Mormon guests

I've been getting a lot of hits lately from members and X-members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Which is cool and I'm excited this blog has been far far too focused on problems in reformed Christianity. I'm in so much in a rut that even with Catholics I ended up with wannabe reformed Catholics.

So please help. Give me some non Reformed topics. I see the traffic. Introduce yourselves, let me know what you all want to discuss. Kolab, gambling, history of Mormon doctrine. I'm game.

I love that in the very core 13 Articles of Faith I find:

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men;

Just fantastic stuff morally. If only those sorts of statements were in mainstream creeds Christian history wouldn't be nearly so shameful.

And theologically:

2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

OK ball is in your court. If you are non Mormon and want to engage in conversation or better yet ask questions in a respectful and neutral spot I'd be happy to host that.

King James Onlyism Interview (Lower criticism and the Vulgate, part 3)

This is a continuation of the King James Only series. You can read Part1 Part2 and the conclusion at these links.

Questions will be in purple answers in black. Headings in red, explanatory comments by CD-HOST in green

____________

Textual Criticism

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, here.

This could open up a major side issue, the nature and correctness of textual criticism. I'm not sure if I know enough about where you are coming from to have this discussion. But this might be worth hitting on later.

I think the whole "science" of textual criticism is a farce and leads to further unbelief.

Do you see those two as connected. Is it theoretically possible it could be true and lead to further unbelief? Are those independent or dependent claims?

I don't understand your question here. By the very fickle nature of textual criticism, the only logical conclusion to reach is that there is no fixed and infallible Bible text. This necessarily leads to the conclusion that there is no infallible Bible.

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.

Lets work through this for a moment because I think it is an interesting point of contact. I'm of the school that believes for many of the books there are no originals in the sense evangelicals mean them. What's your response to Christians who understand the implications of the lower (and possibly higher) criticism and still embrace it?

The point would be that they do not believe in a complete and infallible Bible in any language. This is in direct and sharp contrast to the King James Bible believer.

In terms of my beliefs I see progress. I believe the NRSV is better than the RSV is better than the ASV is better than the RV is better than the KJV is better than the Bishops Bible is better than the Great Bible. I'm looking forward to Edito Critica Major (essentially the NA28). I'm thrilled about the copitic Hebrews, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians we found with the gospel of Judas collection. I see a thrilling process where every Christian is invited a world of mystery through the ancient texts. Answers slowly revealing themselves and opening the door to new questions. I don't disagree with you about what's happening but where you are seeing something bad I'm seeing something delightful and wonderful. In this generation for the first time in 1800 years or so we can reconstruct an entire quasi-Christian sect's literary path.

There is no question there but if you would like to respond you can.

Sure, we definitely see this issue in very different ways. That is because I believe that God has in fact already given us His perfect "book of the LORD" and you see it as an ongoing process that will never be finished in this world.

I see it as; "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

I see your side as a fulfillment of the prophesy "This know that in the last days perilous times shall come...Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Timothy 3

I certainly have noticed the change in my lifetime. Christian are getting less and less comfortable saying "the bible says X" or even more strongly "God says X". It is changing to "my bible says X", which is far weaker.

Yes, I agree with you on this.

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.

Let me stop here for a second. I participate in bible translations quite frequently. I have generally found that the people who engage in translation debate and own 20 different bible translations treat the bible quite seriously. I don't believe they treat it lightly. Nor do I find they choose their preferred readings. Let me give you a personal example. I really wanted malaki arsenokoiti (1 Cor 6:9, what the KJV translates as effeminate / abusers of themselves with mankind) to be slave traders or pimps and male prostitutes. You can make a case based on the financial ties to the word, and the fact that modern homosexuality isn't financial, but in the end the counter case for the traditional translation was stronger. There is absolutely no question in my mind which is preferred reading, and I'm greatly pained that I can't make the case that homosexuals is a mistranslation. I don't believe I'm treating it lightly at all. What exactly do you mean by this?

I disagree. I have seen many people try to push through a point of doctrine or teaching, and when a certain bible version doesn't match want they want to teach, then they go to one that does support it. Or every man does that which is right in his own eyes and makes up his own translation because of his personal belief system, much like you are trying to do with 1 Cor. 6:9. You are not treating "The Bible" seriously, but you own opinions. Quite a difference.


I'd like to walk through a detailed timeline for a book of the bible in your theory. I'll take 1John if you don't care, just to pick one that is likely not to complex. All questions assuming 1John
Who wrote it and when?

The apostle John wrote it. Probably around 90-95 A.D.

Did it go through a redaction process? Is the 1John we have in the TR today the 1John as (John I'm assuming that is your author) wrote it? If it went through a redaction process can you describe that? (The question for is referring to a middle clause in 1John 5:7-8 the Comma Johanneum, a part of the verse not found in any ancient manuscript but that is found in the later manuscripts and the KJV). So we must have a situation where between the original 1John and Papyrus 9 a hundred years later corruption slipped in. How did that happen? Then what happens after that and so on? I'm looking for details in your theory.

