Hebrew consonant. If the Holy Spirit would have wanted the Hebrew "yod" in the Greek text, He would have put a "yod" there as with many other Greekified Hebrew words, which are found in the Greek texts. After all, isn't Pirkle crusading for the "original" transmission language? Isn't Greek, namely the Greek vowel "iota," the transmission language? Or was the N.T. originally written in Hebrew? Can Estus have it both ways - the Hebrew "yod" AND the Greek "iota?”

Pirkle has made mentions (p. 31) "Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language." His dictionary defines the ENGLISH words "jot" and "tittle" as follows: 1. jot - "an iota; a point; a tittle; the least quantity assignable." 2. tittle - "a small particle; a minute part; a jot; an iota."

Could Jesus, in idiomatic terms, be promising the preservation of the smallest part of the law with meaning as opposed to merely the preservation of vowels and consonant points? For most folks know that there are minor and major variations in the various available Greek and Hebrew texts (even in the several Receptus texts). Do you think Estus can show us how to determine which "original" Receptus is correct? Estus' favorite old English Bible is the "Geneva" (p. 61), whose main underlying source was the 1550 Receptus. Nevertheless, Estus is using (p. 8) the 1598 Receptus, which was the main underlying source of the A.V. 1611 Bible. Hm mm!

The Madness of the Prophet Pirkle?

It is a shame that Pirkle's three years of Greek and two years of Hebrew, keeping up with the Greek and Hebrew for thirty-five years (with flash cards, P. 17,18 and in "About the Author" - Ibid.), has not taught him to avoid forcing the rules of one language upon another. Or making up one's own grammatical rules or demanding that one language "uniformly" translates another.

Since Bible believers charge modern translations with downplaying the Lord Jesus Christ's deity for their subtraction of the word "Lord" from certain passages, Pirkle counter charges (p. 9) alleging that the NKJV correctly translates "HO CHRISTOS" 41 times "The Christ," while the 1611 and 1769 translators only translated the expression correctly with the definite article 56% and 50% of time, respectively. He says, "According to the 1611 KJV only measuring stick, this means that the 1611 KJV translators denied the Deity of Christ 56% of the time in the first four books of the New Testament."

Pirkle cites the nominative "HO CHRISTOS" in 41 passages, but five of these passages do not use, "HO CHRISTOS.” Luke 2:26, 4:41 (2nd occurrence), 9:20, 20:41, and 24:26 use "TON CHRISTON" (the accusative definite article). Yet, when was the term "THE Christ" or "the Messiah" ever a Jewish or even a Greek term for "deity?" If ”THE Christ” was A TERM FOR DEITY, why were the Jews NOT upset, when the term "THE Christ" was used but were very upset, when Jesus made Himself equal with God? Huh?

Why would HO ESTUS "zero in" on only the four gospels? Well, a simple check of Pirkle's beloved New King James Bible (1982) reveals that it translates "HO CHRISTOS" in Acts 9:34; 26:23; Rom. 9:5; 15:3; 1 Cor. 1:13; 10:4; 12:12; Eph. 5:2,14,23,25; Col. 3:4,13; Heb. 5:5. 9:24, 28 (you guessed it) -"Christ" and not “THE Christ.” Still, the NKJB translators must have also denied the deity of "God," when they translated "HO THEOS" in Acts 2:30, 32 and Col 1:27 as "God" and not “THE God.” HO! HO! HO! We will let HO ESTUS figure out the NKJB's percent age of deity denials of God and Jesus.

Ironically, in his exercise in senility, HO ESTUS closes his introduction with Deut. 8:3 in regard to a man living by "every" word of God. According to HO ESTUS, this cannot be done in anything but inspired Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. A Pirkelite, therefore, cannot live by "every" word of God unless he can understand Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

Wanted, A Snake Oil Salesman!

Estus Pirkle's new book, "The 1611 King James Bible, A study by Estus Pirkle," asks the question, "Do You Have a 1611 KJV Bible?" Pirkle theorizes that we do not have the original KJB, yet he calls his 1982 "New" KJB a "King James Bible," reminding us of the "oldie but goodie" lyrics, "Yes, We Have No Bananas!" The book is filled, with highly exaggerated illustrations, science fiction (time travel, p. 29), and "What if all you had was a _____ Bible?" scenarios. Pirkle, publicly rebuked at a camp meeting for taking a Greek Textus Receptus N.T. (p. 13) to the pulpit to promote it, and he is now on a holy crusade to criticize, question, and supplant the KJB with the New King James Bible (1982).

Estus claims we really do not have a 1611 KJB but have "the 4th major revised version of the 1611 KJV Bible, which was put out in 1769" (p. 12), which Pirkle calls a "translation"(p. 9, 13) AND a "major revision"(p. 12), accusing the men responsible for the 1769 edition "translators" instead of editors (p. 9). The KJB 1769 "edition" was called a "King James Bible" and is still called a "King James Bible." The KJB 1611 was never called a "New Wycliffe Bible," a “New Bishop’s Bible,” a “New Great Bible,” a "New Geneva Bible," nor a "New Tyndale Bible." The KJB 1769 "edition" was never called a "New" KJB, because it was never a "major" revision or even a "revision." The 1769 KJB was an "edition" of the 1611 Bible, "and the men responsible for the 1769 KJB and the earlier KJB "editions" were "editors." Still, Estus’ NKJB (1982) can’t be a "translation" or an "edition," for it is a "major revision,” calling itself a "New" KJB. Still-anything but a "KJB."

