KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant
- Thread starter brandplucked
- Start date
- Status
robycop3
Member
: AVBunyanI don't care what the Mormons call it or what you call it. I look at the internal evidence of what the scriptures say and by faith take it to be so. It appears you don't. What do you believe?
As a Sola Scriptura person, I believe all that God has made available. He is NOT LIMITED to just one version, & neither am I.
God gave me a brain (may not be much) and gave me a book to believe. It sure seems to bother some of you folks that we can confidentaly say we have a book we can believe to be God's words without error.
What bothers us(Not just "seems" to) is when someone says, "This is IT" and tries to limit God to just his/her fave version.
Why is this such a bad thing?
Because it's PATENTLY FALSE.
I guess I'll just have to stand before God and say, "Sorry, Lord, I just believed the book you used and blessed for 350 plus years was the word of God. Forgive me for not doubting it - I guess I should have been like all those smart folks who sit in judgement your word and read all those bibles from Egypt like the rest of the world."
Actually, He might well say, "Why did you fight against My supplying My word as I chose?"
As I see it folks in the past used to take the book by faith but now "much learning doth make them mad." Folks have been educated out of believing the book God has blessed.
1 Cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God,
Actually, folks have been educated to not believe a bunch of hooey started by a cult official and spread by some dishonest authors, hooey NOT SUPPORTED WHATSOEVER by SCRIPTURE.
We are living in an age where folks are taught to question what God says - just like Gen. 3:1.
ACTUALLY, we're living in an age where many more people have the tools to check the VERACITY of the doctrine-spreaders, so they don't fall for such foolish garbage as the KJVO myth.
I'll stick with the book - the one God has blessed and used.
WHICH ONE? He used/uses MANY.
God bless
As a Sola Scriptura person, I believe all that God has made available. He is NOT LIMITED to just one version, & neither am I.
God gave me a brain (may not be much) and gave me a book to believe. It sure seems to bother some of you folks that we can confidentaly say we have a book we can believe to be God's words without error.
What bothers us(Not just "seems" to) is when someone says, "This is IT" and tries to limit God to just his/her fave version.
Why is this such a bad thing?
Because it's PATENTLY FALSE.
I guess I'll just have to stand before God and say, "Sorry, Lord, I just believed the book you used and blessed for 350 plus years was the word of God. Forgive me for not doubting it - I guess I should have been like all those smart folks who sit in judgement your word and read all those bibles from Egypt like the rest of the world."
Actually, He might well say, "Why did you fight against My supplying My word as I chose?"
As I see it folks in the past used to take the book by faith but now "much learning doth make them mad." Folks have been educated out of believing the book God has blessed.
1 Cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God,
Actually, folks have been educated to not believe a bunch of hooey started by a cult official and spread by some dishonest authors, hooey NOT SUPPORTED WHATSOEVER by SCRIPTURE.
We are living in an age where folks are taught to question what God says - just like Gen. 3:1.
ACTUALLY, we're living in an age where many more people have the tools to check the VERACITY of the doctrine-spreaders, so they don't fall for such foolish garbage as the KJVO myth.
I'll stick with the book - the one God has blessed and used.
WHICH ONE? He used/uses MANY.
God bless
robycop3
Member
The KJVOs' big, unsolvable prob
The KJVOs' big, unsolvable prob
Sorry, AV Bunyan, you overlook a FACT that causes the whole KJVO myth to fail...LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! The KJVO simply CANNOT get around that basic, cardinal FACT! Your myth is simply NOT SUPPORTED AT ALL BY SCRIPTURE, even from the KJV itself.
Nor can the KJVO prove any exclusive influence from God only for the KJV, either.
KJVO is an empty, dead myth, held by those who won't face the TRUTH, and are AFRAID to admitthat all they have is PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
Just face it, KJVOs...Take away your PERSONAL PREFERENCE, and whaddya have left for a valid reason to be KJVO? NOTHING! There's simply NOT ONE LEGITIMATE REASON to be KJVO besides personal preference. (Or for that matter, in any other one-versionism false doctrine, either.)
I hope EVERY professing One-Versionist takes time to examine the REASONS for his/her belief, to see how TRUE any of'em are.
The KJVOs' big, unsolvable prob
AVBunyan said:
Sorry, AV Bunyan, you overlook a FACT that causes the whole KJVO myth to fail...LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! The KJVO simply CANNOT get around that basic, cardinal FACT! Your myth is simply NOT SUPPORTED AT ALL BY SCRIPTURE, even from the KJV itself.
Nor can the KJVO prove any exclusive influence from God only for the KJV, either.
KJVO is an empty, dead myth, held by those who won't face the TRUTH, and are AFRAID to admitthat all they have is PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
Just face it, KJVOs...Take away your PERSONAL PREFERENCE, and whaddya have left for a valid reason to be KJVO? NOTHING! There's simply NOT ONE LEGITIMATE REASON to be KJVO besides personal preference. (Or for that matter, in any other one-versionism false doctrine, either.)
I hope EVERY professing One-Versionist takes time to examine the REASONS for his/her belief, to see how TRUE any of'em are.
robycop3
Member
Guesswork, GUesswork, GUESSWORK ! ! ! !
Guesswork, GUesswork, GUESSWORK ! ! ! !
The following is more proof that many a KJVO glues feathers onto his/her KJVO hippo, hoping to make it fly. He'she is GUESSING that enough feathers will make a hippo into an aircraft.
brandplucked: May I point out a couple of things I believe are wrong about your assumptions? First of all, I do not defend the King James translators, though they were heads and shoulders above any group of men that could possibly be assembled today. They were giants in the fields of languages, but they were also fallible and sinful men just like we all are.
Then why do you rate their work as inerrant? How can errant man make an inerrant work?
Did Peter, John, James, Solomon, Luke, David, Matthew or Mark ever say they knew they were being used to give us the inspired words of God? Did they know God was using them in this way, in spite of all their faults? No. Nothing like this is recorded by these men whom God used to give us His inspired words.
Correct...But in other cases, such as the Revelation, He said, "Write."
Secondly, the KJB translators did condemn the Catholic translations, and most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV are based on the same Catholic Greek texts - Vaticanus. Guess where Vaticanus gets its name from?
If that text was so corrupt, how come the RCC didn't burn it centuries ago? And if it was considered to be valid by the RCC, why diid they keep it hidden?
Thirdly, and most importantly, the Bible believer, that is, a Christian who really believes the Bible he holds in his hands is the very inspired, inerrant words of God (this necessarily excludes all those who promote the modern English versions)...
Right there, you stray into Fantasyland. You have absolutely NO factual basis for such a statement. Guesswork. GUesswork. GUESSWORK.
the Bible believer does not look for 100% accuracy in anything man has to offer.
But yet you tout it for the KJV, which is as man-made as an apple pie. God made the apples, man made the pie. God made the word; human translators made the English BVs.
Instead, we look to the Author of Scripture who cannot lie. God Himself has promised to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth. He just happened to use the earthen vessels of the King James Bible translators to bring forth His perfect words.
Assumes facts not in evidence. MORE GUESSWORK.
Man is imperfect, fallen and sinful. Nothing good comes from our own natures. However, God is always truthful and He uses sinful men to accomplish His purposes. The big question that none of you saints are addressing (except for those who have posted in favor of the King James Bible) is this: Do we have an inerrant Bible today? Has God kept His promises to preserve His pure words anywhere on this earth? If so, where are they to be found?
The answer is apparent...in every valid Bible version, English or otherwise.
God's own sovereignty and Providence clearly point to only one Bible that is the pure words of God - the Authorized King James Bible.
Again, assumes facts not in evidence...in other words, MORE GUESSWORK.
It used to be called simply The Holy Bible, but when the polluted flood of modern versions came on the scene, then people began to call it the King James Version, or the Authorized Version, to differentiate it from all the others out there.
Yep...back when the govt. of England would allow no other version to be printed in English within the realm, and other English-speaking nations not under British control had neither the equipment nor the money to print Bibles at all.
It seems that most of you here are focused on man instead of God. The idea of humanistic evolution has colored your thinking regarding the Bible version issue.
No, that would be the KJVO. The man-made origins of the current KJVO myth are well-known; this myth did NOT exist before 1930.
I hear some of you say: "No translation can be perfect", or "only the originals were inspired". Where did you all get these ideas? They certainly did not come from the Bible.
OH!? And just WHERE did the idea of the KJVO myth come from?
Then some ask: "Where does the Bible say the KJB is the true word of God?". Well, I would respond that the verse that teaches the KJB is the true words of God is right before the one that says "Only the originals were inspired" and after the one that says "No translation can be perfect" ;-)
But you believe it anyway? Bright, real bright... MORE GUESSWORK!
I haven't yet finished going through all the pages yet, so it may come up later, but I originally titled this topic "Bob Enyart does not believe the Bible is inerrant." The title has now been changed, but the reality is still the same. Brother Bob has no inerrant Bible. He doesn't believe such a thing exists, and can't tell anyone where they can get one.
While YOU can? Sorry, but most of us simply will NOT BELIEVE an urban legend cooked up by a cult official and spread by some dishonest authors, not found whatsoever in Scripture.