You will not get any details that will satisfy your point of view. You can argue textual criticism all day long, and you will still end up with no complete and infallible Bible. That is your starting point and that is where you will end up. I address the issue of 1 John 5:7 here. Most people are unaware of all the early witnesses and of all the Bible scholars througout time who have confidently held 1 John 5:7 as being inspired Scripture.

Thank you for the evidence for 1John 5:7. But that still doesn't answer the question of how we ended up with so many manuscripts without it. How did this happen?

That was addressed in the article under reasons why it may have been omitted.

Mr. Nolan gives two reasons why I John 5:7 is seemingly scanty in reference to quotations from the church fathers:
One - The passage in I John 5:7 is among those like I Timothy 3:16 and Acts 20:28 that have all been tampered with in the manuscript tradition, all three having to do with the deity of Christ as "God."
Two - That the major reason for NOT QUOTING I John 5:7 was based on its wording, chiefly, purporting Jesus Christ as the "WORD" instead of the "SON." Hence, with the Sabellian heresy being debated that Jesus Christ is the Father with no distinction, I John 5:7 would further propagate that notion. Therefore it wasn't quoted.
Jesse Boyd also suggests the following reasons why the passage may have "dropped out" of 1 John 5:7. He says: "The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle. The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. The Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the Johannine Comma. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian." Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the New Testament. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching."

Vulgate

I don't see how this presentation regarding the KJV is consistent with your belief that the LXX or the Vulgate are not the words of God. The vast majority of Christians through the vast majority of Christian history considered the Vulgate to be the bible. It really wasn't until Erasmus that Western Christians even questioned this. Even today in 2009 most translations maintain "continuity with the Christian tradition" which is to say they translate consistently with the Vulgate. This is a key point of the theory that is complex.... because the claim for the KJV is that "God's word" is the text in major usage but the translation with the greatest degree of usage is the Vulgate. How would you respond?

Neither the Vulgate nor the so called LXX were the complete and 100% true Bible. There can be much truth found in any version, but it is always mixed with lies, poor translations and omissions or additions.

How do you know without falling back on the KJV?

Because I and thousands of other Bible believers have an absolute Standard. Your side does not. So you can never know and even admit it. You may think we KJB believers are wrong, and that is fine. But the simple reason why we know or at least believe that we know is because we have The Standard by which all others are to be measured and weighed in the balance.

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.

I don't see how this squares with your belief that the LXX or the Vulgate are not the words of God. The vast majority of Christians through the vast majority of Christian history considered the Vulgate to be the bible. It really wasn't until Erasmus that Western Christians even questioned this. Even today in 2009 most translations maintain "continuity with the Christian tradition" which is to say they translate consistently with the Vulgate. This is a key point of the theory that is complex.... because the claim for the KJV is that "God's word" is the text in major usage but the translation with the greatest degree of usage is the Vulgate. How would you respond?

Neither the Vulgate nor the so called LXX were the complete and 100% true Bible. There can be much truth found in any version, but it is always mixed with lies, poor translations and omissions or additions.

The following passage involves some post Trent history of the Vulgate. Since most Protestants are unfamiliar with the history of the Vulgate a short paragraph of background is in order.

The Jerome Vulgate was written 390-405

During the dark ages various minor revisions flourished particularly taking verses from the Old Latin (Vetus Latina) back into the Vulgate. There were also some attempts at restoration leading to several dozens versions with minor differences.

After Trent Pope Sixtus (1585-90) created a Vulgate as the "official version" called the Sistine Vulgate, it was widely rejected. His successor Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605) created a minor revision addressing the complaints people had with the Sistine Vulgate and created the Clementine Vulgate which was universally accepted Vulgate from 1598-1979.

One common complaint I hear all the time and mentioned by Mr. Norris in his book is that we who believe there is only one Bible that is the pure, complete, and infallible word of God is that this is similar to the Catholic view concerning the Latin Vulgate.

Allow me to briefly address this accusation. The Council of Trent met from 1545 to 1563 in an effort to rally the forces of the Catholic church to combat what they considered the heresies of the Reformation and their Bibles.

The Catholic church decided that the Latin Vulgate should be their official bible and none other allowed. Problem was, even when they made this decree, there was no settled text or single Latin Vulgate considered authoritative. Their own language reveals this. Here is a quote taken from the Council of Trent's own decree issued in 1556 "Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, IF IT BE MADE KNOWN WHICH OUT OF ALL THE LATIN EDITIONS, NOW IN CIRCULATION, of the sacred books, IS TO BE HELD AS AUTHENTIC,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold." (end of quote)

A papal commission worked for many years after the Council of Trent, but was not able to produce an authentic edition. Pope Sixtus took matters into his own hands and produced his own revision, which appeared in May 1590. The Sixtus Latin Vulgate was full of errors, "some two thousand of them introduced by the Pope himself" (Janus, The Pope and the Council, Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1870). In September 1590 the College of Cardinals stopped all sales and bought up and destroyed as many copies as possible. Another edition finally appeared in 1592, which became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church (H. Wheeler Robinson, Ancient and English Versions of the Bible, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940, p. 120).

