The Foolishness of Text Crit in book of Romans

[brandplucked]

The Foolishness of Textual Criticism in the Book of Romans

The book of Romans, just as every other New Testament book, is full of examples where the two so called oldest and best manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are at odds with each other.

Without exception, any modern version promoter who tries to tell you that our King James Bible is based on just a few late manuscripts, and that in the last few years we have made many important textual discoveries, is full of hot air. He himself does not believe that any Bible in any language is now the inspired, complete and 100% true "book of the LORD". Scripture tells us that "in the last days perilous times shall come" and that "evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." 2 Timothy 3:13.

We don't have to look far before we run into the first example of where these two false witnesses, upon which most modern versions are based, disagree with each other. The first example is found in the Romans 1:1.

Romans 1:1 reads: "Paul, a servant of JESUS CHRIST, called to be an apostle...". Here the majority of all Greek texts read JESUS CHRIST, and so does Sinaiticus. In fact, so too do Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', the Geneva Bible, the RV of 1881, ASV of 1901, Douay, NKJV, and even the RSV and NRSV. So too does the up and coming ISV (International Standard Version.)

However Vaticanus reverses the order and says: CHRIST JESUS and so too do the NASB, NIV, and the ESV.

Romans 1:16 "...to the Jew FIRST (prooton) and also to the Greek." Here Vaticanus omits the word FIRST, but it is found in Sinaiticus and in most versions.

Romans 2:16 "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by JESUS CHRIST according to my gospel." Again the reading of JESUS CHRIST is that of the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus correction and A. It is also the reading of Wycliffe, Bishops, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, NKJV, the RV, ASV, NRSVand the NIV.

However Vaticanus again reverses the order and says CHRIST JESUS, and now also do the NASB, RSV and the ESV. Notice that the previous ASV read like the KJB, but then the NASB changed it, and that the RSV and ESV now follow Vaticanus, but the NRSV didn't. This whole process is very "scientific" don't ya know.

Romans 3:2 "...chiefly, BECAUSE (gar) unto them were committed the oracles of God." Here the little word BECAUSE is found in the majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus omits it and so do the NASB, NIV.

Romans 4:19 "And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body NOW (eede) dead...". The little word "now" is found in the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, A, C, D, and is in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, Geneva, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB and the NRSV.

However Vaticanus omits the word and so do the NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman. Westcott-Hort used to omit the word entirely, but now the latest UBS critical text puts it back in but within brackets. Notice that the RSV omitted it, then the NRSV put it back in, and then the ESV once again has taken it out. But wait! The new 2007 ISV is coming out and they have put it back in again!

Romans 5:2 "By whom we have access BY FAITH into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

The words "by faith" are found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, A and C, and the words are still found in the NASB, NIV and ESV. However Vaticanus omits the words "by faith" and so do the RSV, NRSV and the New English Bible 1970. Again, notice that the previous RSV, NRSV's omitted the words, but not the latest revision of the revision of the revision (ESV) has once again put them back in their text.

Romans 6:11 "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ OUR LORD."

The final words "our Lord" are in the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus and C, as well as some Old Latin copies, the Syriac Pe****ta, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Georgian, Armenian, Ethiopic and Slavonic ancient versions.

The words are also in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, Geneva, KJB, NKJV, Hebrew Names Version, Spanish Reina Valera, and many others. But Vaticanus omits the words "our Lord" and so do the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman versions. Even though the reading is found in Sinaiticus, the modern versionists unite in following the Vatican manuscript here.

Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, WHO WALK NOT AFTER THE FLESH, BUT AFTER THE SPIRIT."

There is tremendous confusion among the Greek texts for the reading of this verse. All the capitalized words are found in the Majority of Greek texts, including Sinaiticus correction, D correction, some Old Latin copies like ar and o, the Syriac Harkelian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

Agreeing with the full reading found in the Majority of Greek texts and the King James Bible are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Luther 1545, Italian Diodati 1649, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602 - 1995, Young's, the NKJV, KJV 21st Century, Green's MKJV, World English Bible, Amplified Bible, and the Modern Greek Bible.

However Sinaiticus original, and Vaticanus omit all these words and so do versions like the ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard.

Manuscripts A and D original have part of the words and omit the others. These include "who walk not after the flesh", but omit "but after the Spirit". The Catholic Douay version reads this way, but more recent Catholic version like the St. Joseph NAB and the Jerusalem Bible now read like the NASB, NIV, and ESV and omit the last part of the verse.

So, in other words, it is mainly because of the Vatican manuscript that modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV and Holman unite in omitting the whole last phrase "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Pe****ta reads differently than them all with: "THERE is therefore no condemnation to them who walk in the flesh after the Spirit of Jesus Christ."

Romans 8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of life hath made ME free from the law of sin and death."

Here again is where the multitude of conflicting modern versions strut their stuff. The reading of "made ME free" is found in the Majority of all texts including A, C, D, the Old Latin copies of d, dem, e, mon, x and z. So too the Syriac Harkelian, Coptic Sahidic, Gothic, Armenian, Geogian and Slavonic ancient versions.

Agreeing with the KJB reading of "made ME free" are Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops, Coverdale, Geneva, NKJV, Youngs, Amplified Bible, and Douay.

Not even the early revisions went along with the Sin/Vat reading, nor do all the modern ones either. The Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, and the RSV of 1954 all kept the reading of "made ME free", and so too do the NIV and the brand new ISV (International Standard Version.)

But Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have the reading of "made YOU free", and so read the NASB, NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard. Thus the new versions are not even in agreement with each other.

Romans 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

So read the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, as well as translations like Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, Geneva, NKJV, the Revised Version, American Standard version 1901, and the ESV.

However Vaticanus has an additional reading not even found in Sinaiticus and some modern versions like the NASB follow it instead. The NASB ALONE reads: "And we know that GOD causes all things to work together for good to those who love GOD, to those who are called according to His purpose." This additional word "GOD causes all things to work" was originally left out even by Westcott and Hort. Then it was later added to the Nestle text in brackets, and later on once again removed from their text. The latest Nestle-Aland, UBS text omits this extra word taken from Vaticanus and still found in the NASB 1995 edition.

The NIV follows no known Greek text here and reads like the previous RSV: "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love HIM, who have been called according to his purpose."

But now the newer NRSV and the latest ESV, Holman Standard have all gone back to the reading found in the King James Bible - "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." - ESV.

Romans 8:34 "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again..." So read the Majority of all texts, as well as Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, Geneva, NKJV. However Sinaiticus adds the word Jesus to the text, though not found in Vaticanus.