He then accused me of misrepresenting his position. When I asked him how I misrepresented him, so far, he has not replied. I believe the Bible version issue is a spiritual issue, and not an intellectual issue. Bob is a smart man and I personally like him. But as far as the issue of the inspired and inerrant words of God goes, he doesn't have a clue.
And YOU have a clue? Sorry, but it's not a clue, it's a GUESS.
There is still hope that God may yet open his eyes to this most vital and precious truth that God has indeed kept His promises to preserve His pure words, and He has done so in the only Bible that people all over the world still believe is now the inerrant words of God.
There is still hope that in your endless search for something...ANYTHING...that might llend a little credence to the KJVO myth, you'll open your eyes some day and see the whole KJVO thingie is only make-believe.
BEWARE THE LEAVEN OF THE KJVOs...THEY'VE GUESSED AT THE INGREDIENTS!
In Christ,
Cranston
Guesswork, GUesswork, GUESSWORK ! ! ! !
The following is more proof that many a KJVO glues feathers onto his/her KJVO hippo, hoping to make it fly. He'she is GUESSING that enough feathers will make a hippo into an aircraft.
brandplucked: May I point out a couple of things I believe are wrong about your assumptions? First of all, I do not defend the King James translators, though they were heads and shoulders above any group of men that could possibly be assembled today. They were giants in the fields of languages, but they were also fallible and sinful men just like we all are.
Then why do you rate their work as inerrant? How can errant man make an inerrant work?
Did Peter, John, James, Solomon, Luke, David, Matthew or Mark ever say they knew they were being used to give us the inspired words of God? Did they know God was using them in this way, in spite of all their faults? No. Nothing like this is recorded by these men whom God used to give us His inspired words.
Correct...But in other cases, such as the Revelation, He said, "Write."
Secondly, the KJB translators did condemn the Catholic translations, and most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV are based on the same Catholic Greek texts - Vaticanus. Guess where Vaticanus gets its name from?
If that text was so corrupt, how come the RCC didn't burn it centuries ago? And if it was considered to be valid by the RCC, why diid they keep it hidden?
Thirdly, and most importantly, the Bible believer, that is, a Christian who really believes the Bible he holds in his hands is the very inspired, inerrant words of God (this necessarily excludes all those who promote the modern English versions)...
Right there, you stray into Fantasyland. You have absolutely NO factual basis for such a statement. Guesswork. GUesswork. GUESSWORK.
the Bible believer does not look for 100% accuracy in anything man has to offer.
But yet you tout it for the KJV, which is as man-made as an apple pie. God made the apples, man made the pie. God made the word; human translators made the English BVs.
Instead, we look to the Author of Scripture who cannot lie. God Himself has promised to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth. He just happened to use the earthen vessels of the King James Bible translators to bring forth His perfect words.
Assumes facts not in evidence. MORE GUESSWORK.
Man is imperfect, fallen and sinful. Nothing good comes from our own natures. However, God is always truthful and He uses sinful men to accomplish His purposes. The big question that none of you saints are addressing (except for those who have posted in favor of the King James Bible) is this: Do we have an inerrant Bible today? Has God kept His promises to preserve His pure words anywhere on this earth? If so, where are they to be found?
The answer is apparent...in every valid Bible version, English or otherwise.
God's own sovereignty and Providence clearly point to only one Bible that is the pure words of God - the Authorized King James Bible.
Again, assumes facts not in evidence...in other words, MORE GUESSWORK.
It used to be called simply The Holy Bible, but when the polluted flood of modern versions came on the scene, then people began to call it the King James Version, or the Authorized Version, to differentiate it from all the others out there.
Yep...back when the govt. of England would allow no other version to be printed in English within the realm, and other English-speaking nations not under British control had neither the equipment nor the money to print Bibles at all.
It seems that most of you here are focused on man instead of God. The idea of humanistic evolution has colored your thinking regarding the Bible version issue.
No, that would be the KJVO. The man-made origins of the current KJVO myth are well-known; this myth did NOT exist before 1930.
I hear some of you say: "No translation can be perfect", or "only the originals were inspired". Where did you all get these ideas? They certainly did not come from the Bible.
OH!? And just WHERE did the idea of the KJVO myth come from?
Then some ask: "Where does the Bible say the KJB is the true word of God?". Well, I would respond that the verse that teaches the KJB is the true words of God is right before the one that says "Only the originals were inspired" and after the one that says "No translation can be perfect" ;-)
But you believe it anyway? Bright, real bright... MORE GUESSWORK!
I haven't yet finished going through all the pages yet, so it may come up later, but I originally titled this topic "Bob Enyart does not believe the Bible is inerrant." The title has now been changed, but the reality is still the same. Brother Bob has no inerrant Bible. He doesn't believe such a thing exists, and can't tell anyone where they can get one.
While YOU can? Sorry, but most of us simply will NOT BELIEVE an urban legend cooked up by a cult official and spread by some dishonest authors, not found whatsoever in Scripture.
He then accused me of misrepresenting his position. When I asked him how I misrepresented him, so far, he has not replied. I believe the Bible version issue is a spiritual issue, and not an intellectual issue. Bob is a smart man and I personally like him. But as far as the issue of the inspired and inerrant words of God goes, he doesn't have a clue.
And YOU have a clue? Sorry, but it's not a clue, it's a GUESS.
There is still hope that God may yet open his eyes to this most vital and precious truth that God has indeed kept His promises to preserve His pure words, and He has done so in the only Bible that people all over the world still believe is now the inerrant words of God.
There is still hope that in your endless search for something...ANYTHING...that might llend a little credence to the KJVO myth, you'll open your eyes some day and see the whole KJVO thingie is only make-believe.
BEWARE THE LEAVEN OF THE KJVOs...THEY'VE GUESSED AT THE INGREDIENTS!
In Christ,
Cranston
robycop3
Member
Yet more codwallop!
Yet more codwallop!
brandplucked: Did you know that Tyndale did not have verse numbers and the order of N.T. books was not the same as in the KJB?
But yet the KJV is based some 85% on Tyndale's work.
The Geneva Bible did not have the same verse numbers either. But you know what? Every Bible in every language I have seen around today follows the chapters and verse numbering of the King James Bible.
First, did God, or man add the verse #s? Next, does it matter a row of peas which numbering system is followed? The KJV's system is in use due to the longevity of the KJV and the old British ban on all other English versions.
Even when versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV etc. that omit many whole verses, just skip the numbers like they were not even there. For examples, look at the NIV in Matthew 17:21; 18:11 and 23:14. These are just 3 of 17 whole verses missing in the niv. They jump from 17:20 to 17:22. Can't they count right? You see, the King James Bible has become The Standard by which all others are measured.
Actually, it's the man-made NUMBERING SYSTEM.
Again, all the arguments you have presented so far are on the side of bolstering the idea that the Christian has no inspired and inerrant Bible. You're working for the wrong side, guy.
TRUTHFULLY, that would be the KJVO, who tries to LIMIT GOD. The RIGHT side uses as much as possible of that God has made available.
You're on the "Yea, hath God said...?" side right now.
Better than being on the "Yea, the KJVO myth hath said" side ANY time!
Maybe God will turn you around.
Will
We hope the same for YOU. Doesn't it bother you that your own fave version doesn't support the doctrine you hawk?
Yet more codwallop!
brandplucked: Did you know that Tyndale did not have verse numbers and the order of N.T. books was not the same as in the KJB?
But yet the KJV is based some 85% on Tyndale's work.
The Geneva Bible did not have the same verse numbers either. But you know what? Every Bible in every language I have seen around today follows the chapters and verse numbering of the King James Bible.
First, did God, or man add the verse #s? Next, does it matter a row of peas which numbering system is followed? The KJV's system is in use due to the longevity of the KJV and the old British ban on all other English versions.
Even when versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV etc. that omit many whole verses, just skip the numbers like they were not even there. For examples, look at the NIV in Matthew 17:21; 18:11 and 23:14. These are just 3 of 17 whole verses missing in the niv. They jump from 17:20 to 17:22. Can't they count right? You see, the King James Bible has become The Standard by which all others are measured.
Actually, it's the man-made NUMBERING SYSTEM.
Again, all the arguments you have presented so far are on the side of bolstering the idea that the Christian has no inspired and inerrant Bible. You're working for the wrong side, guy.
TRUTHFULLY, that would be the KJVO, who tries to LIMIT GOD. The RIGHT side uses as much as possible of that God has made available.
You're on the "Yea, hath God said...?" side right now.
Better than being on the "Yea, the KJVO myth hath said" side ANY time!
Maybe God will turn you around.
Will
We hope the same for YOU. Doesn't it bother you that your own fave version doesn't support the doctrine you hawk?
robycop3
Member
More guesswork, assuming facts not in evidence
More guesswork, assuming facts not in evidence
Brandplucked: Nowhere in Scripture has God promised to give every nation His perfect words. God has bypassed many nations for centuries before they received any parts of the New Testament. In O.T. times it was only to the nation of Israel that God revealed Himself and His words. He left all the others in darkness.