There are several fundamental differences and similarities to what the Catholic church tried to do with the Latin Vulgate, and the Bible version issue as it stands today.

The Differences:

First - the Catholic church wanted to place the words of God in a DEAD LANGUAGE which most people could not read and they forbad translations into other languages to be made. Thus they were keeping the words of God out of the hands of the common people and making them dependent on a special class of priests to interpret it for them.

Second - This official bible had no settlted text at the time the decrees were made. There were several competing Latin Vulgate bibles circulating at the time and one was not settled upon till 36 years later.

Third - This official bible was produced by an apostate church which denied salvation by faith alone in the finished work of Christ; denied salvation outside of this Catholic church system, and established a special group of priests who alone could interpret the Scriptures for us.

The King James Bible believer does not deny salvation to anyone who happens to read any Bible version other than the KJB. We approve of the translation of Scripture into other languages, desiring only that they attempt to follow the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, and the meaning as found in the King James Bible, as best as possible and not omit some 3000 to 4000 words, including 17 to 24 whole verses, from the New Testament as do versions such as the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV. All these modern versions just mentioned also depart frequently from the Hebrew texts that underlie our King James Bible.

The Similarities:

First - the modern versionist has no settled text, just as the Council of Trent did not when they made their decree. The Greek text that underlies the modern versions such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard, etc. is in a continual state of flux and constant change. Every new version changes the actual TEXT, as well as the meanings of other verses, from the previous versions.

Second - The modern versionist would likewise place the Final Authority in the hands of a special group of religious leaders - the scholars. They affirm that no translation is the inspired words of God and that we must "go to the original Hebrew and Greek texts" (which don't even exist). Thus they remove the common people from the words of God by appealing to DEAD LANGUAGES as their final authority.

However, it is painfully obvious that these same scholars cannot agree among themselves WHICH Hebrew and WHICH Greek texts are authentic. This is similar to the case of the conflicting Latin Vulgate versions that were circulating at the time of the decree of the Council of Trent in 1556.

Third - The everchanging Greek text now used to translate most modern versions is compiled by men who themselves are apostates who believe no Bible is inspired and much of what we do have is "ancient folktale, popular legend, and traditions penned by unknown authors". (See Bruce Metzger, Cardinal Carlo Martini, and the other liberal editors of the UBS Greek text.)

Satan counterfeits every spiritual truth. If there really is One true Holy Bible, then the devil will say there is only one true bible and it is the Catholic bible. Guess which bibles today generally OMIT ALL THE SAME VERSES from the New Testament as do modern Catholic bible versions. You got it.

___

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.

There is no question the JW were one of the earliest major groups to adopt the Westcott-Hort. The 19th century Arianist movement were big fans of Westcott-Hort. But what about Catholic? The Nova Vulgata (new Vulgate 1969+) which is the official Catholic Bible is based on texts older than the Clementine Vulgate but doesn't rely on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus but mainly fragmentary latin manuscripts and quotes scattered throughout writings of the 5th and 6th centuries. Do you mean the NJB and the NAB which are based on the NA27 Greek just like the majority of Protestant bibles.

I have four modern day Catholic bibles, 3 in English and one in Spanish. The NAB St. Joseph, the Jerusalem bible, and the New Jerusalem. In Spanish I have the 1983 Versión Popular - all are primarily WH texts. The older Douay was actually much better since it did not always follow Vaticanus/Sinaiticus. Anything based on the Nestle Aland critical texts is wrong and a fake bible.

JB and NJB -- Have an Impimatur, which means they are free from major doctrinal error. Popular translations with Catholics
NAB -- translated by the CCD, most commonly used in Catholic churches
Nova Vulgata -- Published by the Holy See. This is the "official bible". And it is not based on the NA27.

The Nova Vulgata omits Matthew 6:13 For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" just like the NA27, as well as all of Matthew 17:21; 18:11 and 23:14, just like the NA 27 and the English versions based on it. Coincidence? nI address this issue here:

Prior to 1611 " good educated guess for the New Testament words would be that God preserved them in the Old Latin Bibles, and then in the Waldensian latinized Bibles till the time of the Reformation.

This is interesting. I know you are guessing and I want to get specific. If ultimately it ends here then OK but this I would love to vet.

Yes, that is an educated guess, the Old Latin. However as I go on to say, if push comes to shove, then I go with there was no perfect Bible anywhere until God brought forth the KJB.

