BBB:Sonny Boy and his 25 questions  by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

   Several months back a certain J.H. Melton from Milton, Florida,
wrote a little mimeographed sheet of paper attacking the HOLY BIBLE
(AV). On it he asked what he thought were twenty-five very difficult
questions, and in that typical, illimitable conceit so characteristic
of the modern apostate Fundamentalist, he says at the end, "I would
appreciate your answers to these questions, but I am sure Pete
Ruckman...would also."

   Since I never met this jackleg, I am rather surprised to find him
referring to me by my first name. I don't know HIS first name, but I
wouldn't be particularly interested in finding it out. A man who asks
the kind of questions he asks is such a naive dumbbell that "close
acquaintance" with him would only damage someone else's brains.

   I assume the J. is for JAMES, but since I am not sure, I will not
call Melton "Jimmy" in this writing, but simply "Sonny Boy," which is
as good as anything for a male who takes that much familiarity with
someone who doesn't even know him.

   1. "WHO FOUNDED THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?" That's easy: Henry VIII.

   2. "HAS THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND EVER BEEN DOCTRINALLY SOUND?" Well, on
all of the "fundamentals," yes. They have always made the same
profession of faith in the Nicene Creed on the Deity, the Virgin Birth,
the Atonement, the Resurrection, the Judgment, etc., THAT THEY PROFESS
AT BOB JONES UNIVERSITY.

   3. "IS THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND A PROTESTANT CHURCH?" Of course; they
protested against the Pope running the English government.

   (What is so "hard" about these questions? Why would Ruckman
"appreciate" an answer to questions that any freshman Bible student in
PBI would know without a high school diploma?)

   4. "ARE BAPTISTS PROTESTANTS?" If they AREN'T, they're backslidden.
If you aren't protesting against Rome, you aren't any kind of a
Baptist. (We know what you mean, sonny; you mean that Baptists were
around BEFORE the Protestant Reformation. But who didn't know THAT?)

   5. "DID THE HOLY SPIRIT USE PROTESTANTS TO PRESERVE THE WORD OF GOD
FOR BAPTISTS WHO ARE NOT PROTESTANTS?" Why, of course. King James, as
the head of the Church of England, called Puritans and Anglicans
together to produce the TEXTBOOK that built Hyles-Anderson College
(BAPTIST), Tennessee Temple University (BAPTIST), Norris Baptist
Seminary at Fort Worth (BAPTIST), Liberty University in Lynchburg
(BAPTIST), and furnished Haldeman (BAPTIST), W.B. Riley (BAPTIST),
Charles E. Fuller (BAPTIST), and Billy Graham (BAPTIST) with all of
their good, soul-winning, preaching material.

   YES, SONNY BOY, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DID.

   6. "DID THE HOMOSEXUAL KING JAMES, PERSECUTOR OF BAPTISTS, CHOOSE
THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS AND CHARGE THEM TO MAKE A NEW TRANSLATION?"
Well, not quite, sonny. They petitioned him FIRST, as any eighth grade
church history student knows. As to his homosexuality, you've been
reading too many comic books. Don Edwards gave you a detailed,
documented, historical account of how that slander was put on King
James by jealous Pro-Catholic courtiers who couldn't get what they
wanted. You don't KNOW that King James was a queer, and you couldn't
prove it if you wrote four hundred pages on it.

   7. "DID THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS CLAIM INSPIRATION FOR THE 1611
KING JAMES VERSION?" Well, as much as NAHUM did for his book in the Old
Testament, yes. And as much as OBADIAH did for his book, and as much as
Paul said about his epistle to the PHILIPPIANS. Yes, they claimed to be
just as "inspired" as the writers of RUTH, 1 AND 2 CHRONICLES, JUDE,
JAMES, 1 JOHN, HABBAKUK, ZEPHANIAH, and ECCLESIASTES. And who didn't
know THAT?

   8. "ARE THERE A NUMBER OF MARGINAL REFERENCES (OPTIONAL
TRANSLATIONS) IN THE 1611 KING JAMES VERSION?" Of course; sometimes a
word might have several shades of meaning. Naturally they put into
their TEXT (NOT THE MARGIN) the reading they considered to be the RIGHT
ONE. Thank God for that!

   9. "IS MATTHEW 3:11 ACCURATELY TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK TEXT?" Of
course not. THERE IS NO SUCH ANIMAL AS "THE" GREEK TEXT. Any eighth
grade student of manuscript evidence knows "THE GREEK TEXT" is nothing
but cockeyed nonsense. Matthew 3:11 has not been translated accurately
from "THE" GREEK text in the ASV, RSV, RV, NRSV, NASV, NIV, OR ANY
OTHER TRANSLATION: THERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS "THE GREEK TEXT" (Sonny
Boy is off his rocker). If he meant the TEXTUS RECEPTUS of Beza's fifth
edition (not Stephanus or Erasmus), then the answer would be "of
course." "WITH" is in the INSTRUMENTAL CASE for the preposition, but
since Sonny Boy was deficient in his Greek studies, he never got
acquainted with the "EIGHT CASE" SYSTEM OF A.T. ROBERTSON. He died on
the FIVE CASE SYSTEM OF MACHEN. Children should be seen, not heard.
Robertson's cases as Nominative, Genitive, Ablative, Locative,
Instrumental, Dative, Accusative, and Vocative.

