Does the King James only position "blow up"?

[brandplucked]

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]

Questions for "KJV only" advocates:

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

2. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.
3. What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.
4. Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
5. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
6. If the KJV translators were inspire, why did they use a marginal reference to the apocrypha:
7. 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!
8. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?
9. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
10. 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!
11. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
12. 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."?
13. 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?
14. If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
15. 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?
16. 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?
17. 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)
18. 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?
19. 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?
20. 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.)
21. 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.)
22. 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"?
23. 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)
24. 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?
25. 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?
26. 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)
27. 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?
28. 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.)
29. 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"?
30. 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)
31. 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"?
32. 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?
33. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
34. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?
35. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?
36. Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
37. Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?
38. Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]
39. 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?
40. 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?
41. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
42. Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?
43. 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?
44. Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?
45. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?
46. 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].
47. 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?
48. Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible?
49. 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]
50. If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?
51. 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"?
52. 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?
53. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?
54. Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
55. 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?
56. 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]
57. 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]
58. 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?
59. Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
60. Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
61. 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."
62. 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?
63. 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!]
64. 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!]
65. Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek]
66. 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]
67. 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."]
68. 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]."?
69. 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]
70. 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]
71. Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above]

[CoreIssue]

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.

[brandplucked]

Originally Posted by CoreIssue

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%20...0Revisions.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]

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]

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.

[brandplucked]

Originally Posted by CTZonEdit

What a loaded question. So the bible came from the bible? Where is the bible before 1611?

Originally Posted by CTZonEdit

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]

Originally Posted by brandplucked

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.

[brandplucked]

Originally Posted by CTZonEdit

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]

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.