Versions like the ASV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV and Holman all add the word JESUS based on Sinaiticus. However in this same verse Sinaiticus also adds additional words to the text, that are not found in the Majority nor in Vaticanus. The Sinaiticus mss. goes on to say: "that is risen again FROM THE DEAD". (ek nekroon).

So the continuing confusion is seen in that the RV, ASV and RSV all added both the extra word "Jesus" and the words "that is risen again FROM THE DEAD", based on the Sinaiticus reading. But wait! Now the revisions of their predecessors have once again "scientifically" decided to omit these extra words from Sinaiticus, (but keep the extra word "Jesus") and so versions like the NASB, NIV, NRSV and ESV now read " it is Christ JESUS ...who was raised" (thus omitting "from the dead")

The new versions now go back and forth between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus readings in the very same verse. God only knows what will come down the pike next. In fact, Wallace's NET version has already done away with the extra word "Jesus". This is the true nature of "the art and science" of textual criticism.

Romans 8:35 "Who shall separate us from the love OF CHRIST?". Again, so read the majority of all texts, and this time even versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV and Holman say "the love of CHRIST". BUT, the Sinaiticus manuscript says "the love of GOD", while the Vaticanus mss. says "the love of GOD IN CHRIST JESUS". What would James White have to say about his "expansions of piety", I wonder. In any event, we see that none of the versions follow the conflicting "oldest and best manuscripts" in this particular verse, though they HAVE omitted THOUSANDS of other words from the New Testament, based on these same two false witnesses, and then have the nerve to call this "science"!!

Romans 10:3 "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own RIGHTEOUSNESS, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

The word "righteousness" is found three times in this verse in the majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus and in all previous English Bibles like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva. It is also found in the NKJV, and more recently in the Holman Standard and even Wallace's NET version.

However Vaticanus omits the middle word "righteousness" and the NASB, RSV, NIV, ESV omit the word saying "seeking to establish their own". Westcott and Hort originally included the word, then later Nestle's took it out, but then the latest Nestle-Aland Critical text has once again put the word back in their texts.

Romans 11:6 "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. BUT IF IT BE OF WORKS, THEN IT IS NO MORE GRACE; OTHERWISE WORK IS NO MORE WORK."

So read Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops bible, the Geneva Bible, the NKJV and many other translations throughout the world.

The absurdity of calling Sinaiticus and Vaticanus the "best" manuscripts is fully revealed in this great verse. All the capitalized words are found in the majority of all Greek texts, and even in the Sinaiticus correction. When we examine the Vaticanus manuscript we find an amazing blunder right on the surface. Vaticanus turns things on its head saying: "But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no longer GRACE."!!!

Primarily on the basis of A, C and D (which also constantly disagree not only with the majority of texts, but also among themselves) versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman have omitted all these words "BUT IF IT BE OF WORKS, THEN IT IS NO MORE GRACE; OTHERWISE WORK IS NO MORE WORK."

Romans 13:9 "...Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Thou shalt not covet..." The words "Thou shalt not bear false witness" are found in multiple manuscripts and ancient versions like the Old Latin, the Syriac Harkelian, Coptic Boharic, Armenian and Ethiopic. They are also in Sinaiticus. They are included in all English Bibles from Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', and the Geneva. However Vaticanus omits these words and so do the versions from the Revised Version, to the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman Standard.

Romans 14:21 - "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, OR IS OFFENDED, OR IS MADE WEAK." The capitalized words are again found in the Majority of all Greek texts and even in Vaticanus, plus the Sinaiticus correction. They are found in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, Geneva, Douay-Rheims, NKJV and the Spanish Reina Valera. Even some modern versions that usually follow the Westcott-Hort text include the words. Among these are the Amplified Bible (put out by the same people who give us the NASB), and the brand new ISV (International Standard Version). However Sinaiticus original had a different reading that said "or is grieved". Then it was corrected to agree with the KJB reading. In spite of all this evidence, versions like the RV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman omit "or is offended, or is made weak" - all done on a strict "scientific method", don't ya know.

Romans 15:7 "Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received US to the glory of God." "received US" is the reading of the majority of Greek texts including Vaticanus and D. It is also the reading of the previous Westcott-Hort, and the Nestle Critical texts. I have a Nestle 4th edition 1934 copy, and it clearly says US in the text. This is also the reading of the NKJV AND the NASB.

However Sinaiticus, A and C read "received YOU" and now the newer Nestle critical texts have "scientifically" changed their previous reading and decided to now follow Sinaiticus and so versions like the RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman say "received YOU".

The final reading we will consider in the book of Romans reveals the blatant absurdity of this so called "art and science of textual criticism". This is a mind blower. You may not even believe it, but it is true and is well documented. The so called Critical Text has actually changed FOUR times over the last hundred years, and the multiple choice "Bible of the Month Club" versions make this confusion very clear.

Romans 15:19 "Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the SPIRIT OF GOD..." The reading of "the SPIRIT OF GOD" is that of the Majority of all texts including P46 and Sinaiticus. Even when Westcott-Hort produced their new Greek text, they read it this way.

However just a few years later (4th edition, 1934) they changed their critical text to read "the power OF THE HOLY Spirit", all based on the reading of Alexandrinus, and the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Versions of 1901 and the RSV 1952 read this way - "the HOLY Spirit". The Vaticanus copy differs from the others in that it only says "the power of the SPIRIT", omitting both "God" or "holy".

Then the Nestle-Aland again changed their text to omit the word "holy" and it merely read "power of the Spirit" (thus following the Vaticanus mss.) and so read the NIV and the NASB. But wait. There's more. Now the Nestle-Aland scholars have once again changed their minds and have now gone back to reading like the KJB had it all the time. The UBS 4th edition now reads "power of the SPIRIT OF GOD", and now so do the NRSV, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard and the NET versions.

These are the FACTS and anyone can verify them for themselves. The next time you hear some puffed up scholar wannabe who does not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS NOW the inspired and 100% true Holy Bible try to talk you into abandoning your King James Bible in favor of "the latest findings of the art and science of Textual Cricitism", tell him to go fly a kite.

Will Kinney

[CoreIssue]

To use your own words, that is a foolish argument.

First, you say the two are at odds with each other, as if that proves the KJV the best.

The correct statement is that there are disagreements between all THREE text groups.

Fact remains the KJV is not from a single manuscript source, but at least 5.

Fact remains none of those manuscripts are old. None existed prior to 300 AD and all came from sources that can only be called Catholic.

Fact remains we know the KJV contains text and alteration introduced by Catholic scribes to bring the manuscripts into line with Catholic doctrine.

Fact remains we know the KJV has many translation errors.

Fact remains, you begin with the assumption the KJV is the true Bible and base all your statements from there.

So, the final fact is your declarations are devoid of any proof.

