The foundation of our faith is the Bible God in-
spired and providentially preserved so that we have
the pure Word of God today.   If you genuinely love
the King James Version of 1611 as I do, here is an
opportunity for you to put your money where
your heart is--by giving 200,000,000
people opportunity to read the
same words of truth you
read every day in the
KJV of 1611, but in a
different language.

   Please consider how
spiritually weak both you and
your church would be without the
pure word of God made available
in your own tongue in the King James
Version of 1611.   Such is the case in
Indonesia, which presently has no reli-
able translation of the Bible.

   Realizing this terrible deficiency back in
1974, I began preparing myself to translate the
Bible into Indonesian.   I have continued to study
the Indonesian language, Bahasa Indonesia, to this
day.   So far as I know I am the only person presently
alive qualified both doctrinally and educationally to
translate the Bible into Bahasa Indonesia.   I am a strong
independent (non-affiliated) Baptist by conviction, and
have a Ph.D. in Multi-Cultural education with many
credit hours of study in both Indonesian and Greek.

   During our second term in Country I began
translation of the New Testament from the Textus
Receptus into Bahasa Indonesia, using the KJV of
1611 for my guide, and finished many of the smaller
books, sending them back to the USA for safekeep-
ing.   However, shortly after we returned to the States
these manuscripts were lost in a most unfortunate in-
cident.   The loss of these documents was tragic for
the Indonesians, as the Bible they presently use is the
Indonesian equivalent of the corrupt New International
Version.   It is translated from the Greek New Testa-
ment of the United Bible Societies which is based on
the exceedingly corrupt Westcott and Hort text.   All
the 5,000 plus corruptions found in the Westcott and
Hort text are also found in the 1990 translation of the
Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia (Indonesian Bible Soci-
ety) presently used in Indonesia.

   I have recently begun anew to translate the New
Testament.   My method of translation is very careful
and methodical, translating from the Trinitarian Bible
Society edition of the Textus Receptus Greek New
Testament, and using three Greek Lexicons, three In-
donesian translations of the Bible, a 1,156 page Indo-

   Consider the Indonesian Bible Society's translation
of John 3:16: "Karena begitu besar kasih Allah akan dunia
ini, sehingga Ia telah mengaruniakan AnakNya yang tunggal,
supaya setiap orang yang percaya kepadaNya tidak binasa,
melainkan beroleh hidup yang kekal."   In English this would
be, "For Allah's love was so big toward this world, that He
gave His only child, so that every person that believes in
that child would not perish, but get everlasting life."
   There are some very big problems with their transla-
tion of this verse that gravely affect its power to convey the
Gospel.   First of all, All_h is not the God of Christianity, but
is the name Muh_mm_d gave to the god of Isl_m.   To be-
come a Musl_m, a person must say, "There is no God but
All_h, and Muh_mm_d is his prophet."   In Indonesian the
first section of that saying reads: "Tidak ada Ilah selain Al-
l_h" (There is no Ilah except All_h).   Ilah is the generic term
for God in Indonesian, but All_h is a name, like Molech or
Dagon.
   Note also that "have" has been changed to "beroleh"
which is the Indonesian word for "get."   It is very danger-
ous to use beroleh in this context because there is no sense
of time associated with beroleh (so do you get salvation at
the point of belief or at the judgment day?), and in some
forms this word means to achieve or earn by working.
   Another major error in this verse results from their
translating from the United Bible Society's Greek Text
which is based upon the Westcott and Hort text.   Notice
that the word "begotten" is missing from the verse, just as it
is from most of the modern perversions in English.   The
omission of "begotten" from John 3:16 brings glee to the
hearts of those who despise the deity of Christ.   The word
begotten means biologically parented by, as opposed to
being a stepson or adopted son.   Musl_ms, for instance, have
no trouble accepting Jesus as God's spiritual son, or only
son, or only unique son.   Nor do they object to the virgin
birth.   But they vehemently object to the idea that God is the
biological Father of Jesus.
   A Christian once quoted John 3:16 from the KJV of
1611, then asked a Musl_m teacher named Akbarally
Meherally of the University of Essex Isl_mic Society the
following question: "should you not believe in Jesus to have
eternal life?"
   Now Meherally understood the meaning and impor-
tance of the word begotten better than do most Christians.
He knew that John 3:16 as it reads in the KJV of 16ll
disproves Isl_mic doctrine.   However, he also knew that
John 3:16 as it reads in the modern translations from the
Westscott and Hort based text of the United Bible Societies
do not disprove Isl_mic doctrine!   Also, he knew he could
quote from his allies in heresy--the liberal Christian theolo-
gians.   Musl_m teacher Meherally's answer (of which I am
printing in a different typeface and in italics to assure that
you realize his heresy is from him, not from me):