But when & where He DID give His words, they were(and are)perfect, because they're from the ALMIGHTY GOD, master of all existence, who can do ANYTHING.
"He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 147:19-20.
But now He shows His word to virtually EVERYONE.
God only holds us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. Those nations that do not have the perfect words of God, but have some portions of God's true words have enough light to believe on Christ for salvation and can grow in many useful ways, but this does not mean they have a perfect and infallible Bible.
And the guesswork and fishing stories of man don't make a Bible version perfect either.
I certainly do not consider the NIV or the Message, or the NASB to be God's perfect words, but they all contain the gospel and people can learn a lot that is of value in them. However, they are all tinged with error and the end result for those who begin to study and learn about the Bible version issue is that they will begin to hold to the idea that there is no inspired and inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth. This will then greatly affect their faith. Most Christians today do not read or study their bibles. Most do not take them very seriously, at least in this country.
Pure imagination. People don't take their Bibles seriously because of their ATTITUDES, not their versions. And false doctrines like KJVO don't help those attitudes one bit.
As for a translation into another language, God has no problem doing this type of thing. The Bible itself is full of several examples where God's words were found in the translation into another language, and not in the "originals".
I believe the problem here is one's definition of "inspiration". Many believe that inspiration is the direct physical intervention of God to tell someone to write His word, or to otherwise cause someone to write certain things He wanted written....while others believe God indirectly causes His word to appear in a given form or language. I believe both premises are correct...that God influences translations to read the way HE wants, same as He did the first written examples of any of His word. God is NOT limited to any one version or translation by the wishful thinking of any believer of false doctrine.
Again, all your arguments are on the side of "There is no inerrant Bible". This is what you believe, so you cannot see anything different.
Actually, they're on the side of, "the KJVO myth is false".
One other note on the Easter thing which another person brought up. As I pointed out in my article, the word paska does mean Easter today in Greek. That is what the word means. The reason it is only translated as Easter is in the KJB of Acts 12:4 is because this is the only time the word Easter can apply - Post resurrection of the Lamb of God.
Yet another excuse for a KJV booboo. This one's totally from that gopher hole in left field. In luke's day, pascha meant passover alone, and Easter didn't exist. By YOUR reasoning, the AV men substituted THEIR opinion for the written thoughts of Luke. Had Luke meant ANYTHING ELSE but Passover, he woulda used another word.
You either see it or you don't. Once a person holds to the belief that there is no inerrant Bible, then God will turn him over to his own understanding where he places his own mind as the final authority.
TRUTHFULLY, what we see is the result of one's dwelling so long upon a false doctrine that it's hardened into dogma & is no longer open to the TRUTH.
[/i]Once a person sees the truth of the King James Bible, then likewise, nothing will change his mind either.[/i]
The TRUTH of the King James version is that it was the best translation of its day, which was 400 years ago. It will be a valid version long as it exists, but it'll never be more than just that...an English Bible version. That's what it was made as, and that's what it remains. We now have equally-valid BVs in OUR language, more easily-understood than the archaic English of the KJV and its predecessors. "Tis a shame that a cult official and some dishonest authors have made & spread a false myth about an excellent English Bible version, and even more of a shame that a few people actually BELIEVE that junk.
It is similar to the teaching of evolution versus creationism. Two people can look at the same evidence, and one sees evolution while the other sees creationism.
Apples & oranges, mostly. However, Darwin looked at SOME of the evidence & made an assumption based upon a partial observation. It never occurred to him that "missing links " were missing because THEY NEVER EXISTED.
The KJVO myth is missing several things, among them, SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT & CREDIBILITY. Evidence justifying its existence? ZILCH!
More guesswork, assuming facts not in evidence
Brandplucked: Nowhere in Scripture has God promised to give every nation His perfect words. God has bypassed many nations for centuries before they received any parts of the New Testament. In O.T. times it was only to the nation of Israel that God revealed Himself and His words. He left all the others in darkness.
But when & where He DID give His words, they were(and are)perfect, because they're from the ALMIGHTY GOD, master of all existence, who can do ANYTHING.
"He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 147:19-20.
But now He shows His word to virtually EVERYONE.
God only holds us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. Those nations that do not have the perfect words of God, but have some portions of God's true words have enough light to believe on Christ for salvation and can grow in many useful ways, but this does not mean they have a perfect and infallible Bible.
And the guesswork and fishing stories of man don't make a Bible version perfect either.
I certainly do not consider the NIV or the Message, or the NASB to be God's perfect words, but they all contain the gospel and people can learn a lot that is of value in them. However, they are all tinged with error and the end result for those who begin to study and learn about the Bible version issue is that they will begin to hold to the idea that there is no inspired and inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth. This will then greatly affect their faith. Most Christians today do not read or study their bibles. Most do not take them very seriously, at least in this country.
Pure imagination. People don't take their Bibles seriously because of their ATTITUDES, not their versions. And false doctrines like KJVO don't help those attitudes one bit.
As for a translation into another language, God has no problem doing this type of thing. The Bible itself is full of several examples where God's words were found in the translation into another language, and not in the "originals".
I believe the problem here is one's definition of "inspiration". Many believe that inspiration is the direct physical intervention of God to tell someone to write His word, or to otherwise cause someone to write certain things He wanted written....while others believe God indirectly causes His word to appear in a given form or language. I believe both premises are correct...that God influences translations to read the way HE wants, same as He did the first written examples of any of His word. God is NOT limited to any one version or translation by the wishful thinking of any believer of false doctrine.
Again, all your arguments are on the side of "There is no inerrant Bible". This is what you believe, so you cannot see anything different.
Actually, they're on the side of, "the KJVO myth is false".
One other note on the Easter thing which another person brought up. As I pointed out in my article, the word paska does mean Easter today in Greek. That is what the word means. The reason it is only translated as Easter is in the KJB of Acts 12:4 is because this is the only time the word Easter can apply - Post resurrection of the Lamb of God.
Yet another excuse for a KJV booboo. This one's totally from that gopher hole in left field. In luke's day, pascha meant passover alone, and Easter didn't exist. By YOUR reasoning, the AV men substituted THEIR opinion for the written thoughts of Luke. Had Luke meant ANYTHING ELSE but Passover, he woulda used another word.
You either see it or you don't. Once a person holds to the belief that there is no inerrant Bible, then God will turn him over to his own understanding where he places his own mind as the final authority.
TRUTHFULLY, what we see is the result of one's dwelling so long upon a false doctrine that it's hardened into dogma & is no longer open to the TRUTH.
[/i]Once a person sees the truth of the King James Bible, then likewise, nothing will change his mind either.[/i]
The TRUTH of the King James version is that it was the best translation of its day, which was 400 years ago. It will be a valid version long as it exists, but it'll never be more than just that...an English Bible version. That's what it was made as, and that's what it remains. We now have equally-valid BVs in OUR language, more easily-understood than the archaic English of the KJV and its predecessors. "Tis a shame that a cult official and some dishonest authors have made & spread a false myth about an excellent English Bible version, and even more of a shame that a few people actually BELIEVE that junk.
It is similar to the teaching of evolution versus creationism. Two people can look at the same evidence, and one sees evolution while the other sees creationism.
Apples & oranges, mostly. However, Darwin looked at SOME of the evidence & made an assumption based upon a partial observation. It never occurred to him that "missing links " were missing because THEY NEVER EXISTED.
The KJVO myth is missing several things, among them, SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT & CREDIBILITY. Evidence justifying its existence? ZILCH!
MartianManhuntr
New member
Johnthebaptist said:
And TROnlies do not accept them because 99% of the manuscripts in existance are NOT like Vaticanus nor Sinaiticus. The majority, an overwhelming SUPERmajority, that are in such awesome agreement, are manuscripts that support the Textus Receptus. Two manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, that cannot even agree with each other, that rather disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone, that have notes by scribes written in the margin to each other saying things like "you fool, why couldn't you leave the old reading alone?" cannot be useful for anything but to fuel a fire. In fact, when Tischendorf found the Sinaiticus manuscript, it was in a basket of material that was going to be used to do exactly that! We have 99% of all the manuscripts agreeing with each other, and confirming the Textus Receptus. Why should we accept the false witness of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus from the trash dumps of Egypt?
The "earlier" mss expose your attitude of contempt for God's word, seeing you would rather accept two MSS written by Arian heretics, two MSS that can't agree with each other hardly at all, and which show evidence of multiple hands, rather than the supermajorit of agreeing and pure manuscripts.
What a baffoonistical argument! What the Vat. and Sinait. mss prove is that heretics existed way back in the 4th century. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Forget the KJV. Who cares about English! The Textus Receptus still has the support of 99% of the extant Greek manuscripts! It is still the true majoirty text! It is still based on manuscripts that actually agree with each other!
brandplucked
New member
God's perfect Book
God's perfect Book
Hi all, for those who have been following this discussion, I would like to sum up the positions we have so far. Most of the people here do not believe any Bible or any translation is the inspired, inerrant word of God. They hold that "only the originals were inspired", and thus, by direct implication, there is no inerrant Bible on this earth today. This is what most seminarians now believe.