And the question the KJVO group can not answer, where was this perfect Bible prior to 1611?

Didn't exist because the text was not assembled from the other manuscripts until then.

Your argument is foolish and invalid.

[brandplucked]

To use your own words, that is a foolish argument.

First, you say the two are at odds with each other, as if that proves the KJV the best.

The correct statement is that there are disagreements between all THREE text groups.

And the question the KJVO group can not answer, where was this perfect Bible prior to 1611?

Didn't exist because the text was not assembled from the other manuscripts until then.

Your argument is foolish and invalid.

Hi Core, thanks for your reply. However you failed to mention the fact that you yourself do not believe that any bible in any language is the complete, inspired and 100% true Bible. Right? If I am wrong on this, then simply tell us where we can get a copy of what you would consider to be the true book of the Lord.

As for your question about where was the word of God before 1611 that we "can not answer", why don't you try answering it yourself. Then please get around to telling us where it is now. That would be very interesting indeed.

Here are some things to consider.

Where was the word of God before 1611 and where is it today?

Those who promote the modern bible versions do not believe any Bible is the inspired, infallible, preserved, and pure words of the living God. They tell us "the original Hebrew and Greek" is their final authority, hoping no one will notice that there is no such animal on the face of this earth. They don't have it, have never seen it, and wouldn't recognize it if it fell on their heads.

There are no original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts anywhere. There are several different Hebrew texts plus the conflicting Dead Sea Scrolls. There are over 25 different conflicting Greek texts. The multitude of modern versions, like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, depart scores of times from the Hebrew Masoretic texts, and often not in the same places. They are also based on very different Greek texts than that of the King James Bible, though none of them always follows the same Greek text as the others. The NKJV does not always follow the same Greek text as the KJB and the meaning has been radically changed in scores of verses. They often differ among themselves in both text and meaning, and contain several proveable theological errors.

We who believe God meant what He said about preserving His words are ridiculed as ignorant, backwater fanatics. We believe God is the sovereign ruler of history and has preserved for us today all His pure words in the King James Bible. God knew what would become of the English language and how the great modern missionary movement of the late 1700's through the 1950's would be carried out by American and English missionaries carrying one Bible and translating it into hundreds of foreign languages and dialects. No Bible in history has been used, honored and hated as much as the King James Bible. The King James Bible was even read outloud from space as the astronauts orbited the moon.

God also knew the great battle concerning the preservation of His words would take place during the times of the falling away from the faith before the glorious return of the Lord Jesus Christ. I think it quite possible that we are living in those times now. Never before has the Holy Bible itself been under such fierce attack. The supreme irony is that those who now attack the Bible are those who bear the name of Christians.

They refuse to believe that God has in fact preserved His words in the one Book that has been used and blessed by God a hundred times more than any other. History and the sovereignty of God bear witness that the King James Bible is that one Book, without proven error.

Many Whateverists of the "No Bible is inerrant" crowd ask the following questions: (These are actual quotes from one of the Bible clubs) "Why are you hung up on a translation since no translation is perfect? What about the other translations of the other nations of the world? Do you have an answer for them?

You King James Bible only people limit yourselves to just one language - English. Why are you so afraid to talk about other languages. What about the aboriginals of our nation? Do they have a Bible? If they do, would their translation be just as "perfect" as the KJV? Why or why not? Is your God so narrow-minded and bigoted that He only speaks to 10% or the world--the English part, and consigns 90% of the world to Hell because they cannot read and understand English, particularly Shakespearean English? My God is not that narrow-minded. The Bible says that God so loved the world, not just the KJV understanding crowd. He loves the Crees, the Punjabis, the Hindis, the Maoris, the Inuits, those that speak Urdu and Arabic, etc. But all of these are condemned to Hell because they have not the KJV, right?"

First of all, God does not condemn people to hell because they are not King James Bible only. God can and does save His people using a multitude of translations in hundreds of foreign languages. The gospel of salvation through the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is found in any bible version out there, no matter how incompletely or poorly translated it may be. Christ only promised that the gospel would be preached throughout all the world.

Secondly, God never promised that every nation or individual would have a perfect Bible, but He did promise to preserve His pure, complete and 100% true words in a Book somewhere on this earth. "Seek ye out of the Book of the LORD and read..." Isaiah 34:16.

God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. There was a period of time when for about 2000 years only one small nation had the true and pure words of God. Psalm 147:19,20 says: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. God will hold us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. We who have the preserved and inerrant words of God in the English language of the King James Bible will be held far more accountable for what we have done with this book than those who cannot read English. "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

And thirdly, the people who pose such questions as this individual asks are actually promoting the idea that there is no complete, inerrant and 100% true Bible in ANY language on this earth today. Not the Hebrew or the Greek, nor in any language. This is what they are being taught in most seminaries today. A recent poll shows that 85% of the students in America's largest Evangelical seminary openly admit that they do not believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture, and the percentages are getting higher each year.

God has promised to preserve His words, not in every language or to every people, but in such a way as they would be known by many of God's believing people. The Lord Jesus said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35

God testifies through Isaiah in chapter 59:21 "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

"For the LORD is good: his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations." Psalm 100:5

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6-7

"The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever." 1 Peter 1:25

We who believe the King James Bible to be the inerrant word of God do not place our trust in the King James translators. We do not defend their comments in the Preface, nor their theology, though I agree with much of it. We trust in God alone Who has fulfilled His promises to preserve His inspired words. He just happened to use the believing men of the 1611 Holy Bible as His instruments to continue this preservation.

They were not perfect nor without error in themselves. Just as God used Peter, though he denied the Lord and later separated himself from the Gentile believers and was to be blamed for his actions, (See Galatians 2:12-14) or Paul who was about to offer another blood sacrifice to appease the Jewish law-keepers in Acts 21:26, or John who twice fell down to worship an angel and was rebuked for it (See Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9). God always uses imperfect vessels for His glory; if He didn't, nothing would ever get done.

Those who promote today's multiple, conflicting versions of God's words think they finally have the question that will stump the Bible believer and finally rob him of his faith in God's inerrant word. They ask us, "Well, where was the pure word of God BEFORE 1611?"

It will greatly enlighten your mind if you ask them the same question. They don't know where it was before 1611 either, or more importantly, where it is now. God's words from the Old Testament were most likely preserved in the Hebrew texts. A good educated guess for the New Testament words would be that God preserved them in the Old Latin Bibles, and then in the Waldensian latinized Bibles till the time of the Reformation. Theodore Beza, whose Greek text was used by the KJB translators, traces the Waldensian believers from around 120 A.D. to the Reformation. They were killed off by the thousands and their Bibles were burned by the Catholic persecutors. The Waldensians believed in the priesthood of every believer and the doctrines of grace. Then God's perfect words for both the Old Testament and the New Testament passed over to what would become the end times universal language - English - , and was simply titled "The Holy Bible", later to be known as the King James Version. That is where they remain today in all their purity.