   Of course, we believe in Jesus for what he was and we do not
believe in what he was not.   We Musl_ms believe Jesus was a Mes-

siah; "Spirit from God"; "Word of God"; the righteous Prophet as well as
Messenger of God and the son of Virgin Mary.   But, we do not believe
Jesus was "the begotten son of God."   The truth of the matter is apostle
John never ever wrote; Jesus was "the begotten" son of God.   Please
obtain a copy of the 'Gideon Bible' from a Hotel or Motel near you.   It is
distributed free since 1899, all over the world, by The Gideon Society.   In
the beginning of this famous Bible, John 3:16 is translated in 26 popular
world languages.   You may be amazed to discover that in the English trans-
lation, the editors have used the traditionally accepted term "His only be-
gotten son."   Whereas, in several other languages the editors have used
the term "His unique son" or "His one of a kind son."   In 1992, when I
discovered this textual variations, I wrote letters to various universities in
North America requesting them to confirm the original Greek term used
by John.   Below is a copy of the response received from The George Wash-
ington University:- John 3:16 and John 1:18 each have the word
'monogenes' in Greek.   This word ordinarily means "of a single kind".   As a
result, "unique" is a good translation.   The reason you sometimes find a
translation that renders the word as "only begotten" has to do with an
ancient heresy within the church.   In response to the Arian claim that Jesus
was made but not begotten, Jerome (4th century) translated the Greek
term 'monogenes' into Latin as 'unigenitus' ("only begotten").   Paul B. Duff,
22 April, 1992.   Professor Duff's response was based upon 'Anchor Bible',
volume 29, page 13-14.   The Greek term for "begotten" is 'gennao' as
found in Mt. 1:2, which John did not use.
   Hot Tip (precise and pertinent): Jesus said to Mary; "...go to my breth-
ren, and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father..." (John
20:17).   This verse demonstrates that the usage of term 'Father' was purely
metaphorical.   As for Jesus being a "unique son", he, unlike us, was cre-
ated without a physical Father.

   From Meherally's comments it should be clear to all true
Christians that the term "begotten" cannot be left out of John
3:16 without stripping it of its basic message.   For if Jesus is not
the only begotten Son of God, then He cannot save us from our
sins.   Meherally is, of course, wrong; monogena (mono-gena)
as found in John 3:16, and egennasen (e-genna-sen) as found
in Mat. 1:2 are both from the very same root word, ginomai
(ginomai), and when used in reference to a child both of these
words always refers to a physical birth.
   Like the Musl_ms, Westcott and Hort hated the doctrine
of the deity of Christ, and in their Greek text took the article `o
off of `o monogenav in John 1:18 and changed "Son" to "god,"
thus making Jesus "an only begotten god" instead of "the only
begotten Son" [see it translated this way in the New American
Standard version, and in the New World Translation of the Je-
hovah Witnesses].   "An" implies that there are other only be-
gotten gods!   This is absolute heresy, contradicting the mean-
ings of only and begotten, reducing God down to the status of a
human, and making Mary the Mother of God.   God is eternal,
having no beginning.   Jesus is not an only begotten god, but He
is the only begotten Son of God, and He is God the Son.   Even
though in this instance the Indonesian Bible Society did not
follow the Westcott and Hort based United Bible Societies text,
the question is, Why?   How can they justify following the text
they are translating from in some places but not in other places?
They departed from that text using Westcott and Hort's textual
criticism principle that the translator--not God--is the final au-
thority in determining what the true text is!
   Using Westcott and Hort's textual criticism principles
introduced literally hundreds of errors into their translation.   I
will give a few examples: "tenth" has been changed to "fourth"
in John 1:39; "Jona" has been changed to "John" in John 1:42;
"third" has been changed to "second" in John 2:1; "zeal" has
been changed to "love" in John 2:17; "even the Son of man
which is in heaven" (which proves the omnipresence of Christ)
has been subtracted (is totally missing from) John 3:13.   In Col.
1:14 they left out "through his blood," thus implying that re-
demption and forgiveness of sins is possible without Christ's