The Horrible Italics

Estus complains that the King James' translators added italicized English words (p. 13), which were not in the Greek/Hebrew texts (italics that honestly signifies implied words, idioms, and departures from literal or uniform translation). He claims that this smoother, metered, more meaningful English translation is inferior to the "original" Greek and Hebrew. Still, the pot calls the kettle black, for Estus Pirkle's NKJB 1982 does the exact same thing by adding words in italics, which are not in the Hebrew and Greek! Imagine complaining about the italicized word "Jesus" being added to Luke 19:1 in both the KJB and the 1982 NKJB, because it is not in the Greek. Estus would remove "Jesus" from our Bibles in Luke 19:1, because it is italicized and is not in the Greek.

Is Estus Pirkle’s Burning Hell Burning?

Pirkle complains that the TR is not welcomed in Fundamental Baptist conferences in the 20th century (p.13, 14). Yet, "ORIGEN" welcomed the Textus Receptus in the 4th century (claims Estus, p. 14). Honest injun? Origen? The man who corrupted the Greek Text, the man behind the Alexandrian corruption . . . "welcomed" the Textus Receptus?

Did he "welcome" the 1550 or the 1598 Textus Receptus (neither agree with any manuscript)? Document that one, Estus! Alluding to his "Burning Hell" film, Pirkle goes into one of his silly hypothetical situations (p. 15, 16):

"Had the Young Man #2 ("Burning Hell" film) above known both the Greek New Testament (Textus Receptus) and the KJV 1611 Translation, he could have put up an argument (hell is the "grave") with me because of the way the KJV 1611 translators handled “hell” in 1 Corinthians 15:55 . . . In 1 Corinthians 15:55, the 1611 translators translated Hades as follows: 'O death where is thy sting? O grave (HADES), where is thy victory?' “Were the 1611 translators accurate in translating "HADES" as "grave," in 1 Cor. 15:55 and "hell" in Luke 16:23? Yes, the King James translators were very accurate! Unlike Estus, the translators knew that 1 Cor. 15:55 was a cross reference to Hosea 13:14.

. . . O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave (SHEOL), I will be thy destruction . . . -- Hosea 13:14

Estus likes the “Geneva Bible” best (of all the old English Bibles). Yet, its translators handled "HADES" the same way - "grave." (The RV and RSV handled it in a similar way, "death"). What does the NKJB (1982) do with "HADES" in 1 Cor. 15:55? Does it translate "HADES" as "hell?” No! Does the NKJB translate "HADES" as "grave?” No! Does the NKJB translate "HADES" at all? No! Does the NKJB inject the Greek word "HADES" into the English? Yes! Well, what about the O.T.? What does the NKJV (1982) do with the Hebrew equivalent of "HADES," namely "SHEOL?"

Does it translate "SHEOL" as "hell?" Yes! Does it translate "SHEOL" as "grave?" Yes! Does it translate "SHEOL" as "pit?" Yes! Does it inject the Hebrew word "SHEOL" into the English text? Yes! Do we know for sure that the words "HADES" and "SHEOL" are equivalents? Yes! How? By comparing Psalm 16:10 (1982 NKJB - "SHEOL") and Acts 2:31 (1982 NKJB - "HADES"). Does the NKJB (1982) translate "SHEOL" as "grave" in Hosea 13:14? Yes! Are the NKJB (1982) and/or Estus consistent or accurate? No! Is Estus Pirkle blowing smoke? Yes! What does Estus do with O.T. folks expecting to go to hell (SHEOL - Gen. 37:35; 42:38; 44:29, 31)? Will Estus Pirkle consign Abraham to a "Burning Sheol (Hell)?" Pirkle is so very concerned about the archaic KJB, which causes 70% of teenagers not even to try reading the Bible and closes the reading door to 1/3 of English-speaking adults (p. 18). However, could the real problem be the "natural man" and not the archaic English? Estus is also very concerned about folks needing to have a dictionary at their side in order to keep looking up words in the KJB in order to understand the KJB (p. 18, 49). Is Estus as concerned about what folks would do, if they would take his advice (p. 13) to try reading the "original" Hebrew/Greek? What kind of teenager/adult "closed, reading door" percentages do you think that would produce?

Inspired Vowel Points?

Pirkle presents a lengthy discourse about Hebrew vowel points (p. 12, 22-29) and their importance, giving a convincing demonstration of how certain marks and letters change the entire meaning of Greek and Hebrew words. He also presents us with a diatribe on that horrible archaic spelling in the old English Bibles. After informing us of the importance of the "original" Hebrew and Greek and his personal use of the Masoretic Hebrew text by Jay Green (p. 8), Estus makes a curious statement about the markings in the Masoretic Hebrew. He says, "They are Hebrew vowels. They were added sometime during the 6-8th century A.D. by a group of writers known as Masoretes (almost any encyclopedia can give you this information)." (p. 26)

How important are these vowel points? Well, if the various Masoretic vowel points are absent, certain Hebrew words lose their distinction. Words, such as "seh-ar' (hair), shaw-ar' (gate-keeper) shah'ar (gate), sho-ahr' (horrid), saw-ar' (fear), and saw-eer'(goat)," without vowels become the same word having the same 3 consonants (1.) Siyen/Shiyen (2.) Ayin (3.) Reysh. (English words without vowels would result in the same kind of confusion. How could you tell, whether "BT" means "BIT, BUT, BAT, BET, BOAT, BOOT, BEAT, or BEET?"). How can you add vowels to originals in the 6-8th century to produce the "originals?" Was the Masoretic Text inspired in the 6-8th century? Who authorized this change to the original originals? Pirkle has just destroyed his own "originals only" theory? Ruckmanites didn't do it! A Pirkelite did it! Did Estus Pirkle ever think about selling snake oil?