Regarding the Old Latin, which is not the same thing as the Catholic Vulgate, Agustine and Tertullian both speak of this ancient version as existing since 157-190 A.D.

“The Italic or pre-Waldensian Church produced a version of the New Testament which was translated from the Received Text by the year A.D. 157” Fredrick Henry Scrivner, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament , 1874

“The Bible translation of the Italic Church came to be known as the Itala translation. The point of all this is that the Itala Bible was translated from the Received Text” Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts , 1859.

Some like Doug Kutilek try to discredit the testimony of the Old Latin bearing witness to the readings found in the KJB but not in versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, and they cherry-pick a few verses to show divergent readings. There are only about 35 remaining portions or fragments of the Old Latin around today, but these bear ample witness to every one of the disputed verses that are omitted by most modern versions.

I have studied the issue myself and can prove that the following whole verses are included in all, most, or at least some of the Old Latin copies. This information is confirmed by using the Nestle-Aland Greek text critical notes - certainly no friend to the KJB.

The following verses which are omitted in the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, etc. are all found in copies of the Old Latin texts. Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 9:55.56; 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24, and 1 John 5:7.

I have compiled a study of the major disputed readings found in the King James Bible as opposed to the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman versions, and what the Old Latin texts say. You can see this study at this link on my website:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/OldLatin.html

We have only a very small portion remaining of all the Bibles and manuscripts that ever existed. Perhaps as little as one one hundreth, so there is no sure way of knowing what the other manuscripts and Bibles said - just as we do not have the "originals" and can't prove what they said. Of those that remain, no two are exactly alike in every detail, but of the approximately 5,000 portions and fragments that we have today, about 95% agree about 99% of the time with the King James Bible readings. The other 5% differs a great deal even among themselves, and it is this 5% that is used in most of today's "bibles".

Even the editors of the UBS Critical Greek text admit that multitudes of Greek manuscripts that once exited are no longer accessible.

Consider this statement by Kurt and Barbara Aland: "INNUMERABLE MANUSCRIPTS WERE DESTROYED during the persecutions and had to be replaced. The result was a widespread scarcity of New Testament manuscripts which became all the more acute when the persecution ceased... There also followed a sudden demand for large numbers of New Testament manuscripts in all provinces of the empire" (Aland, The Text of the New Testament, p. 65)

It is supremely important to have faith in God, both for our salvation and for believing that He has kept and preserved His words throughout every generation as He promised to do. If you cannot believe God has kept His promise to preserve His words, then how can you believe He will keep His promise to preserve your soul?

Ask any modern version promoter if he believes the originals were given by inspiration of God. He will enthusiastically respond in the affirmative. Yes, they were inspired. Then ask him how he knows this to be true. He has never seen them because they don't exist. He believes it by faith. In the same way we too have faith that God both inspired His original words and that He has preserved them through history and today they are found in the King James Bible.

At one of the Bible clubs I belong to, after referring an inquiring "Reverend" to this article, he wrote back: "Will, Your article really never answered the question. If, as you claim God has "PRESERVED" his perfect words then it must have always existed and you would be able to show it to us through out history. Is this the case or not? If not then you cannot claim preservation. - Dennis"

To which I responded: "Hi Dennis, you and I are approaching the issue of an inspired, inerrant, complete and 100% true Holy Bible from completely different ways. Your position is that no such thing as an inerrant Bible ever existed and certainly does not now exist. So, you draw your conclusions from your premise.

I and many others actually believe in the existence of an infallible Book called the Bible. We believe it exists now and can tell anyone where to get a copy. We also believe the perfect words of God once existed in times past too. We're not totally sure where it was, but most of us generally believe the Old Latin (not the Vulgate) and the Waldensian bibles contained the perfect New Testament.

Just because we cannot produce an exact copy now does not mean that such a thing did not once exist. Think about the argument of those on the other side who at least believe in the "originals only" position. They tell us the originals were inspired, but yet they do not have a single copy or even a single word from any of these originals, and cannot prove beyond all doubt what ANY reading is for any single verse.

If you accuse the KJB believer of not being able to back up his position with historical evidence that is 100% verifiable, then doesn't this same argument completely destroy the position of those who are originals only? Most certainly it does.

We at least have what we believe are the written promises of God to preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away, and we believe He has kept His promises. Your side, on the other hand, does not believe that God has in fact kept His pure words in any "book of the LORD" that is found on the earth today. Think about it." - Will

The new version promoter and King James critic has no final authority but his own mind or his favorite scholar to tell him what God probably said. He has no infallible Bible and doesn't want you to have one either. He can't tell you where you can get a copy of God's pure words today, let alone where they were before 1611. "Thus saith the LORD" has been replaced with "Well, how does this version render it?"

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

Will Kinney

[CoreIssue]

Hi Core, thanks for your reply.
Hi, brand! Been awhile.

However you failed to mention the fact that you yourself do not believe that any bible in any language is the complete, inspired and 100% true Bible. Right? If I am wrong on this, then simply tell us where we can get a copy of what you would consider to be the true book of the Lord.

Not true.

Christ did not promise a word for word preservation. But a preservation of the teachings.

In that regard, there are many Bibles.

I believe the NASB, NIV and a couple of others are among the best of those. The KJV is second tier.

No English translation is absolutely 1 for 1 exact with the original autographs, even if we had them.

That is impossible, due to the absolute problems with translating from one language to another.

An easy example is Christ being nailed through through the hand.

That is indeed what it says in the Greek. But the Greek includes the the wrist, which the English does not.

So, to say wrist is 100% accurate in meaning, but 100% wrong in word for word translation. To say hand is 100% wrong in meaning, but 100% accuate in word for word.

So, the KJVO folk instantly fail in their claims the KJV is 100% word for word accurate and true Bible, as they use the term true Bible.

Any linquist know this claim is false, as defined by the KJVO folk.

As for your question about where was the word of God before 1611 that we "can not answer", why don't you try answering it yourself. Then please get around to telling us where it is now. That would be very interesting indeed.

Dodging there, brand.

YOU are the one claiming it is the 'true' Bible coming from a 'true' source.

For that to be true there would have to be an direct, tracable line, of manuscripts from the originial autographs to the KJV, that never changed in any manner.

That simple does not exist nor existed then.

Here are some things to consider.

Where was the word of God before 1611 and where is it today?

I know where it was.

But I want it defined in the terms the KJVO use. Which cannot be done.
Those who promote the modern bible versions do not believe any Bible is the inspired, infallible, preserved, and pure words of the living God.
Well, let us stop this right here.