blood.   In Titus 3:5 "washing" has been changed to "permandian"
which is the word many Protestant churches use for baptism by
pouring (thus implying that we are saved by having water poured
on our heads).
   Rev. 22: 18-19 warns: "If any man shall add unto these
things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in
this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the
book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the
book of life[.]"   We conclude, therefore, that it is vitally impor-
tant that translations be made from the original, unaltered text.
   Translators that follow the textual criticism principles of
Westcott and Hort believe that there is no perfectly preserved
text of the Word of God in existence.   For instance, the intro-
duction of the New English Bible New Testament (1961, page
ix) says,
   The problem of restoring a form of text as near as possible to the van-
ished autographs now appears less simple than it did to our predeces-
sors.   THERE IS NOT AT THE PRESENT TIME ANY CRITICAL TEXT
WHICH WOULD COMMAND THE SAME DEGREE OF GENERAL AC-
CEPTANCE AS THE REVISERS' TEXT [THE WESTCOTT AND HORT
TEXT] DID IN ITS DAY.   Nor has the time come, in the judgement of com-
petent scholars, to construct such a text, since new material constantly
comes to light, and the debate continues.   The present translators [of the
New English Bible] therefore could do no other than consider variant read-
ings on their merits, and, having weighed the evidence for themselves,
select for translation in each passage the reading which to the best of their
judgement seemed most likely to represent what the author wrote.... THE
TRANSLATORS ARE WELL AWARE THAT THEIR JUDGEMENT IS AT
BEST PROVISIONAL, but they believe the text they have followed is to
be an improvement on that underlying the earlier translations.   [Emphasis
added]
   Provisional means "temporary."   They admit that they
have produced an imperfect, temporary Bible in which they them-
selves--not God--are the final authority!
   Let it be clearly stated that I am translating from the Textus
Receptus Greek New Testament, which for many reasons I know
to be the original text.   The original manuscripts have all been
lost, but the Bible promises that the original text will be pre-
served forever: "the word of the Lord endureth for ever" (I Pet.
1:25).   I am not a textual critic trying to reconstruct a lost text.   I
have the correct text.   It has never been lost, nor does it need to
be reconstructed or criticized.   It is not the translator's duty to
find, or reconstruct, or criticize, or paraphrase, or interpret, but
merely to translate.   I am endeavoring to make an exact transla-
tion of the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament, conveying
the full meaning of the original into Bahasa Indonesia.
    Have mercy on the Indonesian people, my brethren.   They
should have been provided with a good Bible long ago!   The
second coming of Christ is rapidly approaching, yet over 200
million people do not have in their tongue a Bible that pro-
claims the Gospel message clearly and distinctly.   Literally thou-
sands of Indonesians die every day having never read a clear
and accurate account of the Gopel of Jesus Christ.
   Please do not delay supporting this project faithfully and
generously both in prayers and finances.   We are not even at-
tempting to obtain support from the anti-KJV crowd.   So, those
who say they are pro-KJV of 1611 must be so in DEED as well
as word, else this project will fail for lack of funding.   Action is
needed today.   Please phone us right now to let us know that
you will be supporting us as we work to complete an accurate
translation of the Textus Receptus Greek text (the text underly-
ing the King James Version of 1611) into the Indonesian lan-
guage.
   Thank you and may God bless you.