The King James Version Only Challenge

I was browsing another site’s Calvinism articles, and the author couldn’t help but bring the “Bible version issue” into the matter, pointing out that the King James Version is of course superior. Such points were irrelevant in the context, and I won’t name names or link to the site at hand…

But I extend a simple challenge to those who believe that only the King James Version can properly be regarded as God’s Word in English and that any and all other English versions (especially those published after 1850 or so) are in some (or many) ways corrupt.

The challenge: Show me from the text of the King James Version itself reason to believe that it it is the best of all Bible versions. Establish the doctrine using the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, or by Scripture alone.

I do not believe that challenge can be completed by anyone, so if you have a novel answer to the challenge, I would love to hear it! I was once a King James Onlyist, but I walked away from it when I realized that David Cloud, Terry Watkins, Jack Chick, and others had become a final authority rather than the Bible itself. I can open a New American Standard Bible, a New King James Version, or an English Standard Version and expound from its text every teaching that God says will equip a man for every good work (1 Timothy 3:16–17).

If the teachings of King James onlyism cannot be built up using Scripture alone, then its adherents tread dangerously close to adding traditions to the Scriptures they so strongly defend. For them, using the King James Version solely is a great thing, profitable to one’s spiritual well-being. So if such an important doctrine cannot be defended using the Scriptures alone, it should be concluded as unnecessary and even dangerous, for it denies the sufficiency of the Word of God.

This challenge really isn’t for me; my mind is made up. Rather, I put forth the challenge so that my dear King James onlyist brethren will, I hope, think through their position biblically, just as I did several months ago. It all comes down to a matter of authority: either Scripture is a sufficient authority for all necessary Christian belief and practice, or it is wholly insufficient and the teachings and writings of various fundamentalists are required to fill in the gaps regarding the dreaded “Bible version issue.”

71 thoughts on “The King James Version Only Challenge

  1. Adrian says:

    That’s very thoughtful, I use the NASB, KJV & RV ( 1851 ). I cannot speak for or against the use of KJV only. I have a friend, who is a Christian, that thinks I am very careless because I havn’t searched this out. This topic just causes division amongst many well meaning Christians.

    Nothing you have never heard before, just thought I would post a reply.

    Adrian

    • Rick Beckman says:
      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

      Actually, I’ve yet to hear that this challenge is thoughtful, so I am appreciative for that. :)

    • Justin says:

      :) Hello there, Adrian! I’m Justin (obviously), and I am a contributor to Timothy’s Burden.

      You are right, this topic does causes division, but perhaps it should. I fear that KJV-Onlyists have developed too high of a view of the KJV, possibly even to the extent of worshipping it. Of course, even in my eyes that seems ludicrous, but I feel sometimes it’s true. When you have a Christian saying that the KJV is the ONLY “inspired,” or superior, English translation of the Bible, it should cause eyebrows to be raised.

      However, this is just my viewpoint on the subject. Come to think of it, I don’t even think I’ve voiced an opinion on this issue.

      Anyway, Adrian, thank you for coming and I hope you return!

      Your’s most sincerely in Christ,
      –Justin

  2. Lukasaurus says:

    I will take you up on this challenge. I don’t have something lying around that I have written, nor will I cut and paste, so you will have to give me some time to compile the evidence and search the scriptures in order to prove the King James Bible as being the only Bible worthy of use in English speaking churches today.

    • Justin says:

      Lukasaurus, welcome, welcome. Can’t say I’m pleased to hear your position on this subject, but it is nice to have you here. I’ll be sure to be praying for you.

      Hopefully you find yourself comfortable. :)

    • Rick Beckman says:
      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

      Lukasaurus: Welcome to the site. You’ll note that, if you take time to explore the archives here, you’ll likely find that I once argued for KJV onlyism. I hope you’re able to bring something new to the table that I haven’t once used myself.

    • lukasaurus says:

      Please don’t think I have forgotten that I accepted this challenge. I may not answer in a very timely manner. When I do finally post up my response, you can be assured it will not be a cut and paste job from av1611.org or wayoflife.org

      God bless
      Luke

      • Rick Beckman says:
        Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

        I look forward to your response.

        Keep in mind if you quote any other version or any other writer, you have failed the King James Onlyism challenge from the get-go. Doctrine should only be formed from that which we consider to be an authority, and if the King James Version is your authority, only it can define King James Onlyism for you. If it cannot, you have not only failed the KJV-Only Challenge, but you have shown “Sola Scriptura” to be insufficient in your worldview.

        • Lukasaurus says:

          You are, for lack of a better term, setting up a straw man which is very easy for you to burn down. By saying that people cannot use hard facts by quoting other versions, to form an argument, you are eliminating an important witness to the authority of the Bible.

          For example, if a court of law is hearing a murder case, and only allows witnesses from the defendant’s lawyers, the case is going to be a bit one sided.

          I could write a few pages on the inclusion of Easter in the King James Bible, but without being able to compare that to the NIV rendering or something similar, then how is anyone going to see that the King James Bible is correct, and the NIV incorrect?

          While you can show that the King James Bible says that God will preserve his words and that scripture is God breathed, without a comparison between versions, examination of the text it is based on, examining all the “witnesses”, you can only build a one sided arguement.

          But if that’s what you want, all I need to do is expound on Psalm 12 verse 6 & 7. God is talking about the words of man, and the words of God. He will preserve His own words, but mans will fade away. Since I can’t quote from any other version, I have proved that the King James Bible claims to be the Word of God, and if the scripture is true, as told to us in Timothy, and came to us not by men, but by the holy spirit, and for the sake of this argument, the modern versions do not exist, since we can’t quote them, the only logical conclusion is that the King James Bible is the word of God. And since you can’t quote a modern version in defense of my argument, then the KJB wins. Of course, this is a ridiculous thing for me to say, just as it is ridiculous to eliminate any reference to the very reason this challenge exists.

          To eliminate the very reason to prove the authority of the King James Bible defeats the purpose of the challenge.

          If the modern versions did not exist, there would not even be any need for this challenge. You need to rethink your rules.

          Anyway, I will still post up my thesis, but I will lose according to your rule set, because I intend to establish which Bible contains the pure doctrine of Christ and the Gospel of Jesus Christ unto salvation. However, in establishing the Authority of the King James Bible, I will only use the King James Bible, but in order to prove that there are differences between the KJB and the modern versions, I will need to quote them.

          And just as an after thought, do you really want to use a Bible that says Jesus has an origin?

          • Rick Beckman says:
            Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

            Yes, there are differences; there are differences between different versions of the KJV even, as pointed out above!

            The point of the challenge is this:

            I believe in God, but not just any God, in the God of the Scriptures, and I can point to the Scriptures to establish that doctrine.

            Likewise, the Gospel is defined for us in Scriptures.

            The same is true for the doctrines of the Holy Spirit, sin, Satan, Creation, and so on and so forth.

            But nowhere do the Scriptures establish any kind of Onlyism; if they did, surely the King James translators themselves would have realized it — no one was more familiar with the KJV text than they were, it would seem, yet their understanding of the Bible translation issue differs greatly from that of the King James Onlyist’s.

            You state that the “true” doctrines are found in the KJV and not in the modern version; I disagree — in using the NKJV, I have yet to find one doctrine that I’d have to abandon, other than that of the King James Onlyist who can’t even define his own doctrine from his own version.

            Yes, God promised to inspire His words; inspiration was an act which affected the original autographa only — the prophets, the holy men of old were moved by the Spirit as they penned the Scriptures. No where are copyists or translators said to be similarly moved. The doctrine of preservation does not require double, triple, etc. inspiration.

            And if one wants to argue that there are errors in the modern versions and so they must be rejected, the KJV has been shown repeatedly to be erroneous in some areas, not the least of which is the needless inclusion of 1 John 5:7 which is only there because a Roman Catholic (Erasmus) lost a bet.

            As for your afterthought, I’m assuming you’re talking about Micah 5:2, though I hope you’re a bit smarter than these guys

            Micah 5:2 is a prophetic verse regarding the first coming of Christ. It is giving us signs to recognize the (then) coming Messiah — He was to come from Bethlehem and His lineage (what the NIV calls his “origins,” a perfectly legitimate word when talking about the family history of Jesus) was to have ancient roots, which the Gospels of Matthew & Luke give us via the genealogies.

            However, because I’m not tied to a King James Onlyist doctrine, I can look at the Greek text and know that the Hebrew word translated as “goings forth” in the KJV has two meanings: family descent or sewers. So, either the Messiah’s “sewers” were of old, or His family descent was. The “goings forth” of the KJV kinda gets the point across, but not as well as “origins” and certainly not as well as “descent” would.

            Likewise, using “ancient times” rather than “everlasting” as the KJV has it is justified as well; in fact, the same Hebrew word is used as “ancient” in the KJV in several places, such as Proverbs 22:28 and Psalm 77;5.

            But of course, to hold to King James Onlyism means that all of that must be tossed out in favor of the “perfect” text of the KJV; otherwise, the doctrine is compromised and promptly crumbles to the ground. There is a reason most KJV Onlyists dislike it when people cite the Greek & Hebrew — whether it be manuscripts or dictionaries. The very same field of study which enabled the KJV translators to produce the KJV is the very same field of study which must be wholly ignored if an Onlyist position is to be maintained at any length.

            It’s too bad too; being free to study the preserved Word of God in its original languages without being tied down to a translation (nothing was ever promised regarding translations in the Scriptures…) is a liberating experience indeed.

            • mitchell says:

              And if one wants to argue that there are errors in the modern versions and so they must be rejected, the KJV has been shown repeatedly to be erroneous in some areas, not the least of which is the needless inclusion of 1 John 5:7 which is only there because a Roman Catholic (Erasmus) lost a bet.

              What a lie. In fact Dean Burgon has so amply defended the inclusion of this passage that I cannot except to believe you ahve never read the Revision Revised or The Secret Spanking of Wescott and Hort.

              Wow, what blows me away is the utter falsehoods that KJB preferred crowd will continue to suggest as gospel truth.

              Also I was wondering why you suggested in your rebuttal to me that I might have “cut and pasted” my argumet from some other source. I merely said that it was in reply to another ill informed “scholar” that asked endless straw man questions much like are found here.

              My sole point wasn’t to “win” the challenge, as that would be impossible according to you, so your preconcieved ideas have already closed your mind to any evidence, ever. All evidence to the contrary of your own personal beliefs will never be accepted. It’s all amoot point and the cacaphony of yet another KJB only argument is just another example of a pride filled young man wet behind the ears who isn’t going to be taught anything. My point was to demostrate as I have many times in the past, that no “preference” only crowd will ever own their own statement of faith. Ever. You claim to believe the “Bible is the word of God”, yet when “the Bible” is quoted to define itself, you run to the shelter of your psuedo-scholarship, which is more or less regurgitated material you have gleaned from other anti KJB sites in your so few years.

              I am still bored to tears with the unoriginal rebuttals that have been the bread and butter of a men (or should I say, young children) whose opinions are the final authority and thereby making themselves god in matters of submission to God’s word.

              What a another waste of band width. Just glad it isn’t my dime.

              Have fun kiddies.

              Just another KJB fan.

              • Rick Beckman says:
                Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

                I will reply to your latest comment while I have time:

                And if one wants to argue that there are errors in the modern versions and so they must be rejected, the KJV has been shown repeatedly to be erroneous in some areas, not the least of which is the needless inclusion of 1 John 5:7 which is only there because a Roman Catholic (Erasmus) lost a bet.

                What a lie. In fact Dean Burgon has so amply defended the inclusion of this passage that I cannot except to believe you ahve never read the Revision Revised or The Secret Spanking of Wescott and Hort.

                Wow, what blows me away is the utter falsehoods that KJB preferred crowd will continue to suggest as gospel truth.

                Your method of debating needs work; it seems you would prefer to hurl insults and make references to works I may or may not have heard of — how would you know if you aren’t taking the time to actually discuss the matter? — rather than dealing with my arguments and countering them intelligently.

                I would have thought that if King James Onlyism is such a firm Bible doctrine, it would be very simple to swiftly defend it but if this challenge is showing anything it is that untruths are — as they always have been — indefensible.

                Regarding 1 John 5:7, however…

                When Erasmus published the first edition of his Latin translation, he did not include 1 John 5:7 simply because he could find it in no Greek manuscripts; rather, it was only to be found in the Latin Vulgate. It is an irresponsible translator who will take the words of another translation over the words of the primary language source material!