That is a false statement. Period.

It is defined in the KJVO definition of true Bible being word for word. Which I already demonstrated ends your argument instantly.

They tell us "the original Hebrew and Greek" is their final authority, hoping no one will notice that there is no such animal on the face of this earth. They don't have it, have never seen it, and wouldn't recognize it if it fell on their heads.

And YOU don't have it either, do you?
There are no original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts anywhere. There are several different Hebrew texts plus the conflicting Dead Sea Scrolls. There are over 25 different conflicting Greek texts.
Yes.

And the MSS, from which the KJV is derived didn't even exist at the time of those older manuscripts. They were created centuries later.
The multitude of modern versions, like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, depart scores of times from the Hebrew Masoretic texts, and often not in the same places.
The Masoretic text was an animal of the 7-10 centuries, that conflicts with the more ancient Hebrew manuscripts that were the accepted douments in the 1st century and the time of Christ.

So let us get our text time frames correct here.
They are also based on very different Greek texts than that of the King James Bible, though none of them always follows the same Greek text as the others. And none of the KJV text is based on documents older than the 3rd century. Many from the 5th and later.

So, again, nothing from the older centures.

The NKJV does not always follow the same Greek text as the KJB and the meaning has been radically changed in scores of verses. They often differ among themselves in both text and meaning, and contain several proveable theological errors.

And this proves the KJV how?

Get over it, the KJV is NOT the oldest Bible transation in use today.

Nor did it have the longest most used status of any version. An older version was used much longer and THE Bible.

I don't meant the RCC Bible either.
We who believe God meant what He said about preserving His words are ridiculed as ignorant, backwater fanatics. We believe God is the sovereign ruler of history and has preserved for us today all His pure words in the King James Bible.
A faith statement not based on a real Biblical promise, but your interpretation of that promise Christ made.

I believe God has preserved his word. And I can show that preservation from ancient Israel to today.

You, on the other hand, as you define the promise, cannot.

God's word has been faithfully preserved as to meaning, which is demonstratable.

But word for word? Cannot be shown and can easily be disproven. As I already have.

God knew what would become of the English language and how the great modern missionary movement of the late 1700's through the 1950's would be carried out by American and English missionaries carrying one Bible and translating it into hundreds of foreign languages and dialects. No Bible in history has been used, honored and hated as much as the King James Bible. The King James Bible was even read outloud from space as the astronauts orbited the moon.

Not true.

An older version was used longer than the KJV, was virulently hated by the RCC, and is still used by some today.

God also knew the great battle concerning the preservation of His words would take place during the times of the falling away from the faith before the glorious return of the Lord Jesus Christ. I think it quite possible that we are living in those times now. Never before has the Holy Bible itself been under such fierce attack. The supreme irony is that those who now attack the Bible are those who bear the name of Christians.

The real irony is that those who are in the KJVO camp refuse to see simple facts, such as translation errors.

In example, Easter is in the KJV but not in the Hebrew.

They refuse to believe that God has in fact preserved His words in the one Book that has been used and blessed by God a hundred times more than any other. History and the sovereignty of God bear witness that the King James Bible is that one Book, without proven error.

Another erroneous statement.

We believe it has been preserved. But not under the false and easily disproven standard the KJVO folk use as a definition.

Your error, not ours.

Many Whateverists of the "No Bible is inerrant" crowd ask the following questions: (These are actual quotes from one of the Bible clubs) "Why are you hung up on a translation since no translation is perfect? What about the other translations of the other nations of the world? Do you have an answer for them?

Why do you keep making this false claim?

We do believe the Bible is inerrant.

But, under your terms, I have shown the KJV is in error, in a number of ways.

You King James Bible only people limit yourselves to just one language - English. Why are you so afraid to talk about other languages. What about the aboriginals of our nation? Do they have a Bible? If they do, would their translation be just as "perfect" as the KJV? Why or why not? Is your God so narrow-minded and bigoted that He only speaks to 10% or the world--the English part, and consigns 90% of the world to Hell because they cannot read and understand English, particularly Shakespearean English? My God is not that narrow-minded. The Bible says that God so loved the world, not just the KJV understanding crowd. He loves the Crees, the Punjabis, the Hindis, the Maoris, the Inuits, those that speak Urdu and Arabic, etc. But all of these are condemned to Hell because they have not the KJV, right?"

First of all, God does not condemn people to hell because they are not King James Bible only. God can and does save His people using a multitude of translations in hundreds of foreign languages. The gospel of salvation through the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is found in any bible version out there, no matter how incompletely or poorly translated it may be. Christ only promised that the gospel would be preached throughout all the world.

Let the excuse making begin.

Only the KJV is the true Bible, reserveed for English speakers.

Hmmmm. 7 revisions of the KJV. So much for inerrancy as you define it.

We don't speak Archaic English. So much for understanding.

Meaning, not word for word was promised. And that promise has been faithfully kept, in many languages.

Secondly, God never promised that every nation or individual would have a perfect Bible, but He did promise to preserve His pure, complete and 100% true words in a Book somewhere on this earth. "Seek ye out of the Book of the LORD and read..." Isaiah 34:16.

What a spin!

And this says it is the KJV... how?

God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. There was a period of time when for about 2000 years only one small nation had the true and pure words of God. Psalm 147:19,20 says: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

Wow! Desparately seeking excuses to escape reality!

God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. God will hold us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. We who have the preserved and inerrant words of God in the English language of the King James Bible will be held far more accountable for what we have done with this book than those who cannot read English. "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

But in meaning for meaning, God has given it to the whole world.

And thirdly, the people who pose such questions as this individual asks are actually promoting the idea that there is no complete, inerrant and 100% true Bible in ANY language on this earth today. Not the Hebrew or the Greek, nor in any language. This is what they are being taught in most seminaries today. A recent poll shows that 85% of the students in America's largest Evangelical seminary openly admit that they do not believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture, and the percentages are getting higher each year.

Again with the fralse accusation.

Those who believe no Bible is inerrant are Apostates, not Christian. They are not in either or our camps.

God has promised to preserve His words, not in every language or to every people, but in such a way as they would be known by many of God's believing people. The Lord Jesus said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35

Meanings, not exact words.

Again, the second it got translated into English the exact word for word argument refutes you.

Just consider the wrist.

God testifies through Isaiah in chapter 59:21 "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

"For the LORD is good: his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations." Psalm 100:5

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6-7

"The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever." 1 Peter 1:25

And it hasn't.

The meaning is fully in the NASB, NIV and more.

In fact, it is stated better in the them than the KJV. Minus the RCC adds.

