I have been a discussion with Will Kinney on King James Onlyism. Will runs a site, Brandplucked. I wasn't sure where this interview would end up going. It turned out there were 3 major areas of discussion:1) The nature and definition of the bible
2) particular properties of the KJV
3) Why the vulgate doesn't meat the criteria for a complete inerrant bible and a historical timeline.
For those looking for more on this topic:
- Will's site (BrankPlucked)
- KJVO Debate
- Bible Believers
- AV Defense 1611 (new location)
- AV 1611
- KJVonly Research
- David Cloud
- The Attack, comic from the 1980s presenting a popular version of the KJVonly case
- KJV defended
- Why we don't teach Greek (from Grace Baptist College)
And with that I'll let Will Kinney open with a long introduction. Everything below this line is his (original http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoInerrant.html). Note everywhere he has a scriptural reference the mouse over will point to the NET, this is a blog wide setting I can't change for this series.
_____
"The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God"
Most Christians today do NOT believe The Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God.
This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examimation, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person's particular version differs from all the others.
As one liberal theologian pointed out in his review of Harold Lindsell’s, The Battle for the Bible, the only real difference between the conservative and liberal positions on the Bible is that the conservatives say the Bible USED TO BE inspired and inerrant, whereas the liberal says it NEVER WAS inspired or inerrant. BOTH positions agree that the Bible IS NOT NOW inspired or inerrant.
As brother Daryl Coats so aptly says: "If the Bible was inspired only in the original manuscripts, no one in the entire history of the world has ever had an inspired Bible. The original autographs of Job and the books of Moses had disappeared more than a thousand years before the first book of the New Testament was written, so no one has ever owned a complete Bible made up of the “divine originals.” Nor, has anyone ever owned a complete New Testament made up of “inspired originals”, because the originals were distributed among more than a dozen individuals and local churches."
God said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11
The Lord Jesus Christ also stated in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"
The apostle Paul wrote concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST..." 2 Thessalonians 2:3
The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.
The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.
"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).
"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).
The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.
As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."
H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."
Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."
"...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default" (Eldon Epp, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism," Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).
"As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).
George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.
Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, "The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy."
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 - Part 2. 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.
What Christians really believe
A book by George A. Marsden, "Reforming Fundamentalism" quotes a survey of student belief at one of the largest Evangelical seminaries in the US. The poll indicated that 85% of the students "do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture."
This book also lists the results of a poll conducted by Jeffery Hadden in 1987 of 10,000 American clergy. They were asked whether they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters:
95% of Episcopalians,
87% of Methodists,
82% of Presbyterians,
77% of American Lutherans, and
67% of American Baptists said "No."
The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally: 58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"; 45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."
"Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that: 41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches."
"Seminary students, future pastors and leaders in the church, show very little support for the inerrancy of the Bible position. What does that foretell about the future of the church? Undoubtedly, just as the poll results show in the 1996 - 2001 time frame, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BELIEVING THE BIBLE IS INERRANT WILL DROP."
No Absolute Truth
The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.
Sam Kobia, Secretary, World Council of Churches, ENI 1-23-04:"Having a variety of translations available encourages the Bible to be read in a plural and ecumenical way. HAVING A VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS AVAILABLE IS A PRECIOUS TOOL IN THE STRUGLE AGAINST RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM." (Caps are mine)
A popular New Age religious site that endorses all religions of the world is called Religious Tolerance. Org. http://www.religioustolerance.org
This site has some interesting comments regarding the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. They ask: Does inerrancy really matter?
"From one standpoint, this doctrine is of great importance, because it determines, at a very fundamental level, how Christians approach Scripture."
"To most conservative theologians Biblical inerrancy and inspiration are fundamental doctrines. Unless the entire Bible is considered to be the authoritative word of God, then the whole foundation of their religious belief crumbles. If the Bible contains some errors, then conservative Christians feel that they would have no firm basis on which to base their doctrines, beliefs, morality and practices. The books of the Bible must be either inerrant, or be devoid of authority."
They continue: "To most liberal theologians, the Bible is not inerrant. They believe that its books were obviously written and edited by human authors: with limited scientific knowledge, who promoted their own specific belief systems, who attributed statements to God that are immoral by today's standards, who freely incorporated material from neighboring Pagan cultures, who freely disagreed with other Biblical authors." (Religious Tolerance.org)
What I personally found of great interest is the following comment in the same article. The people at Religious Tolerance noted: "Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians CONSIDER A PARTICULAR ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO BE INERRANT. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE AMONG LAY MEMBERS IN THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT THE KING JAMES VERSION. But most conservatives believe that inerrancy only applies to the original, autograph copies of the various books of the Bible. None of the latter have survived to the present day. We only have access to a variety of manuscripts which are copies of copies of copies...An unknown number of errors are induced due to Accidental copying errors by ancient scribes or intentional changes and insertions into the text, made in order to match developing theology." (Religious Tolerance.org)
Most Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any other version are now the inerrant, infallible, complete and pure words of God, define Inerrancy in the following manner: “When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible IN ITS ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life sciences.” (P. D. Feinberg, s.v. “inerrancy, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Inerrancy & the autographa.)
The usual tap dance performed by those who deny any Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant, complete and infallible words of God is typified by the following quote: "Inerrancy applies to the autographa, not to copies or translations of Scripture. This qualification is made because we realize that errors have crept into the text during the transmission process. It is not an appeal to a “Bible which no one has ever seen or can see.” Such a charge fails to take into account the nature of textual criticism and the very high degree of certainty we possess concerning the original text of Scripture."
Well, this may sound very pious and good, but the undeniable fact is that this Christian scholar is talking about "a Bible no one has seen or can see".
As for this gentleman's "nature of textual criticism" is concerned, this so called "science" is a giant fraud and a pathetic joke played on the unsuspecting saints who might think these men actually know what they are doing. I have posted a series on the "science of textual criticism" that reveals the true nature of this hocus-pocus methodology of determining what God really said. You can see all parts of this study, starting with: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html
Here are some facts taken directly from the Holy Bible. You do not need to be a scholar or seminary student to get a grasp of what the Bible says about itself. You either believe God or you don't.
The Bible believer first looks to God and His word to determine what the Book says about itself. The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:
Psalm 19:7: "The law of the LORD is PERFECT, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is SURE, making wise the simple." The "law and testimony of the LORD" = His words.
Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."
Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."
Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."
Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."
Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."
God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.
God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8
"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16
"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of THE BOOK it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." Psalm 40:7-8
"And if any man shall take away from THE WORDS OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK." Revelation 22:19
I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:
#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18
Therefore any bible version like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, NET, Holman Standard etc. that rejects these Hebrew texts automatically disqualifies itself from being the true words of the living God.
See my two articles on how the modern versions all reject the Hebrew texts.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html
#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.
"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.
#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.
The indebtedness of the King James Bible translators to their predecessors is recognized most clearly in the Preface to the reader where they state in no uncertain terms: "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."
See article Can a Translation Be Inspired? http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html
#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.
"Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160
"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5
In contrast, all the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV contain proveable and serious doctrinal errors. See my article on No Doctrines Are Changed?:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html
#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.
"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman) See also John 3:13; Luke 23:42, and 1 Corinthians 15:47.
See article on The Only Begotten Son
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/begotnSon.html
#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.
The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11
"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16
The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version.
See my article that shows what these two false witnesses actually say:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html
If you mistakenly think that all bibles are basically the same, I recommend you take a look at this site. It is in two parts, but very easy to read. It shows what is missing in most modern New Testaments.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
I recently came across a blog link where a man made an in depth study of what is missing from the NIV New Testament when compared to the Traditional Greek Text of the King James Bible. It appears to be quite complete. Take a look. You will probably be surprised at what you see. Here is the link: http://rockymoore.com/ChristianLife/archive/2006/04/12/694.aspx
For an article showing that the true Historic Confessional position about the inerrancy of the Bible supports the King James Bible view, rather than the recent position of "the originals only". See:
http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/historicposition.html
In and by His grace alone,
Will Kinney
"There is NO Inerrant Bible"
____
59 comments:
Someone once said to me, "Wouldn't it be great if we had a version we knew was clearly." I replied it would, but I just don't think that is what we have. A lot of the Christian life is just messier than we wish it to be, and not so cut and dry as we desire. There are a lot of logical possibilities employed to support KJV-only, but not a lot of likely conclusions to the evidences available about the history of translations.