Vetus Latina (old Latin) there are multiple versions of the various books. There isn't a "Vetus Latina bible" a modern equivalent would be something like "translations by evangelical Americans". So if I'm a Christian in 220 and I'm looking for God's real version of Luke (lots of different Latin versions) what am I going to do?

As for the Waldensian. Are you advocating something like Christian's view?

Basically another rabbit trail, but I understand why you ask the question. It's because of your naturalistic outlook on the bible. Some date the Waldensians back to 120 AD and the had a lot of things right. The KJB translators consulted several Waldensian influenced bibles.

What is the status of the Latin Vulgate?

There are several Vulgates plus the Old Latin witnesses, which often differ among themselves. In their totality they contain much of God’s words but are not the complete and inspired words of God.

OK if their status differs, lets break them down status wise.
Nova Vulgata, Stuttgart, Clementine, Sistine, Amiatinus (Pope's personal vulgate), etc... How are they different and why?

Pointless rabbit trail. They do differ textually from one another. That is obvious. They are not the true bible.

What is the status of the LXX?

No such thing ever existed as an authoritative, Pre-Christian LXX that was used or quoted by any apostle nor the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a very complicated subject and I have written on it pretty extensively. I believe the KJB translators were wrong in their assessment of the so called Greek Septuagint. The real truth is that many N.T. sayings, phrases or whole verses were placed in the various LXX versions AFTER the N.T. was complete. Agreeing with this idea are people like Jerome, John Gill, and John Owen.

You can begin the study of the other side of the story here:

#19

So the new top 50 list is out on Biblioblog and Church Discipline debuted at #19. Biblioblog shows the breadth.

In terms of semi/regular posters:

The Church of Jesus Christ, Polycarp (Joel Watts) #2

He Is Sufficient, ElShaddai Edwards #14 (up from 50)

Ancient Hebrew Poetry, John Hobbins #16

New Leaven, T.C. Robinson #21 (up from 40)

Suzanne’s Bookshelf, Suzanne McCarthy (breaking into top 50 from 59)

Congrads to everyone!

King James Onlyism Interview (Initial points, part 2)

This is a continuation of the King James Only series. Part1 links here

Questions will be in purple answers in black. Headings in red, explanatory comments by CD-HOST in green

____________

What is the King James Bible

What do we mean by King James Bible? Does the inerrant part of the bible include bracketing information like chapter titles and conclusions. For example the ending in 1611 for Hebrews, "Written to the Hebrewes, from Italy, by Timothie" is this inerrant, that is can I be sure that Timothy wrote Hebrews and did so from Italy?

By the King James Bible I simply mean the actual TEXT of the King James Bible is the complete, inspired, preserved, infallible and 100% true words of God. I do not defend the Prefatory remarks, though some of them are quite good.

What is the status of translator notes and other more literal readings within the KJV?

Sometimes they are of value and other times not. They are not inspired. The so called “more literal readings” are not always the best means of communicating or translating God’s words. ALL modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV are far less literal than is the King James Bible, so it is a little silly to bring this up as some kind of objection to the accuracy or inerrancy of the King James Bible. It is the TEXT alone that we defend as the inspired and inerrant words of God. We believe God Himself guided the translators as to the correct TEXTS and meanings of those texts.

Is there a single King James which is inspired and inerrant or are there multiple ones? If a single 1611, 1769; Oxford, cambridge; with Apocrypha (pre 1826) or without (post 1826) etc...

Here you are confusing two very different things. One is the alleged “various revisions of the King James Bible” with “printing errors” and stylistic changes. There has never been a revision of the King James Bible. The real issue of the Printing Errors Ploy that the “No bible is the inerrant words of God” side brings up. You will find these objections addressed in the following article.

What is the status of the King James version Apocrypha?

Apocrypha never was the inspired words of God. The King James translators themselves did not consider them inspired. It is more than a little inconsistent and hypocritical for the modern versionists to even bring up this criticism. Why? See the following article about Why the 1611 KJB and other bible versions included the Apocrypha (article with additional information)

What is that status of the various Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (like the Bomberg Hebrew, Stephanus Textus Receptus...) – note for reader the Bomberg, Stephanus, Clementine Vulgate and LXX were the main source text.

God guided the KJB translators to the best texts among all the variant readings out there. The KJB is the sovereign work of God in history.

Translation issues

When you say, “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. “ What exactly do you mean that the NASB is less literal then the KJV? It would seem to me that something like Jay Green's (MT/TR interlinear) is much more literal than the KJV on the same underlying texts?

I mean exactly what I said. The KJB is far more literal than the NASB and the others I mentioned, but again, a strict literalness is not always a good thing.

OK let example on that. Take a classic example like Isaiah 7:14. The Masoretic Text does not say "virgin" here, that comes from Matthew and the LXX. Why is it acceptable for the KJV to diverge from the Hebrew here?