We who believe the King James Bible to be the inerrant word of God do not place our trust in the King James translators. We do not defend their comments in the Preface, nor their theology, though I agree with much of it. We trust in God alone Who has fulfilled His promises to preserve His inspired words. He just happened to use the believing men of the 1611 Holy Bible as His instruments to continue this preservation.

And yet, was revised soon after and many time later.

In fact, they gave margin and foot notes with multiple possible transations. Not just one.

In fact, they included the Apocrapha, which never came from God.

I don't recall the Prophets or Apostles having to go back and delete books and edit others to get it right. Or give possible multiple meanings for what God was telling them because they were not quite sure.

They were not perfect nor without error in themselves. Just as God used Peter, though he denied the Lord and later separated himself from the Gentile believers and was to be blamed for his actions, (See Galatians 2:12-14) or Paul who was about to offer another blood sacrifice to appease the Jewish law-keepers in Acts 21:26, or John who twice fell down to worship an angel and was rebuked for it (See Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9). God always uses imperfect vessels for His glory; if He didn't, nothing would ever get done.

Big claim that does not hold up to historical facts.

As said, when did the Apostles or Prophets ever have to go back and edit their words?

Those who promote today's multiple, conflicting versions of God's words think they finally have the question that will stump the Bible believer and finally rob him of his faith in God's inerrant word. They ask us, "Well, where was the pure word of God BEFORE 1611?"

Spinning again.

The KJV is another version, not THE Bible and those others. So, it is right in there on your conflicts issues.

It is the KJVO folk who are doing the robbing by promoting a word for word declaration when anyone one who knows anything about translating knows that claim goes out the window instantly.

It is a legit question. If the 1611 is THE Bible, then it existed, uninterupted, in some form, all the way back to the Apostles.

But it doesn't. It didn't exist as a single manuscript until 1611. And it was a compliation of multiple mansucripts, on on each book. Not a simple bringing together of single manuscripts, for each book.
It will greatly enlighten your mind if you ask them the same question. They don't know where it was before 1611 either,
Wrong, again.

First, it existed in prior translations and in manuscript forms from several sources.

Second, meaning, not word for work, was promised. And I see that back into ancient Israel.

Third, since you are the ones declaring one single preserved Bible, it is on your heads to show what you claimed existed.

False declaration about others and claims that are unprovable do not equal proof. They equal excuses.
or more importantly, where it is now. God's words from the Old Testament were most likely preserved in the Hebrew texts.
The OT scriptures used at the time of Christ are known today. Christ verified and supported those scriptures, so we know they are trustable.

Not the centuries later versions used by the KJV.
A good educated guess for the New Testament words would be that God preserved them in the Old Latin Bibles,
Excuse me?

They didn't even bet the name of Christ correct.

His name, Greek to Latin to English came out Jesus.

Greek/Hebrew to English is Joshua.

So much for word of word accuracy.

and then in the Waldensian latinized Bibles till the time of the Reformation. Theodore Beza, whose Greek text was used by the KJB translators, traces the Waldensian believers from around 120 A.D. to the Reformation. They were killed off by the thousands and their Bibles were burned by the Catholic persecutors. The Waldensians believed in the priesthood of every believer and the doctrines of grace. Then God's perfect words for both the Old Testament and the New Testament passed over to what would become the end times universal language - English - , and was simply titled "The Holy Bible", later to be known as the King James Version. That is where they remain today in all their purity.

Big claims. But looking into the manuscript issues reveal those manuscripts were not the ones fully used by the KJV.

Plus, a number of translation errors were carried over into the KJV.

Regarding the Old Latin, which is not the same thing as the Catholic Vulgate, Agustine and Tertullian both speak of this ancient version as existing since 157-190 A.D.

Which was not based on manuscripts of the KJV and did not agree with the KJV in all places.

Again, some translation errors were carried over into the KJV.

So much for God making it a perfect Bible, as the KJVO define it.

“The Italic or pre-Waldensian Church produced a version of the New Testament which was translated from the Received Text by the year A.D. 157” Fredrick Henry Scrivner, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament , 1874

The so-called Received Text didn't exist in 157 AD.

History (http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html)

Note the date. Seems like later discovery and sholarship have disproven his claim as to the early dating of the RT text.

Quite substantially, in fact.

“The Bible translation of the Italic Church came to be known as the Itala translation. The point of all this is that the Itala Bible was translated from the Received Text” Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts , 1859.

Again, the date.

Can you show a current source of evidence for this time claim?

I see no disputes the RT didn't exist until the late 1500 to early 1600s now.

Some like Doug Kutilek try to discredit the testimony of the Old Latin bearing witness to the readings found in the KJB but not in versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, and they cherry-pick a few verses to show divergent readings. There are only about 35 remaining portions or fragments of the Old Latin around today, but these bear ample witness to every one of the disputed verses that are omitted by most modern versions.

Omitted or added by the KJV?

Can we see early manuscripts with them in it? No.

Can we see any early claims fasting is required to drive out certain demons? No.

I have studied the issue myself and can prove that the following whole verses are included in all, most, or at least some of the Old Latin copies. This information is confirmed by using the Nestle-Aland Greek text critical notes - certainly no friend to the KJB.

The following verses which are omitted in the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, etc. are all found in copies of the Old Latin texts. Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 9:55.56; 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24, and 1 John 5:7.

Old Latin as in what dates? 300 and later?

And where are they in the more ancient Greek manuscripts? Not there.

I have compiled a study of the major disputed readings found in the King James Bible as opposed to the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman versions, and what the Old Latin texts say. You can see this study at this link on my website:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/OldLatin.html

Interesting claim.

Problem is there are no copies from 157 AD.

The oldest Latin Bible copy I can find any reference to is 1456.

Making the assumption it reads the same as the 157 version is a big mistake.

We have only a very small portion remaining of all the Bibles and manuscripts that ever existed. Perhaps as little as one one hundreth, so there is no sure way of knowing what the other manuscripts and Bibles said - just as we do not have the "originals" and can't prove what they said. Of those that remain, no two are exactly alike in every detail, but of the approximately 5,000 portions and fragments that we have today, about 95% agree about 99% of the time with the King James Bible readings. The other 5% differs a great deal even among themselves, and it is this 5% that is used in most of today's "bibles".


What a play on stats.

Those SAME stats are the agreement with the NIV, NASB and others as well.

A bit of scholastic dishonesty there, implying greater agreement with the KJV than others.
Even the editors of the UBS Critical Greek text admit that multitudes of Greek manuscripts that once exited are no longer accessible.
How about a little honesty from you as well?

The KJV authors had less access to far fewer manuscripts than we do today.

In fact, the MSS were the ONLY manuscripts that had access to, plus older translations.

