Does the King James only position "blow up"? [Archive]

View Full Version : Does the King James only position "blow up"?

brandplucked

08-13-2009, 12:21 AM

Does the King James Bible only position “blow up”?

“Seek ye out of THE BOOK OF THE LORD, and read” - Isaiah 34:16

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise” - 1 Corinthians 1:19

The one argument the “No Bible is inerrant” crowd continually throws in our face as being unanswerable is this: “Where was the perfect and inerrant Bible before 1611?”

Here are some direct quotes from a seminarian who thinks this question completely destroys our position. He writes: “I must ask you this in return, where was the Word of God prior to the KJV being written? This is where your position blows up at. You MUST claim that God didn't write an infallible Bible until 1611 if you hold to all of this. Can you name where the "complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true wordS of God existed before the KJV was translated?" The answer needs to stay consistent with your position. Don't say they were found here or there. You MUST, to be consistent, say a specific Bible in a specific language that the "complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true wordS of God" were located.”

Keep in mind that these King James Bible critics do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language (including their Hebrew and Greek) and they certainly do not believe there exists one NOW. The force of their argument is that since there was no perfect and infallible Bible before the King James Bible, then the King James Bible itself cannot be the perfect words of God anymore than their favorite, multiple choice and contradictory bible versions. They don’t defend any of their modern versions like the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, NKJV or Holman Standard as being the 100% true words of God in contrast to the other versions. Most of them don’t claim to have an infallible Bible but they take offense at our claim that we do.

There are only three options open to them.

#1. “Only the originals were inspired and infallible.” It should be pointed out that the originals never did form a 66 book Bible and they have not seen a single word of these “originals” a day in their lives. At one Bible club I belong to there was one guy who objected to my King James Bible only position saying that he was against any form of "onlyism" because it was unblilical and elitist. I then pointed out to him that if he bothered to check almost any Baptist or other Christians site that addressed the issue of their belief about "the Bible" they almost always say: "We believe that ONLY the originals are (were) inspired and inerrant; no translation is inerrant." This most certainly is itself a form of "onlyism" and it is far worse than believing that the King James Bible is the only pure and perfect Book of the LORD. The "originals only" position leaves us without a perfect and inerrant Bible NOW, and it is a profession of faith in something that THEY KNOW does not exist. Now how silly is that?!?.

#2. “All reliable bible versions (NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, KJV, Spanish, German etc.) are the inspired and infallible words of God.” How someone with the discernment of lime jello can say such a thing is beyond me, but I do run into this type of nonsense. In order to hold to view #2 they need to give new meanings to old words. "Infallible" no longer means "without errors"; it now must means something like "ballpark close enough to be divinely useful" or something like that. These modern versions differ among themselves by omitting or adding literally THOUSANDS of words from the New Testament alone, and the modern versions change the meanings of hundreds of verses and often reject the Hebrew readings, and not even in the same places as the others. Not one of them agrees textually with any other in scores if not thousands of places. Try arguing that they are all “the inspired and 100% true words of God” before a court of law or even a high school debating team and you will be laughed out of the room.

#3 There really is a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible and history and the internal evidence points to the Authorized King James Bible as being the Final Written Authority and the true words of the living God. You only have these three options. There is no other alternative.

There is a huge difference between the wisdom of men and the wisdom of God. As God says in Isaiah 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. Far as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

And again God says in 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”

I readily admit that “the book of the LORD” (the Holy Bible) was in a rather lengthly process of being perfected and brought to full maturity, but I and thousands of other Bible believers hold that the final product was and is the King James Bible. In general terms the Bible versions that existed before the perfection of the King James Bible followed the same Hebrew texts and the traditional Greek texts. For example, you will find 1 John 5:7 in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1560 to 1602. (Even the Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582 included all of 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" etc. and not even in brackets. The later Douay version of 1950 still included the phrase but in brackets, but the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 began to omit the Trinity phrase altogether just like the modern versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, NET and Holman versions do.) However there was no perfect and inerrant Bible until God brought forth His finished product in the King James Bible.

“God calls those things that be not as though they were”

I believe that those who say there must have been a perfect Bible before the King James Bible or our position falls to the ground as being inconsistent are guilty of using the wisdom of men rather than the wisdom of God, and their thinking is decidedly unbiblical.

Was there a perfect Bible consisting of the present 66 book canon in the year 90 A.D? No. Not all of it had even been written yet. Why is it that the God of history didn’t allow the invention of the printing press until around 1455 A.D? Most Christians didn’t even have an opportunity to have their own copy of any printed Bible till around 1550.