Word Game a la Pirkle

Estus Pirkle, in the second and third chapter of his attack on the King James Bible, "The 1611 King James Bible, A Study by Dr. Estus Pirkle," compares certain words from the Geneva and Wycliffe English Bibles against the KJB in order to correct it (for the sake of argument - P.61). The Geneva Bible and the Wycliffe Bible are two Bibles, which today are neither used by God nor man (two good temporary but short lived expedients in a "process," which culminated in the A.V. 1611 King James Bible). Pirkle's strategy is to copycat "King James Onlys," who compare the KJB to modern perversions (loaded with doctrinal error). Yet, Estus' "Monday morning quarter backing" approaches it to only fault and exaggerate (in chapters 2 and 3) petty KJB spelling and synonym differences from the Geneva and Wycliffe Bibles.

The Uniformity Trick

Pirkle, is a stickler for uniform translation, of Hebrew/Greek words every time that they are used. Uniformity in his view is equal to superiority and accuracy and must be maintained at all costs. This, no doubt, is the reason that Estus Pirkle deems the old stiff and starchy "Geneva Bible" to be superior to the King James Bible due to its more consistent avoidance of synonyms (p. 54-56).

Pirkle’s rigidness on this point propels him into many ridiculous examples (p. 55) in order to make his case for criticizing, scolding, and correcting the KJB. Pirkle is what we call a "Concordance Bible Corrector/Scholar." This is a very difficult science to master. First, you look up a word in a Strong's concordance to see if it is rendered the same way in every place in the King James Bible. Next, you compare it with your favorite, modern, bible perversion. If you find a KJB word that does not translate uniformly, and it appears to translate uniformly in your perversion, then you have Pirkle's license to correct, scold, and criticize the King James Bible.

The History Ploy

Estus finds comfort in the fact that the Puritan Pilgrims brought the Geneva Bible to America in 1620 (p. 54), being prepared by persecuted (after 1611), Puritan colonist/exiles (p. 55) AFTER the 1611 King James Bible had been translated. Also, Pirkle boasts of the Geneva Bible's "missionary impact" (p. 54, 56, 57). Odd that Puritan Calvinists, influenced by such a Bible, turned to persecution and thought that Indians couldn't go to heaven (Roger Williams notwithstanding). So much for missionary impact in America! Of course, we must ignore any preferred Puritan use of the Geneva Bible due its principal translators being Puritans (p. 52). Still, it was Puritans that requested the King James translation. Yes, the Geneva Bible was in common use for 50 years and widely distributed. However, come on, Estus, nine years is not much time to make the switch, especially in a distant land.

For the Birds

Dr. Pirkle is upset that the 1611 KJB translates "SHAMAYIM" - "foule (fowls) of the aire (air)" in Genesis 1:26, 28, while the Geneva and the Wycliffe Bibles translate the Hebrew phrase, "foule (fowls) of the heauen (heaven)" (p. 58). Mind you, this is after criticizing the original 1611 spelling of "heauen (heaven)" (p. 43, 44). As if the 1611/1769 KJB never translated the phrase, "fowls of (the) heaven." They did (Hosea 2:18; 4:3; 7:12; Dan. 4:21)! The NKJB (1982) translates "SHAMAYIM" - "birds of (the) air" in Hosea 2:18; 4:3; 7:12, but the KJB (1611) translates "SHAMAYIM" - "birds of (the) heaven" in those passages. Well, looks like that makes the KJB superior to the NKJB (1982). What an amazing, sloppy, double standard by a man, who reverently quotes his pals (p. 673) Doug Kutilek, Gary Hudson, Chris McHugh, and Rick Norris, Bible Correctors, CUM LAUD. HO (Greek definite article) HUM!

Cattle Prattle

Estus scolds the 1611 for translating "BEHEMAH" - "cattell (cattle)" (Gen. 1:26), while the Geneva and Wycliffe Bibles translate it "beastis" and "beastes" (beasts), page 58 & 63. But hold on Pirkle! What happens, when the Geneva agrees, with the KJB, in Gen. 1:24 and 1:25? Huh? Yup, cattel (cattle)!" Where is your Hebrew word for that . . . Herr Doctor? What do you do when your "true to the original" NKJV (1982) translates "BEHEMAH" - "cattle" (Gen. 1:24,25,26); 2:20; 3:14 and Exodus 7:4; 7:33 and 20:10)? And "Oh no!", did you see the NKJV (1982) in Exodus 12:29? "LIVESTOCK!" Curses! Nevertheless, cattle or "movable livestock" (from chattel) is in order.

Easter Eggs?