   Sonny Boy needs to go back to school.

   10. "IS 1 CORINTHIANS 12:13 ACCURATELY TRANSLATED..." Of course,
Sonny. The preposition "EN" is never translated in the locative case
(see above) unless referring to LOCATION; here we are obviously in the
INSTRUMENTAL case, as in the case above.

   OOTCHY, KOOTCHY, KOO! Get you some Pablum!

   11. "IS ROMANS 8:11 ACCURATELY TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK TEXT?"
Naughty, naughty! There isn't any such thing! Spooks! Ghost busters!
There is ERASMUS's text, and STEPHANUS's text, and BEZA's text, and
FELL's text, and WALTON's text, and MILL's text, and LACHMANN's text,
and TISCHENDORF's text, and HORT's text, and NESTLE's text, etc., etc.,
but "THE GREEK TEXT"? (Goo goo! Time for baby's bottle!) You mean the
GREEK TEXT THE AV TRANSLATORS USED, don't you? Of course you DON'T,
because THEIR text has the full wording in it: "WHO WALK NOT AFTER THE
FLESH BUT AFTER THE SPIRIT."

   Tried to hoodwink the believer, didn't you, Sonny? Tried to make him
think that if the full wording was THERE it was a violation of "THE
GREEK TEXT" (the "only one," you know what I mean, jellybean?).
Naughty, naughty! Mamma have to spank! Romans 8:13, in the context,
told you what the full wording meant. THE TROUBLE WAS "THE" GREEK TEXT
THAT SONNY BOY HAD, DIDN'T HAVE THE FULL WORDING IN IT. He was using
the JESUIT RHEIMS (1582) text of the Dark Ages, which reads as the NIV,
ASV, and NASV, along with the RSV and NRSV.

   Now, I think this is about enough of Sonny Boy's twenty-five
questions. Eleven is enough to give you an idea of how the Alexandrian
mind functions after 1700 years of irrational nonsense (Origen, 220
A.D.--1900 A.D.). Sonny Boy asks: "WERE THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS PART OF
THE CANON?" and does it knowing that "THE GREEK TEXT" he corrected
Romans 8:1 with DOES HAVE ALL OF THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS IN IT AS PART OF
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). He then asks, "DID
THE 1611 KING JAMES VERSION INCLUDE THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA?" But in
asking it this time, he PURPOSELY leaves out "as part of the canon."
SONNY BOY KNEW THAT THE AV TRANSLATORS WOULD NOT THINK OF INCLUDING THE
APOCRYPHA AS PART OF THE CANON. They threw it out and put it between
the Testaments, as Martin Luther did. The scribes of Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus, who set up the "eclectic text" for the ASV, NASV, NIV, RSV,
RV, and NRSV, PUT IT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON.

   Had enough? There are fourteen more questions, and every one of them
is just as stupid or just as "wired" as the first eleven. Not one of
them poses any kind of problem to a believer who has had any background
in CHURCH HISTORY or MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE. We don't know what Sonny Boy
did for a living before he retired from the "ministry," but we do know
one thing. The Book he used to make a living with was a Book he did not
believe in, had no confidence or faith in, and if he ever held it up
one time in any pulpit anywhere in the United States and made the
mistake (calculated, according to Ronald Walker and Gary Hudson) of
proclaiming, "THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD!" "THIS IS GOD'S BOOK!" "THIS IS
THE HOLY BIBLE," he lied like a Persian rug.

   Sonny Boy Melton is just one small cog in a wheel of misfortune that
has been spinning since Origen kicked the bucket (254 B.C.), in a
never-ending attempt to replace the Authority of God Almighty with the
superstitious, ignorant GUESSWORK of spoiled brats. Sonny Boy's Greek
is deficient, his knowledge of Church History is deficient, his
knowledge of Greek Testaments is deficient, and his knowledge of the
HOLY Bible is so deficient it is appalling. "AWESOME," I believe, is
the present sports cliche.

   We only print the excerpts here to give the Bible believer another
(I've lost track of the number!) example of the Alexandrian mentality.
Sonny Boy is probably a graduate of BBC or Tennessee Temple. Maybe not.
Maybe he came out of Arlington or somewhere else. It doesn't make any
difference; it is obvious to the most inexperienced that wherever he
got his education from, he blew his tuition down a rat hole.