A very few, like Roby, continue to trip over themselves and confound the simple laws of logice and common sense. Roby tells us on one hand that 6 or 7 different bible versions are all inspired and inerrant, even though they differ among themselves in literally hundreds of places, names, numbers, texts, and meanings. Roby listed the King James Bible among the valid and inerrant versions, but then continues to point out what he thinks are errors in an inerrant book. Very interesting.
It never occurs to Roby that perhaps Satan is still at work corrupting the true words of God. No, according to him, everything is hunky dorey and just the way God wants it to be - a multitude of conflicting bible versions, all of them "inspired and inerrant", but containing "errors" (especially the King James Bible)
Roby asks for proof of our position from the Bible itself. Well, the Holy Bible says God will preserve His words (even Roby said he believes this), and that heaven and earth will pass away but not His words. The "originals" have obviously passed away, so, where are the words of God now? I believe they are in the Book we know as the King James Bible.
Roby asks for a verse. As we have pointed out before, there is no direct verse that says "only the originals were inspired" or "no translation can be inspired", or much less "all valid versions (whatever that might mean) are inspired, even though they differ radically from each other".
The fact is, God promised to preserve His words and God never lies nor do His true words. Some have eyes to see spiritual truth, and others are blind and will remain so until the Lord comes.
The three basic positions I mentioned still remain. Most Christians today do not believe the Bible is now the inspired, inerrant and complete word of God.
Some few are out there who rant against any final authority and flat out contradict themselves and all logic by telling us they are all inspired and inerrant, even though they have errors and contradict each other. Once a person has reached this level of delusion and absurdity, there is little hope he will ever be recovered.
Then there are thousands of Bible believers all over the world in places like the USA, England, Canada, Singapore, the Phillipines, Australia, New Zealand, India, and even South America who firmly believe the King James Bible is the pure and wholly true words of God.
The apostasy is happening and no one will stop it. I am not shocked or surprised anymore by what I see. I expect it. God is still gracious and still opening eyes and ears to the truth of His preserved words.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
Will Kinney
God's perfect Book
robycop3 said:
Hi all, for those who have been following this discussion, I would like to sum up the positions we have so far. Most of the people here do not believe any Bible or any translation is the inspired, inerrant word of God. They hold that "only the originals were inspired", and thus, by direct implication, there is no inerrant Bible on this earth today. This is what most seminarians now believe.
A very few, like Roby, continue to trip over themselves and confound the simple laws of logice and common sense. Roby tells us on one hand that 6 or 7 different bible versions are all inspired and inerrant, even though they differ among themselves in literally hundreds of places, names, numbers, texts, and meanings. Roby listed the King James Bible among the valid and inerrant versions, but then continues to point out what he thinks are errors in an inerrant book. Very interesting.
It never occurs to Roby that perhaps Satan is still at work corrupting the true words of God. No, according to him, everything is hunky dorey and just the way God wants it to be - a multitude of conflicting bible versions, all of them "inspired and inerrant", but containing "errors" (especially the King James Bible)
Roby asks for proof of our position from the Bible itself. Well, the Holy Bible says God will preserve His words (even Roby said he believes this), and that heaven and earth will pass away but not His words. The "originals" have obviously passed away, so, where are the words of God now? I believe they are in the Book we know as the King James Bible.
Roby asks for a verse. As we have pointed out before, there is no direct verse that says "only the originals were inspired" or "no translation can be inspired", or much less "all valid versions (whatever that might mean) are inspired, even though they differ radically from each other".
The fact is, God promised to preserve His words and God never lies nor do His true words. Some have eyes to see spiritual truth, and others are blind and will remain so until the Lord comes.
The three basic positions I mentioned still remain. Most Christians today do not believe the Bible is now the inspired, inerrant and complete word of God.
Some few are out there who rant against any final authority and flat out contradict themselves and all logic by telling us they are all inspired and inerrant, even though they have errors and contradict each other. Once a person has reached this level of delusion and absurdity, there is little hope he will ever be recovered.
Then there are thousands of Bible believers all over the world in places like the USA, England, Canada, Singapore, the Phillipines, Australia, New Zealand, India, and even South America who firmly believe the King James Bible is the pure and wholly true words of God.
The apostasy is happening and no one will stop it. I am not shocked or surprised anymore by what I see. I expect it. God is still gracious and still opening eyes and ears to the truth of His preserved words.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
Will Kinney
brandplucked
New member
Preservation of God's words
Preservation of God's words
Hi jth, as you probably know, I have written an article about the Old Latin version and the King James readings. Here is the site
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/OldLatin.html
It seems you Christians who do not believe that The Bible IS now the inerrant word of God demand something from us that you yourselves cannot provide. You cannot trace back through history all the various readings, nor can you prove that any of them are genuine, so why do you demand that we do so?
Undoubtedly thousands of manuscripts and Bibles have turned to dust or been destroyed in the last 2000 years. Neither side of this issue is able to prove beyond all doubt that any verse of Scripture is the true reading. I accept by faith that the Bible (KJB) is true and that God has preserved His words as He promised.
Of the Old Latin bibles we have some knowledge of their readings, and ALL of the most hightly disputed readings in the King James Bible have been found in the relatively few Old Latin manuscripts that have survived. The mss. we have today come from a Bible translation that was done long before anything we have in the remaining Greek copies.
Those who tell us the KJB readings are "late" have no idea what they are talking about.
Can we prove that every single reading found in the KJB is genuine and trace them all to a single manuscript? No. Nor can you do so with any other bible version on this earth. So, why is it you demand something from us that you yourselves cannot provide?
My question to you is this: Do you personally believe there is any Bible or any manuscript in any language on this earth today that is the inerrant, complete, infallible words of God? If so, what is it called? Now, if you list several conflicting and contradictory versions as all being the inerrant word of God, then I will know that you too have gone over the precipice of reason and have launced out into the abyss of absurdity like Roby has done.
Will Kinney
Preservation of God's words
Huldrych said:
Hi jth, as you probably know, I have written an article about the Old Latin version and the King James readings. Here is the site
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/OldLatin.html
It seems you Christians who do not believe that The Bible IS now the inerrant word of God demand something from us that you yourselves cannot provide. You cannot trace back through history all the various readings, nor can you prove that any of them are genuine, so why do you demand that we do so?
Undoubtedly thousands of manuscripts and Bibles have turned to dust or been destroyed in the last 2000 years. Neither side of this issue is able to prove beyond all doubt that any verse of Scripture is the true reading. I accept by faith that the Bible (KJB) is true and that God has preserved His words as He promised.
Of the Old Latin bibles we have some knowledge of their readings, and ALL of the most hightly disputed readings in the King James Bible have been found in the relatively few Old Latin manuscripts that have survived. The mss. we have today come from a Bible translation that was done long before anything we have in the remaining Greek copies.
Those who tell us the KJB readings are "late" have no idea what they are talking about.
Can we prove that every single reading found in the KJB is genuine and trace them all to a single manuscript? No. Nor can you do so with any other bible version on this earth. So, why is it you demand something from us that you yourselves cannot provide?
My question to you is this: Do you personally believe there is any Bible or any manuscript in any language on this earth today that is the inerrant, complete, infallible words of God? If so, what is it called? Now, if you list several conflicting and contradictory versions as all being the inerrant word of God, then I will know that you too have gone over the precipice of reason and have launced out into the abyss of absurdity like Roby has done.
Will Kinney
robycop3
Member
"Will The Thrill" 's guesswork goes on...
"Will The Thrill" 's guesswork goes on...
Brandplucked: Hi all, for those who have been following this discussion, I would like to sum up the positions we have so far. Most of the people here do not believe any Bible or any translation is the inspired, inerrant word of God. They hold that "only the originals were inspired", and thus, by direct implication, there is no inerrant Bible on this earth today. This is what most seminarians now believe.
Will, your fantasy continues. You imply, in so many words, that we who don't subscribe to your KJVO myth are some kind of "Christianettes" w/o any REAL bibles or final authority. Well, that's as false as the KJVO myth itself, and is a total KJVO invention
A very few, like Roby, continue to trip over themselves and confound the simple laws of logice and common sense. Roby tells us on one hand that 6 or 7 different bible versions are all inspired and inerrant, even though they differ among themselves in literally hundreds of places, names, numbers, texts, and meanings. Roby listed the King James Bible among the valid and inerrant versions, but then continues to point out what he thinks are errors in an inerrant book. Very interesting.
And ole Roby has CONTINUALLY said that every valid BV is perfect for God's intended use, even though not technically perfect. Will just cannot grasp that if God had wanted us to have a technically-perfect version, He woulda preserved the original autographs & kept them before us continually.
It never occurs to Roby that perhaps Satan is still at work corrupting the true words of God. No, according to him, everything is hunky dorey and just the way God wants it to be - a multitude of conflicting bible versions, all of them "inspired and inerrant", but containing "errors" (especially the King James Bible)
It never occurs to Will that perhaps God didn't retire in 1611, and that He still causes His word to appear in the languages of today, in forms readable to those of us alive today. It never occurs to Will that GOD IS NOT LIMITED to just one version. It never occurs to Will that his KJVO myth is false. It never occurs to Will that most of us can see through his smokescreen.