Even regarding the canon of Scripture, or the individual books that taken as a whole form the Bible, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for British Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.

There was no formal church agreement on the present day Protestant Bible consisting of 66 books until 1563. The Catholics still do not agree with the Protestants and include several other books called the Apocrypha.

In the wisdom of God something can be in the process or even non-existent and yet God calls it done. This is totally contrary to the wisdom and ways of men. God refers to “the book of the LORD” before it is even finished and certainly before it was gathered into one single volume.
Read through the 34th chapter of the prophet Isaiah. Here God records the coming judgments upon all nations when the host of heaven shall be dissolved and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll. We find similar reference to these future events in the book of the Revelation. Though none of these things had actually happened at the time Isaiah wrote them, yet God sometimes referred to these events as having already happened. - “he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.”; “my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” (Isaiah 34:2, 16)

So too in this chapter we read about “the book of the LORD”. “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail...” (Isaiah 34:16) What exactly was this “book of the LORD” at Isaiah’s time in history? Was it all the books of the Bible written up till the time of Isaiah? Was it just the book of Isaiah? In either case the Bible as we know it today was not a completed Book. Isaiah was still being written at this time and there yet lacked many other Old Testament books still to be written. And that’s not even mentioning the entire New Testament. Yet God calls it “the book of the LORD” and commands us to read it.

God can and does refer to the Book of the Lord as being a real object even though it is still in the process of being written and perfected. Yet He sees the end from the beginning and refers to a future event (from our point of view) as a present reality.

Daniel 10:21 - 11:2 - "the Scripture of Truth"

Another clear example of God's Book being progressively revealed to us is found in one of the heavenly visions revealed to the prophet Daniel. In chapter 10 a heavenly messenger is sent to Daniel who tells him: "But I will shew thee THAT WHICH IS NOTED IN THE SCRIPTURE OF TRUTH". The angel then says - "And now will I shew thee THE TRUTH. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings of Persia: and the fourth shall be far richer than they all..."

Here the angel refers to a Book of Scripture that is ALREADY WRITTEN IN HEAVEN, and that is progressively revealed to man. This "Scripture of truth" has already recorded coming events BEFORE they happen in time. Nothing takes God by surprise; He sees the end from the beginning, and there is a completed Book in heaven that God progressively reveals to His people in time and history.

Let’s look at some other Biblical examples of where God calls something that is not as though it were. In Genesis 17:5 God tells Abraham: “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; FOR A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE THEE.”

The Bible critic using human logic and wisdom can easily say: “Hey, wait a minute. Abraham didn’t have any children at this time. There was no Isaac nor Ishmael; no Esau nor Jacob, and certainly not the nation of Israel much less other nations (plural). God must be wrong. The Bible can’t be true and inerrant.”

Yet the verse is repeated again in the New Testament were we read in Romans 4:17 “(As it is written, I HAVE MADE THEE a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and CALLETH THOSE THINGS WHICH BE NOT AS THOUGH THEY WERE.”

What we see here is God naming something as real and yet it wasn’t fulfilled in history till some 2000 years later. God was in a long process of gradually bringing about the fulfillment of His promises, yet He referred to them as something He had already accomplished.

Psalms 12:6-7 says: "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."

I believe that these verses, like many other Scriptures, have a double fulfillment. It can only be seen in the second way after it has happened, not before. How many prophecies of Christ Himself were not understood until after they had happened? Many if not most of them.

Even at the time of the writing of Psalm 12 not all but maybe half of God's words had been penned, yet they are and were pure at that time. Are all the rest of the O.T. books that were written after David penned Psalm 12 part of the words of the Lord? Yes, we believe so. How about the whole New Testament, are they also part of the pure words of the Lord? Again, we affirm that they are. If God was going to keep them from this generation for ever, then He must have included what He knew would be written in the future as a present reality - the words of the LORD. Obviously God's words over the centuries had become corrupted through false readings, omissions and additions. If God did not purify them, then there never would have been a perfect Bible.

We see the same Biblical principle in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ in John 17:4 where He says: “I have glorified thee on the earth: I HAVE FINISHED THE WORK which thou gavest me to do.” Again, the Bible critic will protest. “Now just hold on here a minute. Jesus hadn’t gone to the garden where He prayed with great drops of blood. He hadn’t yet been betrayed nor handed over to the Roman authorities. He certainly hadn’t yet died on the cross for our sins nor risen from the grave three days later. How can He then truthfully say that He had finished the work God gave Him to do? He must have been mistaken.”