                Erasmus was accused by some of promoting Arianism by excluding such a powerful reference to the Trinity, which is of course the same argument used by King James Onlyists today. (One wonders why, if Erasmus or the modern versions were/are supposedly promoting Arianism, the many other references to the Trinity and the Deity of Christ aren’t removed as well.)

                Erasmus challenged one of these objectors, a Mr. Edward Lee, that if Lee could come up with just one Greek text containing the Johannine comma (1 John 5:7, as the Vulgate or the KJV have it), Erasmus would include it in his translation.

                Erasmus was presented with one manuscript, an Irish manuscript known as the Codex Montfortianus, though this manuscript is dubious, probably being created in the house of the Grey Friars, the provincial of which (Henry Standish) was an enemy of Erasmus.

                Indeed, in Erasmus’ Annotations, he remarked concerning the Johannine comma, “I have restored the text … so as not to give anyone an occasion to slander.” He went on to say, “But to return to the business of the reading: from our remarks it is clear that the Greek and Latin manuscripts vary, and in my opinion there is no danger in accepting either reading.”

                Let us assume that the Johannine comma was present when John penned his first epistle 1900+ years ago; if that is true, then we must assume that such an important passage can disappear completely from the Greek line of manuscripts without so much as a trace in centuries’ worth of manuscripts.

                That is an incredibly odd view of the preservation of the Scriptures, that God would preserve His Word without a statement for such a long time only to add it back in there just a few hundred years ago.

                For more information, see The King James Only Controversy by James R. White.

                Also I was wondering why you suggested in your rebuttal to me that I might have “cut and pasted” my argumet from some other source. I merely said that it was in reply to another ill informed “scholar” that asked endless straw man questions much like are found here.

                You did cut and paste your argument; you may have been its author, but you still cut and pasted it, leaving all the irrelevant stuff intact.

                My sole point wasnÃ’t to “win” the challenge,

                I’m certain enough that King James Onlyism is not a biblical doctrine (there were orthodox Christians for 1700 or so years without it!) that I can confidently say there is no danger of a King James Onlyist winning the challenge, anymore than an Arian or Mormon ably defending their faith from the Scriptures.

                as that would be impossible according to you, so your preconcieved ideas have already closed your mind to any evidence, ever.

                Your preconceived ideas about the KJV have closed your mind to the evidence, brother; it is far more common for Onlyists to ignore the manuscript evidence in favor of a translation’s rendering than it is for a non-Onlyist to ignore the manuscript evidence. God preserved His word that we might make use of it, not place our faith in errant translations.

                All evidence to the contrary of your own personal beliefs will never be accepted.

                Never is such a long time, so I must point out that I was once a firm believer in King James Onlyism. I know all the arguments which is why I made this challenge in confidence. I’ve been on that side of the fence.

                It’s all amoot point and the cacaphony of yet another KJB only argument is just another example of a pride filled young man wet behind the ears who isn’t going to be taught anything.

                Thanks for resorting to personal attacks; I’m hoping that other readers will take notice of this and realize that defending the KJV-Only position is so difficult that attacks upon my person must take its place. You could have chosen to be friendly and dealt specifically with facts, but you did not, most likely doing great harm to whatever defenses you are mounting.

                My point was to demostrate as I have many times in the past, that no “preference” only crowd will ever own their own statement of faith. Ever. You claim to believe the “Bible is the word of God”, yet when “the Bible” is quoted to define itself, you run to the shelter of your psuedo-scholarship, which is more or less regurgitated material you have gleaned from other anti KJB sites in your so few years.

                Ah, more personal attacks.

                If you were a Latin speaker hundreds of years ago, reading the Vulgate, could you establish King James Onlyism as a biblical doctrine? If you are a Spanish speaker and have a Spanish version of the Bible, could you establish King James Onlyism as a doctrine?

                If a doctrine depends on the language you speak, the time in which you live, etc., you are not believing a Bible doctrine.

                I like that your definition of “pseudo-scholarship” seems to mean “using the available manuscripts — i.e., the Word of God as it has been preserved through the ages — to determine what a proper translation is.”

                Contrariwise, I assume that “scholarship” then means accepting the work of translators who would wholly disagree with you.

                I am still bored to tears with the unoriginal rebuttals that have been the bread and butter of a men (or should I say, young children) whose opinions are the final authority and thereby making themselves god in matters of submission to God’s word.

                Still more personal attacks! Such superior argumentation is clearly no match for me; oh the writhing pain of defeat!

                …or not.

                I also like that you used “young children” as an almost derogatory term, despite Jesus’ special adoration of children plus Paul’s encouragement to Timothy, who likely was around my age at that time, that youth does not matter and should not despised.

                Someone with such a high respect of his translation ought to be at least familiar with what it says about a subject before making such insults. ;)

                I’m sorry you’re bored; might I recommend constructing real arguments rather than insulting?

                I would also like to know how I am denying God’s word by making Scripture Alone my sole rule for doctrine?

                What a another waste of band width. Just glad it isn’t my dime.

                Have fun kiddies.

                Just another KJB fan.

                Another insult. What a way to say…

                ..good bye and thanks for reading. :)

                • mitchell says:

                  And if one wants to argue that there are errors in the modern versions and so they must be rejected, the KJV has been shown repeatedly to be erroneous in some areas, not the least of which is the needless inclusion of 1 John 5:7 which is only there because a Roman Catholic (Erasmus) lost a bet.

                  Seems the topic at hand has gone on down the road as they say, now it has ‘evolved” to a full feldegd hash slinging festival with the usual cliched ‘errors” in the KJB.

                  1 John 5, the Johanine Comma, now Easter in Acts 12, then what…? So the challenge was really an honest attemtp to “sahre” and learn? hahaha, yeah that’s rich.

                  So, the Comma was extant long before Erasmus, and the intimation that God had taken it out, (as you fiegnedly suppose) and then later restored it. Hmm, human fallacy and illogical. The point of whether or not Erasmus determined it belonged is a moot point really. We really can’t concern ourselves with the thought process of Erasmus, and as you say, we ought to intelligently look at the mss evidence for a reading and then decide, we ought to do just that.

                  Codex Ravianus and what is known as No. 61 both are Greek mss that contain the comma.

                  It is also found in marginal notes of two other Greek mss, 88 and 629 repectfully.

                  Cyprian the church father quoted it a generation before Sinaiticus and vaticanus ever saw the light of day.

                  Edward F. Hills cites numerous other church fathers as source references to the early exsitence of the comma.

                  It is found in Old Latin mss (MS R – to be exact).

                  But wait, with out the comma the gender of the nouns do not match as found in the NASV, which in the words of Doctor Ruckman, s comes from the “mongrel text” Nestles-Hort-Aland-Metzger ecclectic text.

                  Are we being more polite now?

                  So, I gather that your jab at the comma was actually a smoke screen or was it a well placed bluff after knowing the sources I quoted, perhaps hoping no one else knew they existed?

                  Erasmus’ placing of the comma really has no bearing on the KJB. The KJB translators had all the material extant without Erasmus’s text. So we’ll never really know if it is in the KJB because of Erasmus’ caving in to a smart welp like Mr Lee.

                  “When Erasmus published the first edition of his Latin translation, he did not include 1 John 5:7 simply because he could find it in no Greek manuscripts; rather, it was only to be found in the Latin Vulgate. It is an irresponsible translator who will take the words of another translation over the words of the primary language source material!”

                  So, your opinion as to whether or not the comma was available only in the Latin Vulgatte is questionable at best, at wrost, well it could be considered wilfull falsehood. It was available in the OLD LATIN, not to be confused with Jerome’s vulgate. It was available in the church father’s hundreds of years before Erasmus was ever born. And “horror” it is in fact found in 4 Greek mss!!!

                  I’ll try to be more civil. If you try to be more honest.

                  Bye,bye and thanks for reading!

                  • Rick Beckman says:
                    Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

                    Mitch! Glad to have you back; I got the impression from your last post that you were gonna do a hit & run and disappear! I’m glad I was mistaken.

                    Seems the topic at hand has gone on down the road as they say, now it has “evolved” to a full feldegd hash slinging festival with the usual cliched “errors” in the KJB.

                    A clichéd error is still an error. I’m not for sure what you mean by a “hash slinging festival,” though. Is this another attempt to insult myself & Jeff? I’m really not for sure.

                    1 John 5, the Johanine Comma, now Easter in Acts 12, then what…? So the challenge was really an honest attemtp to “sahre” and learn? hahaha, yeah that’s rich.

                    Yes, we are attempting to share & learn, and we would love to learn; however, you have posted very little of substance, preferring instead generalities & insults.

                    So, the Comma was extant long before Erasmus, and the intimation that God had taken it out, (as you fiegnedly suppose) and then later restored it. Hmm, human fallacy and illogical. The point of whether or not Erasmus determined it belonged is a moot point really. We really can’t concern ourselves with the thought process of Erasmus, and as you say, we ought to intelligently look at the mss evidence for a reading and then decide, we ought to do just that.

                    No, understanding why Erasmus included 1 John 5:7 is very important — if he hadn’t included it in his version, the King James Version translators would not have included it either!

                    The manuscript evidence, which you are now willing to discuss (something some King James Onlyists consider to be a rejection of the authority of the Bible without question), includes understanding the church history surrounding those manuscripts. Erasmus played an important role leading up to the translation of the KJV, and so we must understand him if we are to understand the issues that provided the “back-story” of sorts to the translation of your preferred version.

                    Codex Ravianus and what is known as No. 61 both are Greek mss that contain the comma.

                    Unfortunately, I have only been able to find mention of Codex Ravianus and the Johannine comma from KJV-Onlyist sources; this leads me to believe either that the manuscript is so unreliable that no one else has cared to talk about it or that it is fabricated and thus unreliable evidence, clung to only by those who think it supports their position.

                    However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to produce a neutral source of information regarding the Codex Ravianus, including information about its dating, its general reliability, and that it contains the Johannine comma.

                    It is also found in marginal notes of two other Greek mss, 88 and 629 repectfully.

                    Actually, that is a good argument for it not being part of the Scriptures; a common explanation for the Johannine comma’s presence in a few manuscripts is that marginal notes over time became merged into the text itself.

                    Cyprian the church father quoted it a generation before Sinaiticus and vaticanus ever saw the light of day.

                    Unless it can be shown that manuscripts from Cyprian’s time contained the Johannine comma, at best all you have is his using the phrase; indeed, his phrase could have later become the marginal notes you mentioned, which later on became part of the text itself.

                    That would explain the manuscript evidence much better than assuming it always has been there. If it was, I’m sure it would have come in handy in debating the Arians early in church history, yet no church father quoted it against them. The most likely explanation is that there was no Johannine comma in the Scriptures to quote from.

                    Edward F. Hills cites numerous other church fathers as source references to the early exsitence of the comma.

                    The usage of the phrase by the church fathers is only a quote of the Scriptures if it can be shown to have existed within the Scriptures at the time those fathers were writing; as of yet, nothing you have presented accomplishes that.

                    It is found in Old Latin mss (MS R – to be exact).

                    The Vulgate is also an early Latin translation; it also contains the Johannine comma.

                    Such does nothing to prove it was in the earliest Greek manuscripts, however.

                    But wait, with out the comma the gender of the nouns do not match as found in the NASV, which in the words of Doctor Ruckman, s comes from the “mongrel text” Nestles-Hort-Aland-Metzger ecclectic text.

                    I have never heard anyone cite Ruckman before; his scholarship doesn’t get much respect even from most KJV Onlyists. I don’t give much credence to his views regarding the manuscripts; he’s forced to believe what he did because he held to the idea that that the KJV was advanced revelation. As such, anything that was evidence against the KJV had to be demonized.

                    Such is not scholarship, however.

                    Are we being more polite now?

                    So, I gather that your jab at the comma was actually a smoke screen or was it a well placed bluff after knowing the sources I quoted, perhaps hoping no one else knew they existed?

                    My information concerning the Johannine comma comes from a man who likely knows the issues surrounding the translation of the Bible, its preservation, the manuscripts involved, and the teachings of King James Onlyism better than Peter Ruckman, David Cloud, Jack Chick, Terry Watkins, Gail Riplinger, you, me, and several others combined. If the sources you cited were firm evidence for the inclusion of the Johannine comma, he would know about it and would have made note of it in his work, The King James Only Controversy. If his information is wrong, he needs rebuked for teaching it. I do hope that you contact him as he can explain the issue much better and likely with much more graciousness than I have. He also isn’t nearly as young as I am, which may be a plus in conversing with him. :)

                    Erasmus’ placing of the comma really has no bearing on the KJB. The KJB translators had all the material extant without Erasmus’ text. So we’ll never really know if it is in the KJB because of Erasmus’ caving in to a smart welp like Mr Lee.