            Dr. Pirkle has layd (Old English for laid) some mighty big eggs in a short introduction and three short chapters making "much ado about nothing." Could it be that Dr. Pirkle did not receive an Easter basket, when he was a small fry? Could his real motive for correcting the KJB be that he is mad at the Easter Bunny? What about Easter? Now, there you go again! Well, here is the crowning point of Bible correcting scholarship, the word "EASTER." Estus reminds us that the Greek "PASCHA" means "Passover" and that the KJB translates it so everywhere except Acts 12:4 (p. 61). Has Estus finally pinned Astarte, Easter Bunnies, and Easter eggs on King James Onlys? True, the Geneva Bible "auoids" (avoids) the word "Easter." Has Estus ever heard about colored Pasch eggs? But hold on! 

The Great Bible: The old "Great Bible" renders the Greek "PASCHA" - "passeover" in Matthew 26:17, "Easter" in the next verse (26:18), and "passeover in the following verse (26:19). Huh? Could the Passover feast and the Easter feast (spring feast) be used synonymously? Well, the rendering could still be a fluke. Yet, the "Great Bible" translates "PASCHA" - the "Jewes Easter" AND "Easter" in John 11:55. Hm mm!  

The Bishop's Bible: But what about the old Bishop's Bible? Well, it translates "PASCHA" - "Easter" twice in John 11:55 and "passeover" in the very next verse (12:1).

Tindale's Bible*: Well, what about the first English Bible from the "original" Greek? Tyndale translates "PASCHA" - "paschall lamb" in Matthew 26:17, "ester" in the next verse (26:18), and "esterlambe" in the next verse (26:19). Also, he translates it "pascall lambe" in Mark 14:12 and "ester lambe" in Mark 14:14, 16. Then he has the nerve to translate 1 Cor. 5:7, "Christ oure esterlambe is offered up for us." Evidently, the inferior scholars from Oxford, Cambridge, and West Minster, who often spoke several languages, were not troubled by the things, which bother the superior scholars of our time. And what about "Oster (Easter)" in Martin Luther's German Bible? Nah! You really wouldn't want to know! (Ich nicht Nazi, Ich Polski! Shiessen Sie nicht!) *Note: spelling of Tindale is for Estus' pacification

Geneva Bible: The Geneva Bible rendered “Pascha” Easter once in its first edition but changed it in the subsequent edition.

Time Wasters for Pirkelites

Pirkelites might investigate the 1611 dual spelling, of "we/wee, be/bee, he/hee, and ye/yee." (no doubt part of Pirkle's 1100 KJB words, which are not in our dictionaries - p. 71). Also, why does the 1611/1769 KJB use both "thee" thou, thy, and thine" as well as "you, your, yours, and ye?" A small hint to the last time waster is that Pittsburghers say "yoonz," down home folk say, "y’all," and Brooklyners say "youse." It has something to do with the inferior, degenerated, modern English, which Pirkelites love.

Pirkolating the KJB

The book, "The 1611 King James Bible, A Study by Dr. Estus Pirkle," is an on going attack on the King James Bible. Estus Pirkle temporarily stops (chapter 4) comparing the KJB with various other English Bibles and begins some serious KJB "seething" (boiling). At the forefront of Pirkle's scorn is the expectation that a Bible should be uniformly translated word for word with utter disregard for context, idioms, language differences, and translator attempts to cross-reference older, English Bible synonyms. Behind such a disregard is a peculiar mind set, which says:    

"Does not this show that we cannot accept ANY translation as infallible or inerrant? We must reserve these words - infallible and inerrant for the Original Greek and Hebrew." Pirkle (Ibid. p. 96)

You see, Estus Pirkle does not believe there ever was nor can there ever be "any" infallible translation in any language anywhere. Yet Dr. Pirkle and his scholarly Bible correcting companions are infallible and inerrant, when they write against the King James Bible and when they give you the proper "renderings" (don't you love that word?). So, therefore, you must come to them for the "real" Bible. Man does it all in Pirkle's faulty reasoning; God does not play a part in translation or preservation (oddly, Calvinists let him get away with this, even going along with him). The 1611 translators (p. 75) believed that "through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see." Pirkle tries to "makes hay" of certain A.V. translator comments, which are taken from the 1611 preface and margins and treats them as if they were more infallible than the Text, but he unwittingly quotes parts, which are harmful to his own arguments.

"There be many words in the Scriptures, which are never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be helped by conference of places. Again, there are many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, etc., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves . . ." [Ibid. - p. 61 (Pirkle quoting the 1611 translators)]

Pirkle comes to the rescue using the so-called original Hebrew! Yet where does he get the Hebrew word definitions, phonetics, grammar, and even at times the Hebrew words? You guessed it! From fallible, uninspired, errant sources, namely 20th century educators, scholars, lexicons, and grammars. (An example of such inferiority is the new edition of "Young's" Concordance, which boasts 1500 corrections to itself.)

Now, if the Hebrews are divided among themselves over certain words, where does that leave Estus Pirkle? In a superior or an inferior position? Estus may exaggerate "original" language translation problems, but he doesn't solve them by any means; he does make them worse by compounding them! (Note that Pirkle's focus is not on the "one time" Hebrew words, which are mentioned by the translators; his focus is on the "same Hebrew word" comparisons.)