I meant to say, "...we knew was clearly inspired and inerrant?"
Hi JKG, welcome to the blog. I agree the truth is messier than the easy solution would be.
CD, as a former KJVO-er, I was once under the guidance of Will Kinney, but have come to see the other side. I am on Yahoo group which he is on, and he pops in everyone once in a while to tell us that he is not listening to us. I'll be following this discussion with interest.
I am actually kind of disappointed. If you have sometime I'd love you to roleplay your old self and answer some of these questions. I could never get a clear answer on why all the arguments for the KJV wouldn't apply more so to the Jerome's Vulgate. The whole argument seemed like a big circle, the KJV is special because it is special. It seemed like a big circle of justifications.
On the other hand, I didn't dispute Will at all on the effects spiritually or on belief.
I want to put this up quickly I need to organize it.
Well, that's the thing. I can no longer answer it, because in the end, I could find no answers to the questions being asked. For me, KJVO was damaging my faith, but leaving it behind, I feel stronger in my Faith, especially in that of the Scriptures.
BTW, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/versions/
Something you will see is that Will will revert to the Old Latin as the previously inspired version above all. This, as you know, is not the Vulgate, but the Latin bible made about 150?
Further, they deny the existence of the Septuagint, claiming that Origen, or others of his time period, created it from scratch.
What specific questions would you like answered - from the KJVO perspective?
We had the same discussion. I actually know a lot about the Vulgate from debating Catholics :-)
I've already decided I need to do an intro to the Vulgates on the discussion when I post it. Most protestants but Will was definitely referring to a very uncommon vulgate called the Sistine Vulgate as a key counter argument.
The Vetus Latina (old Latin) isn't really a bible, its more of a class of scriptures. Local bishops sponsored them and often for different purposes: so some are essentially interlinears, others are mainly designed for song. Think something like "translations from Nelson" which would include the Voice (emerging church) and the Expanded (an update of the Amplified), rather than "the NIV". There are 27 at least partial versions of Luke for some verses in Vetus Latina.
What is interesting about the Vetus is the liturgy was written before the vulgate so it survives even in English in Christian expressions like, "Glory to God among the high, and peace to men of good will on earth" or "give us this day our daily bread".
What's interesting is the late 3rd century fathers did not think highly of the Vetus Latina. They were very excited to hear the Pope was having Jerome translate the bible and create a unified translation as Koine Greek was going out of fashion.
I pushed a little on this since I've never heard anyone attach much theological importance to the Vetus Latina (Catholics included). As a point of irony though when the Pope wanted to reconstruct the history of the Latin he brought in Metzeger, Aland i.e. the NA26/7 team.
Hi guys. I do not believe that the Old Latin was the perfect words of God. I offered it only as a good guess as to where God's words, at least for the New Testament, were for many centuries. The Old Latin very definitely bears ample witness to the readings found in the perfect Bible - the King James Holy Bible.
However, as I have stated in other places, I believe the first time God combined both complete and perfect Testaments into a single volume was when He brought forth the King James Bible.
The simple fact is, that anyone who is not a King James Bible onlyist, does not believe there ever was much less is now any Bible in any language that is the complete, preserved and 100% true words of the living God.
If that seems outrageous to you, then just calm down and analyze what it is that you really believe about the inerrancy or infallibility of any bible in any language out there.
This is not to say by any means that you have to be KJB only to be saved. I don't even believe you have to believe in the infallibility of Scripture to be a Christian. Otherwise most of today's Christians would not be Christians at all. The gospel is still found even in the worst of versions out there. You can get saved using the JW version or any Catholic version. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not there really exists any Bible in any language that IS the complete, preserved, inspired and 100% true words of God.
I believe there is. If you are not KJB only, you do not. Think about it.
Will Kinney
Will, you lack Scripture and History to demonstrate your point - only late additions to some doctrine. Belief should be easily seen in Scripture and held from the beginning of the Church - yet, we know that the KJVO belief did not exist, as we have the Apostles using Greek and Hebrew scriptures in their writings.
Further, there is signal in the Scriptures of a far distant time in which a perfect bible will suddenly appear.
Your statement 'does not believe' is a purposed falsehood, as many have answered that yes, we do believe in an infallible Scriptures, the originals. Yet, you will ask, 'Where are they?' The common response is that we have them, using the same methods, just with better MSS, that Erasmus used.
Every honest translation in every language is the pure and perfect Word of God. Every one of these is infallible and inerrant.
The issue with KJVO'ism is that it has no Scriptural support for it's doctrine.
I'll believe in the Bible, Will, not a myth.
J.L. posts: Your statement 'does not believe' is a purposed falsehood, as many have answered that yes, we do believe in an infallible Scriptures, the originals. Yet, you will ask, 'Where are they?' The common response is that we have them, using the same methods, just with better MSS, that Erasmus used.
J.L. The "originals only" position leaves you with no infallible bible now. You have never seen one word of the originals and they never did make up a Bible.
J.L. posts: "The issue with KJVO'ism is that it has no Scriptural support for it's doctrine."
J.L. Where in any Bible does it say anything about "the originals" or the Hebrew and the Greek being where God would preserve His words? Where in any Bible does it promote the idea that you do that any number of "reliable" versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, Holman, NET etc. which differ among themselves by as many as 4000 words textually, and all reject the Hebrew readings in many places, and have hundreds of verses with very different meanings one from the other, can all be the inspired and inerrant words of God? Is such a thing even hinted at in any bible out there? Of course not.
Where is this inerrant bible you keep trying to make us think you believe in? Can you give us a copy of it so we can compare it to what we are using now to see the differences and similarities?
No, you won't do that, will you.
Will K
J.L. says: "Every honest translation in every language is the pure and perfect Word of God. Every one of these is infallible and inerrant.
OK Joel. Then please tell us which of these "honest translations" is infallible and inerrant. Will you do that for us? thanks
“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); 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).
Actually, Will, as I said, the originals are present with us today through the work of textual criticism. By your own understanding then, not even the Apostles had the inerrant bible, as the originals simply do not matter.
I notice that you have yet to answer my question about the biblical doctrine/prophecy of the KJVO belief. This has always been the problem with you, Will, you can ask questions, but when it comes to answering them, you come up short.
I can show you the originals in the NA/UBS, even the TR (pick one). I can show you the originals in the Western Text and the Eastern Text.
Now, answer my questions, Will. Show me Scriptural support that at not time in history did God have a perfect bible until sometime after 1611.
As to your follow-up comment, while I do not care much for the ESV, it is still an honest translation, so I would say every one of them.
And Will, answer the questions before you ask me anymore - I mean, if you are sincere in having an honest discussion.
Hi Joel. I will have to break down your post into smaller segments.
Joel posts: "Actually, Will, as I said, the originals are present with us today through the work of textual criticism. By your own understanding then, not even the Apostles had the inerrant bible, as the originals simply do not matter."
Joel, saying we have "the originals" through the work of textual criticism is like saying we have all of God's words in Webster's Unabridged dictionary - There are in there somewhere all mixed up with lots of words that are not in the Bible and all out of order, but Hey, there in there somewhere.
Textual criticism is a farce and they cannot make up their minds about which readings are right and which are not. Your Nestle-Aland critical text is now in its 27th edition and going for the 28th already. They keep changing their texts every few years and not one of your modern bible versions even follows the ever changing critical text 100% of the time.
You have no fixed and settled text at all. Did you actually read the beginning of the discussion where even your own "scholars" talk about how hopeless it is to recover the original N.T. texts through their own textual criticism?
Will K
Joel posts: "I notice that you have yet to answer my question about the biblical doctrine/prophecy of the KJVO belief. This has always been the problem with you, Will, you can ask questions, but when it comes to answering them, you come up short.
Now, answer my questions, Will. Show me Scriptural support that at not time in history did God have a perfect bible until sometime after 1611.
Joel. In the beginning of this discussion (if you read it) I provided many Scriptures that teach that God will preserve His wordS, and the Scripture cannot be broken.
In essence, it seems you are asking where was the perfect words of God before 1611. The interesting thing is that you yourself do not believe there was a perfect Bible before 1611. I don't either, but you seem to be scandalized at my saying this.
