KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant

[Clete]

Hi Clete, just a couple of short comments on your post.






Clete, may I suggest you read some more articles on my site? I have already addressed this question. God has always had His perfect words here on this earth. If not, then He lied, and I for one do not believe God ever lied.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html


In and by His sovereign grace alone,

Will K

Give me a break, will ya? Can't you just give me a straight answer? Why are you here if you won't actually debate the issues. There are better, more appropriate places to promote your various written works. Besides your article only addresses one of the questions posed in my post. What about the rest of it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[robycop3]

Double double standards by the KJVO.....

Double double standards by the KJVO.....

Brandplucked: Hi all, there are answers to the things Roby keeps bringing up about the alleged LXX and the quotes in the New Testament. I have written several articles about the myth of the LXX quoting from many people who are not even KJB only. There was no such animal.

Here's a little quote by Will's perfect translators of his perfect KJV, from their "To The Reader:

While God would be known only in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideon's fleece only, and all the earth besides was dry; [See S.August.lib.12. contra Faust.c.32.] then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew was sufficient.
But when the fullness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God, should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then, lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek prince (Greek for descent and language), even of Ptolomy Philadelph, King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek.
This is the translation of the Seventy interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal.
For the Grecians, being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common.
Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the colonies, which thither they had sent.
For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too.
Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market-place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by.

Now, whom do you believe...this shoot-in-the dark guessmaker, or the men who made the Bible version he claims is perfect?

Here is one of my articles dealing with the two examples Roby continually brings up. See if your view is consistent with the evidence.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXThree.html

Once you've read Mr. Kinney's guesswork, simply go to the KJV and read isaiah 61:1-3 and Isaiah 42:7-8, and compare them with what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21. They DON'T MATCH, do they? But what JESUS read DOES match the Greek and not the Hebrew Masoretic Text. AND JESUS CALLED IT SCRIPTURE!!(Luke 4:21) Now, you can believe Will, or you can believe what the KJV says. Is HIS view consistent with the evidence that's found in Scripture itself?

From there, you can access the other articles dealing with the LXX issue. Please go to the first one, and find out more about this huge lie concerning a pre-Christian, authoritative and widely used Greek translation of the O.T. Scriptures that supposedly was quoted by the Lord Jesus and the apostles.

Yeah...See that Mr Kinney places himself above the men who wrote the Bible version he claims is perfect.

 

[robycop3]

Give me a break, will ya? Can't you just give me a straight answer? Why are you here if you won't actually debate the issues. There are better, more appropriate places to promote your various written works. Besides your article only addresses one of the questions posed in my post. What about the rest of it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, a straight answer with one who disagrees with him is impossible for Mr. Kinney. Why? He knows the CORRECT answers will shoot his KJVO myth in the foot, and that myth is more important to him than the TRUTH.

An example: For years, I've reminded him that there's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth nor for anything like it. I remind him that, since Scripture is the HIGHEST WRITTEN AUTHORITY THERE IS, that any theory about Scripture must therefore be SUPPORTED by Scripture. Mr. Kinney simply WILL NOT deal with that FACT that renders all his KJVO stuff wrong. The main reason I follow him around on these boards is to make sure the neophyte English-speaking Christian hears the TRUTH about Bible versions from someone, and to refute the FALSE KJVO DOCTRINE before God and man.

 

[Johnthebaptist]

John, you have been brainwashed by your seminary training. I know exactly where you are coming from. There are hundreds of sites out there that all tell us about this supposed pre-Christian LXX that allegedly was quoted by the Lord Jesus and the apostles. This is a lie on the level of Evolution. Instead of giving us the usual song and dance routine about the so called LXX, I suggest you actually go to my site and read the articles and examples I have documented about the myth of the LXX.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html

You still have no inerrant Bible. You confess no translation is perfect, and all have weaknesses and strengths. Guess who becomes the Final Authority with your view? Why, surprise, it's YOU. If you know where all the strengths and weaknesses are, then why don't you write your own bible version? It may be a best seller and you will be rich and famous.

John, regarding the Bible version issue, you are a blind guide of the blind. You keep referring to this puffed up buffoon Daniel Wallace as though he were your hero and guide. The guy has no clue and certainly does not believe The Bible IS the inerrant word of God. You guys preach from "bibles" you don't even believe are the infallible words of God.

You got your mind reamed and your money stolen at seminary, and now your spreading your "No Bible is inspired" poison.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Will K

Well Will, if there were no inerrant autograph manuscripts, there would be no bases for the KJV or any other translation. The KJV did not fall out of the sky. The inspiration of the writers extented to the original autographs, this is when inspiration took place not in 1611.

It amazes me at the extremes you KJV Only people will go to. There is historical evidence that the LXX was translated in Alexanderia Egypt. Yes there was later corruption of the Septuagint text. Yes certain passage of Scripture in the New Testament may or may not have been taken from the Septuagint.