Yet in the wisdom of God the thing was so sure that He refered to it as a present reality - a finished work - even though in human terms His redemptive sacrifice was not accomplished till some time after these words were spoken by our Saviour.

A third Biblical example that shows the principle of how God can refer to something as already existing (the book of the Lord) when from our point of view it doesn’t at all, is found in Ephesians 2:4-6. Here we read: “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace are ye saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

God speaks of this glorious redemption and new life from the dead as being a present reality which has already been accomplished - “quickened together with Christ, raised up and seated in the heavenly places” - Yet multiplied millions of us all over the world had not even been born yet, let alone had made some kind of a “decision for Christ”! Yet God refers to them as already done. We are seated together in the heavenly places.

In the same way, the King James Bible believer does not need to somehow trace all the way back in history to try to find any perfect and inerrant Bible that existed before God brought the finished product of the King James Bible on the scene in 1611. The Sovereign God of history sees the end from the beginning and He can refer to the true “book of the LORD” even when, from our point of view, it wasn’t yet complete nor perfected.

As the King James Bible translators themselves wrote in their Preface: “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought, from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."

The King James Translators also wrote: "Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are the thoughts to be the wiser: so if we build upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make better which they left so good...if they were alive would thank us...the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished."

The King James Bible believer is the only one today who consistenly, historically and logically stands for the doctrinal truths that God has kept His promises to preserve His inspired words and that there really exists such a thing as a complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible.

Remember, God says: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ...even God who calleth those things which be not as though they were.” (1 Cor. 1:19-20; Romans 4:17

For some additional thoughts on the subject Where was the word of God before 1611 and its purification process please see my article here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney

CTZonEdit

08-13-2009, 09:07 AM

Questions for "KJV only" advocates:

Some questions by Steve Rudd, who compiled the remaining questions from others.

Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.
What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.
Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
If the KJV translators were inspire, why did they use a marginal reference to the apocrypha:http://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-hebrews-11-35.jpg (http://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-hebrews-11-35.jpg)
If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?
If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!
If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."?
When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?
Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)
Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?
If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?
Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.)
Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)
Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?
Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)
Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?
Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?
If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?
Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54.)
How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse)
How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?
Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?
Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?
Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?
Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]
WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?
Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?
Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?
Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?
Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?
What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist].
If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604?
Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible?
If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23]
If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?
Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus - "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?
Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?
Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?
Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises this king as "most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty's Royal Person . . ." - IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documentation - Antonia Fraser -- "King James VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham -- "The Making of a King" Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott -- "James I" Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson -- "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]
Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]
Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?
Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? - "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV] - "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also."
Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?
Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek]
Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10]
Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 - see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his & many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]
Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation - the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John. 3:16]."?
Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 - "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17]
Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6]
Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above]

CoreIssue

08-13-2009, 04:36 PM

brandplucked

08-14-2009, 09:27 AM

Hi, brandplucked.

You are doing it again. Last time you started threads, didn't like the challenges and left.

Now you are back just posting preaching posts.

I deleted two thread. Please stay on this and respond. All the issues you brought up can be discussed here. But you have to respond with answers.

Really, last time your response you would not spend time here and then just disappeared is not acceptable to coming back now and starting over.

Hi CI. I will be glad to address the laundry list of questions you brought up, IF you are willing as well to address mine. How about one question each? I answer one of yours and then you answer one of mine. Sounds fair?

Here is your first question on the list.

Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.
Good question, but the question itself contains false information.

The King James Bible has never been "revised" like all modern versions have been including the NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, etc. All these modern versions have DELIBERATELY changed their English texts (not just the spelling, but the actual words) and even their underlying texts from one edition to the next. I can prove this if you wish.

In contrast to this:

Even the American Bible Society, no friend to the King James Bible, had this to say about the "revisions" of the King James Bible. The American Bible Society wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

Pastor David F. Reagan has written an excellent article about The Myth of Early Revisions of the Authorized King James Holy Bible. In his article he discusses the conditions of the printing process in 1611, and shows how the so called revisions are actually only examples of updating the spelling of words and the correction of minor printing errors.

His article can be seen here - http://www.learnthebible.org/Myth%20of%20Early%20Revisions.htm

Now, for my question to you. Do you believe there ever existed or exists now any Bible (66 books combined into one volume) in any language (including Hebrew and Greek if you wish) that you believe is the complete, preserved, inspired and 100% true words of God?