Again, I disagree. Translating that Hebrew word as virgin is perfectly acceptable and even many Jewish translations have done so too.

I'm not familiar with any. I presume you meant in English and not Christian/Jewish. Can you name an Jewish translation which uses virgin?

These 3 online Jewish translations all have "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 and the clincher is the N.T. where the verse is quoted in Matthew 1:23 "Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Here is one online - BayithaMashiyach -- NASB with name changes
And another Jewish translation online - Word of Yah -- ASV with name changes

And another Jewish translation - House of Yahshua -- KJV with name changes

The word almah is only used 7 times in the Old Testament. It is translated 4 times as virgin in the KJB and 3 as maid. A maid or maiden was a young, unmarried virgin. See Exodus 2:8. The Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 Jewish translation has a "young woman" (who in Jewish culture were assumed to be virgins), but has translated the same word as "virgin" in Genesis 24:43 and in Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8.

I have one more question. The KJV was noted for replacing places in the Hebrew that are repetitive with variation. In other words the KJV translators altered structure of the Hebrew. You have been attacking modern versions for being too lose with the Hebrew. How would you respond?

Give some examples, and I will show you that the Jewish translators themselves do this very thing. However the nasb, niv, rsv, esv, Holman stuff clearly reject entire Hebrew readings. The KJB does not.

Genesis 32:20 and the repetition of face. The KJV notes themselves they are dropping the last face and breaking with the Hebrew; and while they don't say why it is pretty clear that you are allowed more repetition in Hebrew than in English.
20And say ye moreover, Behold, thy servant Jacob is behind us. For he said, I will appease him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face; peradventure he will accept of me*.
* = of me: Heb. my face

The literal "face" is redundant in this case since it has already been mentioned. ALL bible versions and translations do stuff like this. Even 3 Jewish versions like the Jewish Pub. Society 1917, the Complete Jewish Bible, and the Hebrew Pub. Company 1936 all read exactly like the KJB here. So too do the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV and Holman.

Arguments for the uniqueness of the KJV

When you say , “So is it OK for you to believe that there was no perfect Bible before 1611 but not for me to agree with you?” What's outlandish is the claim of particularity. That this particular bible is in some way so far uniquely better.

Well, it may well seem outlandish to you because you do not believe such a things exists as a complete, inspired and infallible Bible. To me it makes perfect sense since I understand God's words as teaching that He would preserve His words in a tangible Book. I believe in this Book; you do not.

The English bibles before the KJB were generally quite good. They were not the perfect words of God, but quite good. You do not need to have a complete and perfect bible to get saved or to learn many good things about God, Christ and the history of redemption. Those bibles contained much of God's words, but they were not perfect.

Does that apply to today's bibles? Are they pretty good but not ideal?

Yes, basically, but I believe the modern versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman and NKJV are actually getting worse in many ways rather than better than even versions like Coverdale, Tyndale, Geneva and Bishops' bibles.

Do you believe there were supernatural resources. If so what was the mechanism and purpose of their interaction?

Other than the hand of the sovereign God, No.

So to make it clear. Do you believe:
1) The translators for the KJV had assistance from God in their selection of alternatives?
2) The translators for the KJV had actual revelation?

Yes, God guided their selections. That is what I believe. God led them to both the correct texts and the correct translations of those texts. That is what I believe. You do not have to accept this.

Referring to the thesis, "The King James Bible as being the only complete, inspired and inerrant words of God in Bible form", what we do we mean exactly by "only"?

Good question. We do not mean that ONLY those who read the King James Bible are saved. God can and does use any bible version out there no matter how poorly translated or no matter how much is missing. The gospel of salvation through the shed blood of the Lamb of God is still found in them all and God can use them to bring His people to faith in the Saviour. God can use a simple bible tract, a good hymn, the NIV, NASB, RSV, any Catholic version, the Jehovah Witness version or the Cabbage Patch version is He wishes. The gospel is still found in them all. However that does not make them the complete and inerrant words of God. They are not.

You said in your essay, "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". We may have to swing back to this but would constitute a proven error? As far as I can tell you are rejecting the authority of the Greek over the KJV. Even in theory how would one prove an error?

Some errors are easy to prove. Can God be deceived? The nasb says He was. That is an error.

You had written in your essay, "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." I don't quite follow how you would know this one way or the other. You believe in scripture as the source of doctrine. So "sound doctrine" comes from scripture. In particular base text plus interpretation yields a collection of doctrines. Obviously a different base text could result in a collection of different doctrine, but I'm not sure how you can call one sound and the other unsound. To determine soundness you would need a judge over and above the base text (the bible). What is that judge?

I.E. let say I have
Bible 1 which leads to the doctrine that salvation is from eating duck food
Bible 2 which leads to the doctrine that salvation is from playing jacks

How do I determine whether bible 1 or bible 2 is more sound?