                    You call a whelp the man who defended the inclusion of the Johannine comma, an inclusion which must be defended according to KJV-Onlyism? What does it take to earn your respect, sir?

                    As for what it has to do with the KJV, was it not translated from the Received Text? And did not Erasmus play an important role in producing the Received Text? So it would seem.

                    “When Erasmus published the first edition of his Latin translation, he did not include 1 John 5:7 simply because he could find it in no Greek manuscripts; rather, it was only to be found in the Latin Vulgate. It is an irresponsible translator who will take the words of another translation over the words of the primary language source material!”

                    So, your opinion as to whether or not the comma was available only in the Latin Vulgatte is questionable at best, at wrost, well it could be considered wilfull falsehood. It was available in the OLD LATIN, not to be confused with Jerome’s vulgate. It was available in the church father’s hundreds of years before Erasmus was ever born. And “horror” it is in fact found in 4 Greek mss!!!

                    Non-biased sources please, regarding those Greek manuscripts. Regarding the quotes & Latin references, those are far from enough to establish something as having been penned by the Apostle John.

                    I’ll try to be more civil. If you try to be more honest.

                    I have been nothing but honest with you, sir. If you could prove that I am knowingly presenting a falsehood to you, then yes I would be more honest. But from my point of view, I can’t be any more honest than I already have been.

                    Have a good night.

                  • Justin says:

                    Mitch, could you please explain to me why God would wait until the 1600s to give Christians “the” perfect Bible, leaving at least 100 generations of Christians without it?

                    Further, I would ask you to please show me, using the KJV, where it says that Christians are only allowed to use the KJV. Because I use the Bible as my final authority on every matter of doctrine, not men’s teachings. If KJV-Onlyism is such vital doctrine that would cause Christians to part ways, then surely the Bible will clearly teach it. If, however, you cannot provide me with a single verse that says something akin to, “Thou shalt only use the King James Version,” I can only dismiss your teaching as blatant and wanton heresy, and then say good-day and God have mercy on your soul. I’m here to learn what the Bible says about itself, and if it should say that the KJV is the only translation we must use, then that is fine and dandy and I’ll get right on purchasing one. But, until then, I can only believe you to be a false teacher and I ask you to repent.

                    You provide plenty of arguments (which Rick has so effectually dismantled), but I don’t want to hear human-logic based arguments concerning what the Word of God says. I want to hear what the Bible says about itself.

                    -Justin

                    • mitchell says:

                      Further, I would ask you to please show me, using the KJV, where it says that Christians are only allowed to use the KJV. Because I use the Bible as my final authority on every matter of doctrine, not men’s teachings. If KJV-Onlyism is such vital doctrine that would cause Christians to part ways, then surely the Bible will clearly teach it. If, however, you cannot provide me with a single verse that says something akin to, “Thou shalt only use the King James Version,” I can only dismiss your teaching as blatant and wanton heresy, and then say good-day and God have mercy on your soul. I,m here to learn what the Bible says about itself, and if it should say that the KJV is the only translation we must use, then that is fine and dandy and I’ll get right on purchasing one. But, until then, I can only believe you to be a false teacher and I ask you to repent.

                      You provide plenty of arguments (which Rick has so effectually dismantled), but I don’t want to hear human-logic based arguments concerning what the Word of God says. I WANT TO HEAR WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT ITSELF.
                      (caps mine)______________________________________________________________

                      I did post what the Bible says about itself. But as I also posted you wouldn’t own it. Ya see, falsehood is rampant on the anti only side of anything. Men will always want to be the final authority in matters of faith. It’s easy to say, your a heretic, yet I can harldy believe that a belief in the preservation of God’s words is heresy. He said his words would be error free, true, perfect and preserved or didn’t you get that when you studied “the Bible.”.

                      If you agree with that statement, can you hand me a copy of said error free word of God? And that’s where the all the waffling comes in, when asked to provide said error free word of God, we will get a lot of rhetoric, but sadly, no Bible that I can hold in my hands.

                      I never said that a Christian can never use anything but a KJB, brother, you are free to use whatever floats your boat. It’s a free world, I won’t judge you for that.

                      ____________________________________________________________

                      I have never said that the word of God didn’t exist before 1611, so the parroted question is a moot point for me. In fact I find it so childish that I can’t believe men still toss it out as if it is worthy of discussion.
                      _______________________________________________________________

                      Rick, can you answer me if you’ve ever read John Burgon’s Revision Revised? Have you ever read his treatise on the Last 12 verses of Mark? Have you ever been introduced to any of Edward Hills’ books? Are you familiar with Robert Wilson? Have you read Hoskier? Just wondering.

                      I’m just trying to get an understanding of your understanding of the issues that are underlying in this endless debate of where is the word of God?

                      I mean if you expect me to cower before James White, you really are mistaken beloved. I was reading James White about 15 years ago on the web before it was “instant experts by google searching” long ago. Back on a “Firehouse” bulliten board, perhaps you can ask him about those “good old days”. Back when Steve Adair and others had him for lunch quite often. yeah, they were rough on him, even un-Christian at times, yet then and still, he couldn’t bring anything new to the table. James White is a hack brother, his stuff was stale over a hundred years ago. I was hoping to hear some new material. I guess I’ll be disappointed.

                      Back to the Johaninne Comma.

                      So, you’re still saying that there was no greek mss that had the reading? You’re still saying that if it wasn’t for Erasmus we wouldn’t have it? Then pray tell, how did it get into the Bishop’s Bible? How is it that I can open my facimile of the Geneva Bible and read it? Hmm… someone isn’t telling the truth are they.

                      As far as providing proof material for the fathers, that is why I asked you if you’ve ever read Burgon. I mean, I can’t hardly believe that even James White would dare to question the integrity of that great scholar who personally collated and cataloged thousands of the mss that according to you, said existence is questionable since you’ve never heard of them.

                      A simple “wilkepedia” or whatever it is would have given you enough stuff on the Codex Ravianus (you know, it also goes by another name, but I’ll let you go dig that info up on your own), the 88 and the 629 (a transcript).

                      I find your rejection of this easy to find information disingenious to be frank. This is old hat info that’s been around a lot longer than James White. He really is not the final word on things as I don’t accept his scholar status any more than you accept Doctor (yes, dear heart 3 earned doctorates) Ruckman’s.

                      How about Tertullian.

                      He said, “Qui tres unum sunt non unon quomodo dictum est, Ego es Pater unum…” (fill in the rest).

                      How about Cyprian.

                      “And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written, the three are One.”

                      (I have to ask you where did he read that the three are one?)

                      We have witness to your slant on the truth, and your dishonest equation of the latin vulgate to the Old Latin is a riot. The Old Latin is the Waldenses Bible friend. Not Jerome’s catholic flavored tripe.

                      Wow, I just can’t believe that your fans are still holding on to you as a fountain of truth when the cold hard facts prove you to be ignorant and ill-equipped. I guess we all love the underdog.

                      How about Priscillian.

                      He is quoted in the Corpus Scriptorium Ecclesiasiticorum Latinorum, Academia Litteranum Vindobenesis.

                      He lost his head over this “heresey” back in 380 something.

                      How about the African Bishops who quoted the “comma” back in 5th Century.

                      You can find that information in the Patrologiae Cursus Completus, (latin series) by Minge, under the heading Vigilius Tapensis (vol 62, col. 243)

                      But I guess you knew all that right? Or were you just pretending to have the facts brother?

                      _______________________________________________________________

                      Some one wants to study the Alexandrian text? Why? I mean I have to ask, why? Not only does the text have many spurious alterations, like Lk. 10:41,42; Lk. 12:31; Lk 15:21; Lk. 23:35; Jn. 1:15; Jn. 8:39; Jn. 10:29 and not to mention the heretical readings found in the Alexadrian mss like Mk. 1:1; Lk. 23:42; Jn. 3:13; Jn 9:35; Rom. 14:10; 1 Tim. 3:16…

                      But Rick is right, we should move that over to another forum, it is not convenient to bring up the defects of the MV’s underlying text is it?

                      You boys have a good night, look forward to hearing from you again.

                      Thanks for reading! :-)

                    • Justin says:

                      Mitchell,

                      “I never said that a Christian can never use anything but a KJB, brother, you are free to use whatever floats your boat.”

                      Is that not the entire point of KJV-ONLYISM? To use only the KJV?

                      “I did post what the Bible says about itself. But as I also posted you wouldn’t own it.”

                      No, see, what you did is you posted verses that said God’s Word would be kept perfect, not the KJV. You’re here to defend the KJV, not the Bible.

                      “It’s easy to say, your a heretic, yet I can harldy believe that a belief in the preservation of God’s words is heresy.”

                      And I think Rick has done a pretty good job at showing you that the KJV is much less than perfect.

                      Yes, God will keep His Word pure, IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. Not in fallible translations of those manuscripts.

                      “If you agree with that statement, can you hand me a copy of said error free word of God?”

                      Nope, because there’s this thing called the internet that seperates the two of us. So, unless there’s a new feature that allows for body parts to just transport through the moniter, I think I cannot.

                      However, I’m sure if you go to the original manuscripts in which the Word of God is written, you’ll find it error free.

                      “And that’s where the all the waffling comes in, when asked to provide said error free word of God, we will get a lot of rhetoric, but sadly, no Bible that I can hold in my hands.”

                      So, for lack of a better Word, you decide to just stick with the KJV and call it inerrant?

                    • mitchell says:

                      “I never said that a Christian can never use anything but a KJB, brother, you are free to use whatever floats your boat.”

                      Is that not the entire point of KJV-ONLYISM? To use only the KJV?

                      “I did post what the Bible says about itself. But as I also posted you wouldn’t own it.”

                      No, see, what you did is you posted verses that said God’s Word would be kept perfect, not the KJV. You’re here to defend the KJV, not the Bible.

                      “It’s easy to say, your a heretic, yet I can harldy believe that a belief in the preservation of God’s words is heresy.”

                      And I think Rick has done a pretty good job at showing you that the KJV is much less than perfect.

                      Yes, God will keep His Word pure, IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. Not in fallible translations of those manuscripts.

                      “If you agree with that statement, can you hand me a copy of said error free word of God?”

                      Nope, because there’s this thing called the internet that seperates the two of us. So, unless there’s a new feature that allows for body parts to just transport through the moniter, I think I cannot.

                      However, I’m sure if you go to the original manuscripts in which the Word of God is written, you’ll find it error free.

                      “And that’s where the all the waffling comes in, when asked to provide said error free word of God, we will get a lot of rhetoric, but sadly, no Bible that I can hold in my hands.”

                      So, for lack of a better Word, you decide to just stick with the KJV and call it inerrant?”

                      _________________________________________________________________

                      Wow , Justin, and you think I got problems? In effect, according to you there is no perfect word of God on the face of the earth. But the Bible says, that there is in fact the promise of preservation.

                      Uhmm, let’s see, Justin, some guy on a blog says there is no perfect word of God extant, but the Bible says, that not one of His words will perish, let’s see, some guy named Justin… the Bible…Justin, some guy…The Bible….

                      I wonder who I should listen to? This is really tough, but I think I’ll go with … The Bible. Sorry guy named Justin, but your word over the word of God just ain’t gonna get it. I’m sure you’ll understand.

                      Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

                      Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

                      Mat 26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

                      Mar 14:49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.

                      Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

                      (That last verse alone proves your position untenable and false, the roll that Jesus just read from was in no way an “original”, yet He, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world, said it was scripture.)

                      In fact I challenge you or Rick to show that anywhere the word scripture in the Bible occurs it refers to the original. That is a man made teaching. That’s what you have when you follow men, no error free Bible. Anywhere. Which according to the Bible, the Bible you falsely claim to believe, is a false teaching and not to be heeded at all.

                      You original onlyism is a heresy, as it cannot be produced.

                      Now, I quoted the Bible several times that said it is by definition true.
                      You however claim that it is not. You are the false teacher, not me.

                      As of yet, Rick remains speechless on the real evidence of whether or not 1 John 5:7,8 belongs to the Bible or not. As long as you both continue to follow man made doctrines such as fallible scriptures, error laden Bibles, original onlyism, you both remain under the heading of “unbelief”.

                      Your smart aleck response about the physical aspects of the web albiet pathetically funny, the fact remains, if I was sitting in the same room as you, you couldn’t produce anything that is a Bible according to the Bible’s own definition. Neither could you Rick. You’re both parroting a hack. A scholar whose only opinion that matters is his own.