Ghosts and Spirits

But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. -- Luke 24:37 (NKJV)

Handle ME and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have. -- Luke 24:39 (NKJV)

We get a glimpse on page 84 to 89 of another Pirkle mind set. Doctor Estus suggests changing the Bible every time the dictionary is changed (the tail wagging the dog approach). Professor Pirkle expresses his righteous indignation regarding keeping the 1611 choices, i.e., the "Holy GHOST" rather than the "Holy SPIRIT" (according to Estus the "scary effect" versus the "sacred effect" -- p. 88). He says:

"If you have a New KJV version (1982) of the Bible, you will notice that the Third Person of the Trinity is always called Spirit never Ghost. Why? Because the word spirit still means what it did in 1769 and in 1611. The word ghost does not." Pirkle Ibid. p. 86

Oh? Does it? Then why does the New King James Bible (1982) use the word "spirit" as a ghostly apparition? Huh? Y’all ‘splain that, cousin Estus!

Hawk Blossoms or Blossom Hawks?

And in the vine were three branches: and it was as though it budded, and her (hawk) shot forth; and the clusters thereof brought forth ripe grape: -- Gen. 40:10 (Using Pirkle’s test word)

Doth the (blossom) fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south? -- Job 39:26 (Using Pirkle’s test word and rationale’)

Pirkle's "bird" Hitchcock assault (p. 77-80) challenges and questions the infallibility and inerrancy of such words as "hawk" and "blossom" as translated in 1611. Estus complains that the Hebrew word "NETS" is translated both "blossoms" (Gen. 40:10) and "hawk" (Job 39:26).

Pirkle asks the question, "Which word, hawk or blossom, is the inerrant and infallible Word?" (The infallibility of a single, solitary word, Hebrew or English, is a misnomer.) Pirkle (despite the context of the passages) might demand uniformity here, so we purposely transposed the words in each other's passage as a test of Pirkle's "same word" theory.

Now, Professor Pirkle, we are going to ask you to put aside your Hebrew flash cards and Strong's Concordance and ask you to take the time to read these passages carefully. Notice that the Hebrew word (whatever) underlying "blossoms" in Genesis 40:10 cannot be translated "hawk" here, for what has a hawk to do with a vine, branches, budding, clusters, and grapes? "Blossoms" is the inerrant, infallible, English word (in its King James Bible context). Also, notice that the Hebrew word (whatever) underlying "hawk" in Job 39:26 cannot be translated "blossom" in Job 39:26, for what "blossom" flies and stretches her wings? "Hawk" is the inerrant, infallible, English word (IN CONTEXT). Now Estus, if you can follow this, we can go to the original (?) Hebrew.

Professor Estus, are you positive that the Hebrew word "NETS" is used in both passages? Are you positive that it is used in Genesis 40:10? Oh yes, Strong's concordance says so? Nevertheless, Aaron Pick says in his "Dictionary of New Testament Words For English Readers" that "TSEETS" or "TSIYTS" is the underlying word in Gen. 40:10 for "blossom" (also in Job 14:2, Psalm 103:15, and Isa. 40:6,7,8 as "flower"). Pick agrees that "NAITS" or "NETS" is the underlying word in Job 39:26 for "hawk." Still, Armstrong, Busby, and Carr say in "A Reader's Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament" that the underlying Hebrew word is "NITSAH" in Genesis 40:10 for "blossom" (according to Strong, this word is the feminine of NETS and means a blossom or flower).

"NITSAH" is also found in Isaiah 18:5 and Job 15:33 as "flower" and found in the NKJV (1982) as "flower" and also "blossom.” Has someone been messing around with Pirkle's "Jots and Tittles?" Which Hebrew word is the infallible, inerrant word? Huh, Professor Pirkle? Incidentally Doctor, why does both the Septuagint and the revered 1982 epitome of modern scholarship, the NKJV (1982), also translate "NITSAH" - "blossom" in Genesis 40:10 and "hawk" in Job 39:26. And why does the NKJV (1982) also translate the feminine form of "NETS," namely "NITSAH" - "blossom" or "flower" in Job 15:33 and Isaiah 18:5? HUH? Estus began chapter 4, with the question, “. . . should we contend for it?" The KJB), ridiculing those who say "Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes." After reading his diatribe, we still are persuaded to say, "Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes." --Flaming Torch - Summer 1995 (Extra Edition), p. 12 – continued as follows:

Is Estus Pirkle Homophobic?

In the midst of chapter four, "The 1611 King James Bible, A study by Estus Pirkle," Pirkle changes his method of attack from comparisons of the KJB and Hebrew "ZOO" words (O.T. animals) to defamation of people. Pirkle's primary targets are King James (alleged homosexuality and persecution) and Richard Thompson (alcoholism). In former articles, in which we critique Pirkle's book, one might wonder why we mentioned Estus Pirkle and Pirkelites so much (although we firmly and consistently stay with the issue, based upon allegations and quotes by Pirkle). We did not dig up any dirt on Pirkle (other than the rumor that he used "flash cards" in his language study maintenance, P.17, 18). Still, one might note that Pirkle made no bones about mentioning the names of his dreaded enemies (KJB sympathizers and fellow travelers) throughout chapter four, i.e., Jewel Smith (P. 104), James (P. 110-114, Richard Thompson (P. 114), Ruckmanites (P. 108), Peter Ruckman (P. 116-119,134,135), D.A. Waite (P. 118), David Cloud (P. 122), Jack Moorman (P. 122-125,129,130), and Jack Hyles (p. 137). Estus leads into his character assassination by honoring and referring to his Bible correcting buddies (former "Ruckmanites," Gary Hudson and Chris McHugh - P. 108) and their 39 question tract entitled "Questions for the KJV Cult." He says that these 39 questions demand a hearing. Well, we gave them a hearing and yours truly answered every one of the 39 questions in a booklet entitled "Thirty Nine Save One" by Herb Evans.

