January 03, 2004

Reprogramming the droids

A little over two years ago, my attention was directed to the Web site of Touchet Baptist Church. This church is also known as "Bible Believers Baptist Church," which marks it as a Ruckmandroid church, as though the lame "1611" in their URL, not to mention the "King James 1611" on their church sign, wasn't enough for that.

Specifically, I was made aware of a page titled "Questions Nobody will Answer," a list of ten or so questions that are supposed to stump users of modern-English Bible versions and thereby prove that KJV-onlyism is the One True Faith. Needless to say, I answered them. And when I emailed my answers to droid pastor Mike Paulson, he claimed he was "not interested." Go figure.

Well, I guess that two years is long enough to go before trying again.

1. Why would God inspire the originals and then not preserve them as promised - (note: I am talking about the words, not the papers, pieces, etc?)

This is a textook case of the "loaded question" that requires me to accept one of Paulson's premises before I can even answer it - that is, that God has failed to preserve the words of Scripture. My answer therefore is: God didn't fail to preserve them.

Me: 1. Droid: 0.

2. If you claim God has allowed some errors in the Bible today, why do you not afford Him for [sic] making some errors in the originals?

Another loaded question, forcing me to concede the false premise that God has allowed errors in the Bible. I say that the Bible is inerrant in all it affirms. My answer: God hasn't made errors.

Me: 2. Droid: 0.

3. Isn't the kind of faith you have "convenient" since it cannot be tested? After all, since all the perfect set of originals are LOST or either DESTROYED, you can rest safely in the fact that you can be challenged, but you will never be proven wrong since the EVIDENCE needed to prove you wrong (the "lost originals") is lost.

Another loaded question forcing me to assume a false premise: that my "faith" cannot be tested. The KJV-onlyists themselves belie this premise, as testing or challenging or pointing out what's wrong with my "faith" is what they do. My answer: No, it is not a "convenient" faith.

In fact, it's a downright inconvenient faith when you consider the amount of abuse you suffer at the hands of droids and other KJV-only pinheads. If I wanted a "convenient" faith, I would just give in so they would stop calling me names.

Me: 3. Droid: 0.

4. Are you afraid to dare put [sic] the same faith in a Bible available today?

Since this question builds on the same false premise as #3, it is again a loaded question undeserving of an answer. Nonetheless, my answer is: I am not afraid to put any faith in a Bible available today. In fact, I do it all the time.

Me: 4. Droid: 0.

5. Isn't it a fact that to believe in a perfect set of originals, but not believe in a perfect English Bible, is to believe NOTHING at all?

My answer: No, it is not a fact. This isn't a loaded question, just a nonsensical one. It's like asking, "Isn't it a fact that to believe in God, but not believe in the Tooth Fairy, is to believe NOTHING at all?" Judge for yourself whether either question proves anything.

Me: 5. Droid: 0.

6. To enforce a "convenient faith," would you go so far as to say, as others have said, that what God actually meant in Ps. 119:89 is that He preserved His perfect Bible in a library up in Heaven, and not on earth?

We're back to the loaded questions again, since question #6 assumes the same false premise as implied in questions #3-4. Nonetheless, my answer is: No, I don't believe that's what Psa. 119:89 means.

Me: 6. Droid: 0.

7. If this is true, then didn't God write a book to Himself, and not to man?

My answer: It isn't true; so no, he didn't.

Me: 7. Droid: 0.

8. What is Scripture?

My answer: Scripture is that which is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete and fully equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Specifically, it is those 66 books - Genesis, Exodus, etc. - which have been recognized by the people of God through the ages as being of divine origin and authoritative for all matters of faith and practice.

Me: 8. Droid: 0.

9. WHO taught you the King James Bible is not the word of God?

Well, back we go to the loaded question, this time a very transparent one of the "Have you stopped beating your wife" variety. My answer, nonetheless: Obviously, no one, since I do not believe this.

Me: 9. Droid: 0.

10. If Scripture(s) refers to the original manuscripts, then wasn't Jesus really being deceptive to His listeners? (Matt. 21:42; 22:29; Mk. 12:10,24; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 2:22; 7:38, 42; 19:37; 20:9 etc.) >

My answer: Since "Scripture" does not strictly refer to the autographs, then no, Jesus was not being deceptive.

Me: 10. Droid: 0.

11. If you claim the King James has errors, then I would have to conclude the King James Bible is not the inerrant Bible. What is? The NASV? The NKJV? The LB? The NEB? The ASV? The JB? The NAB? The NWT, etc. etc. etc.?

Yawn! Another loaded question expecting me to swallow a whole bunch of Paulson's ex cathedra assumptions.

My answer: Who says that there is one English translation of the Bible that must be inerrant? Or, who says that there can be one, and only one, English translation that can be said to be "inerrant"? I'll answer your question when you have answered mine satisfactorily.

Me: 11. Droid: 0.

12. Since most Bible colleges and insitutes believe only the originals are inspired, aren't they really teaching a form of Deism?

My answer: No. (Does droid-boy even know what "Deism" is?)

Final score: Me: 12. Droid: 0.

I sent the following to Paulson at the email address given on his Web site:

Dear Mr. Paulson:

Recently perusing your Web site, I see that you *still* have a list of questions posted there titled "Questions Nobody Will Answer," or words to that effect.

You may remember that I emailed you answers to all 12 questions about two years ago. Nonetheless, you still hang on to the illusion that your questions are indeed unanswerable.

I have again posted answers to your "unanswerable" questions on my blog, at:


We shall see whether truth and accuracy mean anything to you, or whether you are simply another mindless Ruckmandroid who blusters a lot but generally turns tail and flees when his facts are challenged.

And so the wait begins. Does Paulson rise to the challenge, or does he show us his droidy back vanishing over the horizon?