Roby asks for proof of our position from the Bible itself.
DARN TOOTIN' I do!
Well, the Holy Bible says God will preserve His words (even Roby said he believes this), and that heaven and earth will pass away but not His words. The "originals" have obviously passed away, so, where are the words of God now? I believe they are in the Book we know as the King James Bible.
Pure conjecture and guesswork.
Roby asks for a verse. As we have pointed out before, there is no direct verse that says "only the originals were inspired" or "no translation can be inspired", or much less "all valid versions (whatever that might mean) are inspired, even though they differ radically from each other".
What I ACTUALLY ask for is ANY proof from Scripture that supports the KJVO myth WHATSOEVER. Actually, it's a rhetorical request because I KNOW THERE ISN'T ANY SUCH SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! Therefore I call the KJVO myth false, without hesitation.
The fact is, God promised to preserve His words and God never lies nor do His true words. Some have eyes to see spiritual truth, and others are blind and will remain so until the Lord comes.
And those whose eyes are open will NOT be deceived by such an insidious pack of lies like the KJVO myth is.
The three basic positions I mentioned still remain. Most Christians today do not believe the Bible is now the inspired, inerrant and complete word of God.
Not hardly. What they don't believe is your OLD WIVES' TALES.
Some few are out there who rant against any final authority and flat out contradict themselves and all logic by telling us they are all inspired and inerrant, even though they have errors and contradict each other. Once a person has reached this level of delusion and absurdity, there is little hope he will ever be recovered.
An example is the KJVO who's built his own artificial "final authority" from the straw of a false, man-made doctrine.
Then there are thousands of Bible believers all over the world in places like the USA, England, Canada, Singapore, the Phillipines, Australia, New Zealand, India, and even South America who firmly believe the King James Bible is the pure and wholly true words of God.
And who do NOTbelieve it's the ONLY valid English version. Those who DO believe such are believing a LIE.
The apostasy is happening and no one will stop it.
Yes...the apostasy known as KJVO. But I'll TRY to stop it, and KEEP trying, God Willing.
I am not shocked or surprised anymore by what I see. I expect it. God is still gracious and still opening eyes and ears to the truth of His preserved words.
Yes, people are dumping the KJVO myth daily.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
Yes...Hear the falsehood of the KJVO myth.
Will Kinney
You should be familiar with Will's position by now, that he believes the lie that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation.. MINE is that I deal in FACTS and not guesswork. And BY FACTS, I've shown the entire KJVO thingie to be FALSE. There's only ONE legitimate reason to be KJVO, and that's PERSONAL PREFERENCE. There's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS for KJVOism, and that fact alone should render it false for all Christians. However, the devil can fool Christians also in some areas, and the KJVO myth is one of his tools.
NONE of the KJVOs here can get past the "no Scriptural support" thingie. And there are many POSITIVE facts against KJVO. but I'll save'em for later. I wanna see how you KJVOs deal with the FACT that your own fave Bible version doesn't support your myth.
"Will The Thrill" 's guesswork goes on...
Brandplucked: Hi all, for those who have been following this discussion, I would like to sum up the positions we have so far. Most of the people here do not believe any Bible or any translation is the inspired, inerrant word of God. They hold that "only the originals were inspired", and thus, by direct implication, there is no inerrant Bible on this earth today. This is what most seminarians now believe.
Will, your fantasy continues. You imply, in so many words, that we who don't subscribe to your KJVO myth are some kind of "Christianettes" w/o any REAL bibles or final authority. Well, that's as false as the KJVO myth itself, and is a total KJVO invention
A very few, like Roby, continue to trip over themselves and confound the simple laws of logice and common sense. Roby tells us on one hand that 6 or 7 different bible versions are all inspired and inerrant, even though they differ among themselves in literally hundreds of places, names, numbers, texts, and meanings. Roby listed the King James Bible among the valid and inerrant versions, but then continues to point out what he thinks are errors in an inerrant book. Very interesting.
And ole Roby has CONTINUALLY said that every valid BV is perfect for God's intended use, even though not technically perfect. Will just cannot grasp that if God had wanted us to have a technically-perfect version, He woulda preserved the original autographs & kept them before us continually.
It never occurs to Roby that perhaps Satan is still at work corrupting the true words of God. No, according to him, everything is hunky dorey and just the way God wants it to be - a multitude of conflicting bible versions, all of them "inspired and inerrant", but containing "errors" (especially the King James Bible)
It never occurs to Will that perhaps God didn't retire in 1611, and that He still causes His word to appear in the languages of today, in forms readable to those of us alive today. It never occurs to Will that GOD IS NOT LIMITED to just one version. It never occurs to Will that his KJVO myth is false. It never occurs to Will that most of us can see through his smokescreen.
Roby asks for proof of our position from the Bible itself.
DARN TOOTIN' I do!
Well, the Holy Bible says God will preserve His words (even Roby said he believes this), and that heaven and earth will pass away but not His words. The "originals" have obviously passed away, so, where are the words of God now? I believe they are in the Book we know as the King James Bible.
Pure conjecture and guesswork.
Roby asks for a verse. As we have pointed out before, there is no direct verse that says "only the originals were inspired" or "no translation can be inspired", or much less "all valid versions (whatever that might mean) are inspired, even though they differ radically from each other".
What I ACTUALLY ask for is ANY proof from Scripture that supports the KJVO myth WHATSOEVER. Actually, it's a rhetorical request because I KNOW THERE ISN'T ANY SUCH SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! Therefore I call the KJVO myth false, without hesitation.
The fact is, God promised to preserve His words and God never lies nor do His true words. Some have eyes to see spiritual truth, and others are blind and will remain so until the Lord comes.
And those whose eyes are open will NOT be deceived by such an insidious pack of lies like the KJVO myth is.
The three basic positions I mentioned still remain. Most Christians today do not believe the Bible is now the inspired, inerrant and complete word of God.
Not hardly. What they don't believe is your OLD WIVES' TALES.
Some few are out there who rant against any final authority and flat out contradict themselves and all logic by telling us they are all inspired and inerrant, even though they have errors and contradict each other. Once a person has reached this level of delusion and absurdity, there is little hope he will ever be recovered.
An example is the KJVO who's built his own artificial "final authority" from the straw of a false, man-made doctrine.
Then there are thousands of Bible believers all over the world in places like the USA, England, Canada, Singapore, the Phillipines, Australia, New Zealand, India, and even South America who firmly believe the King James Bible is the pure and wholly true words of God.
And who do NOTbelieve it's the ONLY valid English version. Those who DO believe such are believing a LIE.
The apostasy is happening and no one will stop it.
Yes...the apostasy known as KJVO. But I'll TRY to stop it, and KEEP trying, God Willing.
I am not shocked or surprised anymore by what I see. I expect it. God is still gracious and still opening eyes and ears to the truth of His preserved words.
Yes, people are dumping the KJVO myth daily.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
Yes...Hear the falsehood of the KJVO myth.
Will Kinney
You should be familiar with Will's position by now, that he believes the lie that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation.. MINE is that I deal in FACTS and not guesswork. And BY FACTS, I've shown the entire KJVO thingie to be FALSE. There's only ONE legitimate reason to be KJVO, and that's PERSONAL PREFERENCE. There's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS for KJVOism, and that fact alone should render it false for all Christians. However, the devil can fool Christians also in some areas, and the KJVO myth is one of his tools.
NONE of the KJVOs here can get past the "no Scriptural support" thingie. And there are many POSITIVE facts against KJVO. but I'll save'em for later. I wanna see how you KJVOs deal with the FACT that your own fave Bible version doesn't support your myth.
Johnthebaptist
New member
martianmanhuntr
The recent the Byzantine manuscripts are in "awesome agreement" is because they are later and have had time to have various changes from the earlier Alexanderian manuscripts. Scholarship has shown that all the manuscripts have a very high degree of agreement. You and other KJV Only blow way out of proportion the differences in the manuscripts. There is nothing wrong with the KJV it is a good trustworthy translation, but not inerrant.
It amazes me how yu KJV can claim every one a heretic that does not agree with you. I note the hostility and anger in your response. This is characteristic of most KJV Only persons, but not all. Evidently I get the impression that you are not secure in your convictions.
[/QUOTE]What a baffoonistical argument! What the Vat. and Sinait. mss prove is that heretics existed way back in the 4th century. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The recent the Byzantine manuscripts are in "awesome agreement" is because they are later and have had time to have various changes from the earlier Alexanderian manuscripts. Scholarship has shown that all the manuscripts have a very high degree of agreement. You and other KJV Only blow way out of proportion the differences in the manuscripts. There is nothing wrong with the KJV it is a good trustworthy translation, but not inerrant.
It amazes me how yu KJV can claim every one a heretic that does not agree with you. I note the hostility and anger in your response. This is characteristic of most KJV Only persons, but not all. Evidently I get the impression that you are not secure in your convictions.