James the Alleged Homosexual

Pirkle's proof for this allegation lays in books, which are dated 1956, 1969, 1975, 1976, 1982, and 1992 (P. 109). We would expect King James' contemporary enemies (especially the Puritans) to be more vocal, in this respect, than modern enemies of the Bible, which bears his name (nearly four centuries later). The King James Homosexuality argument seems to focus on King James' court favorites (a practice not at all uncommon to kings and queens) and his open public (rather than private) behavior. Estus quotes Antonio Fraser's (1975) proof of James' homosexuality as follow

"James had his defenders, on the grounds that nothing was done in private just because there was so much pinching and fondling in public. In sexual matters, however, assuming the obvious is better, unless there is some very good reason to think otherwise . . . " [(P. 112) guilty until proven innocent]   

Pirkle, to prove James an "unabashed homosexual," quotes from Kenyon's book, Stuart England Pirkle Ibid. P. 75),

"George Villiers was his last and greatest Favourite. Knighted on his first appearance at court in 1614 (note the date), Villiers was strategically placed to succeed the fallen Somerset; in 1616 he was made a viscount, A Knight of the Garter and Master of the Horse. An earldom (of Buckingham) followed in 1617, a marquessate in 1618. James brushed aside envious protests with the celebrated words, 'Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed; Christ had his John and I have my George.'" (P. 112)

Now, does Villiers quote even mention homosexuality let alone "unabashed" homosexuality? This quote suggests nothing more than court favorites versus envious court protestors. And what of Robert Carr, who Pirkle via Fraser intimates was James' boyfriend (P. 111)? Gustavus Paine tells us that King James Goaded Francess Howard on to marry Carr ("The Learned Men" - P. 152)? Fraser's suggestion to "assume the obvious" might have a tough time in court. And then, there is the matter of the dates. When did James turn fairy, if he did? After or before 1611??? Why does not Gustavus Paine tell us something of James' homosexuality? And what of James' wife being 6 months pregnant, during the beginning of the work in 1604 (Gustavus Paine's "The Learned Men" - P. 79). Will Pirkle settle for bi--sexual? The moral of this sad story is that if you cannot dissuade King James Onlys with scripture, try bologna (Greek baloney). Try digging up some dirt!

James the Persecutor

Estus reminds us that certain noble Puritans brought the Geneva Bible* (which he prefers) to America after the King James Bible was printed (P. 54-57). (Pirkle might note that James' persecution also took place "after" the printing). Still, then the KJB was the idea of certain Puritans in the first place. Puritans petitioned it! Puritan John Rainolds is called the father of the King James Bible ("The Learned Men," P. 3).

*Note: Pirkle happily admits 140 "editions" of the Geneva Bible (P. 53) but complains of the several KJB editions (which Estus brands and skews as "translations" and "revisions"). Pirkle Ibid. p. 9, 12, 13)

Pirkle complains of King James' persecution (P. 112--114) of the Puritans, Presbyterians, and Baptists. However, James' persecution can be said to consist mainly of Puritan heretics within his own church (Puritans were still members of the Church of England). The Puritans hated ceremony and Christmas and sought to reform or split (depending on your perspective) the English state church. James would have none of this, and they fled to America, where they in turn persecuted Baptists, Quakers, and anyone else who would resist their authority, including Roger Williams.

The Sins of the Translators

Among Pirkle's overwhelming reasons, as to why one should not embrace the KJB, are the translators' sins. He quotes Gustavus Paine to show that there was a dull plodder, a man who must keep an eye on his wife, a jealous man, translators embroiled in controversy, and an alcoholic (P. 114,115). Still, Paine also said regarding the alcoholic that Dutch Thompson "arose in the morning with his head clear enough to go forward competently with the day's work" ("The learned Men" P. 40). Paine also said regarding the translators that "there were among them no Roman Catholics, Jews, or women. They were male Protestants, roughly or smoothly within the church of England." Yes, all anti-catholic and all believing that they were dealing with the word of God! Let your modern bible translators match that.

What about the Sins of the Writers

And the LORD spake unto Moses . . . Because ye trespassed against me . . . at the waters of Meribah-Kadesh . . . because ye sanctified me not . . . thou shalt not go thither unto the land which I give the children of Israel. - Deut. 32:48-52

And David . . . took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her . . . when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD. -- 2 Sam. 11:4, 26, 27

. . . Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Mincom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD . . . Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab . . . and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Amman. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods . . . -- 1 Kings 11:4-10

But when Peter was come . . . I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed . . . And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him . . . - Gal. 2:11-13   

. . . Paul thought not good to take him with them . . . and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; -- Acts 15:36-39

Why stop with the translators' sins and frailty to persuade believers to desert the King James Bible. Why not also persuade believers to desert the "original" Hebrew and Greek due to their writers' sin and frailty. Certainly, an adulterer, bigamist, type breaker, idol worshipper, and men embroiled in controversy are grounds for rejecting the Hebrew and Greek. Could it be that Estus Pirkle suffers certain phobias, only as they concern the King James Bible?