                      Look what the Bible says about scripture.

                      Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

                      Mat 5:18 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.

                      (The earth was still here the last time I checked, so much for your original onlyism theory)

                      Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

                      According to your false teaching, this would be impossible, since no one can really say what the real originals say.

                      Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

                      Now, the only place I can check that statement against is in a translation. Since there is no original anywhere. Guess we’ll never know. But hey, as long as I got Rick to do my thinking for me, I’ll be alright! Go Rick!

                      Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

                      Ya think that Jesus was quoting the original? I wonder if He had a copy on Him?

                      2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
                      2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

                      See those “Holy scriptures” in verse 15? I can guarantee you that they weren’t originals Justin. That’s a pipe dream trying to divert the attention from the real problem you have. No scriptures.

                      Did you see the perfect present tense of the word “IS”, not was? Ya see, again, your statements find no Biblical support at all. The word scripture never, not once, not ever refers to the original.

                      1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

                      There it is in all its plainness. You Justin have said some things that are excursions into cloud land. Whereas you said that there is no infallible scripture, the Bible says that there is.

                      Yet you say you believe the Bible, but when confronted with what the Bible actually says, you waffle. Just I like I said you would.

                      I’ll never get anywhere with either of you. You’re both too filled with yoursleves to actually allow the Bible to say what it says.

                      So where’s the verse that says no translation can be inspired Justin? Are you listening to yourself?

                      According to that faulty logic we have to discard every quote from the OT found in the NT since they are tranlsations from Hebrew to Greek.

                      Better yet, you keep following those men like Rick, they’ll tell you what to believe, since you really don’t believe what the Bible says.

                      Thanks for reading! Smile and have a nice day!

                    • Justin says:

                      And yet you still refuse to give a verse from the Bible that says the KJV is the perfect Word of God. How surprising.

                      “In effect, according to you there is no perfect word of God on the face of the earth.”

                      Nice twist of my words. :) But, nowhere will you find that I even so much as hinted to that. I said that the manuscripts in which the Bible was written are the only perfect Word of God. The KJV, although good, is not perfect.

                      “But the Bible says, that there is in fact the promise of preservation.”

                      I agree. However, I only believe that the Bible has been preserved in the manuscripts, not in the translations. We can always go back to the manuscripts and say, “Yup, here’s what God said.”

                      “Uhmm, let’s see, Justin, some guy on a blog says there is no perfect word of God extant, but the Bible says, that not one of His words will perish, let’s see, some guy named Justin… the Bible…Justin, some guy…The Bible.”

                      I wonder who I should listen to? This is really tough, but I think I’ll go with … The Bible. Sorry guy named Justin, but your word over the word of God just ain’t gonna get it. I’m sure you’ll understand.”

                      Since I’ve shown you that I said there is a perfect Word of God, just not that the KJV alone is it, seems to dismiss your pleasent taunt.

                      And likewise, I take the Word of God as it stands: Nowhere does it say, “The KJV is perfect” or “Christians should read the KJV alone” or something to that effect. This is what you, and others like you, are espousing. So while you can keep repeating that I believe there is no perfect Word of God available, you still fail to prove that I, as a Christian, must only use the KJV.

                      I’m sure you’ll understand, too.

                      “That last verse alone proves your position untenable and false, the roll that Jesus just read from was in no way an ‘original’, yet He, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world, said it was scripture.”

                      Ah, but only because we are not dealing with a translation of the scroll or a version of the scroll. It was in Hebrew, the original language in which it was written, and a language in which Jesus would have been very fluent. Good try, though. I’ll bet you really thought you had me there. ;)

                      “In fact I challenge you or Rick to show that anywhere the word scripture in the Bible occurs it refers to the original. That is a man made teaching. That’s what you have when you follow men, no error free Bible. Anywhere. Which according to the Bible, the Bible you falsely claim to believe, is a false teaching and not to be heeded at all.”

                      Since you already believe it to be a man-made teaching, and hence false, any effort or attempt to do so would be blown aside with another argument or witty comment, most usually attacking the character of the opponent and not dealing specifically with the challenge at hand.

                      “You original onlyism is a heresy, as it cannot be produced.”

                      Original onlyism? Since when have I ever said that? No, see, unlike your ilk, I have enough confidence in translations that I can actually read the NASB, ESV, NKJV, NIV, and not feel threatened. And if and when I find an error such a translation, which is bound to occur because fallible humans will make that mistake, then I know I can go back to the manuscripts and find out what is actually being said.

                      “As long as you both continue to follow man made doctrines such as fallible scriptures, error laden Bibles, original onlyism, you both remain under the heading of ‘unbelief’.”

                      Yes, because I believe that God can work through mistakes made by humans means I’m an unbeliever, pagan, heathen. :)

                      But hey, at least I’m not claiming that the KJV is the only way to go, because then we would actually be listening to heresy of the richest and purest kind.

                      “Your smart aleck response about the physical aspects of the web albiet pathetically funny, the fact remains, if I was sitting in the same room as you, you couldn’t produce anything that is a Bible according to the Bible’s own definition.”

                      And I don’t believe you could either, because you have failed to prove that the KJV is perfect in every aspect.

                      “You’re both parroting a hack. A scholar whose only opinion that matters is his own.”

                      Matthew 5:11, “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.”

                      Blessed am I? Suh-weet!

                      “Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken.”

                      John 10:35, “When she labeled us gods, from whence the word of the LORD came to us, the Scripture mustn’t be broken.”

                      Oops, sorry, I seem to have broken Scripture. Mitchell, yes, you’ve proven that the Word of God cannot be lost. But, that doesn’t mean translations will be perfect, and that certainly doesn’t mean the KJV is perfect.

                      “But hey, as long as I got Rick to do my thinking for me, I’ll be alright! Go Rick!”

                      As long as you “got” Rick to do your thinking? :) So, while you choose to defend an unteneble belief, in the meantime you’ll be taking potshots, with bad grammer, at my capabilities? I see.

                      “Ya think that Jesus was quoting the original? I wonder if He had a copy on Him?”

                      And you think He had the KJV, since, OBVIOUSLY, that is the only perfect and preserved Word of God? :)

                      “That’s a pipe dream trying to divert the attention from the real problem you have.”

                      And now we enter into some more personal insults that just end up making me more and more blessed. Thanks, Mitchell!

                      “Yet you say you believe the Bible, but when confronted with what the Bible actually says, you waffle.”

                      Ah, but you see, you’ve only defended what I already believe. You’ve nowhere given me any defense that the KJV is the only translation to be used. I think it’s you that’s waffling.

                      “I’ll never get anywhere with either of you.”

                      Well, I’m glad you’re putting in the extra effort. Your insults just compel me to listen all the more. ;)

                      “You’re both too filled with yoursleves to actually allow the Bible to say what it says.”

                      Oh no, I let the Bible speak for itself. I just don’t assume that, because it’s meant to be kept perfect, means that the KJV is that only perfect translation.

                      “Are you listening to yourself?”

                      According to you, that’s all I listen to. ;)

                      “According to that faulty logic we have to discard every quote from the OT found in the NT since they are tranlsations from Hebrew to Greek.”

                      Not so. The authors of the New Testament were under direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit. The translators of the KJV were not. You fail to see such a clear distinction.

                      ~~~

                      So, let me sum up the entire conversation thus far: You cannot biblically defend that the KJV is the only perfect and preserved Word of God, so you’ll deviate and critique Rick’s and my character, all the while quoting Scripture we in no way disagree with.

                      During all of this, you’ll claim that you don’t believe in KJVO, which is most odd because you just so happen to be in the KJVO Challenge, a challenge for those who believe that the KJV is the only inspired translation.

                      Afterwards, you’ll go for another assualt on the credibility of Rick and myself, and then claim yourself victorious.

                      Good luck with that tactic. While you go on prattling about KJVO, I’ll be here, trusting that God can preserve His message even in alleged faulty translations.

                • Jeff says:

                  Here’s an article about Passover from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover), which states quite clearly, “Passover is a 7-day holiday”.

                  “One wonders why, if Erasmus or the modern versions were/are supposedly promoting Arianism, the many other references to the Trinity and the Deity of Christ aren’t removed as well.”

                  I have wondered that as well. In the KJVO movement, when any non-KJV translation is critiqued, they often claim “the blood has been removed” or “the deity of Jesus has been removed”, and so on, and they all point to purposeful corruption (by the Alexandrian Cult). If this is the case, then why haven’t all references to the blood, to Jesus, etc… been removed.

                  If I were a translator for a new English translation, and I wanted to remove scriptural support for _____________ [fill in the blank] from this translation because I had some kind of evil motive, I wouldn’t just alter one verse. I would hardly call that quality corruption. I would alter all the verses.

                  Looks like someone didn’t meet their corruption quota on the modern versions, because the very same doctrines that are supported by the KJV can be supported by just about any faithful modern version out there.

                  • Rick Beckman says:
                    Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

                    Jeff: You must be new in confronting KJV-Onlyist arguments, no? :) The response you’ll likely get regarding the fact that not all of the verses supporting a doctrine are affected is that “Satan is subtle” or “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” They contend that if one verse here or there is altered, eventually a wholly impure version will spring up and be able to be used for a one-world-church or some such thing. They may tie that in to the worship of the Antichrist in the last days.

                    In other words, the same people who believe that God is capable of preserving His Word are the same people who are so quick to point out that it is being rapidly perverted. It really is quite amazing.

                    However, what is happening is that as time goes on we are actually gaining more and more manuscript evidence — we have *tons* more than was available in the early 1600s. With rare exception (such as the New World Translation) or in special circumstances (paraphrases and other admittedly non-literal versions) the goal of translators is to faithfully represent the available manuscript evidence in English.

                    There really is no grand plot to rewrite the Bible, but people love conspiracy theories.

                    It doesn’t help the matter that the KJV warns of those who would “corrupt the word of God” (2 Corinthians 2:17) rather than the more literal “peddle the word of God” or even “adulterate the word of God” or “retail the word of God,” according to Strong’s Concordance.

                    If defiling or ruining the Word of God was in view, the same word as used in Ephesians 4:22, Jude 1:10, Revelation 19:2 and several others would have made more sense, for it actually means “to corrupt, to destroy” according to Thayer’s Definition.

                    [/rambling]

                    Have a good night. :)

  3. mitchell says:

    (This was written in repsonse to some other hacks a while back who don’t believe what the Bible says about itself, so some references to other folks can be ignored, the gist of it though stands)

    Yes, let’s be good Bereans shall we?

    The collection of scriptures we commonly call “the word of God,” “the Bible,” (although no one pays much attention to articles these days), or other such nomenclatures contains within itself certain definitions. It carries within itself identifiable characteristics, affirmations, declarations and statements that announce to any one who cares exactly what the word of God is.

    Now, that being so, one can open up any “Bible” today and basically find out what the scriptures say they are, how they are to be treated, what qualifications need to be considered before they can meet the definition of scripture, and more importantly, God’s opinion about them. If one will look to the Bible, any Bible really, it will be readily evident that the scriptures are very identifiable, very easy to locate and in fact, it is not a very complicated matter at all.

    Today we have a new “trick” being put out by the parroting Alexandrian Cult that says, since there is no verse that says the KJB is the preserved inerrant word of God that any believer that holds to such a tenant is actually teaching heresy, adding to the word of God, and misinformed. I could just as easily say, show me one verse that uses the word “cat” in any Bible in any language, and thereby conclude that since you can’t, a “cat” is a heresy. Brethren, the logic is fouled, it is humanism and it is a sloppy approach to the word of God and of course, a by product of a faithless mind.

    Now, no Greek knowledge is needed, neither is a course in Hebrew, manuscript evidences, or any reading of Dr. Ruckman, or Doug Kutilek to try and advance some idea that hasn’t been thought of before. Listen, brethren, scholarship will not solve the problem. Both men mentioned above in their own rights have earned doctorates, written books, can both teach NT Greek at any college in the world and be found on par of any other professor there, they can both convince others that they are both right. So why aren’t they in agreement then? Points of view I suppose. But I am not subject, nor do I have to be subject to any point of view of any man. Be he a parroting prattling fool of either camp. You really need to get a hold of that.

    I am going to use some “valid versions” of the Bible to show that even by their own statements, their own translations, they all agree with what the word of God is. Then, accordingly I will demonstrate that by their own testimony they disqualify themselves from being called “the word of God”.

    Let’s see what “the Bible” says about itself.

    Psa 119:140 Thy word is very pure; Therefore thy servant loveth it.

    The American Standard Version says that the word of God is pure.