One of the things the Septuagent did was show us the differences from the Massoretic Text and the anceint Hebrew which was older.

Yes there was a lot of spectulation about the writers being 72 and each writer'w writings agreeing with the other. This part is probably myth. But the Septuagint was not myth AS THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS are not myth.

You probably think that Gail Riplinger was a reputable writer.

God Bless
John

 

[robycop3]

John...

By now, you've prolly noticed Will believes the AV translators, and the KJV itself ONLY as far as they/it agree w/the KJVO myth. Those men recognized the antiquity of the LXX. Now, I wonder how the Roman centurion whose servant Jesus healed knew about Him, knowing He could heal from the spot, not having to be in the presence of the ill person? It appears that more than one Greek , Roman, Ethiopian, and Middle Easterner, coming from areas where few if any jews lived, knew the OT Scriptures quite well. This is evidence, although not conclusive, that the LXX had been widely distributed by Jesus' time.

And there's no getting around the fact that the New Testament Greek of many quotes from the OT made by the apostles...not to mention what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21, calling it SCRIPTURE in V21, match the LXX and not the Masoretic Text translated into Greek. While this is NOT conclusive evidence that they were using the LXX, it certainly IS positive evidence that they were quoting some Greek version.

Think Mr. Kinney will admit this? Please don't hold your breath waiting; you're liable to become quite cyanotic...

 

[brandplucked]

"There is no inspired Bible on this earth"

"There is no inspired Bible on this earth"

Well Will, if there were no inerrant autograph manuscripts, there would be no bases for the KJV or any other translation. The KJV did not fall out of the sky. The inspiration of the writers extented to the original autographs, this is when inspiration took place not in 1611...

God Bless
John

John, let's be real clear about this, OK? THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS. Just as bible translators do today, they piece together from varying manuscripts what they think are the words of God. The problem with your view is that you leave out the sovereignty of God to direct any group of translators to come up with a perfect Book.

Every bible that has come on the scene is popular for a few months or years at best, and then they slip away into oblivion. Where are the Revised Version and the ASV? Gone. Where is the RSV? Gone. The NRSV? Gone. The NASB is fast disappearing (thank God) and even the NIV is being replaced with the TNIV and the new Holman Standard (both pieces of junk). Then we have that abomination called The Message.

We also have Wallace's goofy NET bible on the internet. New versions continue to flood the market and all of them differ from all the other ones. They will not last and they do not pass the test of absolute Truth.

I do not believe there will be ONE New Bible that will replace all the others. What will happen is what is happening now. There will continue to be a multitude of conflicting and every changing false bible versions that will confuse the church and cause everyone to place his own mind, his own preferences, and his own personal opinions above any written authority.

This is happening now before our eyes. Fewer and fewer Christians read their bibles or take them seriously. This is the most Biblically illiterate generation that America has ever seen, and even the modern version proponents are beginning to see this.

Recently Barna came out with a survey showing that only about 8% of American Christians have a Biblically based world view. People like Josh Mc Dowell, who uses the modern versions, is dismayed to see what "evangelical" teenagers really believe about Biblical truth.

We are in the apostasy, the falling away from the faith, and you blind guides keep promoting the trash that passes for bible versions that are a big part of the problem. Only God can open the eyes and ears of His elect to see and know where His true words are found today. It is all by sovereign grace that the Truth is revealed to some, not for any merit found in ourselves.

You yourself do not believe ANY Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant word of God. Your multiple choice versions all reject many Hebrew readings and continually differ with each other in the New Testament. All your modern versions contain lies and falsehoods to varying degrees. They are bogus bibles which cause Christians and the world at large to consider the various bible versions to be nothing more than flawed writings which give a confusing message.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." - Jesus Christ



In and by His grace alone,

Will K

 

[Johnthebaptist]

John, let's be real clear about this, OK? THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS. Just as bible translators do today, they piece together from varying manuscripts what they think are the words of God. The problem with your view is that you leave out the sovereignty of God to direct any group of translators to come up with a perfect Book.

Well Will, I agree with W.A. Criswell, God inspired the inerrant originals and preserved His Word through copies of manuscripts and into translations. Many of the various translations are trustworthy as the King James is trustworthy. God revealed earlier manuscripts in Egypt as He was ready to do. These manuscripts have enhanced the our understanding of the Koine Greek language as the common language of the people. We have a better understanding of various words and grammer because of these finds. You blow the differences in manuscripts and most tranlations out of proportion. But their is much manuscriptural evidence that the KJV is not inerrant. But it is totally trustworthy.

God Bless
John

 

[robycop3]

John, let's be real clear about this, OK? THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS.

But they DID exist!


Just as bible translators do today, they piece together from varying manuscripts what they think are the words of God. The problem with your view is that you leave out the sovereignty of God to direct any group of translators to come up with a perfect Book.