If Yes, then please tell us where we can get a copy of it so we can compare it to what we are using now to see the differences and similarities.

Will you answer this simple question?

Thanks,

Will Kinney

CoreIssue

08-14-2009, 11:13 AM

Well, that is CTZonEdit's list, not mine. So I will leave you to him.

But I will say you are totally wrong. The KJV has been revised numerous times.

CTZonEdit

08-14-2009, 01:13 PM

brandplucked

08-14-2009, 01:43 PM

Now, for my question to you. Do you believe there ever existed or exists now any Bible (66 books combined into one volume) in any language (including Hebrew and Greek if you wish) that you believe is the complete, preserved, inspired and 100% true words of God?What a loaded question. So the bible came from the bible? Where is the bible before 1611?

The bible you choose to read is for your personal preference obviously. That is clear from you rejecting any other bible version except for the KJV. If you are unwilling to see how the latter versions are far superior than what the KJV provides then there is nothing to argue about. I'm not going to argue your opinion.

The only thing you are doing is preaching the KJV only doctrine. I cant believe that today this is still even worth talking about, and is only relevant to cults and denominations that subscribe to this argumentation because it supports their denominational beliefs.

In the 1950's maybe this was a valid debate, today its irrelevant.

Hi CTZ. So, in other words, you refuse to answer the question.

Which of these "far superior versions" got it right, if any?

“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV), or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!; 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read THREE (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, NET, Holman or THIRTY from the Syriac NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, ESV) or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).

Are any of the above "superior versions" right? Are any of them the infallible words of God, or do you not believe that such a thing as an infallible Bible exists?

Will you still refuse to answer this simple question?

Thanks,

Will K

CTZonEdit

08-14-2009, 01:59 PM

brandplucked

08-14-2009, 10:26 PM

Are any of the above "superior versions" right? Are any of them the infallible words of God, or do you not believe that such a thing as an infallible Bible exists?

The answer is that God did not promise to preserve a word for word bible. No bible is 100% pure. The KJV is not 100% pure, so you cannot even apply your own argument to the KJV and to do so would show how foolish you are.

God said he would preserve the teachings, which all modern bibles do. The KJV DID provide a proper teaching at the time. The teachings are/were preserved. Today there is no reason to claim the KJV is the ONLY bible.

If you believe the KJV is the only word for word preserved God ordained version then that is your opinionated doctrinal belief and not a supportable fact.

Fact is that modern translations are far superior to the KJV.

Hi CTZ. You say: "God said he would preserve the teachings, which all modern bibles do."

Two things here. #1.What verse do you use to back up your view that "God said he would preserve "the teachings"? Do you have a verse for this?

#2. Could you tell me the name of the modern version you think is the best out there (though not 100% pure). Once you do this, then we can take a closer look to see if your statement that "all modern versions preserve the teachings" is really true or not.

I believe I can prove that all modern versions have perverted true Doctrine, watered down almost every fundamental truth and have both added to and taken away from God's true words.

I doubt you are willing to actually name a specific modern version that you think teaches pure doctrine, even though it has many other faults. So if you are willing to look at some concrete examples of how all modern versions pervert sound doctrine, here are a few to take a look at.

This is not a cut and paste article I picked up from somewhere else. I wrote it myself after a lot of personal study and Bible comparisons.

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

NOBODY seriously defends any modern version (NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, NET, Holman, etc.) against all others as being the infallible words of God. In fact, most Christians today are like you in that they do not believe that any Bible in any language is the 100% true, pure and inspired words of God.

People actually read these modern versions less and less, and take what they do read far less seriously.

The Bible says there will be a falling away from the faith before the Lord Jesus Christ returns (2 Thes. 2:1-3), and this is happening now. Most Christians today do not believe in the inerrancy (or infallibility) of the Scriptures. Once you undermine this fundamental belief, Satan has gone a long way in achieving his goals.

It all started from the very first question found in Scripture in Genesis 3 - "Yea, hath God said...?"

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will K

CTZonEdit

08-14-2009, 11:00 PM

Willy

08-15-2009, 04:06 AM

Luke 24:47

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

King James Version 1769
and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson
and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

The Holy Bible, New International Version© 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation
and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952. and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

American Standard Version 1901
and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations beginning at Jerusalem.