[/QUOTE]What a baffoonistical argument! What the Vat. and Sinait. mss prove is that heretics existed way back in the 4th century. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Peter A V
New member
KJVO rejects the original manuscripts?
KJVO rejects the original manuscripts?
The critical Greek text had to go back with over 500 readings,to the KJV,BECAUSE these new finds prooved what the Bible believers always believed.Even at that,the modern versions disregurd the latest findings and just pick their own verbage,that sometimes is in no manuscript including their favourite corrupted Wescott and Hort copycats.[Nestles and UBS,Metzger].
What you said was completely false,at every senence.In fact KJV onlyites are just looking at the facts.When we see 99% of manuscript evidence prove the purity of the KJV,and expose the completely corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts as the fakes they really are,we are compelled to agree,not because of preference,but by the overwhelming majority of witness,that the KJV is the very words of God,throughout.
We do not agree with the critical text because it is corrupt.It was corrupted by Origen,an heretic.It was further perpetrated by the heretic Jerome[he knew they would brand him an heretic if he did what the RCC wanted him to do.],and made socially acceptable by Eusebius during the reign of Constantine.
The church of Bible believers rejected these works and were persecuted for believing the Holy Bible,instead.[ The Majority Text] Besides,these heretical readings were trashed quite soon after they came out.But the Received Text has had a consistent and accepted aproval of the church for the whole duration.Isn't it interesting that the Disappeared Gnostic,Arian manuscripts get found and printed in these last apostate,Laodicean era?
The very proof that the KJV is the inerant words of God is the very fact that they disagree with this 1% Alexandrian corrupted dissapeared manuscripts,that can't even agree any two verses in a row among themselves.Like MM says These two Alexandrian manuscripts [Aleph and B]dissagree with each other some 3,000 times just in the Gospels alone.
Plus they omit whole books of the Bible.Satan is very interested in Bible translation.Very subtle,is his first discription.He would like to be like the Most High.Hmmmmm.
The KJV agrees with most of the ancient bodies of Biblical work out there.It is the critical editions that are the late bloomers.Anyone saying that KJV is based only on late stuff,doesn't know the evidence.
The scholarship onlyites are the fools that believe in the "originals" as infalible,even though the Holy Bible shows that not to be all the truth.Timothy had the "inspired scriptures."Now was that an original?NOT.The scribes in Jesus day had the "scriptures."Did they have the originals?NOT.
There are no Originals.
But what we do have,are 5300 manuscripts.99% agree with the KJV.1% minority,sort of agree with the modern versions,for even the modern versions and manuscripts had to plagerize from the Holy Bible to pass off as a bible.What a mess modern translators have made of it.Basically because many were not even saved,others were outright heretics,some involved in the occult,others were very Liberal,many tricked,others the truth was hidden from them.Some,after finding out some of this garbage have now recanted.
A Bible believer believes his Bible.He simply believes what God said in his word about his words.
Why side with the heretics and false readings,and necromancers?
There is no choice.Take God at his word.KJV 1611 the only English trustworthy edition.All others are fakes and riddled with errors.Any other arguments exposes the hatered for the Very Words of God.
KJVO rejects the original manuscripts?
..............................Johnthebaptist said:
The critical Greek text had to go back with over 500 readings,to the KJV,BECAUSE these new finds prooved what the Bible believers always believed.Even at that,the modern versions disregurd the latest findings and just pick their own verbage,that sometimes is in no manuscript including their favourite corrupted Wescott and Hort copycats.[Nestles and UBS,Metzger].
What you said was completely false,at every senence.In fact KJV onlyites are just looking at the facts.When we see 99% of manuscript evidence prove the purity of the KJV,and expose the completely corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts as the fakes they really are,we are compelled to agree,not because of preference,but by the overwhelming majority of witness,that the KJV is the very words of God,throughout.
We do not agree with the critical text because it is corrupt.It was corrupted by Origen,an heretic.It was further perpetrated by the heretic Jerome[he knew they would brand him an heretic if he did what the RCC wanted him to do.],and made socially acceptable by Eusebius during the reign of Constantine.
The church of Bible believers rejected these works and were persecuted for believing the Holy Bible,instead.[ The Majority Text] Besides,these heretical readings were trashed quite soon after they came out.But the Received Text has had a consistent and accepted aproval of the church for the whole duration.Isn't it interesting that the Disappeared Gnostic,Arian manuscripts get found and printed in these last apostate,Laodicean era?
The very proof that the KJV is the inerant words of God is the very fact that they disagree with this 1% Alexandrian corrupted dissapeared manuscripts,that can't even agree any two verses in a row among themselves.Like MM says These two Alexandrian manuscripts [Aleph and B]dissagree with each other some 3,000 times just in the Gospels alone.
Plus they omit whole books of the Bible.Satan is very interested in Bible translation.Very subtle,is his first discription.He would like to be like the Most High.Hmmmmm.
The KJV agrees with most of the ancient bodies of Biblical work out there.It is the critical editions that are the late bloomers.Anyone saying that KJV is based only on late stuff,doesn't know the evidence.
The scholarship onlyites are the fools that believe in the "originals" as infalible,even though the Holy Bible shows that not to be all the truth.Timothy had the "inspired scriptures."Now was that an original?NOT.The scribes in Jesus day had the "scriptures."Did they have the originals?NOT.
There are no Originals.
But what we do have,are 5300 manuscripts.99% agree with the KJV.1% minority,sort of agree with the modern versions,for even the modern versions and manuscripts had to plagerize from the Holy Bible to pass off as a bible.What a mess modern translators have made of it.Basically because many were not even saved,others were outright heretics,some involved in the occult,others were very Liberal,many tricked,others the truth was hidden from them.Some,after finding out some of this garbage have now recanted.
A Bible believer believes his Bible.He simply believes what God said in his word about his words.
Why side with the heretics and false readings,and necromancers?
There is no choice.Take God at his word.KJV 1611 the only English trustworthy edition.All others are fakes and riddled with errors.Any other arguments exposes the hatered for the Very Words of God.
Huldrych
New member
Biblical Preservation
Biblical Preservation
I'll get to the Waldensians in a minute, but now I will at least credit you for looking into what extant Old Latin mss do contain, via the UBS critical apparatus. Still, even then, they really don't help your case.
For example:
There are others listed as well, which I could spend time and energy listing here and dispelling your spin, but suffice it to say, none of the aforementioned Old Latin manuscripts matches the KJV 100%. Granted, there were probably a lot more OL mss in existence, but if the ones we do have are any indication of the rest of them, then Onlyism cannot rely on Old Latin to prove its theory of Biblical Preservation. You need to find one, just one, that lines up with the KJV 100% to prove your theory is indeed fact.
Then there are the Waldensian Bibles. You haven't examined any of these others to test the veracity of la preservation de la Bible a la onlyisme, and I highly doubt your sources have, either. They mention Old Latin and the Italic Bibles, but do they compare them with KJV readings?
I do have, in my possession, the text of what might be an example of a Waldensian New Testament--the Codex Teplensis. Dr. Philip Schaff quotes a Ludwig Keller who hypothesized this text as being Waldensian in origin . If true, then Onlyism's ideas of Biblical preservation suffer yet another hit, if my analysis of that text is any indication.
As a favor to a friend, I did a comparison of KJV readings with Reformation Bible readings . As an additional measure, I looked at the Teplensis, and reported my findings. Of the 64 verses examined, the Teplensis agreed with the KJV only 40% of the time.
While it is not lost on me that Keller's assertion about the Waldensian origin of the Teplensis is hypothetical, I can at least be credited for personally examining a Bible suspected by several (e.g. Robert L. Webb, Mike Gascoigne, J.K. Elliot, Comba) of being Waldensian, which is more than what most Onlyists have done.
Then, there are Reformation-Era Bibles. If you look at the same link I provided above, giving my analysis of the KJV's readings vs. those found in certain Reformation-Era Bibles (Luther 1534/45, Zürcher 1531, Tyndale 1530, de Reina 1569), you will find that none of them lined up with the KJV 100% in those 64 verses I looked at. The best any of them did was about 83%.
Until you can, you really have no basis to ask that question.
jth.
Biblical Preservation
Yes, I read it when the article was new. I particularly liked this part of the article, where you give your best shot about the perfect Bible before 1611:brandplucked said:
A guess, Will. Not evidence, but conjecture. Hoping that the screen doors won't sink the submarine.
I'll get to the Waldensians in a minute, but now I will at least credit you for looking into what extant Old Latin mss do contain, via the UBS critical apparatus. Still, even then, they really don't help your case.
For example:
I got a kick out of the song and dance routine that follows the bold print above. "No big deal." Will, you are the one who claimed in Post #194 that "The only logical position of faith is to believe that if God is true to His words, then He must have preserved His words in a translation of some kind." The above evidence hardly supports that notion, at least as far as the Old Latin goes.
There are others listed as well, which I could spend time and energy listing here and dispelling your spin, but suffice it to say, none of the aforementioned Old Latin manuscripts matches the KJV 100%. Granted, there were probably a lot more OL mss in existence, but if the ones we do have are any indication of the rest of them, then Onlyism cannot rely on Old Latin to prove its theory of Biblical Preservation. You need to find one, just one, that lines up with the KJV 100% to prove your theory is indeed fact.