But the KJVO cannot prove exclusive inspiration for the KJV whatsoever.

Every bible that has come on the scene is popular for a few months or years at best, and then they slip away into oblivion. Where are the Revised Version and the ASV? Gone. Where is the RSV? Gone. The NRSV? Gone. The NASB is fast disappearing (thank God) and even the NIV is being replaced with the TNIV and the new Holman Standard (both pieces of junk). Then we have that abomination called The Message.

Where's the KJV going? On the shelf. The NASV is picking up steam. And you don't mention the NKJV. Why? Because, like the NIV, it's outselling the KJV.

We also have Wallace's goofy NET bible on the internet. New versions continue to flood the market and all of them differ from all the other ones. They will not last and they do not pass the test of absolute Truth.

I do not believe there will be ONE New Bible that will replace all the others. What will happen is what is happening now. There will continue to be a multitude of conflicting and every changing false bible versions that will confuse the church and cause everyone to place his own mind, his own preferences, and his own personal opinions above any written authority.

While there will still be those misinformed individuals who will still build THEIR private versions of "final authority" around their fave version of the Bible, regardless of the incorrectness of their suppositions.

This is happening now before our eyes. Fewer and fewer Christians read their bibles or take them seriously. This is the most Biblically illiterate generation that America has ever seen, and even the modern version proponents are beginning to see this.

And that has NOTHING to do with BVs.

Recently Barna came out with a survey showing that only about 8% of American Christians have a Biblically based world view. People like Josh Mc Dowell, who uses the modern versions, is dismayed to see what "evangelical" teenagers really believe about Biblical truth.

Barna's "surveys" are skewed to Barna's own views.

We are in the apostasy, the falling away from the faith, and you blind guides keep promoting the trash that passes for bible versions that are a big part of the problem.

No, the REAL prob is people like the KJVOs who spout their PROVEN-FALSE doctrines, hoping someone else will swallow them...and , when someone does & later discovers they're totally-FALSE, they sometimes lose faith in ANY Bible's being right.


Only God can open the eyes and ears of His elect to see and know where His true words are found today. It is all by sovereign grace that the Truth is revealed to some, not for any merit found in ourselves.

So now you're claiming inspiration just for yourself? Now your Calvinism is shining through, with its black light.

You yourself do not believe ANY Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant word of God.

John, this is Mr. Kinney's ignorant answer to anyone who doesn't buy his KJVO trash. Never mind he cannot prove a word he says. Never mind his trash is entirely man-made, without the first quark of Scriptural support.


Your multiple choice versions all reject many Hebrew readings and continually differ with each other in the New Testament.

The KJV differs within itself in the NT. All four Gospels differ among themselves...IN THE SAME VERSION! They differ among themselves in the same version much more than the versions differ among themselves. But Mr. Kinney dodges that FACT as if it were an arrow coming his way.


All your modern versions contain lies and falsehoods to varying degrees.

So does the KJV...but you won't admit it. However, the other readers can see this for themselves and KNOW you're just fluttering your keys.


They are bogus bibles which cause Christians and the world at large to consider the various bible versions to be nothing more than flawed writings which give a confusing message.

Will CANNOT prove that all MVs are bogus, and, when push comes to shove, he cannot prove the KJV is NOT bogus.

Readers, Mr. Kinney is a teller of tall tales on the order of Aesop. I hope every one of you checks out the VERACITY of anything he says. He's PROVEN that the KJVO myth means more to him than the TRUTH, or even the KJV itself. He's been preaching this trash so long that it's hardened into dogma...and all the while, not being able to prove a singler bit of it! This man is a DECEIVER!

 

[Johnthebaptist]

robycop3

John, let's be real clear about this, OK? THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS.

But they DID exist!


Just as bible translators do today, they piece together from varying manuscripts what they think are the words of God. The problem with your view is that you leave out the sovereignty of God to direct any group of translators to come up with a perfect Book.

No, I don't leave out the Sovereignty of God. God has preseved His Word I said. He gave us inerrant originals and very accurate copies of manuscripts. Scholars know over 98 percent wha the original words of Scripture are through comparing the manuscripts. God chose not to give us the originals in His wisdom because they would have been corrupted by man. But the high degree of accuracy in the manuscripts testify to the originals being pure and to the fact that God has preserved his Word.

To believe that a certain translation is inerrant is ignorance. The facts show different. But good translations are totally trustworthy like the KJV. There is no change in any truth. I don't think that Will Kinney believes the originals ever exisited. I have never heard him state that the originals existed in the 1st Century.