    Pro 30:5 Euery worde of God is pure: he is a shield to those, that trust in him.

    The Geneva Bible says that the word of God is pure.

    So, the word of God is pure. I don’t have any problem with that.

    Let’s go on shall we?

    Psa 12:6 (12:7) The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried by the fire, purged from the earth, refined seven times.

    That’s the Douay-Rheims. It says that it is pure. I mean it is claiming to be the Bible isn’t it? Therefore it (the D/R)claims to be pure.

    Psa 12:6 God’s words are pure words, Pure silver words refined seven times In the fires of his word-kiln, Pure on earth as well as in heaven.

    Wow, even “the Message” claims to be pure. Not only pure, but “pure silver words” whatever those are. Yet, without argument, that is what it claims to be. It (the Message) is claiming to be the word of God isn’t it?

    Now, that is just a few examples to show us what the word of God says about itself. It says that it is pure. Are we all in agreement?

    Well, what else does the Bible say about itself?

    Let’s see shall we?

    Isa 40:8 Flowers and grass fade away, but what our God has said will never change.

    Well, look at that. The Contemporary English Version says that the word of God shall never change. Can I assume that it is eternal then?

    Psa 119:89 Forever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven.

    The New American Standard Bible says that God’s word is somewhere and it is forever.

    Even the New World Translation says that “To time indefinite, O Jehovah, Your word is stationed in the heavens.” (robert, you still failed to demostrate why the NWT is disqualified as being a “valid version” except for the compelling argument that “you don’t like it”)

    Again, the Bible says that it [sic] the word of God is pure, and not only that, it is forever. It is by nature eternal.

    Psa 119:160 There is utter truth in all your laws; your decrees are eternal.

    Even as far as a The Living Bible is concerned, the word of God has an identifiable characteristic in that it is eternal.

    1Pe 1:23 For you have been born again, not by a seed that perishes but by one that cannot perish-by the living and everlasting word of God.

    This is the International Standard Version available in NT. It says as much as we would think. It also is in agreement that an identifiable trait of the word of God is its eternal nature. The “everlasting” word of God.

    1 Pe 1:25 But the word of our God endures for ever. And this is the very word which has been preached to you.

    George Lamsa is also in agreement according to his translation of the Peshitta. He obviously sees the same thing we are all seeing. No matter which Bible you look at, the word of God is identifiable by certain characteristics and attributes. It is pure. It is forever by nature.

    In addition to being pure and eternal, the word of God also says about itself:

    Psa 119:160 The sum of thy word is truth; And every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever.

    Again the American Standard Version. The word of God is true. I suppose that it should be without saying, but, we must derive our doctrine from the Bible right fellas? Wouldn’t want to teach any “new doctrine” or anything. I sure don’t want to be guilty of teaching something that the Bible doesn’t confirm. Do you?

    Psa 119:142 (118:142) iustitia tua iustitia in aeternum et lex tua veritas

    Hahaha. Are we having fun yet? I’ll wait for the real scholars to tell us what that says. Notice the 2 numbering systems? But, no matter. Even the Vulgate says that the word of God is true. So, we are forming some conclusions about the word of God. It is:

    1. Pure.
    2. Eternal.
    3. True.

    Any thing confusing about that? Any one care to disagree so far to the conclusions that we are making based upon the Bible and what it says about itself?

    Psa 19:8 The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul;

    There’s the Catholic Confraternity Bible that even has its Nihil Obstat of Stephen J. Hartdegen under the Imprimatur of Archbishop Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle DD.
    Pretty impressive huh?

    2Sa 22:31 Your way is perfect, LORD, and your word is correct. You are a shield for those who run to you for help.

    Another characteristic of the word of God is that it is correct. According to itself, anyways. What Bible was that? What’s it really matter; it’s the word of God right? I mean, who are you to say that it’s not? Who do you think you are; the 3rd member of the Trinity?

    So we are coming to some conclusions based upon what the Bible itself it is;

    1. Pure.
    2. Eternal.
    3. True.
    4. Correct.

    Now, let’s just stop there for a moment. I am trying to speak real slowly as if I am talking to kids, because the majority of Bible critics that I have talked to in my days are about as dumb as rocks when it comes to believing what they actually teach. They say a lot, they talk a lot, they quote a lot of sources, but rarely do they ever apply their own rhetoric to their own beliefs. I’ll prove it.

    So I am going along reading the word of God. And I have read over and again that there are some qualifying statements that the Bible makes about itself that no other book makes about itself. That alone puts the Bible in a different class of books that is entirely different from any other text. The Bible tells me that I can ascertain the word of God by looking to at least 4 qualifiers that God has given us to make sure we are not getting duped.

    My Bible says it is PURE.
    My Bible says it is ETERNAL.
    My Bible says it is TRUE.
    My Bible says it is CORRECT.

    What if I didn’t care to argue about every one of those characteristics that the Bible itself states clearly and unequivocally are attributes of the word of God, what if say, I only cared to look at 1 of the 4? Let’s look at TRUE. This stuff is fairly rudimental, but alas, it appears that the rudiments of what the Bible IS has escaped the scholarly element amongst us.

    Where is it? Who has it? When was it? Why is it? All of those questions are out of order until you find out what it is.

    The word of God in every place that claims to be the word of God says that it is true. That is simple enough. The minute I find an untruth in something that claims to be the word of God, I can with all assuredness discard that Bible as being an example of the word of God.

    I can already hear some of you children salivating, going over the so called “errors” of the KJB. You’ve already written your dissertation on why according to my own conclusion I am forced to discard the KJB as a Bible.

    You kids are really trying to get rid of that book aren’t you? You haven’t proved any error in the KJB. Rantycad, yells as loud as he can, EASTER is a provable error!! Says who? You? Who are you? Well, if that’s so, then discard the KJB. Why go on about it? If YOU think that it has an error, get rid of it. But, ya see, I DON’T think it is a provable error, in spite of the sloppy logic you’ve applied. I’ve read all that shinola before, and it didn’t convince me then, what makes you think it is going to shake me up now? I was rather convinced by the article I read about 15 years ago on the Easter issue. You came in too late. Your shinola is just more re-hashed trash that has been asked and answered. So we’re at cross roads aren’t we? You think that any Bible that suits your preferences is the word of God. I think that what the Bible says about itself is what makes finding God’s word a simple task. Find the book that claims to be God’s word and see if it has anything, anything at all that is untrue, and if it does, you can safely discard it.

    What does the nasb say in Mark 1:-1-3? Is it true? Just answer me yes or no, is it true? If it ain’t, discard it because it failed to meet the criteria put forth by the word of God itself.

    I didn’t ask you if it was in the Greek, or if your pet scholar has a reason it can say what it says. I asked you a simple question, is it true? No it is not. So move on, the nasb failed the word of God’s own built in qualifications for itself.

    Does the Peshitta in Mark 1:1-3 tell the truth? Yes or no. I didn’t ask you if it is found in a family of manuscripts or is in agreement with your pet school. I asked you simply enough, is it true? No. Discard it then. It isn’t the word of God according to the word of God.

    Does the Contemporary English Version tell the truth in Mark 1:1-3? Yes or no. No? Discard it then, it failed the test that the word of God has placed upon itself.

    Can you see which way this thing is going? After we line up all the versions that tell the truth in Mark 1:1-3, we get another question to see if they are telling the truth. On it goes.

    Manuscripts, lectionaries, church fathers, my favorite heretic, preacher, writer, dictionary or any other fool thing used to place the final consideration upon the preferences of the reader are of no consequence. You are arguing about the wrong junk. Is the book you got in your hand that claims to be a Bible telling the truth in every verse, every page, every statement that it makes? If not, then it fails the test of what God Himself said His word is.

    I am of the conviction that in the last 23 years of listening to both oral and written arguments both for and against that no one has shown me an error in the book I call the word of God. That’s why I still call it the word of God. That’s why I don’t call anything else the word of God. They may be Bibles, they may be translations, they may be a whole lot of stuff, but they ain’t the word of God according to the word of God.

    Can you prove me wrong on this? If you try, you’re arguing with the author of the word of God, not me. He is the one who said that His word is PURE, ETERNAL, TRUE and CORRECT. I didn’t say that, He did.

    Are you really serious that there are no verses in the book I hold in my hand that say I cannot prove what the word of God is and what it is not?
    Can you be trusted to teach the nursery since you can’t even teach us what the word of God says about itself?

    It’s simply a matter of elimination. God has a standard. He has said so in His Bible.

    You gotta be kidding. No verses. hahahahahhaha.

    • Rick Beckman says:
      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

      mitchell: I’ll respond to you, most likely tomorrow afternoon. I’m almost finished with it, but I need to get to bed for work tomorrow.

      I hope that your missions work in Mexico is going well. I took a few years of Spanish in high school — though I admittedly don’t remember much of the language as I never had much cause to use it often — and theirs is a fascinating culture, seemingly ripe with opportunities for Gospel presentations.

      God bless and good night.

      (Also, just as a heads up, I tend to get sarcastic in debates, but I never do so out of ill-will of any kind. I simply have fun and enjoy myself for the simple reason that I enjoy God and love talking about His word. I hope you can appreciate that and are able to read my reply — whenever it is posted (again, hopefully tomorrow) — in the lighthearted manner that it was written in. Thanks!

    • Rick Beckman says:
      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

      Mitchell, I put together a reply to you which you can read here.

    • Yung says:

      Good post Mitchell. Since two contradictory statements can not both be true, and all of the versions as well as the one true Book contradict each other in many places, then only ONE is true. And I am convicted that the King James Version is true not by double-inspiration, but by original inspiration and God’s preservation. The Bible predicts that men would change add to or delete from the Word of God. There is a special curse for those, and they would be well to heed what God says.

      There is a trail of true Bibles leading from the original manuscripts to the King James Version. One should not think that God would leave us without his true Word until the 1850’s.

      God promised to preserve his pure and true words. I believe He did it what he said He’d do.

      To be a promicuous Bible reader is to be the most uncomfortable hypocrite possible. Better to sincerely stick to your one wrong version, and allow God to lead and convict you. Since each version contradicts another version, you are saying you don’t know whether God has preserved his words or not. It’s not what you prefer or enjoy, it’s what God dictated as true.

      I was once a Bible dabbler, and had quite a collection. But like Jesus said, His sheep hear His voice and know Him and follow Him. I hear his voice in the King James Authorized Version, and God convicted me and I discarded all of my false versions. Either we have the Word of God or we don’t. If we don’t we are most miserable and might as well be atheists. You can’t straddle and use multiple versions that contradict each other. Without faith, you cannot please God. Believe every word He said and believe He is capable of preserving his Word as pure, true and correct.

      • Rick Beckman says:
        Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

        Yung: The Law of Noncontradiction defeats King James Onlyism swiftly: if the King James Version is the only source of faithful doctrine, then where in the King James Version is the doctrine of King James Onlyism found? You cannot hold King James Onlyism while still believing that the King James Version is your only source of doctrine; the two are contradictory and thus impossible to reconcile.

        However, I have no problem if a King James Onlyist wants to admit that his doctrines come not only from the Bible but from other Bibles (i.e., relying on their supposed “errors” to support their doctrines) or fundamentalist teachers (i.e., Jack Chick, David Cloud, etc.); in that case, you can be a King James Onlyists, but you are also denying Sola Scriptura in which case I have nothing but pity for you.

        All that said, Mitchell’s post failed completely the King James Only Challenge; he was unable to show from the King James Version *only* that his beliefs are true. It’s simply not possible to do.

      • Jeff says:

        Double inspiration just adds a whole new layer of extrascriptural doctrine. Baptists expect fellow Baptists (whos distinctive is Sola Scriptura, amongst others) to accept that God issued a second, new, advanced revelation of His word to man without a bit of scripture to back it.

        If we can open the door up to advanced revelation for the KJV, what is stopping us from continuing this advance of new inspiration? Does anyone else see that there is a much larger potential danger in the advanced revelation movement than there ever could be in modern versions and their use of different manuscripts and larger use of dynamic equivalence? This group is coming out and saying they hold to a totally new revelation from God (the KJV) without any promise from God in his original revelation to man that a new revelation would come (specifically the KJV). That’s dangerous! And again, it’s not there (not even in this new revelation)!

        • Rick Beckman says:
          Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

          What is really interesting is that a handful of people a few hundred years later recognize the act of inspiration or unique divine preservation in the translation of the King James Version, yet the very translators themselves were wholly oblivious to this action and likely would have been thrilled that any version of the Scriptures were in the hands of people being read.