False doctrine is determined by the consistent teaching of the Bible itself. If something clearly contradicts other parts of the Bible, then it is false. Did you read the article? I gave several examples (link to article mentioned)

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: link

The confessions relate directly to the Bible and the words of God; not doctrines of the Catholic church.

Yes but why not? Why couldn't you apply the same spirit of argument more broadly?

You are the one trying to come up with an argument here that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'm strictly talking about what the words of God are, not what they might mean as interpreted by any number of different groups or organizations.

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.

___

Link to part3 of this series. 

reply to Ecclesial Deism

There is a discussion thread on Called to Communion entitled Ecclesial Deism where some blatantly false assertions about history are being made. Normally I'd reply there but that community is simply too rude to allow for conversation, if there is any desire for conversation I can enforce rules of discourse here.

Let me first quote the comment directed at a woman Joy which is repeated several times:

Joy,

Thanks for your comments. If you think that the Church immediately fell into the ‘error’ of apostolic succession, then how does your position avoid ecclesial deism? Do you posit the continual existence of an unknown remnant, preserved for 1500 years, that didn’t believe in apostolic succession, but simply preserved the apostles’ doctrine, and then finally handed it on to Luther? Why wasn’t there some great controversy or debate, as the ‘heretical’ practice of apostolic succession universally swept over the Church in the first and second centuries, and swallowed up the original notion that ecclesial leadership was based entirely on agreement with the Apostles’ doctrine? Or do you posit that there was such a great controversy, and that the winners later blotted out all records of it from Church history? Or did the Apostles so poorly transmit to the churches their instructions regarding the basis for Church authority, that nobody made a peep as the ‘heresy’ of apostolic succession swept over the entire Church, because no one even realized that it was wrong?

Of course a great controversy is precisely what we do see in Church history. From the earliest writing we see attacks on the notion that the apostles are the source of doctrine and that authority should come from priests. A good example is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, where Mary presents pages of the actual teachings of Jesus while Andrew and Peter (representing the Catholic church) reject the real teachings because they only accept the things the savior said to them. This theme gets developed even further in Pistis Sophia again apostolic succession rather than revelation is attacked as being contrary to the instruction of Jesus.

I'm going to make a short list of 10 documents that demonstrate this very war that is being claimed never occurred did in fact occur. There was a widespread attack in the early church on apostolic authority. I think I could likely do 50-100 and that is just from what survives.

1. Gospel of Mary Magdalene -- discussed above
2. Pistis Sophia -- Peter's rejectionism is expanded to the whole doctrine of hyclic, psychic and pneumatic Christians.
3. Dialogue of the Savior -- likely authored about 120 where the Jesus himself attacks the notion of spiritual authorities of any sort.
4. Mark where the apostles are constantly denigrated as being essentially idiots. They reject the savior as he dies. There is no appointment of the apostles.
5. Gospel of the Ebonites somewhere between 140-200 rejects the supposed apostolic church (pre-Catholic Church) as being the church founded by the apostles is falsifying their bible.
6. The Gospel of Thomas rejects that there are a distinguished group of people called "apostles" everyone is a disciple.
7. In the Book of John the Baptizer is essentially a counter to Luke/Acts which builds the case for the construction of the church as John -> Jesus -> Peter -> Paul -> Church.
8. The Great Declaration of Simon Magus argues that just as thought and soul are invisible the true church equally invisible, the visible church, apostolic church, is corrupted like the body.
9. The Apocryphon of John argues against those who claim you need to follow their rites to be saved.
10. The Sayings of Jesus (Sufi) attacks the apostolic church as a financial scam designed to rip people off by selling them a false message of Jesus.

_____

Addendum:

The list should stand as the 10 that popped into my head immediately. But with the exception of the Gospel of Mary I missed the most important one:

Marcion, arguably the most influential early 2nd century Christian leader. He argued that none of the other apostles besides Paul had understood Jesus at all. He collected Paul's letters along with a Gospel into a single book (a primitive form of the New Testament) and this not the church was the ultimate authority.

King James Onlyism Interview (Introduction, part 1)

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"

____

• Links to part2, part3 and part4 of this series.

KJVonly interview starting

I'll be starting a new interview series with a KJVonlyist presenting the case from a historical and liberal to neo-evangelical position. This will be one of my formal interviews (i.e. he gets to edit the final to make sure it reflects his views).

If you would like me to ask any questions or make sure any topics get discussed please feel free to comment here.

Paul's evil twin

I'm thinking of starting a series of Simon Magus. I had originally planned do this sort of methodically to start with F.C. Baur's analysis from the 1840s ( PDF) and then move in G.R.S. Mead's investigation. Then after that move onto church fathers in light of the New School and their results from the 1970s. Sort of my usual mixture of bible study and history.