Your side seems to think this is an unanswerable question. It isn't. Forgive the length of my response, but I have been asked this so many times that I feel I need to give you a well developed argument.
I will post it next.
Joel writes: "Will. Show me Scriptural support that at no time in history did God have a perfect bible until sometime after 1611."
OK, here you go.
Does the KJV 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 inerrant 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 inerrant 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 inerrant words of God in contrast to the other versions. Most of them don’t claim to have an inerrant 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 inerrant.” 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 inerrant 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. "Inerrant" 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 inerrant 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. 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.
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
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Matthew 11:15
Will Kinney
Will, flooding cyberspace with your comments in no way protects your lack of defense.
A few points:
1.) Erasmus used Text Crit, as did the KJV translators.
2.) My own 'scholars?' Hardly.
3.) I never said that God wouldn't preserve His words (something that you believe); instead, I said show me the doctrine of the KJVO - especially since 16th century English is foreign to the tongues of the Prophets and the Apostles. I mean, unless you would have us believe that God speaks English, or perhaps His Apostles? Further, since the originals haven't survived, and it took 1600 or so years to actually preserve it, preservation for you is an ever changing definition.
4.) Will, Do you believe that the 1611 was the perfect word of God?
5.) There was a perfect bible in 1611, before 1611, and after 1611. Pick one.
6.) The Word of God is inerrant, Will, not some translation. Further, 'book' refers to a scroll, etc... not the entire corpus collectively known as the Bible. And again, where is the Scriptural support for the KJVO belief?
7.) Again, you deny that the originals were inerrant, only the '66 books.' You do realize that the KJV 1611 was printed with the Deuterocanon right? As far as your 'three options' we have Scriptural support for 1 and 2, but nothing for 3. So, when faced with Scripture over Traditon, I'll go with Scripture.
8.) You intent that the Bible was developed over time smells of Catholicism, Will. Your position is that 1600 years after the Apostles set pen to paper, God corrects them, because the originals weren't good enough. You realize, of course, that your belief goes against the idea of preservation of Scripture, right? You further realize that you deny the legitimacy of Apostolic witness. I mean, if they didn't get it write, why should be trust baby baptizers?
9.) Again, referring to one verse that says 'book of the Lord' especially when 'book' here does not refer to the entire canon, is a falsehood, purposed.
Will, before you go with more canned responses, answer the following questions:
A.) Which KJV is the correct one?
b.) Where is the scriptural support for such a claim?
Let's back up a minute, OK?
Joel, I want to make sure I understand your statement here.
J.L. says: "Every honest translation in every language is the pure and perfect Word of God. Every one of these is infallible and inerrant.
OK Joel. Then please tell us which of these "honest translations" is infallible and inerrant. Will you do that for us? thanks
“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); 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).
Blogger J. L. Watts said...
"I do not care much for the ESV, it is still an honest translation, so I would say every one of them."
Joel, are you telling us that every one of those versions mentioned here (which you call 'honest translations')with all these very conflicting numbers and names are ALL the "inspired and infallible words of God"??!?
If that is what you meant (and it clearly seems to be what you said) then before I think you have totally lost your senses, would you then take just this one example and explain to us how "every one" of them is the inspired and infallible words of God?
Take this one for example. In 1 Samuel 13:1 the King James Bible and many others say: "Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel..."
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)
So how it is possible that all of these are the inspired and infallible words of God?
Thanks,
Will K
Will, I regret that you have to head low in the discussion - something I am trying not to do since CD is kind enough to let this go on. I would hope that you do the same.
Every honest translation is the infallible Word of God, inerrant.
Clear as a bell.
Now, answer the questions I gave you, or I will deem you a dishonest debater and I will wait for CD to post his follow-up.
Just your everyday layman here, not a biblical scholar. Couple of observations.
WK said: "Textual criticism is a farce and they cannot make up their minds about which readings are right and which are not. Your Nestle-Aland critical text is now in its 27th edition and going for the 28th already. They keep changing their texts every few years and not one of your modern bible versions even follows the ever changing critical text 100% of the time."
This is one of the arguments I find strange about KJV-onlyism. Revisions to Nestle-Aland should be seen as a good thing. And history has shown that for all the shortcomings of the scientific method to describe all of life, it is a very efficient method of understanding things better. So the multiple versions of the Nestle-Aland text is a good thing -- there are not Nestle-Aland, 1st edition-onliests claiming it is perfect. Instead, they are glad to have the 28th edition, which shows two things, 1) people have been hard at work to make it better, and 2) Compilers of the earlier editions are humble enough to admit their work can be improved upon.
So you are left with trashing scholarly study as "a farce." The scientific method fails, men fail, only God doesn't fail. Fine, but observation is the tool we have to learn what we learn and know what we know, to the extent we can learn about and know things. If you want to say, "God spoke to me and it's KJV only for me baby!", that is fine, but it is a subjective opinion, and an article of personal faith, leave it at that. But to conflate a list of evidences for KJV only with "the wisdom of God" is trying to have it both ways, faith that it is the right way, and proven evidences (observations of man) to back it up.
I still think it is wishful thinking -- you want the scriptural references about the word of God to meet a certain definition of "inerrant," and then push the KJV into that void because you feel that something has to fill that void. Evidences would show the KJV to be remarkable in many ways, but I don't think you can brush aside textual criticism and other elements of biblical history as "a farce so easily. What goes into that void does not have to be something as crystal-clear as anyone might wish it to be.
In response to my very clear examples of total contradiction found in all modern versions and my question to Joel on How in the name of sound reason they all are inspired and inerrant, Joel dodges the question and posts this:
"Will, I regret that you have to head low in the discussion - something I am trying not to do since CD is kind enough to let this go on. I would hope that you do the same.
Every honest translation is the infallible Word of God, inerrant.
Clear as a bell.
Now, answer the questions I gave you, or I will deem you a dishonest debater and I will wait for CD to post his follow-up."
Uh, Joel. When faced with a concrete example of total confusion with 4 completely different translations (or non-translation) found in only one verse of Scripture (1 Samuel 13:1), for you to come back with your pithy "Every honest translation is the infallible Word of God, inerrant.
Clear as a bell." - it not gonna cut it. It clearly looks like your bell is cracked.
If I am dealing with somebody whose thinking is so far out of whack as to tell us that all four completely different translations are all "inspired and inerrant", then what would be the point of going further in the discussion with such a person?
Either defend your position with some degree of logic and sound reasoning, or admit that you are wrong about all four of these totally different translations for this one verse being inspired and inerrant. Then admit that you do not know which one, if any, is correct. That would be a good starting place.
Then I will know that I am dealing with an honest and clear thinking person. Otherwise I can only assume that I am trying to reason with a fruit cake.
Thanks, Joel.
Will Kinney
Hi JKG. Thanks for your comments. You said: "Just your everyday layman here, not a biblical scholar. Couple of observations.
WK said: "Textual criticism is a farce and they cannot make up their minds about which readings are right and which are not. Your Nestle-Aland critical text is now in its 27th edition and going for the 28th already. They keep changing their texts every few years and not one of your modern bible versions even follows the ever changing critical text 100% of the time."
This is one of the arguments I find strange about KJV-onlyism. Revisions to Nestle-Aland should be seen as a good thing. And history has shown that for all the shortcomings of the scientific method to describe all of life, it is a very efficient method of understanding things better. So the multiple versions of the Nestle-Aland text is a good thing -- there are not Nestle-Aland, 1st edition-onliests claiming it is perfect. Instead, they are glad to have the 28th edition, which shows two things, 1) people have been hard at work to make it better, and 2) Compilers of the earlier editions are humble enough to admit their work can be improved upon.
So you are left with trashing scholarly study as "a farce." The scientific method fails, men fail, only God doesn't fail."
JKG, I did not say that textual criticism is a farce out of ignorance. I have written 5 articles which just touch the surface of showing how ridiculous and fickle this so called "science" really is.
Here is the first link to 5 studies I have done, and these are only basic studies.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html
Here is just a part of this study.
Is this "Science" or Hocus-Pocus?
Most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV (the 2001 English Standard Version) are based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, which omits or substitutes some 5000 words and many whole verses from the New Testament Greek text that the King James Bible is derived from.