J.N.Darby Translation 1890
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Noah Webster Version 1833 Ephesians 6:17

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

King James Version 1769
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

The Holy Bible, New International Version© 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society
and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,

English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles
And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

American Standard Version 1901
Have also the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is God's word;

J.N.Darby Translation 1890
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

Noah Webster Version 1833
... granted some swords are a wee bit sharper than others ... but He who wields the sword is able.

Willy:popcorn2:

brandplucked

08-15-2009, 09:06 AM

Right here we go again, where exactly does the bible say the KJV is the true one and only version? See I can make circular logic claims too.

I already said that there is no 100% pure biblical word for word preservation including the KJV, and to argue it is foolish, yet you already want to. :scratch:

Hi CTZ. Two points. I appreciate the fact that you at least are honest enough to admit that you do not believe there exists such a thing as a 100% true Bible. Many Bible agnostics out there try to make us think they actually believe in the inerrancy (infallibility of Scripture) when in fact they have no such Book they can show anyone and they know it.

Second point: You may call it circular logic or reasoning, but I call it believing the Book. God said it and I believe it. In fact, it doesn't even require my belief to make it true. It is still true just because God said it.

Can you or I or anyone else prove without the Bible that hell exists? Or that there is a place called heaven where there is a city with streets of gold? Or that Christ was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life and died on the cross as the Lamb of God to take away the sins of His people? Or that He will come again in power and glory to judge this sin fallen and rebellious world? No way.

Why do I believe these things? Because the Bible tells me about them.

Atheist mock the Christian faith as using "circular reasoning". They ask: "How do you know those things are true?" We answer: "Because the Bible says so." They say: "Well, how do you know the Bible is true? You are using circular logic."

So now the Christian Bible Agnostics (they don't know which parts of the various conflicting bible versions are true and which are not, and care less and less every day) are using the same arguments as do the atheists and Bible mockers.

Something to think about.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

By His grace, believing the Book,

Will Kinney

brandplucked

08-15-2009, 09:19 AM

Hi Willy. Thanks for the verses. You gave us Luke 24:47 and Eph. 6:17 out of several versions and they are all pretty much alike. I agree. There are many verses that are very similar.

The gospel is still found in them all. I do not dispute this. However the issue is whether or not "The Bible" (any bible in any language) IS the complete, preserved, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible or not.

Most Christians today do not believe that any bible is the infallible words of God and they read their modern versions less and less.

Brother, there are literally hundreds of verses that do not have the same meanings from one version to another. Here is an example of where a single word has been changed and the whole meaning is turned on its head.

Titus 3:10 Heretic or A Divisive Person?

The idea for this article comes from brother Teno Groppi, who is a strong King James Bible believer and has a wonderful ministry teaching about creation versus evolution. Here is his homesite:

http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/index.html

A heretic (modern spelling) is defined in Webster's 1999 dictionary as 1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church. 2. anyone who does not conform to an established view, doctrine, or principle.

Heresy is defined as 1. religious opinion at variance with opinion or doctrine. 2. any belief or theory that is at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

The Authorized King James Holy Bible says in Titus 3:10 "A man that is an HERETIC after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."

The Greek word found here in all texts is haireticos, and it is used only one time in the New Testament. Not only does the KJB correctly translate the word as HERETIC, but so also do the Latin Bibles of 425 A.D., Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Geneva Bible 1557 to 1602, the 1582 Douay-Rheims, the English Revised Version of 1881, Green's Modern KJV, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1589, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 (hombre hereje), the Italian Diodati 1649 (uomo eretico), the French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996 both read exactly like the KJB with - “Rejette l'homme hérétique”, Daniel Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755 translation, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Pe****ta, Darby 1890, Webster's 1833 translation, Green's Modern KJV 1998, the 21st Century KJV 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, and even the New English Bible of 1970.

There is another directly related Greek word - hairesis - which means a "sect" or a "heresy". Examples of the use of this word are Acts 24:14 where the apostle Paul is defending his new belief in Christ before the court and his accusers. He says: "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call HERESY, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets."

Another use is found in 1 Corinthians 11:19. The Corinthian church had lots of problems and some were even denying there was a resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12). Paul writes: "For there must be also HERESIES among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."

In Galatians 5:20 one of the works of the flesh is listed as "heresies".

Finally in 2 Peter 2:1 this word is used in a very significant way. There the apostle Peter tells us: "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable HERESIES, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."

According to such Greek lexicons as Liddell & Scott, Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich, and Kittle, the words hairetikos and hairesis mean one who is a member of a sect or who promotes heresy.