Pirkle’s Potpourri Conclusion

Pirkle, in his book, "The 1611 King James Bible, A Study by Estus Pirkle" (chapter 4), criticizes certain KJB words, defames the King and KJB translators (P. 109-112), faults certain KJB Onlys and fellow travelers (104-135), and scolds King James' persecution (P. 112-114). Dr. Pirkle then turns to the Apocrypha (P. 117-121) and returns (P. 61, 134, 135) to the word "Easter," with which we have previously dealt.

Estus make much ado about nothing, mimicking early King James defenders in their condemnation of the Catholic inclusion of the apocrypha; Estus pooh-- poohs certain KJB defenders' explanations of why it was included in the original 1611 Bible but makes no allowance for the fact that it is not in the KJB Bibles, which Bible believers use today (much like certain brethren, who do not allow for a brother's repentance of things done 20 years ago). Estus does not understand the difference between Catholics regarding the Apocrypha as the word of God and the KJB translators regarding it as the "Apocrypha." Look that one up in the Greek, Dr. Pirkle, "apokruphos" or hidden. In English usage, the word means non canonical, legendary, or untrue. The very fact that the translators chose the word proves their rejection of the "Apocrypha" as scripture. They end Malachi with the statement, "The end of the Prophets." They end the "Apocrypha" with the words, "The end of the Apocrypha." (Pirkle doesn't seem to have a problem with the inclusion of uninspired dictionaries, concordances, notes, or other historical data.)

Evans’ Conclusion

The extent to which Estus Pirkle goes in trying to destroy the defense and faith of the King James Bible proves the fact that he has an ax (axe) to grind. Such grasping at straws, while ignoring or excusing many of the same problems in the NKJB (1982), the Geneva Bible, and even the various TR's, raises question to his objectivity if not his credibility.

Some 1611 KJB words, indeed, cannot be found in Pirkle's dictionary. Yet just as there were spelling, grammatical, and punctuation differences between Oxford, Cambridge, and West Minster during the 1611 translation and thereafter, there are still differences between England's English and America's English. England and America still cannot get together on the Z's and S's and C's not to minimize Pirkle's astounding discovery of the 1611/1769 disparity between U's and V's and I's and J's. The words baptize/baptise, authorize/authorise, and defense/defence also may not be found in each other's dictionaries. So What?

There are differences in the various TR's and many differences in the thousands of extant Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Man (Pirkle included) will never be able to sort it all out intellectually or scholastically. God must certainly play the major part in any view of preservation. This is where faith must begin. Some King James Onlys may go too far, may overreact, and may make mistakes in the vindication of their Bible in both questions of science and/or preservation, but they only impugn themselves and not the object of their faith. Bible Correctors and evolutionists also go too far, make mistakes, and overreact far more seriously and abundantly than do Bible believers. Still, farmer Smith's faith that God has preserved his word, in a language that he can understand, is on more solid ground than his detractors (Bible Correctors). He always will be!

Obviously, the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and The Wycliffe Bible are not around any more, except as museum reprints. They were temporary expedients, lasting only a few decades. After almost four centuries, the King James Bible is still here, alive and well. Its hundreds of challengers have not made it yet, and most of them have fallen by the wayside. If and when Pirkle's NKJB (1982) or any other bible supplants and/or obsoletes the King James Bible (we speak as men), we will seriously consider it. Until then, the NKJB (1982) and Pirkelites are merely third string players, on which so-called Ruckmanites may amuse themselves. Bible believers were never troubled, when we were in the minority, so why should we be troubled, when we become the fundamental majority? We predict Pirkelite bibles will go the way of all the others (while Pirkle and his friends grit their teeth at the new test of fellowship). Yes, the apostate denominations will use Pirkle's bibles, but Fundamental Baptists, for the most part, will use the Bible that they can trust, the "legitimate" King James Bible. --by Herb Evans

Appendix, Pirkle's Major Complaints, the KJB

Estus' major complaints, in order to dissuade us from our resolve to both believe and defend the KJB, are as follows:

1. Doesn't translate "HO CHRISTOS" as "the" Christ

2. Uses words, which are archaic or obscure

3. Adds italicized words not in the (G/H) originals

4. Does not translate words uniformly/uses synonyms

5. Is not faithful to the literal Greek/Hebrew Pirkle's Choice, The NKJB (1982

The following passages illustrate the pot (the NKJB 1982) calling the kettle (the KJB) black:  

1. Absent "the" - Acts 26:23; Rom. 9:5; 15:3; 1 Cor. 1:13; 10:4; 12:12; Eph. 5:2, 14, 23, 25; Col. 3:4, 13; Heb. 5:5; 9:24, 28 (HO CHRISTOS)

2. Archaic/Obsolete - "Jackdaw, Hoopoe" (Lev. 11:18, 19), "capitals" (Ex. 36:38), "alighted" (Judges. 4:11), "Ephah" (Judges 6:9), "selvedge" (Ex. 36:11) "begot" (1 John 5:1), furlongs, baths, etc.