The W-H text is based primarily on two manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two texts disagree significantly with each other, let alone with the vast majority of all other texts, in over 3000 places in the gospels alone, and over 1000 times in the rest of the New Testament. Yet they form the textual basis of most modern bible versions.
Bruce Metzger, the chief editor of the United Bible Society eclectic critical Greek text, says, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence." B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 210.
A cursory review of the writings of textual scholars suggests that Metzger's "in some cases" is decidedly an understatement. In fact, even the same scholars will vacillate, as demonstrated by the "more than five hundred changes" introduced into the third edition of the Greek text produced by the United Bible Societies as compared with the second edition. The same committee of five editors prepared both!!!
W. M. Pickering significantly notes that in the space of three years (1975-1978), "with no significant addition of new evidence, the same group of five scholars changed their minds in over five hundred places. It is hard to resist the suspicion that they are just guessing." - The Identity of the New Testament Text, revised edition, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, p. 209, footnote 5 for chapter 1.
Gospel of Matthew
Matthew 6:13 "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER. AMEN."
One of the most notable differences between the Catholic bible versions and the Protestant Reformation Bibles has been the ending of what is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer. These last words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, as well as in four copies of the Old Latin (k,f, g, and q), which predates anything we have in Greek. All these words are also found in the ancient Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Curetonian, and Palestinian, as well as the Coptic Boharic and Sahidic, the Georgian, Armenian, Slavonian, and Ethiopian ancient versions. In fact, of over 1000 Greek manuscripts that contain this section of Matthew's gospel, these words are found in all but 10 manuscripts. Dean Burgon mentions emphatically the 100 to one ratio in favor of the King James reading.
The modern English versions present a confused picture even among themselves as to the authenticity of these words. Such modern versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, Darby, CEV, and the 2003 ISV omit these precious words, as do all Catholic versions.
However the NASB, and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard, include the words but place them in brackets, indicating doubt as to their inspiration.
Other modern versions, which are still based primarily on the UBS, Westcott-Hort texts which omit hundreds and hundreds of words from the New Testament, have gone back to including these words without brackets. Among these are the New Life Bible (Lockman foundation 1969), World English Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, and the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible.
The 2002 version called The Message includes the words but paraphrases them to such a degree that they are virtually unrecognizable. It says: "Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes."
The confusion is seen in the two most recent "evangelical" versions to come out. The 2003 International Standard Version omits all these words, while the 2003 Holman Standard contains them.
Even the footnotes found in the modern versions that omit these words give conflicting evidence.
The RSV omits the words as does the NIV, but the RSV footnotes that the reading is found in "Other authorities, some ancient", whereas the NIV footnote is completely false and presents a distorted view of the evidence. The NIV footnotes tells us: "Some late manuscripts" include the verse. SOME?! Is the ratio of 100 to 1 fairly considered as "SOME"?
As for "late manuscripts", they apparently do not want you to know the reading is found in copies of SEVERAL ancient Bible versions that predate the very few manuscripts that omit these words. This is not scholarship but sleight of hand.
The ancient Syriac Peshitta reads: " And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever: Amen.?
These words are also found in the following English Bible versions: Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Young's, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century, Third Millenium Bible, and Green's Modern KJV.
The list of foreign language Bibles that include the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is quite impressive. Among them are: the Albanian, Bulgarian, Chinese, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, French Louis Segond, Gaelic, Luther's German, Modern Greek, Gypsy Rhomanese, Hatian Creole, Modern Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, Korean, Latvian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish Reina Valera, Swahili, Turkish, Ukranian, and Vietnamese Bibles.
But in the USA we have such versions that omit these words as the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, and the New Living Translation.
Will Kinney
Hi JKG, here is one more out of 100 examples I can give you.
Notice how they keep changing their minds.
Matthew 6:33
"But seek ye first the kingdom OF GOD, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."
The modern scholars continue to change both their Greek texts and their translations. They have no settled and firm words of God and continue to disagree with each other about what God wrote and how to translate it.
The words OF GOD (tou theou)in the phrase "the kingdom of God" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, the Old Latin 150 A.D., which predates by 200 years anything we have in Greek, the Syriac Peshitta 250 A.D., Harkelian, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Slavonic ancient versions. These all read as does the King James Bible.
The RV, ASV, RSV 1952, NASB, NIV and the 2001 TNIV all omit the words OF GOD, and say: "Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness..."
According to the UBS critical text itself, ONLY Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the words OF GOD, and these two "oldest and best manuscripts" even disagree with each other! Sinaiticus says "the kingdom and his righteousness", while Vaticanus reverses the reading and has: "the righteousness and his kingdom", and these are supposedly the "best", even though they differ from each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.
Bible versions that correctly read as the King James Bible - "Seek ye first the kingdom OF GOD, and his righteousness" are: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Bishop's, Geneva 1599, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Douay 1950, Hebrew Names Version, and the brand new Holman Christian Standard, and the 2002 International Standard Version.
The former Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, upon which most modern versions are based, omitted the words OF GOD, but now they have put them back in their Greek text but still in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.
However as newer versions roll off the presses they keep changing the way Scripture reads. Other modern versions still based primarily on the Westcott-Hort text but having put the words OF GOD back into the English text include the NRSV 1989, ESV 2002, Good News Bible, New American Bible 1970, Contemporary English Version 1991, The Message 2002, Today's English Version 1992, Holman Christian Standard 2002, and the ISV.
Will, I agree with almost everything you said. Their versions are changing as they learn new things, or as consensus as to how those things should be translated changes. Yes, it implies a lack of certainty as to how they should be translated, but that doesn't show that the KJV got it right and they got it wrong.I don't find the arguments for why the KJV got it right to be compelling, nor do I find the arguments of why somebody must have gotten it right to be compelling. I have a lot more confidence in a translation that reflects generations of scholarly work and revisions and incorporates information about manuscripts and textual criticism that was simply not available in 1611 or thereabouts. Perhaps that is trusting in the "wisdom of man" instead of the "wisdom of God", but it could also be trusting in what we can best determine, by all means, rational and spiritual, versus trusting in what people want to believe.
Hi JKG, thanks again for your comments. You are absolutely correct in saying that there is a lack of certainty as to which texts are the true ones.
If you wish to not believe in the existence of a complete, inspired and infallible Bible in any language, that is your choice and it is the present position of most Christians in the world.
Here is one more of over a hundred examples I can give you about the fickle nature of this so called "science" of textual criticism.
Romans 15:19 "Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the SPIRIT OF GOD..." The reading of "the SPIRIT OF GOD" is that of the Majority of all texts including P46 and Sinaiticus. Even when Westcott-Hort produced their new Greek text, they read it this way.
However just a few years later (4th edition, 1934) they changed their critical text to read "the power OF THE HOLY Spirit", all based on the reading of Alexandrinus, and the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Versions of 1901 and the RSV 1952 read this way - "the HOLY Spirit". The Vaticanus copy differs from the others in that it only says "the power of the SPIRIT", omitting both "God" or "holy".
Then the Nestle-Aland again changed their text to omit the word "holy" and it merely read "power of the Spirit" (thus following the Vaticanus mss.) and so read the NIV and the NASB. But wait. There's more. Now the Nestle-Aland scholars have once again changed their minds and have now gone back to reading like the KJB had it all the time. The UBS 4th edition now reads "power of the SPIRIT OF GOD", and now so do the NRSV, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard and the NET versions.
These are the FACTS and anyone can verify them for themselves.
God bless,
Will Kinney
Will --
If you get a copy of the NA27 it lists variants for each verse and their probability. The WH text listed these in footnotes. There are good quality commentaries that take you through the evidence either in summary form or completely. They don't just have one version of most of these verses.
To take your example of Romans 15:19 the NA27 indicates very clearly that P46 is one side of the issue while B and Vigilius are on another. P46 reads better and the 4th century versions are conflations. so the text is marked correctly.
I'm not sure how exactly that is not giving full information and showing anything less than thorough scientific evaluation. You get a summary of the evidence. You get the source of the later version (as per the KJV) as a conflation. And you get a current "best guess" reading based on the evidence. There are 2 reading, the conflated one (in the KJV) we can be almost sure is unfaithful to the originals.