They created the RT from the MSS and readings of prior versions.

The KJV is NOT a transalation. It is a revision.


Consider this statement by Kurt and Barbara Aland: "INNUMERABLE MANUSCRIPTS WERE DESTROYED during the persecutions and had to be replaced. The result was a widespread scarcity of New Testament manuscripts which became all the more acute when the persecution ceased... There also followed a sudden demand for large numbers of New Testament manuscripts in all provinces of the empire" (Aland, The Text of the New Testament, p. 65)

So? They helps the KJV in no way since the majority of manuscripts we know have were found in the last century.

Many of them date back to the around 100 AD. A few even earlier.

Are you going to use mansuscripts coming from Rome over them? When Rome was the one destroying what it didn't like? Leaving more Rome friendly manuscripts for the KJV authors to use?

It is supremely important to have faith in God, both for our salvation and for believing that He has kept and preserved His words throughout every generation as He promised to do. If you cannot believe God has kept His promise to preserve His words, then how can you believe He will keep His promise to preserve your soul?

Faith yes! But blindness is not faith. It is self desire.

God promised meaning, not word for word. The fact the RT didn't exist until around 1600 says, if you are right, that True Bible didn't for centuries, in any form.
Ask any modern version promoter if he believes the originals were given by inspiration of God. He will enthusiastically respond in the affirmative. Yes, they were inspired.
They were.
Then ask him how he knows this to be true. He has never seen them because they don't exist. He believes it by faith.
Misleading.

We know because we can trace them back to the Apostles and do textual comparison.
In the same way we too have faith that God both inspired His original words and that He has preserved them through history and today they are found in the King James Bible.
False!

Not in the same way. You cannot trace back the RT to the Apostles. It didn't exist until about 1600.


At one of the Bible clubs I belong to, after referring an inquiring "Reverend" to this article, he wrote back: "Will, Your article really never answered the question. If, as you claim God has "PRESERVED" his perfect words then it must have always existed and you would be able to show it to us through out history. Is this the case or not? If not then you cannot claim preservation. - Dennis"

To which I responded: "Hi Dennis, you and I are approaching the issue of an inspired, inerrant, complete and 100% true Holy Bible from completely different ways. Your position is that no such thing as an inerrant Bible ever existed and certainly does not now exist. So, you draw your conclusions from your premise.

Why did you deliberatel distort, misquote and make a false accusation?

His position is there ARE inerrant Bibles. Inerrant in message, meaning and truth.

WHO are you to state word for word is required for inerrnacy when any look at history shows that is a foolish claim?

The KJV was edited by its own authors! It contained Apocrapha!

Your definition of inerrnant is the problem. To state anyone who does not agree with it does not believe in an inerrant Bible is your opinion, which you are entitled to. But one I and others reject and see as foolish, which we are entitled to.

I and many others actually believe in the existence of an infallible Book called the Bible. We believe it exists now and can tell anyone where to get a copy. We also believe the perfect words of God once existed in times past too. We're not totally sure where it was, but most of us generally believe the Old Latin (not the Vulgate) and the Waldensian bibles contained the perfect New Testament.

You know, you don't need a long, rambling post to say you believe the KJV is the only true Bible. A single sentence would have sufficed.

Trying to impress others with a lot of words does not change the fact that is what this boils down to. A faith statement not based on proof.

And a faith statement easily challenged, with the challenge always answered by many rambling words which are ultimately another faith statement, nothing more.
Just because we cannot produce an exact copy now does not mean that such a thing did not once exist.
Negative proof claim. Based not even on a histrorical statement such another version ever existed.

Think about the argument of those on the other side who at least believe in the "originals only" position. They tell us the originals were inspired, but yet they do not have a single copy or even a single word from any of these originals, and cannot prove beyond all doubt what ANY reading is for any single verse.

Which has no logical equivalence to what you are trying to claim.

We both agree the original autograhs existed. We both believe they were totally from God.

That has nothing to do with a claim the KJV is equally inspired as to total accuracy.

The fact the authors wrote it as they did disproves that claim.

It as nothing to do with a claim an unknown perfect version existed before the KJV. That is just a negative proof claim and demand, which are hollow claims.

If you accuse the KJB believer of not being able to back up his position with historical evidence that is 100% verifiable, then doesn't this same argument completely destroy the position of those who are originals only? Most certainly it does.

No. Most assuredly does not.
We at least have what we believe are the written promises of God to preserve His
words till heaven and earth pass away, and we believe He has kept His promises.
So do we. We cannot help it if you misunderstand what the promise means.

Your side, on the other hand, does not believe that God has in fact kept His pure words in any "book of the LORD" that is found on the earth today. Think about it." - Will

You think about it. We do believe his teachings and meanings have been preservered, as promised.

The new version promoter and King James critic has no final authority but his own mind or his favorite scholar to tell him what God probably said. He has no infallible Bible and doesn't want you to have one either. He can't tell you where you can get a copy of God's pure words today, let alone where they were before 1611. "Thus saith the LORD" has been replaced with "Well, how does this version render it?"

We have God given Bibles. Infallible ones.

You have a belief in the KJV based on nothing but tradition.
"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

Will Kinney
My path does not begin with the KJV. It begins with the Prophets and Apostles, who gave us the Bible we read today.

[brandplucked]

Hi Core, thanks for your reply.
Hi, brand! Been awhile.

However you failed to mention the fact that you yourself do not believe that any bible in any language is the complete, inspired and 100% true Bible. Right? If I am wrong on this, then simply tell us where we can get a copy of what you would consider to be the true book of the Lord.

Not true.

Christ did not promise a word for word preservation. But a preservation of the teachings.

In that regard, there are many Bibles.

I believe the NASB, NIV and a couple of others are among the best of those. The KJV is second tier.

No English translation is absolutely 1 for 1 exact with the original autographs, even if we had them.


Hi Core. I can see I am going to spend very little time here. I'll just make a couple of comments and be on my way, if you don't mind. First of all, God says He will preserve His WORDS, not just the general "teachings", as you say. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

And yet even the "teachings" are not the same. Your nasb has a god that was deceived by men. Psalm 78:36,(not even the niv does this) and in fact has two gods John 1:18. The NIV portrays Christ as having "origins" Micah 5:2 (though not the Nasb), and says that God became His Father on a certain day in Acts 13:33.

Both your nasb and niv often reject the Hebrew texts, and not even in the same places. Want proof? Here it is:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

Your idea of an alleged inspired Bible is to pick two modern versions that continue to change textually from edition to edition; do not even agree with each other in numerous Hebrew and Greek texts, let alone in hundreds of resultant English translations of individual verses, and disparage the greatest Book ever printed as "2nd tier".