3. Italics - "Jesus" (Luke 19:1), "mother" (1 Thess. 2:7) "hearts" (two Cor. 7:2), "letters" (2 Cor. 3:2), "in the likeness" (Rom. 6:5), "is what matters" (1 Cor. 7: 19), "under the sway" (1 Jn. 5:19)

4. Uniformity -

        A. SHEOL = grave (Hosea 13:14), pit (Num. 16: 30), hell (Deut. 32:22), and Sheol (Job 11:8) *

        B. AENAEUS = "eternal" and "everlasting" (Matt. 25:46; John 3:15, 16). Estus' NKJB (1982) does the very same thing that Estus points out in the KJB (P. 169,170)

        C. KRINO ="judge" (Lk. 6:37),"condemn" (Jn. 3:17), "sue" (Mk. 5:40), "determine" (Act 3:13) "decide" (Act 20:16),"thought" (Act 26: 8), "esteem" (Rom. 14:5), “go to the law" (1 Cor 6:1)

        D. KRISIS = "justice" (Matt. 12:18); "judgment"(Matt. 12:36), "condemnation" (Matt 23:33), "accusation" (2 Pet 2:11)

        E. DOKIMAZO = "discern" (Lk. 12:56, "test" (Lk. 14:19), "approve" (Rom. 2:18), "prove" (Rom. 12: 2), "examine" (1 Cor. 11:28)

5. Fidelity to the Hebrew/Greek is illustrated by the NKJB's "terebinth" tree (a "small" European turpentine tree). We couldn't find it in the KJB; but we did find the "oak" tree in its stead. We discovered the Hebrew word "ALLOWN" translated "terebinth tree" (NKJB) in Gen. 35:4 and Gen. 35:8 but "oak(s)" in Hosea 4:13, Amos 2:9, Ezek. 6:13, Ezek. 27:6, and Isa. 2:13. The NKJB (1982) translates ELAH as a "terebinth tree" in Judges 6:11, 19; 2 Sam. 18: 9, 10, 14; and Isa. 1:29,30 but as "oak(s)" in 1 Kings 13:14; Ezek. 6:13; and Isa. 44:14. The corker is that the NKJB translates "ALLOWN" as an "oak" tree and "ELAH" as a "terebinth" tree in the same verse (Isa. 4:13).

*Note: It is strange that the Hebrew and Greek words, "Sheol, Gehenna, and Tartarus" qualify as hell (NKJB) but HADES is never rendered "hell," remaining untranslated ("HADES") in the NKJB (1982), even in Luke 16:16? Oh well, at least the JW's are happy! Modernists will be happy that "damn" and its variants are totally removed from the NKJB (1982)?   

Appendix Conclusion

The extent to which Estus Pirkle goes in trying to destroy the defense and faith of the King James Bible proves the fact that he has an ax (axe) to grind. Such grasping at straws, while ignoring or excusing many of the same problems in the NKJB (1982), the Geneva Bible, and even the various TR’s, raises question to his objectivity if not his credibility.

Some 1611 KJB words, indeed, cannot be found in Pirkle’s dictionary. Nevertheless, just as there were spelling, grammatical, and punctuation differences between Oxford, Cambridge, and West Minster during the 1611 translation and thereafter, there are still differences between England’s English and American English. England and America still cannot get together on the Z’s and the S’s and C’s not to minimize Pirkle’s astounding discovery of the 1611/1769 disparity between U’s and V’s and J’s. The words baptize/baptise and authorize/authorise and defence/defense also may or may not be found in each other’s dictionaries. So what?

There are many differences in the various TR’s and many differences in the thousands of extant Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Man (Pirkle included) will never be able to sort it all out intellectually or scholastically. God must certainly play the major part in any view of preservation.

This is where faith must begin. Some King James Onlys may go too far, may overreact, and may make mistakes in their vindication of their Bible in both questions of science and/or preservation, but they only impugn themselves and not the object of their faith, Bible Correctors and evolutionists also go too far, make mistakes, and overreact far more seriously and abundantly than do Bible believers. Still, Farmer Smith’s faith that God has preserved his word in a language that he can understand is on more solid ground than his detractors (Bible Correctors). He always will be!

Obviously, the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, and the Wycliffe Bible are not around any more, except as museum reprints. They were temporary expedients, lasting only a few decades. After almost four centuries, the King James Bible is still here, alive and well. Its hundreds of challengers have not made it yet, and most of them have fallen by the wayside. If and when Pirkle’s NKJB (1982) or any other bible supplants and/or obsoletes the King James Bible (we speak as men), we will seriously consider it. Until then, the NKJB (1982) and the Pirkelites are merely third string players upon which the King James Bible believers may amuse themselves. Bible believers were never troubled when we were in the fundamental minority, so why should we be troubled when we have become the fundamental majority (liberals not withstanding).

We predict Pirkelite bibles will go the way of all the others (while Pirkle and his friends grit their teeth at the new TEST of fellowship). Yes, the apostate denominations will use Pirkle’s bibles, but Fundamental, Independent Baptists, for the most part will use the Bible that they can trust, the “legitimate” King James Bible.

-- by Herb Evans

Flaming Torch, Summer 95, p. 12;

Jan/Feb/March 1996, p. 13; Bible Believer’s Bulletin - September 1995, p. 6

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download