Will, I take it that you cannot answer just two simple questions.
Let me go one step further than you will ever take.
First, while the texts differ according to a variant, inerrancy resides in the original. Nothing to side step there, Will. Through sound textual criticism, which Erasmus and others used, and which modern text critics use, we can come to a clearer understanding of what the originals said. Yet, you deny such things as scholarly 'farce.'
Were is the logic in that? To deny the works which produced the Greek text of the KJV? To saw that someone it stopped working upon 1611 is to declare the process which produced the KJV magical, with no real standing in reality.
Again, while you like to asks questions, you rarely answer them. Along with those other questions which you will not answer, take a stab at these:
1.) What gives makes 'book' actually refer to the bible?
2.) What makes the KJV the standard?
Now, since your insults are starting to seep in, as usual, it is becoming more apparent that you have no answers to the questions. It is only when no one has a defense of their position do they seek to attack the individual, Will.
CD Host posts: Will --
If you get a copy of the NA27 it lists variants for each verse and their probability. The WH text listed these in footnotes. There are good quality commentaries that take you through the evidence either in summary form or completely. They don't just have one version of most of these verses.
To take your example of Romans 15:19 the NA27 indicates very clearly that P46 is one side of the issue while B and Vigilius are on another. P46 reads better and the 4th century versions are conflations. so the text is marked correctly.
I'm not sure how exactly that is not giving full information and showing anything less than thorough scientific evaluation. You get a summary of the evidence. You get the source of the later version (as per the KJV) as a conflation. And you get a current "best guess" reading based on the evidence. There are 2 reading, the conflated one (in the KJV) we can be almost sure is unfaithful to the originals."
Hi CD - And you end up with more Bible Babble and uncertainty. The Critical texts themselves change every few years, and various versions follow one reading for awhile; then they change once again, and the versions follow in these "new" paths. You end up with no settled text and no infallible Bible.
That is why people today do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Now, who does all this remind you of? For me, it smacks of the very first question found in the Holy Bible in Genesis 3 - "Yea, hath God said...?"
Will K
"If you wish to not believe in the existence of a complete, inspired and infallible Bible in any language, that is your choice and it is the present position of most Christians in the world."
I don't agree that the bible could not be seen as inspired without having a single, inspired version. Again, it would be nice if we had that, but the evidence doesn't fit the claim.
"However just a few years later (4th edition, 1934) they changed their critical text to read "the power OF THE HOLY Spirit", all based on the reading of Alexandrinus, and the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Versions of 1901 and the RSV 1952 read this way - "the HOLY Spirit"."
A lot of things have changed since 1934. Would you want your medical doctor to practice using current ideas from 1934, 1881, 1901, or 1952? Or course not. But they are still changing medical theories every day. That doesn't mean that antiquated medical science is more trustworthy. Of course the analogy isn't exactly parallel, but claiming a 1611 translation is set-in-stone authoritative is essentially the same. There is no verse in the bible that prophesies a future perfectly translated and transmitted set of texts.
Will --
HI. I'm 2/3rds of the way through getting the Word doc together for you. Today is possible I'll finish.
Now let me quote your original comment:
Here is one more of over a hundred examples I can give you about the fickle nature of this so called "science" of textual criticism.
Romans 15:19 "Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the SPIRIT OF GOD..." The reading of "the SPIRIT OF GOD" is that of the Majority of all texts including P46 and Sinaiticus. Even when Westcott-Hort produced their new Greek text, they read it this way.
I don't see anything fickle about how the WH -> NA27 has handled this. They have throughout indicated mixed evidence and shown the mixed evidence as it has developed. P46 came to light in 1931.
Anyone reading WH or any critical text would have had 2 version A and B of Romans 15:19. The P46 surfaces and they get C version and moreover see how B came from a mix of A and C. Now translators can still decide A is the right version or C or they don't know or stick with traditional rendering. But I don't see any "fickleness" here. The purpose of the UBS Greek (and WH before it) is to make a text available to translators. In other words a text that tells them the state of the current evidence. I don't see any evidence of fickleness. An event occurred in 1931 and the critical text incorporated that information.
What specifically was fickle?
CD Host posts: Will --
HI. I'm 2/3rds of the way through getting the Word doc together for you. Today is possible I'll finish.
Now let me quote your original comment:
Here is one more of over a hundred examples I can give you about the fickle nature of this so called "science" of textual criticism.
Romans 15:19 "Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the SPIRIT OF GOD..." The reading of "the SPIRIT OF GOD" is that of the Majority of all texts including P46 and Sinaiticus. Even when Westcott-Hort produced their new Greek text, they read it this way.
I don't see anything fickle about how the WH -> NA27 has handled this. They have throughout indicated mixed evidence and shown the mixed evidence as it has developed. P46 came to light in 1931.
Anyone reading WH or any critical text would have had 2 version A and B of Romans 15:19. The P46 surfaces and they get C version and moreover see how B came from a mix of A and C. Now translators can still decide A is the right version or C or they don't know or stick with traditional rendering. But I don't see any "fickleness" here. The purpose of the UBS Greek (and WH before it) is to make a text available to translators. In other words a text that tells them the state of the current evidence. I don't see any evidence of fickleness. An event occurred in 1931 and the critical text incorporated that information.
What specifically was fickle?"
Hi CD Host. Here is the whole of the original post. Then I will point out how fickle this whole thing is.
Romans 15:19 "Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the SPIRIT OF GOD..." The reading of "the SPIRIT OF GOD" is that of the Majority of all texts including P46 and Sinaiticus. Even when Westcott-Hort produced their new Greek text, they read it this way.
However just a few years later (4th edition, 1934) they changed their critical text to read "the power OF THE HOLY Spirit", all based on the reading of Alexandrinus, and the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Versions of 1901 and the RSV 1952 read this way - "the HOLY Spirit". The Vaticanus copy differs from the others in that it only says "the power of the SPIRIT", omitting both "God" or "holy".
Then the Nestle-Aland again changed their text to omit the word "holy" and it merely read "power of the Spirit" (thus following the Vaticanus mss.) and so read the NIV and the NASB. But wait. There's more. Now the Nestle-Aland scholars have once again changed their minds and have now gone back to reading like the KJB had it all the time. The UBS 4th edition now reads "power of the SPIRIT OF GOD", and now so do the NRSV, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard and the NET versions.
Please note that when Westcott and Hort first came out with their new critical text they followed the reading found in the KJB. Then several years later the printed critical texts changed the words again. Then they changed the textual wording for the third time, and finally they have once again changed the textual reading for the FOURTH time, and now have gone back to the original WH and KJB reading.
That is FOUR different textual changes in one verse over a period of about 120 years, and all that time they were looking at the same evidence - nothing changed; no "new" manuscripts were discovered. They just willy-nilly changed their opinions from one edition to the next.
How anybody can sanely call this type of hocus-pocus "science" is beyound the ken of reason.
Blessings,
Will K
JKG posts: "I don't agree that the bible could not be seen as inspired without having a single, inspired version. Again, it would be nice if we had that, but the evidence doesn't fit the claim."
Hi JKG. You could ONLY rationally say that PARTS of the Bible are inspired, and there would be huge disagreements even then about WHICH parts might be inspired and which are not. Much like we have today among Christians.
But "the Bible" is a book composed of 66 inspired books combined into a single volume. When I and other KJB believers say "The Bible IS the inspired and infallible words of God" we are referring to a real and tangible Book we can hold in our hands, read and believe every word.
Unfortunately, all those who are not KJB onlies have no such Book and they know it.
"However just a few years later (4th edition, 1934) they changed their critical text to read "the power OF THE HOLY Spirit", all based on the reading of Alexandrinus, and the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Versions of 1901 and the RSV 1952 read this way - "the HOLY Spirit"."
JKG comments: "A lot of things have changed since 1934. Would you want your medical doctor to practice using current ideas from 1934, 1881, 1901, or 1952? Or course not. But they are still changing medical theories every day. That doesn't mean that antiquated medical science is more trustworthy. Of course the analogy isn't exactly parallel, but claiming a 1611 translation is set-in-stone authoritative is essentially the same. There is no verse in the bible that prophesies a future perfectly translated and transmitted set of texts."
Sorry, JKG, but I disagree. We are talking about GOD'S words, not man's ever developing science. God Himself promised to give us "the book of the LORD" and all the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that Book.