Now normally those sorts of threads don't get much in the way of conversation. The arguments are long, detailed and there isn't that much to say. But since this blog is getting really active in terms of discussion lately, instead of just presenting an argument let me open up with a question (note verses list auto-magically link to the NET bible):

We have four stories in the bible about a collection for the Saints of Jerusalem being taken up, and rejected over a theological dispute.

The first story is Acts 8:18-24; a story of Simon Magus offering the Jerusalem group money for his endorsement, "the ability to lay hands to give the Holy Spirit".

The second is a story of Paul collecting money mentioned in the epistles: Gal 2:9-10, 1 Cor 16:1-4 , 2 Cor 8:1-4, 2 Cor 9:1-2, Romans 15:25-31. In Gal 2:1-10 we see a theological dispute and in Gal 2:11-21 (particularly Gal 2:13) we have the Jewish community breaking with Paul over it.

The third is a story also about Paul. In Acts 24:17 Paul indicates his reason for coming to Jerusalem was to give a collection to the saints in Jerusalem, but in this story the theological dispute in Acts 21 got in the way. There are hints of trouble in Acts 15:1-29 the unstable compromise; Acts 21:18-27 and the purification ritual as well as more dispute in Acts 15:22-41.

And finally a fourth story also in Acts, a briefly mentioned local fund raising effort describe in Acts 11:27-30. There are enough similarities to suspect we know about this incident from Josephus, as well. In this case Agabus is King Agabar of Esessa, a convert to Judaism that reconverts his family to Christianity. He is the husband of a woman names Queen Helen of Adibene who in Josephus is a huge opponent of circumcision.

The stories are all similar in some senses and different in others. What Baur's question was: are we looking at one, two, three or four different underlying events? What Baur speculated was that this was all really one event, and the real story looked like:

1. Paul arrives in Jerusalem with the collection and wants endorsement for his position. Helen an opponent of circumcision is a major backer.
2. The Jerusalem group rejects his position and rejects his money;
3. Paul heads to Rome and the Jerusalem church and Paul break and are never reconciled.
4. Paul develops a theology that scripture and not institutions as authoritative,
5. The 2nd century church wants to downplay the degree of the split.

That is in Baur's view Paul and Simon were based on the same historical figure, Paul represents a positive view of this figure while Simon represents the negative view. There are other ways in which Acts makes Simon into Paul's evil twin. We had mentioned before the conversations with Felix and the traveling to Rome. There is at a deeper level Paul being a Roman collaborator during the occupation. In Acts, Paul is made into a Roman citizen, he works for the High Priest (which makes him part of the occupation). Paul in the epistles never mentions this level of connection with Rome, the furthest he goes is Phil 3:5 where he mentions he persecuted the early church. The historical Simon Magus on the other hand was tied closely to the Romans. He was an entertainer known to Claudius' who became an advisor and friend to Governor Felix. It is also worth mentioning we see another one of these parallels. In Acts 9:5-9 and Acts 13:4-12 there is a story temporary blindness on the one hand about Paul and on the other about "the Sorcerer" who was a follower of Jesus. Other details fit as well like the mention of Felix and Drusilla talking to Paul (Acts 24:24-7). Simon was close to Drusilla and had convinced her to marry Felix (Josephus).

But more deeply Acts presents Paul as a miracle worker. The performance of miracles forms a major part of Paul's apostleship. He was supposed to have made a blind man see again (Acts 13:6-12), to have enabled a cripple to walk (Acts 14:8-10) and to have raised a young man from the dead (Acts 20:7-2). Even his handkerchief had miraculous powers (Acts 19:12). His miraculous powers also enabled him to survive stoning unscathed, although those who stoned him thought he was dead (Acts 14:19-20) and to survive what would have been a lethal snakebite (Acts 28:3-6). There is no hint of magical powers anywhere in the Epistles. On the other hand Simon Magus, is a David Cooperfield type illusionist and by universal agreement of Jewish, Roman, Christian and Gnostic sources an excellent illusionist (though some think him a magical being).

And there non canonical similarities. For example Paul travels with a virgin named Thecla, who founds a bunch of churches and is even today thought of as essentially the founder of the convent movement (see Acts of Paul and Thecla). While Simon picks up a consort by the name of Helen, whom he identifies as a Queen and goes on to found a bunch of churches.

Josphus provides a semi-explicit identification.  Paulus is Latin for small.  Josephus uses either "Atomos" (Greek for small) or Simon depending on the manuscript in this line, "and he sent to her a person whose name was Simon/Atomos" in Antiquities 20.7.2.