Thayer's Greek- English Lexicon, 19th printing 1978 on page 16 says the meaning of the Greek word hairetikos in Titus 3:10 means "a follower of false doctrine" and he specifically mentions Titus 3:10.

The Modern Greek Dictionary, which has nothing to do with the Bible, tells us that hairetikos means "heretical, a heretic." This is the only definition listed.

Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the N.T. says of the word haipetikos (Titus 3:10) in Volumn 1 on page 184: "In Christianity it seems to have been used technically from the very first, and denotes the "adherent of heresy."

John Calvin translates Titus 3:10: "HERETICUM hominem post unam et secundam correptionem devita "

He then comments: "We must now see what he means by the word heretic. There is a common and well-known distinction between a heretic and a schismatic. But here, in my opinion, Paul disregards that distinction: for, by the term "heretic" he describes not only those who cherish and defend an erroneous or perverse doctrine, but in general all who do not yield assent to the sound doctrine which he laid down a little before. "

John Gill says: "A man that is an heretic… "An heretic, according to the notation of the word, is either one that makes choice of an opinion upon his own judgment, contrary to the generally received sense of the churches of Christ, and prefers it to theirs, and obstinately persists in it; separates from them, forms a party, and sets himself at the head of them, whom he has drawn into the same way of thinking with himself: or he is one that removes and takes away a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, which affects particularly the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity, and personality of Father, Son, and Spirit, and especially the doctrines relating to the person, office, and grace of Christ; one that brings in, or receives damnable doctrines; speaks or professes perverse things, and draws away disciples after him;... he makes a rent in the doctrine of Christ, and makes parties and divisions in his church; and such are not always to be contended and disputed with, but to be avoided and rejected."

Adam Clarke comments: " A man that is a heretic "Generally defined, one that is obstinately attached to an opinion contrary to the peace and comfort of society, and will neither submit to Scripture nor reason. Here it means a person who maintains Judaism in opposition to Christianity, or who insists on the necessity of circumcision, meaning of the word heretic in the only place in which it occurs in the sacred writings."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown say: " heretic--Greek "heresy," originally meant a division resulting from individual self-will; the individual doing and teaching what he chose, independent of the teaching and practice of the Church. In course of time it came to mean definitely "heresy" in the modern sense; and in the later Epistles it has almost assumed this meaning."

Though many of the modern versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard have all drastically changed the meaning of Titus 3:10, it is to be noted that the NKJV has correctly translated the Greek word as "heresies" in 1 Cor. 11:19, Galatians 5:20 and 2 Peter 2:1.

So too do the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman Standard all translate the word as "heresies" in 2 Peter 2:1.

Brother Teno Groppi relates this parable regarding the change from "heretic" to "a divisive person".

A certain church was visited by some "Heaven's Gate Jim Jones Grape Kool-Aid" cultists. The pastor, trying to be a good shepherd to his flock, warned them about the visitors. He told them that these people were cultists and heretics and that his people should reject them after admonishing them to receive Christ and get right with God.

Of course this caused no small stir among the Kool-Aid cultists, who accused the pastor of not showing Christian love or tolerance, and being divisive.

The pastor stood his ground. His congregation appreciated his steadfastness and protection, and they killed a fatted calf and celebrated as most Baptists are wont to do. Amen.

Now let's look at how many modern versions render this verse. Some of the versions try to make the "archaic" King James English "easier to understand" by using "factious", but that's a synonym for "divisive".

NIV - Titus 3:10 Warn a DIVISIVE person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

NASB -Titus 3:10 Reject a FACTIOUS man after a first and second warning,

NLT- Titus 3:10 If anyone is causing DIVISIONS among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with that person.

RSV- Titus 3:10 As for a man who is FACTIOUS, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,

ESV- Titus 3:10 As for a person who STIRS UP DIVISION, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him.

NKJ -Titus 3:10 Reject a DIVISIVE man after the first and second admonition.

A really bad one is the New International Reader’s Version 1998, put out by the IBS who also bring us the NIV, says: “Warn ANYONE WHO TRIES TO GET BELIEVERS TO TAKE SIDES AND SEPARATE INTO THEIR OWN LITTLE GROUPS."

These modern versions would have you reject the pastor for causing division and being factious and intolerant, instead of avoiding the heretics!

But wait, it gets worse.