If God has indeed given us "the book of the LORD" that contains ALL His inspired and infallible words, then He will not change His mind at some future date about what He wants to be included or excluded from this Book.
Look at what the spiritual condition of the church is in the beginning of the 21st century. Belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is at an all time high and so is Biblical ignorance. The present day church is weaker and more divided than at any time in history and it is only going to get worse, not better, before the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
But all this is according to the eternal plan of God. He has not lost control and never will.
"When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
Will K
Will --
I'm reading what you are saying and I don't agree. We have texts all over the place. "the spirit" (B and Vigilius) with "the holy spirit" and with "the spirit of God" and a few fragments that make no sense. And a few that compromised with "the holy spirit of God". The manuscripts are a mess.
The NA27 and the WH both indicate the manuscripts are a mess and the are guessing.
For example given this mess the NA27 committee decided to go with "the spirit" as being clear and "of God" as being likely. This has the advantage of being traditional, i.e. it agrees with the KJV. I think the NA27 is being consistent with the evidence. In other words, we don't know but they recommend a translation of either "the spirit" or "the spirit of God".
WH did not have P46 which is crucial piece of evidence and went with "holy spirit". The current NA27 notes clearly indicate P46 was what changed their mind. They weren't being flaky in 1934, new evidence came to light. Your statement that nothing changes just ain't so.
Now if you complaint is with the English not reflecting the Greek correctly I'll agree. In general the translators are misleading people about this verse making it seem like it is certain. Probably because all 3 are in their opinion "close enough". The NLT deserves praise in that they handle this really well with God's spirit and then footnotes "Other manuscripts read the Spirit; still others read the Holy Spirit" which is perfect. Brown and Comfort which is my recommend formal nail this.
Joel and Will --
Can you guys tone down the personal attacks on each other, please. I'm going to start deleting after this point. Feel free to attack ideas but not each other's character.
CD Host posts: "The NA27 and the WH both indicate the manuscripts are a mess and the are guessing.
For example given this mess the NA27 committee decided to go with "the spirit" as being clear and "of God" as being likely. This has the advantage of being traditional, i.e. it agrees with the KJV. I think the NA27 is being consistent with the evidence. In other words, we don't know but they recommend a translation of either "the spirit" or "the spirit of God".
WH did not have P46 which is crucial piece of evidence and went with "holy spirit". The current NA27 notes clearly indicate P46 was what changed their mind. They weren't being flaky in 1934, new evidence came to light. Your statement that nothing changes just ain't so.
Now if you complaint is with the English not reflecting the Greek correctly I'll agree. In general the translators are misleading people about this verse making it seem like it is certain. Probably because all 3 are in their opinion "close enough". The NLT deserves praise in that they handle this really well with God's spirit and then footnotes "Other manuscripts read the Spirit; still others read the Holy Spirit" which is perfect. Brown and Comfort which is my recommend formal nail this. "
Hi CD. What we have here is total confusion, and apparently this is OK with you. That is because you do not have nor believe in the existence of any Bible in any language that is the pure and infallible words of God.
Even your own post shows the utter confusion, and this is just one verse out of thousands that usually have the same type of problems once you get off into the labyrinth of textual criticism.
By the way, you are correct about WH not having P46, however this was not the deciding factor. The Nestle-Aland critical text of 1961 does mention P46 and its reading of "spirit of God" but they STILL didn't go that way in the 1961 edition. They put only "of Spirit" and followed Vaticanus. However the latest NA 27 now goes with "spirit of God", and the one in Nestle's 4th edition went with "Holy Spirit" thus following A and D.
Textual criticism is a farse and you will never end up with a complete and infallible bible using a naturalistic approach to the Scriptures.
That is why the vast majority of people who go through seminary come out no longer believing in the inerrancy of any Bible or text on this earth.
Will K
Hi all. Here is another example of the fickleness of textual criticism and the mentality of the "No bible is the complete and infallible words of God" side of things.
Luke 24:51-52
Luke 24:51. “And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, AND CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN.”
These last 5 words, “and carried up into heaven” are found in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, the Geneva Bible, the NIV, the Revised Version, the ASV, NRSV, ESV and the Holman. But they are omitted by the RSV 1952 edition and all seven editions of the NASB from 1963 to 1977.
These words are found in P75, Majority, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Only manuscript D omits these words. The Critical Texts again are in a state of constant change. Wescott and Hort originally double bracketed the words “and carried up into heaven” and “worshipped him and” in the next verse.
Then in 1961 the Nestle-Aland critical text COMPLETELY REMOVED from their texts all these words. But once again in the latest Nestle-Aland they have put all these words back in their texts and this time not even in [brackets]! Go figure.
Yet the NASB’s first seven editions from 1963 to 1977 omitted the fact of the ascension of our Lord by removing the words “and carried up into heaven” and removed the words “and worshipped Him” from verse 52. The 1989 Revised English Bible, and the 1970 New English Bible still omit all the words “and was carried up into heaven” and “and worshipped Him”.
But wait, now the 1995 edition of the new and improved NA$B has put them back in for us. Now we can get the late$t in $cholar$hip. So, were the previous NASBs not the inspired words of God, but now in 1995 it is?
We are not quite done beholding the marvels of modern scholarship. Just a couple more brief examples.
In the next verse the reaction of the disciples at seeing our risen Lord ascend into heaven was that “they WORSHIPPED HIM AND, returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”
Here again the NASBs from 1963 to 1977 (Seven distinct editions) omitted the words WORSHIPPED HIM AND, and have merely “And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”
Nothing about worshipping Jesus Christ, which of course is a strong testimony to the fact that He is God in the flesh, because we may only worship God. The RSV 1952 also omits this phrase and so does the Revised English Bible 1989 and the NEB 1970, but the NRSV, ESV and Holman put it back in and so does the 1995 NASB. Again only D omits these words.
You should be able to see by now that the so called “science of textual criticism” is about as scientific as throwing darts at a board, and the modern scholars are nothing more than the blind leading the blind.
Will Kinney
Will --
The reason we keep going around and around is that you keep asserting that the critics came to a definite conclusion. What I see is them contronting a lot of conflicting evidence:
TEXT: "in the power of the Spirit of God,"
EVIDENCE: p46 S Db P Psi 614 1241 2495 Byz Lect syr(p,h)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn TEV
RANK: C
NOTES: "in the power of the Spirit,"
EVIDENCE: B
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn NASV NIV
NOTES: "in the power of the Holy Spirit,"
EVIDENCE: A D*,c G 33 81 104 630 1739 1881 lat vg syr(pal) cop
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NEB
The marking "Rank C" means "there is considerable degree of doubt about the text". The NA does not provide a single answer where the Greek does not. Rather it summarizes information so that translators don't need to be familiar with the various manuscripts. I don't know why they changed their mind in the 1960s. I don't have a copy of the commentaries from there. If you do, please reproduce their arguments. I don't think you are being fair to them, like not mentioning in your original charge the discovery of P46 (1931) or the creation of the MT in 1901. I don't think they are being fickle here. Your original presentation seemed misleading to me in that you presented a situation of them randomly changing their mind when in fact new evidence came to light at the turn of the century and in 1930s.
Moreover this is an example where the TR and the Majority Text don't agree, which is to say this problem predates Westcott and Hort:
TR = The Spirit of God
MT = The Spirit
This isn't a problem of modern text criticism. This is a problem between the eastern and western catholic church.
I guess at this point I've presented my case for how I see the NA as accurately documenting a messy situation, and taking a best guess as new evidence emerges. While you see it as some sort of pseudo science. The correct answer in my mind is no one knows how Romans 15:19 really read.
I don't see how the KJV/TR which leaves the reader unaware of the problem is superior to say the NLT/NA27 which accurately documents it. As an aside my personal opinion is "the power of the Spirit" (yes siding with the NASB over the REB) so its not even like I agree with the NA27.
So I think we need to break off:
1) The UBS/NA guys not doing good science
2) This lead to uncertainty
I think (1) is absolutely false even though (2) is true. they are doing good science is documenting the uncertainty of the record.
On Luke 24:51 again you are oversimplifying:
TEXT: "he parted from them and was carried up into heaven."