In the Acts 11:27-30 passage it makes no sense why the donors would pass the money through Saul. It makes a great deal of sense if this reference is to Simon, who is a trusted assistant to Governor Felix (proctor of Palestine 52-60). Right after that we have the persecution of the church by the Romans (Acts 12:1-3). So lets turn our previous theory around and make it all Simon we end up with a story like:

1. Queen Helen of Adibene believes in Judaism but rejects circumcision, especially for her son Izates bar Monobaz. As a result she becomes active in the budding Christian movement and she becomes the benefactor and possible lover to Simon a major opponent of circumcision.
2. There is a famine in Palestine. King Agabar and Queen Helen put together a relief fund. Like most politicians they use funding to advance their agenda in particular Helen passes the money to the (proto-)Christian community through Felix's assistant Simon Magus.
3. Simon arrives in Jerusalem with the collection and uses it to help with food and to advance his theological position in the Jewish community.
4. The opposition to his theology if it is not going to be accepted is naturally going to come first from other Christians, the Jerusalem group led by James. The Jerusalem group can't be bought off and rejects Simon's money.
5. Simon complains to Felix about the Jerusalem group and James is killed.
6. The Jerusalem faction remains hostile to the Samaritan faction.
7. Simon travels with Felix to Rome six years later, Helen travels with him. He becomes a sect leader, and after this Peter and he meet up at some point in the 60s.
8. The 2nd century church in writing Acts patches in different versions of the story told from different perspectives.

This is a lot of speculation though. So how do you think this evil twin got into Acts? Could Simon just be a placeholder for the old anti-Pauline literature from Peter's school? Could Tertullian's "apostle to the heretics" (his term for Paul) and Irenaeus "father of all heresies" (Irenaeus name for Simon) be the same man? Could it be that because the collection is seen (to this day) positively by the Jewish community the church tried to the credit for it by attributing it to Paul, but they couldn't disentangle the collection story from the persecution. Is it just coincidence and there are really several collections?

Here is my theory. If you look at Justin Martyr's comments about Simon, you'll see the connection that the church father's frequently drew. Simon is the "father of heresies" and in an indirect way the founder of the Marcionite church (which competed with the Catholic church in the 2nd century) as well as the Valentinian movement.

And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:— Simoni Deo Sancto, To Simon the holy God. And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Menander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetæa, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh— we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you. (Apology I.26; Magicians not trusted by Christians)

Marcion when he showed up in Rome wanted to buy the papacy 200,000 sesterces (several million dollars in today's money); the church rejected the money because they disagreed with him theologically. In particular they were not willing incorporate Marcion's notion of a creator God separate and distinct from the God of Jesus (the foreign God). The story of Simon was enhanced during the time when the church was rejecting Marcion's money, to the point that the term "Simony" became associated with paying for office which is not even what Simon does in the story, Acts 8 story.  

On the other hand Paul's epistles talk about the collection.   In the politicized atmosphere of the second century church the Pauline collection is also getting talked about in terms of Marcion and Simon. So the writer of Acts has to make it clear that Paul's collection was an entirely different sort of thing, that Paul is accepted as an apostle before any money is involved. The collection plays a minor role. The rejection story involving Simon probably never happened this is a morality play about what the church did with Simon's successor and Peter's successor. In other words the goal of the author of Acts is:

1. Defend the church's rejection of Marcion's money by pushing it back in time.
2. Distance Paul (the hero of Acts) from Simony.
3. Not give Simon the credit for a large collection from Agabar, that he was involved in. In particular because that money was accepted and was popular.

What still remains to discuss though is if the connection between Paul and Simon is real historically but the author of Acts is unaware of this connection. Is Simon "Paul's evil twin" not just as an accident? Is there more than just politics to the fact that the early second century heretics identify themselves as followers of "Paul" while their proto-orthodox critics identify them as followers of "Simon"? If they are one man, why are the writings attributed to Paul so different from those later attributed to Simon? Even if we are looking at two men and not one, if their histories are this intermixed there are questions about who did what? To do this we need to know who was Simon, and how Paul got to be the major writer of the New Testament.

_____________________

See also:

• Review of James the Brother of Jesus
• The New Testament Code (Google Books)

More on Simon Magus:

• G.R.S. Mead book
• The Invisible Basilica, Thalamic
• Catholic Encyclopedia
• Wikipedia
• Jewish Encyclopedia
• Dictionary of Western Esotericism and Gnosis
• Hippolytus, 'Refutation of all Heresies (chapters VI.1-15)
• Irenaeus, Against Heresies (I.23)
• Clement, The Recognitions (long anti Simon book) (see Catholic Encyclopedia article on authenticity)
• Dositheos
• Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle

4 marks of a hellbound man

So I'm checking out some of latest sermon by John MacArthur and he has one called 4 marks of a hellbound man. In it he lists the 4 characteristics that he believes lead to damnation:

1. Self righteous
2. Worldliness
3. Unbelieving
4. Willfully ignorance

Tell me that Mr. "Truth War", "Lordship salvation", "Charismatic Chaos"... didn't just preach a sermon against self righteousness and willful ignorance. John, please turn your bible to Matthew 24... "Woe to you, hypocrites"...

See Also:

• The excommunication of Saint Paul
• MacArthur v. Driscoll