Mat 25:31-32 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd DIVIDETH his sheep from the goats:

Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I (Jesus) am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather DIVISION:

John 7:43 So there was a DIVISION among the people because of him (Jesus).

John 9:16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a DIVISION among them.

John 10:19 There was a DIVISION therefore again among the Jews for these sayings (of Jesus).

Jesus was and continues to be a divisive man, but He was not a heretic. The King James Bible tells us to avoid heretics. The modern versions, including the NKJV, tell us to avoid and have nothing to do with a divisive man, and, if we follow the logic of simple words, this would include Jesus!

Let's apply the difference in meaning between a heretic and a divisive person to the supremely important issue of the inerrancy of the Holy Bible.

Very recently a new poll came out that tells us that the majority of modern Christian leaders do not believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. At a discussion Forum I belong to a brother posted the following poll results:

I was listening to my radio today, and happened to catch Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted.

Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

If the above stats are even close to being accurate, then the church of America is in sad shape today.

Will Kinney

CoreIssue

08-15-2009, 10:15 AM

Brandplucked, I have to make the observation as with all KJV Only you are trying to play semantical games.

CTZ never said no Bible is 100% TRUE, he said PURE, as in 100% accurate in translation. Those are dishonest debate efforts that convey a completely false meaning to what has been said.

And you do exercise circular logic. Using the KJV to prove it is the only true Bible is circular logic. Debate, law, logic and all other forms of truth testing demand you provide proof from outside of what you are claiming to be true.

Fact remains the manuscripts used by the KJV, the TR, didn't even begin to come into existence until the 1500s. Plus they contain text added by the Catholic Church beginning in the 400s.

There is a lot of manuscript evidence found, dating back to the 1st century, that leaves the KJV high and dry as being THE Bible.

Fact is in your logic God's word and Bible the letters of the Apostles, in example, didn't achieve correctness until their edited forms in 1611.

So, either start providing proof claims from other than the KJV to prove the text or your arguments are pointless and fuitility.

I can say the 1900 book by Joe Jones is the real deal original all I want. But when there is the same book that has significant differences in it from 1800 then it isn't the real deal. Compare the wording all I want and demand the other is in error does not change the gact the other was the original.

Just kicking that in. The KJV Only arguments are really bad and the standards unacceptable.

Go ahead and plead superior spirituality all you want, it does not change the reality.

And no, I do believe the Bible is the true, inspired and inerrant word of God. But in message, not word for word.

The Bible didn't exist before 1611 in your demands. You cannot provide any ancient document support to support your claims. All you can do is post verses from the KJV.

Where are your ancient manuscripts backing your claim? Provide them.

But stop quoting the KJV compared to the others as if that proves anything. It does not.

brandplucked

08-15-2009, 01:33 PM

I do believe the Bible is the true, inspired and inerrant word of God. But in message, not word for word.

Hi CoreIssue. OK, let's back up then and take another look at the previous examples I posted. I will then select just two examples out of these several.

“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV), or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!; 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read THREE (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, NET, Holman or THIRTY from the Syriac NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, ESV) or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).

Now, then, let's just take these two examples. Then explain to us which readings are the "true, inspired and inerrant words of God".

Does the Bible you believe is "the true, inspired and inerrant words of God" say in 1 Samuel 13:1 - "Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel...." OR -- ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV), or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!

These numbers are part of the true, inspired and inerrant words of God. So what does your "bible" read.

Then we have the case of the 70 sent out to preach the gospel by our Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1. Is it 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV)?

How does your true, inspired and inerrant Bible read here?

Thanks,

Will Kinney

CoreIssue

08-15-2009, 01:59 PM

brandplucked

08-15-2009, 07:11 PM

You just did it again. Where is your external proof for the KJV? Stop citing it as proof when it is what is at question.

I can post mistranslation errors of the KJV all over the place. And text added to Bible that never existed before.

Where is your manuscript evidence for the KJV dating back before 400 AD when the adds began? Where is your RT manuscripts dating prior to the 1500s?

I want something that shows the KJV manuscripts existed before the Catholics began inventing them. Where is it?

Hi CoreIssue. Originally you posted:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=37254#post37254)
I do believe the Bible is the true, inspired and inerrant word of God. But in message, not word for word.

OK. So, I ask you about what this "true, inspired and inerrant word of God" you SAY you believe in reads in the few verses I showed you, and what do you do? You avoid it. You dodge it. You never do get around to telling us what this "true and inerrant" Bible you say you believe in actually reads in those passages.