EVIDENCE: p75 Sc A B C K L W X Delta Theta Pi Psi f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect some lat vg syr(p,h,pal) cop
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV1n RSV2 NASVn NIV NEBn TEV
RANK: D
NOTES: "he parted from them."
EVIDENCE: S* D some lat syr(s) ("was lifted up")
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSV1 RSV2n NASV NEB TEVn
Again this is marked Rank D. Either way we have 2 different scribes in 2 different places making the same copy error. Either 2 different copyists jumped from "and" to "and" or 2 different copyists jumped from "them" to "him" (closer in Greek) or we had multiple versions t begin with.
Both copy scenarios are unlikely. This is another example where lower criticism (textual criticism) doesn't have a plausible hypothesis and the UBS documents this accurately. Again I don't see the problem with what the NA is doing.
I find it odd that both places you've attacked them are places where they agreed with the KJV.
Hi all. CD Host posts in part: "The marking "Rank C" means "there is considerable degree of doubt about the text". The NA does not provide a single answer where the Greek does not. .. I don't know why they changed their mind in the 1960s.
Moreover this is an example where the TR and the Majority Text don't agree, which is to say this problem predates Westcott and Hort:
TR = The Spirit of God
MT = The Spirit
I guess at this point I've presented my case for how I see the NA as accurately documenting a messy situation, and taking a best guess as new evidence emerges. While you see it as some sort of pseudo science. The correct answer in my mind is no one knows how Romans 15:19 really read.
This lead to uncertainty - they are documenting the uncertainty of the record."
Hi CD. I find it very interesting that in spite of your protests, you are actually confirming my points. All you have by following the so called "science" of textual criticism is uncertainty and doubt. You obviously do not have any Bible in any language that you can point to and say "This Bible is the inspired, complete, preserved and infallible words of the living God."
In my opinion you, along with countless thousands of other modern day Christians, have fallen for the lie of Satan who asks "Yea, hath God said...?"; you do not believe in the sovereignty of Almighty God to fulfill His promises in history to give us "the book of the LORD", and you do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
To me, all these characteristics are just more proof that the Bible is true (and you should know at this point exactly what I mean by The Bible) and that there will come a falling away from the faith in the last days (2 Thes. 2:3); God will send a famine of hearing His words (Amos 8:11-12); and Christ's rhetorical question is coming true - "When the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8)
I know you do not agree with me, and that is fine. You invited me to present my case for the King James Bible knowing beforehand that I am a fundamental, Bible believing, blood-bought son of God who believes that the Lord Jesus Christ is God in the flesh and the only way of salvation. Of course you and I are not going to agree on everything.
You asked me to present my case and that is what you have allowed me to do. I thank you for the opportunity to have done so. I came into this thing knowing that many here would not agree with me. You surely knew beforehand that what I would present would not be agreed to by others here, right?
Anyway, if you wish us to continue, that would be great. If not, then I thank you for having let me at least present a King James Bible believer's view up to this point and wish you well.
God bless,
Will Kinney
Will --
As far as continuing to debate. You are welcome to stay. We talk on this thread. The next step involves the ball in my court which is getting the word doc to you. I made progress last night but didn't finish. Sorry. So it is my deliverable that's holding us up.
Now onto this more form discussion (rather than the interview):
All you have by following the so called "science" of textual criticism is uncertainty and doubt. You obviously do not have any Bible in any language that you can point to and say "This Bible is the inspired, complete, preserved and infallible words of the living God."
A science will never get you a statement about God. Assuming perfect knowledge, and assuming there were perfect unified originals the best you could ever hope for is "this is a perfect understanding of the originals". That's all the NA's aim for.
We don't have perfect knowledge, and I suspect we don't have unified originals. The irony is interesting in terms of evangelicals claiming to believe in the certainty a document which freely talks about its own areas of uncertainty.
But if I want to just assert a bible is perfect, Lets just say I say the REB is infallible. It is a perfect infallible bible. Written by God himself.
How would that be any different than what you are doing?
CD Host posts: "A science will never get you a statement about God. Assuming perfect knowledge, and assuming there were perfect unified originals the best you could ever hope for is "this is a perfect understanding of the originals". That's all the NA's aim for.
We don't have perfect knowledge, and I suspect we don't have unified originals. The irony is interesting in terms of evangelicals claiming to believe in the certainty a document which freely talks about its own areas of uncertainty.
But if I want to just assert a bible is perfect, Lets just say I say the REB is infallible. It is a perfect infallible bible. Written by God himself.
How would that be any different than what you are doing?"
Hi CDH. I merely refer to the so called "science" of text crit because that is what they call it. I call it a farce.
As far as "evangelicals claiming to believe in the certainly of a document" I totally disagree. Most evangelicals are clueless about the whole Bible version issue and don't even care. They all parrot the general statements like "Only the originals were inerrant. No bible translation is infallible; all of them have their problems." And then they read these modern bogus bibles less and less.
The REB (I'm assuming that is the Revised English Bible) and all others are based on the wrong texts; they often reject the Hebrew readings, and they all have proveable errors in them.
For example, the REB reads differently than all other versions in 1 Samuel 13:1. They just made up those numbers (30, 22) out of thin air.
God has never born witness to them as His true words. There never was nor will by any kind of revival with any modern version; only more doubts and apostasy.
I mentioned in the opening article many reasons why the King James Bible is God's Book. They either make sense to you or they don't.
Blessings,
Will K
Thankyou for the privilege to join your discussions. I was speaking to a man here in Wisconsin, and he recommended that no one read the book of Revelation because Christians have a tendency to argue about its "spiritual meanings." This generation seems to think the less we read the Bible the better off we will be! Sometimes when the complicated is approached we should not be too timid to shake its hand. A lively friendship with eternal blessings will be born. Psalms 12:6,7 states our Lords words ARE pure, kept, and preserved to every generation. Let's start with that, who has the Word of God today and what exactly is it, I agree with Will in all points that the King James Version is what has been preserved for this generation.
evbilly posts: " Psalms 12:6,7 states our Lords words ARE pure, kept, and preserved to every generation. Let's start with that, who has the Word of God today and what exactly is it, I agree with Will in all points that the King James Version is what has been preserved for this generation"
Hi ev. Thanks for your comments. Most people today have no Final Written Authority and they do not believe their bible versions are the infallible words of God.
Almost every verse of Scripture is called into question. In fact, the very verses you just quoted are not the same in numerous versions. All is confusion and doubt.
I have heard all the arguments about these verses, but will limit this post to just showing how different the multi-choice versions are today.
Psalm 12:6-7 - God’s promise to preserve His words
Has God promised to preserve His words here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away? Well, a lot depends on which particular bible version you are using.
The Book which I and thousands of other Christians all over the world believe to be the complete, inerrant, infallible and 100% true words of God tell us that He did promise to preserve His words.
Here is a simple Bible version comparison regarding the promise found in Psalm 12 of the King James Bible.
King James Bible - “Thou shalt keep THEM, O LORD, thou shalt preserve THEM from this generation for ever.”
Also agreeing with the King James Bible in this verse are the following modern day versions, several of which are Jewish and Jewish Christian translations: the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the 1993 Word of Yah translation, the 2001 Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah, the 2000 Holy Scriptures Jubilee Bible, Green’s 2000 literal, the 2008 Ancient Roots Translation, the 2001 A Conservative Version, and the 2008 Natural Israelite Bible.
Webster’s 1833 translation, and the Lesser Bible 1853 - “Thou shalt keep THEM, O LORD, thou shalt preserve THEM from this generation for ever.”
English Revised Version - 1881 “Thou shalt keep THEM, O LORD, thou shalt preserve THEM from this generation for ever.”
ASV 1901 - “Thou wilt keep THEM, O Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve THEM from this generation for ever.”
World English Bible - “You will keep THEM, Yahweh. You will preserve THEM from this generation forever.”
Darby - “Thou, Jehovah, wilt keep THEM, thou wilt preserve THEM from this generation for ever.
Hebrew Names Version = KJB -”You will keep THEM LORD, You will preserve THEM from this generation forever. “
NKJV 1982 - “You shall keep THEM, O LORD, You shall preserve THEM from this generation forever.”
The 1985 New Jerusalem bible - “Yahweh's promises are promises unalloyed, natural silver which comes from the earth seven times refined.