          Further, I still fail to understand why, if in 1610 there was a perfect Bible, why in 1611 a new one was needed. And if the 1611 Bible was so perfect, why has multiple revisions of it taken place, which has removed quite a few “jots and tittles.”

          And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

          That may be how the King James Version reads today, but in 1611? Well…

          And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickednesse.

          If the 1611 translation of the King James Version was somehow inspired, then removing jots & tittles from it would be tantamount to removing from the Word of God… So what happened to the “e” on “wickednesse” that the 1611 edition had? Hmmm, must be liberals corrupting the Scriptures; can’t remove those jots after all!

          Yes, that’s absurd; it’s meant to be — and it’s the same reasoning King James Onlyists often use.

          However, I suppose they could get around it by claiming God preserved and/or inspired each individual edition of the King James Version… But then we have several “perfect” King James Versions with the problem being, Why didn’t God get it right the first time? Hmm…

    • Rick Beckman says:
      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

      mitchell: Welcome to the site. Contrary to popular belief, I’m really not at my computer 24/7; your first post was made early this morning and was held for moderation by Akismet. I was only able to get to my computer for the first time a few moments ago, at which time I approved your post and it was published.

  4. Jeff says:

    Rick,

    I appreciate the challenge. It continues to remind us that doctrine without scriptural backing should not be taken by faith. I too came out of the chains of onlyism. And while I don’t take advantage of the freedom as much as others (I prefer the KJV as my primary Bible, but I don’t limit myself to it), I am often encouraged to find others freed.

    God bless!

    • Rick Beckman says:
      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

      Jeff, thanks for the comments, and praise the Lord that He has loosed your chains!

      I personally prefer the NKJV, both for its accuracy & readability; I’d like to prefer the NASB, but there are times it comes across as stilted or mechanical in translation, which may not necessarily be a bad thing — though it is something I don’t greatly enjoy.

  5. J. Allen Mullins says:

    I am new to this site, and enjoy reading the posts. The last post here by Mr. Beckman is totally without merit for this reason – both of the lines that are posted are exactly the same words.
    BOTH
    And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
    AND
    And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickednesse.
    have 15 words – and say EXACTLY the same thing – so where is the difference?

    The argument that the ORIGINAL 1611 is SO MUCH DIFFERENT from what we carry today is ludicrous, the updates that were made do not change the words, but merely update the spelling and some minor punctuation. This sort of misdirection is as weak an argument as can be considered.

    The challenge being considered here is not a realistic challenge for this reason – when God delivered the scripture to the holy men of old – as He said He did – He was giving us The Gospel, Church Doctrine, a history of the Early Church, and some insights of things yet to come. Specifying a certain version that should be used in 2007 was not part of His discussion.
    BUT
    He commands us to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world.

    My dear Brethern,
    Here is the crux – We all believe the Word of God – or we would not post our thoughts and convictions here – or anywhere else – I would offer this verse for your contemplation and thoughtful musing – 1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.
    NOW every time (even in some previous posts here) someone compares the King James with other translations – the same phrases are used – “the mistaken translation in the King James” or “this error in translation from the King James” -IF WE DO NOT HAVE THE PERFECT WORD OF GOD TODAY then God himself has lied many times in His word, and if there are mistakes in translation – then there are errors – and the Scripture has been CORRUPTED – and there is now no salvation for any of us because in this verse – God said that His word is INCORRUPTIBLE.

    How can you believe that our God made the whole world – came as a man, and died for our sins – and rose again of His own power – BUT He cannot even keep His own word free of error and preserve it for you, your children, and your grandchildren?

    “OH, ye of little faith!”

    Concerning the double inspiration argument – God breathed His life into His word when the writers penned it – and no one has ever been able to remove that inspiration – even through translation.

    It is late my time now, God willing, I will be back soon to post more on this subject. I look forward to hearing more.

    • Jeff says:

      The changes go beyond just an update to reflect the spelling, punctuation, and typeface standards that were in a period of flux during the 1600’s. There are changes so large, they constitute a revision. Which edition of the KJV is the correct one? Why are they different? If the translation process was 100% inerrant, why would God allow his perfect preserved word to undergo corruption once printed? How do you know the KJV you have is 100% free from errors? How can you say the KJV is perfect if the printing is obviously not. What form has the KJV existed in that has proven itself to be capable of being errant? On what basis have the printers made their corrections since 1666 when the translators pre-printed KJV went missing or was destroyed? Other potentially errant printings? Or other uninspired translators? Maybe there was an advanced advanced revelation for all the post-1666 corrections.

      The fact is, man is involved in the process of spreading Gods word. Whether that be translating the word, or copying the word, or printing the word, or preaching the word- Once you put man in the equation, he is eventually going to mess things up isn’t he?

      Do we condemn preaching because preachers sometimes goof up? Do we condemn our churches because their leadership makes mistakes?

      For the record, I’m a KJV person myself, I prefer it over all other versions. I find that it was an accurate and successful translation in the 1600’s and is still profitable for many of us today. But there’s no scriptural support for an onlyism view- not for any translation, in any translation. And so far, no one in this challenge has proven otherwise, even after a dozen+ comments. If scripture is supposed to be the sole authority for our faith, why are people accepting the extrascriptural doctrine of onlyism by faith? That’s what this entire challenge boils down to.

      • Rick Beckman says:
        Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

        Excellent post, brother! I have found the questions you have asked to be remarkably unanswerable, except by extreme leaps of illogic, and I’m glad you have shared them with everyone here.

    • Rick Beckman says:
      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

      Just a brief reply to a statement above; it’s all I have time for at the moment.

      J. Allen Mullins: You said this:

      The argument that the ORIGINAL 1611 is SO MUCH DIFFERENT from what we carry today is ludicrous, the updates that were made do not change the words, but merely update the spelling and some minor punctuation. This sort of misdirection is as weak an argument as can be considered.

      It isn’t misdirection. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with King James Onlyists that would be that extreme, though I have encountered them — indeed, I was one. Currently, there are two lines of the King James Bible, the Oxford and the Cambridge. Now, the differences between them are very minor, consisting of minor things such as spelling & capitalization. I forget which the King James Onlyists accept (Oxford or Cambridge), but the other is condemned as faulty for rendering “Spirit of God” as “spirit of God” (not a change in meaning, just as “The Lord, he is God” and “The Lord, He is God” are congruent statements) or for other things such as changing “throughly furnished” to “thoroughly furnished.”

      Though “throughly” and “thoroughly” are identical in meaning — “throughly” being the archaic form of “thoroughly,” King James Onlyists point this out as a problem, despite it being just one letter. They point to the verse about “jots and tittles” not passing away.

      Because of that, my argument stands: It is not a misrepresentation of King James Onlyism in any way to use their own logic against them. If the King James Version was pure in 1611, then the revisions made to it were unnecessary; likewise, if they were necessary, then changing “throughly” to “thoroughly” is wholly justified.

      It is amazing how much some people will fight for one letter, but they are out there.

  6. Justin says:

    Wow, I missed so much! Just as well, I wouldn’t be able to add to the conversation in any better way. :)

    God bless!

  7. Justin says:

    I wonder why, if the KJV is so perfect, that God didn’t just have it originally written (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the prophets and such, all write it in the KJV). Were the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts imperfect?

    The one thing I’m trying to wrap my whole mind around is this: To what end does onlyism serve? I mean, it’s a false teaching, of course, but what is its purpose? Simply to lead people away? Dominance?

    • Rick Beckman says:
      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

      @Justin: To what end does King James Onlyism serve? I have no idea. For the few years I spent in it, the only fruit of that teaching was that I had ill will toward those “godless liberal modern version users” and I also had a limited understanding of certain passages of the Bible… I *had* to believe that Easter was mentioned in Acts because the King James Version said so, even though the Greek spoke exclusively of the Passover.

      So what are the fruits of King James Onlyism? Divisiveness & ignorance? Not quite the fruits of the Spirit…

    • Jeff says:

      “To what end does onlyism serve?”

      It serves to set a standard. It was likely started from a lack of Bible history knowledge, probably by people with a nationalistic (or perhaps I should call it lingualistic [new word!]) type of attitude (sort of like whenever there was a war, God is always said to be on ‘our’ side).

      As the KJV was passed down generation to generation to generation, people probably felt comfortable with the KJV English translation, giving no thought to any other translation or any other tongue. Eventually, when the need for newer translations arose, people probably felt that their beliefs were threated by a potentially different translation. Onlyism was the doctrine that gave the excuse to stick with the KJV. And it’s a very convenient position to take too, being blessed to have the one perfect God-given translation in your language (kinda sad for everyone else, eh?).

      Now to the Easter debate: It’s incorrect to say Easter is pagan, and therefore an error in the KJV. Why? Because in the 1600’s (similar to how it is today), Easter was used as an official and common title for Resurrection Sunday AND Passover in the Church of England.

      The best proof, however, comes from Tyndale, who was the one who created the English word “Passover” (first one to ever use the word in English), even used the word Easter (actually “ester”) 26 times in his NT when referring to Passover.

      So as a translation for the people of England in the 1600’s, Easter was perfectly acceptable. But it wasn’t referring to pagan easter, it was referring to Passover. This is where KJVOs goof up. In a frenzy to back the inerrancy of the KJV, they make up the story that the translators were knowingly referring to pagan Easter. That’s not true, and there’s no need to do this because there is a much simpler explanation that everyone can accept. It was definately referring to Passover, and I’m positive the people of the day realized that.

      There is a very similar explanation for the “strain at a gnat” verse as well (“at” coming from the even more archaic word “ut”, or “out”). Yet KJVOs will go and start making up interpretations to make our understanding of the word “at” make sense.

      • Rick Beckman says:
        Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

        @Jeff: Your replies here are both gracious and appreciated; thank you! I learned a little something from that most recent post of yours. My question then is, why would the KJV translators use “Passover” every time save one, preferring “Easter” there instead?

        I realize that the KJV was translated by various people divided into committees, which is why Matthew 18:19 says “not murder” whereas Exodus 20 contains “not kill” — different committees had different styles of translating which weren’t always reconciled. Perhaps a similar thing happened with the translation of “pascha,” though I am uncertain.

        However, the Onlyist’s claim that the passage containing Easter could not refer to Passover because the Days of Unleavened Bread were already happening is simply bogus. Ezekiel 5:21, even in the KJV, plainly states that the Passover is a feast of seven days, justifying the use of “Passover” instead of “Easter” in modern versions.

  8. Justin says:

    Shucks, I was hoping to make a good $200 on my paycheck, but it was only a hundred. I could see that, but I thought I would have definately made more. Which really bites because I wanted to purchase the “Works of John Owen,” but that costs $279 and I don’t want to burn the money which I have in my bank* (not, “back”! Hahaha!) at the moment. It’s a good thing it’s my birthday tomorrow, though, so maybe I’ll get some extra money. Then, maybe within a paycheck, or two, I’ll have enough. God willing.

    There we go, just wanted to share that with everyone. Now it’s not going through my head so much. :)

  9. Glen says:

    I started reading this with a major headache, and near the end after the Advil drug the pain left and now seems to be hurting again. I was looking for a good discussion on the core reason why the KJV is superior but maybe I missed it but haven’t gotten anything. I commend Rick for his position and replies. This is not a topic I’ve spent a great deal of time on, because I have no patience for the KJVO position, but I would like to offer a suggestion so I can perhaps learn something. Can one sub topic be taken at a time? Like just discuss the Alexandrian Texts and nothing else, and so on?

    I’m looking forward to learning a lot

    Glen (ESV Supporter)

    • Rick Beckman says:
      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

      A discussion like that would probably be more suited to individual topics on a message board rather than a blog comments thread which anyone could join at anytime with any comment about any topic related in any way to the subject at hand… :P

      Thanks for your support, though.

  10. Shawn McGrath says:

    It should be noted that when a person has to refer to insults and name calling to get his point across, he has already manifested his lack of discernment with regards to his position. It becomes all the more apparent of such when reading these posts.

    • Justin says:

      Shawn, too true. And, if Mitchell responds, I can only guess he’s going to get more virulent as we go along.