Then there are the Waldensian Bibles. You haven't examined any of these others to test the veracity of la preservation de la Bible a la onlyisme, and I highly doubt your sources have, either. They mention Old Latin and the Italic Bibles, but do they compare them with KJV readings?
I do have, in my possession, the text of what might be an example of a Waldensian New Testament--the Codex Teplensis. Dr. Philip Schaff quotes a Ludwig Keller who hypothesized this text as being Waldensian in origin . If true, then Onlyism's ideas of Biblical preservation suffer yet another hit, if my analysis of that text is any indication.
As a favor to a friend, I did a comparison of KJV readings with Reformation Bible readings . As an additional measure, I looked at the Teplensis, and reported my findings. Of the 64 verses examined, the Teplensis agreed with the KJV only 40% of the time.
While it is not lost on me that Keller's assertion about the Waldensian origin of the Teplensis is hypothetical, I can at least be credited for personally examining a Bible suspected by several (e.g. Robert L. Webb, Mike Gascoigne, J.K. Elliot, Comba) of being Waldensian, which is more than what most Onlyists have done.
Then, there are Reformation-Era Bibles. If you look at the same link I provided above, giving my analysis of the KJV's readings vs. those found in certain Reformation-Era Bibles (Luther 1534/45, Zürcher 1531, Tyndale 1530, de Reina 1569), you will find that none of them lined up with the KJV 100% in those 64 verses I looked at. The best any of them did was about 83%.
I only ask that Onlyists at least attempt to look at what is also available to us--no more, no less, and see how the results line up with their theories. They seem very reluctant to do so.
To see if you have tested your own claims. It seems you really have not.
Unfortunately, only one side has to prove themselves if their theories are really to be shown to have substance. They are the ones who make the claim about the existence of one perfect Bible throughout the ages. And they have the most to lose, and the most to gain, if this matter can be settled through evidence. While thousands indeed may have perished, thousands nonetheless have survived. Surely among those thousands is conclusive, maybe even definitive, proof of Onlyism's idea of perfect preservation. But in the past 50 years of Onlyism's existence among findamentalists, it seems nothing has really been done except echo the party line sired by a Seventh-Day Adventist.
Faith, or presumption?
That's nice, and is most useful in helping defend Byzantine readings from Alexandrian. Unfortunately, what we're looking for is something that contains 100% of the KJV's text, since you and other Onlyists claim the KJV to be the present manifestation of the singular Bible God inspired. So far, zilch.
Then your theory of preservation needs re-examination. After all, you did say that "I do believe the Bible itself teaches that God will preserve His pure words in a Book we can hold in our hands and believe every word." and as this applies to Bibles appearing before 1611, "He must have preserved His words in a translation of some kind."
Because we have not made the extravagant claim that proto-KJVs existed before 1611. Our side of the case so far holds true.
That is a rhetorical device known as the "loaded question." It assumes certain things, and demands an answer based on those assumptions. You assume the KJV is today's manifestation of the "inerrant, complete, infallible words of God," but cannot back up those assumptions based on your belief that God preserved His words in some form of the KJV throughout the ages.
Until you can, you really have no basis to ask that question.
jth.
logos_x
New member
logos_x
New member
Peter A V,
You, and others like you, have made a book into an idol.
Joh 5:39 "You search the Scriptures, because you suppose that in them you will find the Life of the Ages; and it is those Scriptures that yield testimony concerning me;
Joh 5:40 and yet you are unwilling to come to me that you may have Life.
Your idolatry, like all works of the Devil, will be destroyed.
You, and others like you, have made a book into an idol.
Joh 5:39 "You search the Scriptures, because you suppose that in them you will find the Life of the Ages; and it is those Scriptures that yield testimony concerning me;
Joh 5:40 and yet you are unwilling to come to me that you may have Life.
Your idolatry, like all works of the Devil, will be destroyed.
Huldrych
New member
Peter A V said:
Be careful, Pete. I know you Onlyists are very quick to jump to conclusions without really examining matters first. Take for example your "paganized Scriptures" remark, and your accusation that I idolize them. Do you know which Scriptures I read, and do you really know what I think about Alexandrian-based Bibles?
I don't think so. But as a hint, I will tell you that not everyone who is anti-Onlyism is pro-Alexandrian.
To show that Onlyists aren't doing enough to prove the legitimacy of their claims.
True, which means that, so far, no one has found a Bible that conforms to the KJV 100% and therefore proves their claims of preservation as baseless.
You're preaching to the choir--save these arguments for a Byzantine vs. Alexandrian debate. The Bibles I prefer are based on one form or another of the Traditional Text.
My point is, that so far, there is no historical evidence that supports the Onlyist angle on Biblical preservation; that is to say, that the KJV, and KJV only, is the perfect manifestation of God's promise to preserve His word.
There's a difference between basically (i.e. generally) agreeing and perfectly agreeing. And you Onlyists claim perfect inerrancy, perfect preservation, for the KJV. But you can't find an earlier Bible to support that claim.
But maybe you, Peter, have. Have you found at least one of the KJV's predecessors in God's plan to perfectly preserve His words?
You mean like the KJV?
And which version of the TR would that be? Erasmus 1519? Stephanus 1550? Scrivener 1894? Got news for you, bub, the TR is not a monolith. For more information on that, you can go here.
Different spellings are one thing, and they can be excused. But different renderings of words, thoughts, or concepts are another thing entire. And if one Bible deviates from the AV1611 in the slightest, then it cannot be used to support the claim of perfect preservation; at least not in the way Onlyists teach it.
Someone came up with the notion that the KJV is perfectly preserved within the last 100 years, based upon the evidence he had on hand. And now you are saying we should disregard this evidence altogether?
Oh, I get it now :doh: the evidence really doesn't support Onlyism, so let's just ignore it.
That's the problem with Onlyism--they have a hard time looking BEFORE 1611, especially when it comes to proving the 1611's perfectly preserved status.
In order to establish that, you'll have to clarify which TR you're talking about.
As something of a language expert myself, I find that statement to hold more opinion than fact.
But you admit the discrepancies exist. Therefore, even you admit that Onlyism's notions about preservation are less than watertight.
jth
brandplucked
New member
The Preserved words of God
The Preserved words of God
Hi Jth, thanks for your thoughts. Regarding the "no big deal" of one example Kutilek gave in his cherry picking examples, there were only 10 Old Latin mss. listed that omitted one word, "Jesus" in one verse. My point was that there undoubtedly were hundreds of Old Latin mss. that once existed, and we simply do not know what they said or didn't say. Kutilek was very definitely cherry picking his examples, and they were not "at random" as he stated. He has an agenda, that is, to prove there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible in any language.
Unfortunately, I also know from past conversations with you that you do not believe in the existence of a perfect and inerrant Bible either. You are a far more reasonable man to deal with than some few others we frequently run into, but your final conclusion is that there is no perfectly preserved words of God in any language or text.
The Lord Jesus Christ said (and it is the only statement of His that is recorded in all three synoptic gospels) "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." This stament is either true or He lied.
The "originals" have obviously passed away. So, the question remains, Where are the true words of the Lord Jesus Christ today? I have a Bible witnessed to by the Providential hand of God in history and the internal evidence, that I can point anybody to and say with all confidence "This is the true, inerrant and inspired words of God - the King James Holy Bible."
You, my friend, do not have such a book, do you?
You do not need to back up all your preferred readings from history because you do not believe in the existence of an inerrant Bible.
I do not have to back up every single reading found in the KJB from the historical evidence from my point of view. Mainly because most of the manuscript evidence no longer exists, and I believe the Bible I DO have. It tells me that God has promised in various specific Scriptures that He would preserve His words in a Book here on this earth.
I'm sorry you do not yet believe there is an inerrant Bible on this earth. I sincerely hope God will reveal to you that there is one, and it is now called the King James Holy Bible.
In and by His grace alone,
Will K
The Preserved words of God
Huldrych said:
Hi Jth, thanks for your thoughts. Regarding the "no big deal" of one example Kutilek gave in his cherry picking examples, there were only 10 Old Latin mss. listed that omitted one word, "Jesus" in one verse. My point was that there undoubtedly were hundreds of Old Latin mss. that once existed, and we simply do not know what they said or didn't say. Kutilek was very definitely cherry picking his examples, and they were not "at random" as he stated. He has an agenda, that is, to prove there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible in any language.
Unfortunately, I also know from past conversations with you that you do not believe in the existence of a perfect and inerrant Bible either. You are a far more reasonable man to deal with than some few others we frequently run into, but your final conclusion is that there is no perfectly preserved words of God in any language or text.
The Lord Jesus Christ said (and it is the only statement of His that is recorded in all three synoptic gospels) "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." This stament is either true or He lied.
The "originals" have obviously passed away. So, the question remains, Where are the true words of the Lord Jesus Christ today? I have a Bible witnessed to by the Providential hand of God in history and the internal evidence, that I can point anybody to and say with all confidence "This is the true, inerrant and inspired words of God - the King James Holy Bible."