7 You, Yahweh, will watch over THEM, you will protect THEM from that brood for ever.”
However there are many other versions that disagree not only with the King James Bible but also with each other.
NASB - “You, O LORD, will keep THEM; You will preserve HIM from this generation forever.”
NIV - The NIV is very different, not only from the KJB but also from the NASB. It says: “And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. O LORD, you will keep US SAFE AND PROTECT US FROM SUCH PEOPLE forever.”
Douay-Rheims - “Thou, O Lord, wilt preserve US: and keep US from this generation for ever.”
Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac - “Thou shalt keep THEM, O LORD; thou shalt preserve ME and save ME from this generation for ever.
Jewish Pub. Society 1917 - “Thou wilt keep THEM, O LORD; Thou wilt preserve US from this generation for ever.
RSV 1954- “Do thou, O LORD, protect US, guard US ever from this generation.
ESV 2001 - “You, O LORD, will keep THEM; you will guard US from this generation forever.”
Young’s - “Thou, O Jehovah, dost preserve THEM, Thou keepest US from this generation to the age.”
The Spanish La Biblia de las Américas 1997 agrees with the KJB saying : “Tú, SEÑOR, LOS guardarás; de esta generación LOS preservarás para siempre.” So too do the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 and Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569.
The French Louis Segond 1910 also agree with the KJB - “Toi, Eternel! tu LES garderas, Tu LES préserveras de cette race à jamais.”
Dutch Staten Vertaling agrees with the KJB _ “Gij, HEERE, zult HEN bewaren; Gij zult HEN behoeden voor dit geslacht, tot in eeuwigheid.”
The Italian Rivudeta 1927 = KJB “Tu, o Eterno, LI proteggerai, LI preserverai da questa generazione in perpetuo.” So too does the 1991 La Nuova Diodati.
Bible commentators disagree among themselves as well as to what these words mean. John Wesley commented: 12:7 Thou shalt keep them - Thy words or promises: these thou wilt observe and keep, both now, and from this generation for ever.”
Dr. G. Campbell Morgan agreed with the rendering. He writes, "The psalmist breaks out into praise of the purity of His words, and declares that Jehovah will 'keep them' and 'preserve them.' The 'them' here refers to the words. There is no promise made of widespread revival or renewal. It is the salvation of a remnant and the preservation of His own words which Jehovah promises." (Notes on the Psalm, Revell Comp., p.32).
Adam Clarke says: “Instead of the pronoun THEM in these clauses, several MSS., with the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Arabic, have US.”
Jewish commentaror Aben Ezra believes the promise concerns the preserving of the words of God from generation to generation.
And others are of the opinion that God is promising to preserve His people. The bible versions are in wide disagreement as are the commentators regarding both how the text should read and what the meaning is. I, of course, side with the King James Bible in that God has promised to preserve every one of His inspired words. All modern versionists deny that He did so and they all believe that the Hebrew texts have been corrupted in numerous places, though none of them agrees with any of the others as to where or how.
Will Kinney
Will --
For example, the REB reads differently than all other versions in 1 Samuel 13:1. They just made up those numbers (30, 22) out of thin air.
The specific numbers are different but they are all, all over the place.
This is a great verse to pick. I'll just quote Daniel Wallace here since I think he does a good job explaining the issue and this is a place where I applaud the NET for their documentation:
13:1 Saul was [thirty] 1 years old when he began to reign; he ruled over Israel for [forty] 2 years.
1 tc The MT does not have “thirty.” A number appears to have dropped out of the Hebrew text here, since as it stands the MT (literally, “a son of a year”) must mean that Saul was only one year old when he began to reign! The KJV, attempting to resolve this, reads “Saul reigned one year,” but that is not the normal meaning of the Hebrew text represented by the MT. Although most LXX mss lack the entire verse, some Greek mss have “thirty years” here (while others have “one year” like the MT). The Syriac Peshitta has Saul’s age as twenty-one. But this seems impossible to harmonize with the implied age of Saul’s son Jonathan in the following verse. Taking into account the fact that in v. 2 Jonathan was old enough to be a military leader, some scholars prefer to supply in v. 1 the number forty (cf. ASV, NASB). The present translation (“thirty”) is a possible but admittedly uncertain proposal based on a few Greek mss and followed by a number of English versions (e.g., NIV, NCV, NLT). Other English versions simply supply ellipsis marks for the missing number (e.g., NAB, NRSV).
2 tc The MT has “two years” here. If this number is to be accepted as correct, the meaning apparently would be that after a lapse of two years at the beginning of Saul’s reign, he then went about the task of consolidating an army as described in what follows (cf. KJV, ASV, CEV). But if the statement in v. 1 is intended to be a comprehensive report on the length of Saul’s reign, the number is too small. According to Acts 13:21 Saul reigned for forty years. Some English versions (e.g., NIV, NCV, NLT), taking this forty to be a round number, add it to the “two years” of the MT and translate the number in 2 Sam 13:1 as “forty-two years.” While this is an acceptable option, the present translation instead replaces the MT’s “two” with the figure “forty.” Admittedly the textual evidence for this decision is weak, but the same can be said of any attempt to restore sense to this difficult text (note the ellipsis marks at this point in NAB, NRSV). The Syriac Peshitta lacks this part of v. 1.
The answer is no one knows how that verse should read. "1Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,..." makes no sense
The NJPS goes with something close to the KJV
" Saul was ..... (footnote) years old when be became king and he reigned over Israel two years. "
With the footnote indicating that the context for 2 is lost and no one knows the number in between "was" and "years".
I'm not sure how a translator should handle that. Its a damaged manuscript. We have to wait for archeology on that one.
Just to make sure everyone reading this thread knows, the next part of the interview is up part 2.
1 Samuel 13:1 - Will the real Bible please stand up.
Hi CD host. I am very well aware of the alleged "problems" of 1 Samuel 13:1. I think Wallace's NET version is one of the silliest out there.
I have written an article on 1 Samuel 13:1 and even comment in it on Wallace's NET version's remarks.
The truth is, NOTHING has dropped out of the text. The modern versionists are just plain blind. The true reading is that found in the King James Bible and many others. It has been there all the time.
The mentality of the modern versionists is that there is no perfect or preserved words of God in any Bible; not even the Hebrew and much less in the Greek. They actually would prefer to think that "the Hebrew text has been lost" than to accept a very reasonable explanation as to why it has not been lost at all.
It is my belief that God Himself has blinded them. Here is the article I wrote on this verse and it shows that the Hebrew text has not been "lost" or "dropped out" at all.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/wdslost.html
At least you, as a Bible agnostic who does not know which of many readings is the correct one, admits that you think there are problems and uncertainty in many texts. I disagree with you, but at least you are still being logical and consistent in your thinking. I can respect that.
But I really have a problem with someone like Joel who sees these 4 or 5 COMPLETELY different readings or translations in just one verse, and then tries to tell us that "they are all inspired and infallible", and then refuses to explain How that can possibly be. That's just plain ridiculous. (I would use a much stronger word here but you would probably delete it again ;-)
So, rather than posting the entire article, there is the link.
By His grace, believing the Book,
Will Kinney
Hi CD Host. I just wanted to thank you for being a fair minded man. You have not tried to twist my words or arguments. You have asked some good questions and did not explode when I responded with something that you personally do not agree with. You have posted my answers just as I made them. You are being very fair and reasonable in your treatment of this vital issue, even though you and I are not in agreement, and for that I want to express my heart felt appreciation.
God bless,
Will Kinney
Hi Will --
I'm glad you are happy with how the final interview looks. I know you were concerned when we were doing and I appreciate you trusting me! Thank you.
As far as the Samual 13:1 article, the Judaica Press Tanakh (Chabad publication) is considered so/so
But... more importantly than the Roseberg translation is the Rashi, Rashi is a very important authority it is the Jewish equivalent of Calvin agreeing with you:
Saul was a year in his reign: (lit., a year old.) Our Rabbis of sainted memory said: Like a one year old, who did not experience the taste of sin (Yoma 22b). It may also be interpreted thus: Saul was a year in his reign, i.e., in the first year in which he was made king (and he reigned two years over Israel), and in the first year, immediately, Saul chose for himself three thousand.
Post a Comment