  11. David Antenne says:

    Just thought I’d post this. Don’t have an argument-I’m not that smart or articulate. I believe the King James is perfect. I also believe God uses the other versions inspite of their missing verses etc. For me, personally, I believe the issue is determined by a process of elimination. Either we have a perfect Bible or we do not. I believe we do. By my personal comparison of versions, I just side with the version that has been used the longest, has the most completed verses and has stood the test of time (A 400 year book for $0.99 at Walmart! Something has to be said for that!) I just go with what is available and then side with the best translation, and then believe that version. In a world where everyone submitts somewhere (usually to themselves-me included) I just want to have an authority that is not me. I know God used the Living Bible in my mother’s walk with the Lord (which, from what I’ve seen, is a pretty shabby translation). My old roommate was an atheist and started to read the NASB online and later got saved and is now going to get married to a Christian girl he met at his church. I’m not saying that just because someone is a sincere Christian that what ever version they have (including the KJB) is magically transformed into “God’s Word.” I believe God loves people and wants them saved and the gospel is so simple that He uses alot of things to get people to Him. It is what we do after we are saved that needs effort and work. When I first started to find out what I see are problems with newer versions, I thought others would see it as well. When they didn’t I would get upset, and figured they were of Satan. I feel bad for that, and know it is not of God to lash out at others. Rebuke, yes, but in love. I also had a pretty lousy walk myself and probably loved the fleshly knowledge I had on the issue that others were innocently unaware of. To finish up, I believe with all my heart that the King James Bible is the Bible. I also believe those who read other Bible versions are doing what God wants them to do. I’m almost positive that there are some KJV Onlyists who are complete hypocrites and may not even read their book too much themselves. I’m a Baptist. An independent one. Let the Book chisel you; rebuke in the pulpit, but love others who may not be on the same page with us. Show then the fruits of the Spirit. That will say more than words.

    • Rick Beckman says:
      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

      David, thanks for writing. I want to offer just a couple quick things here in reply:

      1) The newer versions are not “missing verses.” God has preserved a variety of manuscripts for us to make use of. The process of biblical translation requires determining which manuscripts are the most reliable; unfortunately, many ancient manuscripts were unavailable to the translators of the King James Version. Some of the verses, such as 1 John 5:7 in the King James Version, can also be attributed to being added to the text, moving from a margin note to a part of the actual text over years of copying the text. More unfortunate is that King James Onlyist defenders tend to jump through some pretty wild hoops to explain why the oldest manuscripts are so different than what we have in the King James Version, and it always results in a rejection of the preserved manuscripts (did God not promise to preserve it? Why isn’t it good enough?) in favor of a translation.

      2) The King James Version is not without error, as I actually demonstrated a bit earlier in my latest entry here.

      3) Even the King James Version translators themselves would likely laugh at the idea of their work being the only valid English translation. They said the complete opposite in their preface, in which they stated that even the “meanest” (lowest, crudest) translation “is the word of God.” If these scholars were half as knowledgeable and half as righteous as Onlyists often make them out to be, I wonder why that bit of wisdom from them is ignored so completely.

      • David Antenne says:

        Dear Rick, Thanks for the forum.
        In response to #1-What are the older manuscripts and why are they more reliable? Can we, as Christians, be sure that these are indeed the oldest ones? Regards, David

        • Rick Beckman says:
          Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

          David, that really depends on which verses are in question. I recommend a couple of works for your consideration. One is Kurt and Barbara Aland’s The Text of the New Testament, another is Gary F. Zeolla’s Differences Between Bible Versions (grab the updated/expanded edition, if you’re able), and finally James R. White’s The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Versions?

          The first book is a very thorough, more technical treating on the history of the text of the New Testament. The second book contains a section on the King James Only issue and is a fairly easy read overall, and the third obviously deals strictly with the issue at hand. Notably absent from these works, though, are the various forms of hatemongering or distrust present in the writings of a great deal of King James Onlyists.

          However, just as a quick example — I’m by no means a textual scholar, so forgive my lack of detail — is the Johannine Comma, or 1 John 5:7 as rendered in the King James Version. It’s inclusion can most likely be attributed to the Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus, who included it in his manuscripts because a single manuscript containing the phrase was presented to him, thereby causing him to lose the bet which said that he would have to then include 1 John 5:7. The manuscript, however, was of dubious quality and most likely originated in a monastery which was very antagonistic toward Erasmus.

          Yet the body of manuscript evidence preserved for us from ancient history does not give much credence at all for the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 in the biblical text as it was originally written. Also notable was that during the various debates — especially regarding the Deities of Christ or the Holy Spirit — the early church fathers didn’t quote from the verse a single time to defend Trinitarianism. Nowadays, however, to suggest not using 1 John 5:7 is seen as an attack against the Trinity, when history shows us that the verse isn’t necessary to do so, nor was it even available to do so. Over time, someone probably saw a parallel between “there are three that bear witness in earth” and the Trinitarian doctrine, wrote the thought in on a manuscript, and over time it became inserted into the text.

          Either we must believe that God continually inspires changes to His Word, or we are to trust the manuscript evidence which He did promise to preserve and use it to make better translations (which, incidentally, He didn’t promise to preserve or even aid in the creation of…).

          • David Antenne says:

            Dear Rick, Thanks for the response. In regards to what I stated are missing verses in some of the modern versions, my NIV (yes, I do own an NIV-Zondervan 2001) is actually missing verses in the some of the following N.T. places : Matthew 17:21, 18:11. 23:14; Mark 7:16,9:44,46,11:26;15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29; Romans 16:24. I know these are footnoted with some scholarly explaination for not having them there. Why doesn’t the NIV just reorder the verses (like have luke 17:37 be 17:36)? It just seems very strange to me. After all, the verses are not inspired, right? It’s small things like this that make me side with the KJV. Like I said, I’m not too smart about manuscript evidence, etc.

            • Rick Beckman says:
              Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

              David, the reason why the verses are not simply renumbered is simple: Usability. If they were to simply (and I’m going to use an imaginative example) change Example 1:4 into Example 1:3 because they chose not to include what another version had for verse 3, the result would be quite a bit of confusion. After the verse appears (or rather doesn’t appear) in the text, every verse after it would be numbered differently than in other versions. Effective communication, writing, preaching, citation, teaching, memorization, recitation, and other activities which rely on standard verse numbers would become much more difficult.

              However, to simply “omit a verse” based on the manuscript evidence, utilizing foot notes to explain what is going on, is an honest practice which does not promote confusion but rather education of what God has preserved for us.

              I place “omit a verse” because I don’t particularly like that phrase. When King James Onlyists use it, their basis for comparison is the King James Bible, more often than not. However, translations are not the rule for other translations, the manuscript evidence is. And so if translators determine that based upon the body of evidence God has preserved for us, Example 1:3 was never part of the original text, they will choose not to include it in their translation. The verse is not omitted for, according to the evidence, it was never there to begin with.

              The charge of “omitting verses” could be turned around and used against certain versions for “adding verses,” but I think rather we should praise God for the assortment of translations available which reflect the abundance of manuscripts God has preserved for us.

            • Jeff says:

              David,

              Verse numbering didn’t start with the KJV. The Hebrew and Greek originally never had chapter and verse numbering at all. In fact, the papyrus on which the oldest texts were written was so valuable ‘back in the day’ that they didn’t have room for punctuation or even whitespace. So a numbering system to make things easier wasn’t a high priority back then.

              The final system of chapter and verses that we use today was released in the 1500’s and was based on the TR (the Jews had already created a chapter/verse system previously for the OT). The first English translation to use verse numbering for both OT and NT was the Geneva Bible.

              So in short, the reason the chapter/verse numbering system doesn’t fit with modern versions is because the numbering system is based on texts which include verses that are not included in modern versions.

              English Bibles have used this chapter/verse numbering system for hundreds of years to the point where it has now become a standard.

              Now if one believes that everything with a verse number be included as inspired scripture, then there are hundreds of verses that make up the Apocrypha that have the same chapter/verse number system applied which most of us generally reject as part of the inspired word of God. It was even included in the 1611 KJV.

              So I guess my point is- not everything with a verse number in the KJV is scripture. So we have to look beyond numbering (which weren’t part of the originals) when looking into this.

            • David Antenne says:

              Dear Rick and Jeff,
              I appreciate your responses. They are considerate and informative. The point Rick made about the footnote giving reasons why the particular verse is not scripture is what I don’t understand. I realize why it is their for manuscript reasons and for familiarity, but it seems like the NIV publishers are saying “Here Christian, this is God’s perserved word, but the version(s) you are used to are wrong about this verse and that verse being there, so we’ve provided you with a version that correctly provides what scholarship demands, while making it appear like your incorrect version. ? It would make more sense to give a version that is correct according to scholarship and manuscript evidence, and say “Here Christian. This is God’s word-The way it should and needs to be.” The KJB I have is a clean text. No references or commentary. Just a nice readable text. Is there such a thing in existence for the NIV or others? It seems like I need to be “fooled” into what the truth is, instead of straight out giving it to me. Providing a preface of brief explaination of such things along with an address to obtain detailed scholarship resources on the texts and procedures, etc. would be enough to satisfy doubts or understanding. Why the strange mode of operation? People can deal with the facts straight up. Especially Christians who desire to know the truth about the Bible. This just seems to create unnecessary disagreement that could be eliminated with a less “stealthful” approach. This is what really turns me off to these versions. I don’t get it.

              • Jeff says:

                Back in the 1600’s, some would say the biggest motivation to make what would later become known as the KJV was due to the footnotes in the Geneva Bible. But generally, the case against the footnotes wasn’t due to strictly translator notes, but was actually because of Calvinistic / Puritan biased annotations.

                The 1611 itself had quite a few translator notes where necessary so they could clear up any misunderstandings that couldn’t be explained within the translated text. I bought a 1611 facsimile and was surprised as the vast amount of information that was actually in that first printing.

                I think that’s the primary purpose behind the NIV’s footnotes. Sometimes the English doesn’t carry over the exact meaning of the Hebrew or Greek, and it’s thought that in order to deliver the Bible from one language to another, there must be notes for proper translation.

                As far as notes for the removal of verses- I’m not aware of these footnotes in the NIV (from what I see, it remains completely silent and just includes the verse alone in a footnote), but other translations will include something short and sweet simply explaining why it’s not in the text, for example, the NASB will say “Early mss do not contain the remainder of v 3, nor v 4” in John 5. I think the reason that’s included is so people don’t wonder why something is missing. We have been relying on a single translation for hundreds of years, and as it was mentioned before, people might question why a verse is apparently “removed”. It really helps to cut down on the conspiracy theories when the footnote says “it was never there”.

                But maybe you are right. Maybe some people desire just a translation with as little outside input as possible. But I think translator notes are a necessary part of any translation. Whether there be differences in the sources, whether it be because of difficult-to-translate words or passages, I think it really helps me, as a reader, to know as much as the translator knows and is able to share within a footnote. I don’t read the footnote as if it were inspired or anything, but it is really helpful in gaining a fuller understanding, not just of a particular passage, but also why a passage was translated how it was. I think footnotes add a bit of honesty and openness to a translation in comparison to note-less translations.

                • David Antenne says:

                  Dear Jeff,
                  Thanks for your time and response. I guess with all the version hoopla from both sides, I just go with what is sensical. The majority of Christians from both sides know next to nothing about B Vaticanus or the “godly wonder of 1611.” I hear good Christians from both sides present good arguments for one version or many versions. I can only work with what is right before my eyes and go from there. I have many Bibles myself, and have and have had many other translations as well. It comes down to what is before me and going with what makes sense. Even without the KJVOnly hoopla, The King James Bible is readily available, is the most quoted and known, and has stood the test of time. If it is not a gift from the Lord, would it not go the way of the many, many versions before and since? Can I go to Walmart and get a Revised Version of 1884? Or ASV of 1901 at my local Christian bookstore? How about a Webster’s Bible (a good Christian man) from 1839? Something has to be said about it. Like I said, for me, the argument does not come down to uncials and fragments but what I can hold and buy. I don’t think it is to hard to choose which one to read and love when you can sit down and compare versions for oneself. Also, I believe the Lord uses the other versions. I just believe the KJB is the Bible. About the footnotes and MSS notes: I have a nice little pocket NASB NT. Even that has MSS footnotes! I can’t escape the MSS! I want the scriptures, not a manuscript evidence book about the scriptures. New version people: Help me! Get rid of the MSS and footnotes. Give me the scriptures. I don’t need to be remindeed of how wrong my KJB is every time I have devotions with my NIV! If the verse should not be there, who cares about it! I’ll write the publishers or go to a seminary if I want know about MSS!

                  • Rick Beckman says:
                    Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

                    Unfortunately for your position, David, the manuscripts are what God has promised to preserve for us. Were it not for Christians copying and copying and copying and copying, we wouldn’t have anything to translate from, and there never would have been an English Bible of any kind.

                    Being that the manuscripts are one step closer to the original autographs (the actual items from the hands of the holy men of old) than are any translation from them, they ought to be regarded even more highly than a translation — which no matter how you slice it can only be the work of men.