You, my friend, do not have such a book, do you?
You do not need to back up all your preferred readings from history because you do not believe in the existence of an inerrant Bible.
I do not have to back up every single reading found in the KJB from the historical evidence from my point of view. Mainly because most of the manuscript evidence no longer exists, and I believe the Bible I DO have. It tells me that God has promised in various specific Scriptures that He would preserve His words in a Book here on this earth.
I'm sorry you do not yet believe there is an inerrant Bible on this earth. I sincerely hope God will reveal to you that there is one, and it is now called the King James Holy Bible.
In and by His grace alone,
Will K
brandplucked
New member
Attacking the King James Bible
Attacking the King James Bible
Hi saints and sinners, Roby got a tad upset when I asked why he thought the Bible believers (those who really believe The Bible IS the inerrant and inspired words of God, but Roby refers to us as KJV Onlies) are wreaking havoc on the church. I asked if is was because we uphold one Bible as being the true words of God and reject the imposters.
Roby then told us we are wrong for calling into doubt the reliability of such versions as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV etc.
Let me point out that for years now it has been the promoters of the new versions that have severely criticized the King James Bible as being inaccurate and based on the wrong texts.
It is the modern version promoters themselves who do not believe ANY BIBLE on this earth is now the inerrant, complete, and infallible word of God.
I have read many anti KJB books and sites. People like James White, Rick Norris, Doug Kutilek, Daniel Wallace, and Roby always say something like "We are not against or attacking the KJV", and yet all of their book and articles have page after page of examples of what they think are errors and mistranslations. They are in effect telling us that the King James Bible is NOT the inerrant word of God.
So, what do they replace it with? Generally with a list of several preferred and "reliable translations", none of which any of them really believes is the Final Authority of the Inerrant words of God. Instead, they give us their own opinions and each of these men disagrees with the others in many points and preferences.
"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
The attacks against the King James Bible.
On page 103 of his book, Mr. Norris asks the question: "Is their evidence for their KJV-only view so weak that they have to tear down all other translations in order to build up the KJV?"
Later in his book Mr. Norris himself dedicates three whole chapters consisting of 60 pages to "tearing down" the King James Bible by alleging a whole series of mistranslations, errors, and assorted blunders as being "an unhappy translation", "this is not correct", "the incorrect rendering" and "a mere oversight of our KJV translators".
I think one of the main reasons many of us who are King James Bible defenders are so fervent about this whole Bible version issue is because the attack first began by those who placed their individual learning, scholarship, and opinions as the final authority of what God REALLY said, and tried to rob us of our faith in an inspired Bible.
This process began years ago in various commentaries where the author would write "the Authorized Version has an unfortunate rendering here", or "It really says...", or "the Greek really means...". They were in effect distancing us from the sure words of God and making themselves a type of intermediary between us and hearing God's voice directly through His written word. We just got tired of it and decided to believe what The Book says about itself.
Various new bible versions were not even subtle about this attack on our beloved Bible. When the Revised Standard Version came out in 1952 it contained these remarks in the Preface.
"The King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision of the English translation."
Ronald F. Youngblood, one of the NIV translators has this to say regarding the underlying Greek texts of the King James Bible. "It is now almost universally recognized that the Textus Receptus (TR) contains so many significant departures from the original manuscripts of the various New Testament books that it cannot be relied on as a basis for translation into other languages."
"It is simply to point out that in most cases the readings found in older manuscripts, particularly the Greek uncials Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the fourth century A.D., are to be preferred to those found in later manuscripts, such as those that reflect the TR." The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), pp. 111-112 .
Edwin H. Palmer, the executive secretary for the committee on Bible translation for the NIV, wrote the following. "The KJV is not, however, the best translation to use today. This is so for two reasons: (1) it adds to the word of God and (2) it has now obscure and misleading renderings of God's Word. They did their best, but all they had to work with was a handful of copies of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament books. In a few sections they had no Greek manuscript at all! Instead, they had to rely on the Latin Vulgate's rendering of what they thought must have originally been in the Greek!
"Through the providence of God, many more Greek manuscripts had been preserved and were subsequently discovered - in fact, more than five thousand of them. Some of the Greek manuscripts date back to the four hundreds and three hundreds - even to about A.D. 200. These ancient manuscripts were more reliable and more accurate, not being corrupted by errors made during countless times of copying, such as occurred with the late manuscripts used by the KJV." The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), pp. 142-143.
Mr. Palmer, of the NIV committee, closed with these words: "Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible ... For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), p. 156.)
The King James Bible believer is not "the bad guy" for defending the existence of an inerrant Bible. It is so ironic that today in Christianity, the person who believes in an inerrant Bible is called an idolator, a heretic, or "of the devil", whereas those who do not believe any Bible in any language is the inerrant, infallible words of God are considered "renowned scholars" and pillars of the faith.
Will Kinney
Attacking the King James Bible
Hi saints and sinners, Roby got a tad upset when I asked why he thought the Bible believers (those who really believe The Bible IS the inerrant and inspired words of God, but Roby refers to us as KJV Onlies) are wreaking havoc on the church. I asked if is was because we uphold one Bible as being the true words of God and reject the imposters.
Roby then told us we are wrong for calling into doubt the reliability of such versions as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV etc.
Let me point out that for years now it has been the promoters of the new versions that have severely criticized the King James Bible as being inaccurate and based on the wrong texts.
It is the modern version promoters themselves who do not believe ANY BIBLE on this earth is now the inerrant, complete, and infallible word of God.
I have read many anti KJB books and sites. People like James White, Rick Norris, Doug Kutilek, Daniel Wallace, and Roby always say something like "We are not against or attacking the KJV", and yet all of their book and articles have page after page of examples of what they think are errors and mistranslations. They are in effect telling us that the King James Bible is NOT the inerrant word of God.
So, what do they replace it with? Generally with a list of several preferred and "reliable translations", none of which any of them really believes is the Final Authority of the Inerrant words of God. Instead, they give us their own opinions and each of these men disagrees with the others in many points and preferences.
"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
The attacks against the King James Bible.
On page 103 of his book, Mr. Norris asks the question: "Is their evidence for their KJV-only view so weak that they have to tear down all other translations in order to build up the KJV?"
Later in his book Mr. Norris himself dedicates three whole chapters consisting of 60 pages to "tearing down" the King James Bible by alleging a whole series of mistranslations, errors, and assorted blunders as being "an unhappy translation", "this is not correct", "the incorrect rendering" and "a mere oversight of our KJV translators".
I think one of the main reasons many of us who are King James Bible defenders are so fervent about this whole Bible version issue is because the attack first began by those who placed their individual learning, scholarship, and opinions as the final authority of what God REALLY said, and tried to rob us of our faith in an inspired Bible.
This process began years ago in various commentaries where the author would write "the Authorized Version has an unfortunate rendering here", or "It really says...", or "the Greek really means...". They were in effect distancing us from the sure words of God and making themselves a type of intermediary between us and hearing God's voice directly through His written word. We just got tired of it and decided to believe what The Book says about itself.
Various new bible versions were not even subtle about this attack on our beloved Bible. When the Revised Standard Version came out in 1952 it contained these remarks in the Preface.
"The King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision of the English translation."
Ronald F. Youngblood, one of the NIV translators has this to say regarding the underlying Greek texts of the King James Bible. "It is now almost universally recognized that the Textus Receptus (TR) contains so many significant departures from the original manuscripts of the various New Testament books that it cannot be relied on as a basis for translation into other languages."
"It is simply to point out that in most cases the readings found in older manuscripts, particularly the Greek uncials Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the fourth century A.D., are to be preferred to those found in later manuscripts, such as those that reflect the TR." The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), pp. 111-112 .
Edwin H. Palmer, the executive secretary for the committee on Bible translation for the NIV, wrote the following. "The KJV is not, however, the best translation to use today. This is so for two reasons: (1) it adds to the word of God and (2) it has now obscure and misleading renderings of God's Word. They did their best, but all they had to work with was a handful of copies of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament books. In a few sections they had no Greek manuscript at all! Instead, they had to rely on the Latin Vulgate's rendering of what they thought must have originally been in the Greek!
"Through the providence of God, many more Greek manuscripts had been preserved and were subsequently discovered - in fact, more than five thousand of them. Some of the Greek manuscripts date back to the four hundreds and three hundreds - even to about A.D. 200. These ancient manuscripts were more reliable and more accurate, not being corrupted by errors made during countless times of copying, such as occurred with the late manuscripts used by the KJV." The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), pp. 142-143.
Mr. Palmer, of the NIV committee, closed with these words: "Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible ... For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), p. 156.)
The King James Bible believer is not "the bad guy" for defending the existence of an inerrant Bible. It is so ironic that today in Christianity, the person who believes in an inerrant Bible is called an idolator, a heretic, or "of the devil", whereas those who do not believe any Bible in any language is the inerrant, infallible words of God are considered "renowned scholars" and pillars of the faith.
Will Kinney
- Status