I figure you are so far gone that it is just not worth the time or effort to try to help you see the error of your ways.


The real irony is that those who are in the KJVO camp refuse to see simple facts, such as translation errors.

In example, Easter is in the KJV but not in the Hebrew.


Well, Core. This is not at all to be wondered at, since the word correctly translted as Easter in the KJB is a Greek word and not Hebrew at all.



http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html


In any event, perhaps some here will have ears to hear, and come to believe that there really is an inspired and inerrant Book of the Lord here on this earth, and it is the King James Bible.

Thanks for your time,

Wishing you well,


Will K

[CoreIssue]

Hi Core. I can see I am going to spend very little time here.
Not meaning to be sarcastic, but that is common with KJVOnliests.

You guys do seem to not answer challenges. Just post copy and past arguments that, when refuted, go answered.
I'll just make a couple of comments and be on my way, if you don't mind.
I don't mind.

First of all, God says He will preserve His WORDS, not just the general "teachings", as you say. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Then you can only read it in the original Greek and Hebrew. Otherwise, the words have changed.

As shown in the wrist example.

Then we could progress to such things as adding 'and' to Gen 1:2, which is totally unjustified in the Hebrew.
And yet even the "teachings" are not the same.
True. The KJV does make some very serious translation errors.

Such as Hebrew words translated as female temple prostitutes actually meant male temple prostitutes.
Your nasb has a god that was deceived by men.
No, it does not. Not in the way you mean it.

Not the best word to use, but the meaning is correct. To deceive/lie does not mean to succeed at it.
and in fact has two gods John 1:18.
No. It says Christ is God incarnate, who was with the Father before the incarnation.

Now, you should only have a problem with that if you reject the Trinity.

By the way, the KJV is loaded with bad transations.
The NIV portrays Christ as having "origins" Micah 5:2 (though not the Nasb),
All three says the same thing. That he came from eternity, as God, to be incarnate.
and says that God became His Father on a certain day in Acts 13:33.
All three says the same thing.

At the incarnation the First Person of the Trinity became the Father of the Flesh the Second Person entered in the incarnation.

Total agreement.

Both your nasb and niv often reject the Hebrew texts, and not even in the same places. Want proof? Here it is:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

What proof? I don't see it.

Your idea of an alleged inspired Bible is to pick two modern versions that continue to change textually from edition to edition; do not even agree with each other in numerous Hebrew and Greek texts, let alone in hundreds of resultant English translations of individual verses, and disparage the greatest Book ever printed as "2nd tier".

KJV has been edited at least 7 times. Get over it.
I figure you are so far gone that it is just not worth the time or effort to try to help you see the error of your ways.
Yea, the old KJVO preacher syndrome. You guys hold yourselve so superior.

You want to change minds? Answer challenges.

Stop jumping to attacking those who disagree with you on personal levels.


The real irony is that those who are in the KJVO camp refuse to see simple facts, such as translation errors.

In example, Easter is in the KJV but not in the Hebrew.


Well, Core. This is not at all to be wondered at, since the word correctly translted as Easter in the KJB is a Greek word and not Hebrew at all.

Sorry, I meant Greek.

And it was not translated correctly. The Greek word does not mean Easter.

In any event, perhaps some here will have ears to hear, and come to believe that there really is an inspired and inerrant Book of the Lord here on this earth, and it is the King James Bible.

Actually, these discussion have shown many the fallacies of the KJVO camp, and in checking out the KJV have found many translation errors are in fact right there.
T[quote[hanks for your time,

Wishing you well,


Will K[/quote]
You are welcome.

[kay-gee]

Core, I saw you claim in a post on another thread that the bible had been tampered with by the RCC for the purposes of supporting a-millism. My faith in you is shaken a bit, I have to say. I would never make a claim like that! For one thing I would think, a-millism would be small potatoes to RCC. Why didn't they doctor it up really good and put things in to support Mary, purgatory, and a whole host of doctrines like that? Don't ever suggest fault with the word of God because it offers a pin-prick of opposition to your doctrines once in a while!...all the best................kay-gee.........

[CoreIssue]

Core, I saw you claim in a post on another thread that the bible had been tampered with by the RCC for the purposes of supporting a-millism.
There version and the manuscripts from the scribes. Yes.

Change words such as repentence to penance, as an example of how blatant they were.
My faith in you is shaken a bit, I have to say. I would never make a claim like that!
So? History is history.
For one thing I would think, a-millism would be small potatoes to RCC.
Then you don't have any understanding of the RCC, in fact.

The cornerstone of the RCC is Replacement Theology. Their very existence hinges on it.
Why didn't they doctor it up really good and put things in to support Mary, purgatory, and a whole host of doctrines like that?
They did in their version.

Other mansucripts escaped such altering, but not altering.
Don't ever suggest fault with the word of God because it offers a pin-prick of opposition to your doctrines once in a while!...all the best................kay-gee.........
Get over it until you actually know what you are talking about.

God preserved the Bible in spite of their attempts.

I hope Sid reads what you said and jumps in here.

[kay-gee]

In that case , How can I believe any Bible. If RCC hinges on amill, then thats funny cause they have been around about 1700 years. It hinges on expopriating money from its faithful! all the best.........

[CoreIssue]

In that case , How can I believe any Bible. If RCC hinges on amill, then thats funny cause they have been around about 1700 years. It hinges on expopriating money from its faithful! all the best.........
Oh, please. They want more than money. They also wante power and virtual worship.

That comes from all they created via Replacement Thology.

How can you believe any Bible?

Thousands of manuscript evidence discovered in the 20th Century going back to around 100 AD, before the RCC existed.

That is how.

[kay-gee]

No argument from me. I just re-read the postings on this thread and you are in-deed correct about the way the translations came down to us, and the issues of language transfer. The majestic style of the old english gives KJV a certain charm, but it is in no way the be all and end all of english Bibles. I believe there is no altering of the pertinent message in Gods word but at the same time some of the original wording in their primary tongues have been lost to us. Seriously folks, It's been 4000 years since scripture began to be recorded. all the best........

[CoreIssue]

No argument from me. I just re-read the postings on this thread and you are in-deed correct about the way the translations came down to us, and the issues of language transfer. The majestic style of the old english gives KJV a certain charm, but it is in no way the be all and end all of english Bibles. I believe there is no altering of the pertinent message in Gods word but at the same time some of the original wording in their primary tongues have been lost to us. Seriously folks, It's been 4000 years since scripture began to be recorded. all the best........
That makes it difficult.

Even in linquistics, those who study ancient Hebrew understand the language differently than modern Hebrew.

Raised in the antique business, I have seen English from a mere 100 years ago has changed in usage and meaning to a degree.