                    I hate to say it, but your attitude toward these preserved Scriptures reveals a lot. Your love for a translation and the traditions which defend it is blinding you and clouding your judgment. I’ve been there.

                    • David Antenne says:

                      Dear Rick,
                      I do appreciate the responses. I just don’t understand the versions themselves. It seems very confusing with the footnotes. I’m not just speaking about the “missing verses.” I mean the way it is presented. One almost has to be a scholar and manuscript reader to even know what they are speaking about, even with the footnotes. How can I trust what a few versions say? Do we really know Vaticanus B and the Sinaticus Aleph are indeed the oldest manuscripts? These versions seem to be riddled with opinions by a few scholars. I’m not saying that having the footnotes about it are bad, evil or even unnecessary in a version or translation. I can see why they can be helpful. But why not have it be in an edition (Like say, “The scholars edition of the NIV”)? Do I need to attend a seminary to understand the Lord’s words (1 Corinthians 2:13)? I just wish the NIV and other ones would present an edition of what they truly believe to be scripture and leave the notes for a special edition or book. It genders more confusion than understanding for me.
                      Why can I not find a modern version with just straight scripture text? The only one is a KJB. It has been 30 years since the NIV came out-we know about the footnotes and stuff. Let God bless the scripture and leave the MSS for the scholars. I was converted to the KJB position out of necessity, not out of hate for a version or versions. If you know of a text only new version, please let me know. If there’s one out there, I will be more than willing to purchase it and keep silent. Until than I’ll be with ignorant people willing to take a few things by conviction and faith instead of the latest fad.

                    • Jeff says:

                      David,

                      I absolutely agree that the KJV is the most recognized, most readily available, and is the most often quoted English translation. It truly has been a great translation, and has stood the test of time. In fact, I use the KJV exclusively at church (I’m a member of a KJVO church), and mostly at home for study. When I quote something or want to memorize a passage, I use the KJV. *For me*, it is the best translation. I grew up with it and I’m comfortable reading it. I’ve come to understand many of the difficult words. It’s my translation of preference and will likely stay that way until I die.

                      But I don’t look at the KJV as the only legitimate translation of God’s word. If the KJV is the only Bible, then was there only one before 1611? And will the KJV be replaced in the future as its’ predecessor was? And why? Because of language changes over time?

                      In order to read the KJV, people today have to learn a language of a different time. And it will only get worse as our modern English language evolves, and the old Elizabethan English remains in the past.

                      But I too understand your apparent need for onlyism. It is a very convenient position to claim that we as English speakers have the only inspired word of God in our tongue. We can pick one up anywhere and never need to question if the translators could have used a better word or made a mistake anywhere. But it’s also a very unfortunate position. Millions that cannot speak English are left without a Bible under KJVO. And it forces everyone to learn a dead language that is centuries old, when there are plenty of translations written in various modern languages.

                      Imagine if KJVO was not true. Look at the division that this man made belief is causing in churches. Look at the hate that many of its supporters spread around to fellow believers needlessly. Look at the limitations it is placing on believers. In some extreme movements, even looking to the Hebrew or Greek is forbidden, because the KJV ‘corrects’ the languages from which it was translated from. Then there are those that support the concept of advanced revelation, which can open the door to the belief that God inspires people to write new scripture still today.

                      From the perspective of those who have left the KJVO movement, it’s just not scriptural and not beneficial to Christ’s cause. And because it’s not supported by scripture, it cannot be taken as part of our faith (faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God).

                      Anyway, I appreciate the civil-ness of this discussion.

                      God bless!

                    • Rick Beckman says:
                      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

                      David: That translators include explanatory footnotes about the choices they made is something that I cannot understand as being a negative thing. Indeed, it is an honest thing for them to do, and it is something that the translators of the KJV originally had done as well. Why those notes are no longer included, I don’t know. Quite a few features of the 1611 KJV have gone by the wayside, it seems.

                      For my part, and I’m by no means a textual scholar, I enjoy the footnotes. It is interesting to read about certain phrases not being present in manuscripts. More attention is given to those verses — why did some fail to include them, or why was it possibly added by others?

                      If we weren’t meant to deal with such issues in any way, God could have preserved one single set of manuscripts for each book of the Bible from which to translate once from. But according to His will, we have an abundance of manuscripts preserved for us. I can’t read Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, yet I rejoice in the fact that God has preserved manuscripts and that He’s still equipping language scholars today who can discern His Word from the evidence.

                    • David Antenne says:

                      Dear Rick and Jeff,
                      Thanks for the responses. I do apreciate anyone who openly talks about this (may I say) controversial topic. I do believe good and wonderful Christians use all versions and even no version. Jesus will save any one who asks Him. I did not get saved by any Bible (though it came from scripture of course). Jesus saves, Amen?

                      But to be this close to what I believe is the end of the church age, leaving tried (and I believe) true, old landmarks for something not tried yet seems dangerous to me. Especially when a translation has become to many generations “The Bible.” I really wish the new versions would just have scripture in them. God may bless it and in time the fruits can be seen. But my generation are a bunch of wanderers and having something as wonderful and majestic as the Bible as a sure foundation is blessed thing to have indeed. A sceptical eye in this issue should be understandable and expected. The Lord may not come for hundreds of years or He might come tonight. I would rather be safe than sorry when it comes to what can be the only sure thing in this world; and that is God’s holy and precious words.

                      PS-Do let me know if you know of a text only new version, would you fellas. Thanks. Regards, David

                    • Rick Beckman says:
                      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

                      I have over a dozen versions on my computer for the program e-Sword and they’re all text-only. Some are newer, others are older, one’s the 1611 KJV, and some even predate it.

                      e-Sword’s a great resource that I’d recommend to anyone. http://www.e-sword.net I believe is the address.

                    • David Antenne says:

                      Dear Rick,

                      I hear that is a pretty good reference tool. Thank you for the link. Do you know of a hard copy, as in a book version. That is what I want. I can cut and paste all day for free at biblegateway.com and create my own e-book version or versions. I mean one I can hold and read without electronic device. Bible=book http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bible Regards, David

                    • Rick Beckman says:
                      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

                      You’re living in the past if a book can only be on paper. :)

                      Welcome to the digital age, Brother.

                      Incidentally, why don’t the italic words in the KJV bother you, if translational notes do? The italics serve only as a translational note that certain words are added for clarity and have no reciprocal in the Hebrew or Greek copies.

                      And another incidental… The italics aren’t even 100% accurate; when the KJV says “God forbid,” the word “God” isn’t represented in the manuscript evidence. “May it not be so” sounded better as “God forbid” for whatever reason to the translators, and that may have been a translational note in the original KJV, but now, people reading the text in the KJV would have no way of knowing that Paul wasn’t saying “God” anything where the KJV says “God forbid.”

                    • David Antenne says:

                      Dear Rick,

                      Thanks for the response. The italic words are to complete the expression in english. One can look past the italics if they want to and still see the Greek and Hebrew. Thats how they translated. This is an honest way. The Niv and others give no distinction between the Greek and Hebrew and man’s words through their Dynamic equivalnce method. Anyone can find out why the italics are there. Regards, David

                    • Rick Beckman says:
                      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

                      I know why the italics are there. However, I have yet to see a KJV (at least, of the dozen or so I’ve owned, none of them have) that specifically states why they are there. Someone without a knowledge of the KJV’s history may not know why they are there and speak each word with emphasis rather than as a normal word.

                      And yes, I dislike dynamic equivalence as well, which is why I prefer the NASB over the KJV. The KJV isn’t as strictly equivalent as many think it is, as I pointed out with the “God forbid” phrase earlier. “God” is not present in the Greek when the KJV says “God forbid,” but not only did the translators stick “God” in a verse where Paul did not, but they didn’t italicize their decision. So readers are left with the impression that Paul was actually saying “God forbid” to his brethren. But he didn’t. He was saying, “May it not be so” or “may it never be so.”

                      The KJV, umm, well, errs. Such is the nature of translations until God decides to make one Himself (which, again, is not something He has told us He’ll do).

                    • David Antenne says:

                      Dear Rick,

                      You can look past the italics and still see the Greek and Hebrews. But I wouldn’t. Remember the only verse I quoted early (1 Corinthians 2:13)? I did just that and Paul says “God” before forbid 13 times. Here it is: Romans 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2, 15, 7:7, 12; 9:14: 11:1; 1 Corinthians 6:15; Galatians 2:17, 3:21, 6:14. Another honest method is to translate acccording to the style the author writes in. Paul uses the expression 13 times-not in italics. That is also why 1 John 5:7 (John chapter 1) should be in the Bible and other disputed renderings in books like Titus, and 2 Peter. Regards, David

                    • David Antenne says:

                      Dear rickbeckman.org
                      This will be my last message. Like I said, I like to argue about these versions with what is in front of me. I choose the KJB because I believe it is God’s word. Manuscript evidence is a hand stacking, vain thing to do. Either we have a perfect Bible and translation or we do not. Incedently, 1 John 5:7, 8 needs the modifier to make sense in the greek. Also “these three are in agreement” are not in the greek the new versions are translated from. They take from King James Bible greek (Textus Receptus). So, whose decieving who? Last call for me. It was fun to play with you guys. I’m going to go study my Bible (2 TImothy 2:15) and go to bed. Get chiseled by the Book. So long. Regards, David

                    • Rick Beckman says:
                      Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

                      Thanks for the conversation, David. May it be well with you.

                      I do add the follow remarks regarding your second-to-last comment regarding “God forbid” as I believe you are mistaken. I’m not for sure on what basis you’re stating “God forbid” and 1 John 5:7 — just ’cause the KJV doesn’t italicize them doesn’t mean that they were in the original Scriptures. So, for the edification of future readers, here’s the quick scoop on “God forbid”:

                      “God forbid” appears 9 times in the KJV Old Testament. Only one of those times (1 Chronicles 11:19) does the word “God” actually appear in the Hebrew text. Every other time, the phrase is translated by the single Hebrew word chaÌ‚liÌ‚ylaÌ‚h meaning simply “far be it.” The King James translators did not italicize “God” even though it is an added word, not present in the original Hebrew Scriptures.

                      “God forbid” appears 15 times in the KJV New Testament. In none of those instances does the word “God” appear in the Greek text. The phrase “God forbid” comes from two Greek words. The first, ginomai, means “to cause to be” or “to become”; the second, meÌ„, is a negative qualifier. The phrase literally means “to not cause to be” and is better translated as “may it not be” rather than the dynamic “God forbid.” Again, the King James translators did not italicize “God” even though it is an added word, not present in the original Greek Scriptures.

  12. Tom says:

    I used to be a KJV onlyist because I took everthing taught as fact. I was spoon fed this tradition of men and believed every word. I honestly don’t even understand why there are such debates about translations. The truth of the matter is that no translation is %100 correct. Not one. Let’ look at how God chose to preserve his word. Did he do it through translations? No. His original word was written in the ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic languages, all of which are dead languages. They are not spoken today. God caused these languages to die off so his word would not change. That is how God’s Word was preserved. There are errors in every translation because it is known fact that every time something is translated, it looses meaning. To say that the KJV is the only true inspired Word of God without error or reproof is teaching against God’s ifallibility. There are thousands of gramerical mistakes in the KJV. To say these are ordained by God is to say that he messed up the first time. If God had intended for His true word to be in english, that’s the language it would have been written in from the start. I still love the KJV. This is the version I most often use, but when we “Study to show yourselves approved unto God…..Rightly dividing the Word of Truth”, we should be trying to get as close to the original Word of God as possible.

  13. Ed Chapman says:
    Non-Denomination Christian with an opinion. I write my own commentary, not relying on others. I am a Berean at heart. …

    I have no problem of comparrison study. I am not a KJV onlyist. But when it comes to deep study, I default to the KJV in this regard: Words and Phrases match, and are linked in the KJV. Any other version, words are changed to reflect todays language, and the links are broken. 1611 English is much more pure than todays corrupt English, but I don’t have any problem of anyone being a KJV onlyist. But I do have a problem of the opposing side dictating to them that the KJV is corrupt, because it isn’t. Oh, you have a problem with the word Easter replacing Passover in the KJV. I don’t. Yet you don’t have a problem with the words “The Lord”, replacing YHVH. What version ONLY do you use? Oh, everything but the KJV? Watch out for Watchtower!

  14. Cj says:
    What’s yo name?

    You have been proven wrong a very long time ago. Please watch on YouTube, Hazardous Materials a Book by Gail Riplinger, or buy the book.

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>