You claim my view is circular reasoning, and I agree. When the true Bible (King James Bible) says something, I believe it.

Now you, on the other hand, have no reasoning at all, circular or otherwise. All you do is come out of the blue with the statement:"I do believe the Bible is the true, inspired and inerrant word of God" using both a present tense verb "IS" and the definite article "THE" Bible. And yet when I ask you to tell us where we can get a copy of this "true and inerrant Bible" you claim to believe in, what do you give us? NOTHING.

You never once refer us to any particular Hebrew and Greek text, or any specific Bible in print anywhere. It appears this "bible" you claim to believe in is in fact a mere figment of your imagination; a philosophical concept; a hypothetical bible that does not exist at all. Now how logical and consistent is that!?

Show us the Book. Either that or admit that you are just another bible agnostic wandering around in the darkness hoping nobody else notices that when you refer to the true and inerrant Bible you SAY you believe, you are not really referring to an actual Book of paper and ink, but to the invisible and unknown bible that only exists in your own mind.

IF you had actually read the opening article about "Does the KJB only position "blow up"? you would have noticed that I presented in brief the process of preservation leading up to the perfection of the King James Bible.

YOU yourself do not believe there was a perfect, 100% true and complete Bible before 1611. So, is it OK for you to believe this, but not OK for me to believe the very same thing??

As for where was the true word of God before 1611? I have already addressed these points here. Several of the points are similar to what I said at the beginning of this thread. You apparently skipped over those parts.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html

Where we radically differ is that I and thousands of other Bible believers can actually tell you or anybody else where they can get a hold it in your hands, read and believe every word copy of this true, inspired and inerrant Bible. You may have heard of it. It's called the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

However when we ask you (who says he believes the bible is the true, inspired and inerrant word of God) to show us the Book, you give us NOTHING. Why? Because you have no such Book and you know it. So why pretend to be a Bible believer when we all know you are not? You may believe "parts" of various bible versions, have doubts and uncertainties about many other parts, but believe "all" of none.

Please answer the question. If you in truth believe the Bible is the true, inspired and inerrant word of God, then tell us what it is called and where we too can get a copy so we can compare it to what we are using now to see the differences and similarities.

Will you do that for us? I trow not.

Will Kinney

CoreIssue

08-15-2009, 09:00 PM

brandplucked

08-15-2009, 11:11 PM

WARNING ONE

First, you do not challenge salvation of others because of which Bible they read.

Second, I said provide proof of the existence of the manuscripts backing the KJV prior to 1500 for the TR and 400 for the verses the RCC added. Where is it? Hint, not thre because it does not exist.

You don't even seem to understand the KJV is not even the Bible that has been in use the longest. Your problem. (I don't mean the Catholic Bible either).

Hi Core Issue. Try to get a grip, will you please? Where did I challenge the salvation of others in anything that I have said? Will you please give the quote?

Or are you imagining things just like that "the Bible is the true and inspired word of God" you say you believe in?

Now, if you want to get specific, exactly what verses did the RCC add to the King James Bible? Don't give me a whole laundry list, but just mention one really good example of what you think the RCC added to this Bible you never seem to be able to identify for us.

Thanks,

Will K

CoreIssue

08-15-2009, 11:36 PM

Last chance. Your sarcasm isn't welcome and you fully know the verses differences.

Post the manuscript proof supporting the KJV before 1500. Does not exist.

brandplucked

08-16-2009, 11:47 AM

BANNED

I warned you not to start posting your verse comparisons again as if they proved the KJV.

I also said give proof the Textus Receptus existed before 1500 or manuscripts it was based upon existed before 400 AD.

You gave Byzantine Era manuscripts as proof. That did nothing to prove the RT before 1500 as you attempted to do. It also actually sealed the case against you because the Byzantine Period didn't even begin until the 300s, thus you admitted there were no manuscripts prior to.

Youf supposed proofs even admitted the Alexandrian body has manuscripts back to the First Century, but then tried to explain them away while failing to even acknowledge the Byzantium Empire was Catholic under a Pope and the manuscripts came from the Catholics monks he controlled.

Of course that Body of manuscripts closely agree with each other and were large in number. They were authorized by the Pope and the only texts allowed.

Also manuscript fragments found back to the time of the Apostles all confirm the the NIV and NASB, in example, as being more true.

Trying to turn manuscripts that predate the RCC into Catholic and Byzantine into non Catholic is an absurd effort that shows no understanding of history. Byzantium was Catholic.