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. 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

    1. :) 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. 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.

    1. 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. :)

    2. 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.

    3. 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

      1. 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.

        1. 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?

          1. 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.

            1. 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.

              1. 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. :)

                1. 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!

                  1. 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.

                  2. 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

                    1. 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! :-)

                    2. 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?

                    3. “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!

                    4. 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.

                2. 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.

                  1. 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. (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.

    1. 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!

    2. 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.

      1. 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.

      2. 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)!

        1. 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…

    1. mitchell: Wel­come to the site. Con­trary to pop­u­lar belief, I’m real­ly not at my com­put­er 247; 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. 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!

    1. 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

    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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

    2. 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. 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. 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?

    1. @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…

    2. “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.

      1. @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. 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. 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)

    1. 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. 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.

    1. 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

    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.

    1. 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.

      1. David Antenne

        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

        1. 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…).

          1. David Antenne

            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.

            1. 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.

            2. 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.

            3. David Antenne

              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.

              1. 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.

                1. David Antenne

                  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!

                  1. 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.

                    1. David Antenne

                      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.

                    2. 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!

                    3. 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.

                    4. David Antenne

                      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

                    5. 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.

                    6. David Antenne

                      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

                    7. 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.”

                    8. David Antenne

                      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

                    9. 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).

                    10. David Antenne

                      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

                    11. David Antenne

                      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

                    12. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Leave a Comment

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

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

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>

Rick Beckman