God Bless
John

 

[brandplucked]

God's Perfect Book

God's Perfect Book

No, I don't leave out the Sovereignty of God. God has preseved His Word I said. He gave us inerrant originals and very accurate copies of manuscripts. Scholars know over 98 percent wha the original words of Scripture are through comparing the manuscripts. God chose not to give us the originals in His wisdom because they would have been corrupted by man. But the high degree of accuracy in the manuscripts testify to the originals being pure and to the fact that God has preserved his Word.

To believe that a certain translation is inerrant is ignorance. The facts show different. But good translations are totally trustworthy like the KJV. There is no change in any truth. I don't think that Will Kinney believes the originals ever exisited. I have never heard him state that the originals existed in the 1st Century.

God Bless
John

Hi John, let's look closely at what you say here. 1. No translation is inerrant. 2. Scholars know over 98% of the original words of Scripture.

John, the simple fact is, you then have (by your own reckoning) 98% of a perfect bible which itself is not inerrant. Thus, I can only conclude from your own stated position, that there is no inerrant Bible on the face of this earth. That is what I have been claiming all through these posts.

By the way, your count of 98% is way off. Here are the facts and sites that anyone can go to to see for themselves just part of what has been omitted just in the New Testament. There also have been many substitutions and some additions, but most are omissions.

Then we have the Old Testament which you haven't even addressed yet.

You talk about the newly discovered manuscripts from Egypt that form most of the Greek text of such modern versions as the nasb, niv, esv. What are these "oldest and best"? Why, its Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, right? I also include here a repeat link to the article I put together about what these two false witnesses really say. If these are your "oldest and best", then we are indeed in a world of hurt.

These first two links are very easy to follow. I did not write them. Someone else put them together. In them you will see for yourself just SOME of what is missing in the niv, nasb, esv stuff.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker2.html

This site is one I put together from my own personal studies of the Greek texts. It shows what is the true nature of the newly discovered "oldest and best" (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) manuscripts that form the underlying basis of such versions as the niv, nasb, esv. These are the ones so highly praised by the niv editors and all modern versionists, except the NKJV. The nkjv editors tell us that many are now doubting the accuracy and reliability of these two manuscripts.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html



HOW MANY DIFFERENCES ARE THERE BETWEEN THE RECEIVED TEXT UNDERLYING THE KJV AND THE WESTCOTT-HORT GREEK TEXT?



There are many myths that are perpetuated today by the defenders of
the modern versions, and one of those is that there is very little
difference between the Received Text underlying the King James Bible
and other ancient Protestant versions and the Westcott-Hort Greek
text underlying most of the modern versions. Westcott and Hort
themselves made this claim in their day, and it is widely repeated
today.

The fact is that the differences are large and serious and a choice
must be made.

The following is from Dr. Donald Waite's book Defending the King James Bible:

"The Westcott and Hort Text changes the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places.

"Do you know how many changes they made? My own personal count, as of
August 2, 1984, using Scrivener's Greek New Testament referred to
above, was 5,604 changes that Westcott and Hort made to the Textus
Receptus in their own Greek New Testament text. Of these 5,604
alterations, I found 1,952 to be OMISSIONS (35%), 467 to be ADDITIONS
(8%), and 3,185 to be CHANGES (57%). In these 5,604 places that were
involved in these alterations, there were 4,366 more words included,
making a total of 9,970 Greek words that were involved. This means
that in a Greek Text of 647 pages (such as Scrivener's text), this
would average 15.4 words per page that were CHANGED from the Received
Text. Pastor Jack Moorman counted 140,521 words in the Textus
Receptus. These changes would amount to 7% of the words; and 45.9
pages of the Greek New Testament if placed together in one place.

"Rev. Jack A. Moorman, in December 1988, wrote a book entitled:
'Missing in Modern Bibles--Is The Full Story Being Told?' It was
published by The Bible For Today in April, 1989. Rev. Moorman counted
every word of the Received Greek Text and also every word of the
Nestle/Aland Greek Text and, on a chapter by chapter count, came up
with the Nestle/Aland text being SHORTER than the Received Text by
2,886 words. This is 934 words more than were omitted from the
Westcott and Hort text. (1,952 vs. 2,886). The omitting of 2,886
Greek words is the equivalent, in number of English words involved,
of DROPPING OUT THE ENTIRE BOOKS OF 1 PETER AND 2 PETER! Pastor
Moorman's book is eighty large pages." [B.F.T. #1726] (Bible for
Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108)



http://www.truthquest.free-online.co.uk/gk_diff0.htm
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GREEK TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

by David Blunt
THE PRINCIPAL TYPE of alteration in the modern Greek Text is omission of material found in the Received Text or "Textus Receptus" (T.R). There is a lesser number of substitutions, where words in the modern Text differ from those appearing at the same place in the T.R., and an even smaller number of additions of words not in the T.R. There is also a number of transpositions., in which words or phrases have been moved from the place they occupy in the T.R. to another place nearby, and of punctuation differences which affect meaning. Data on these alterations have been collated by Fowler, from which the following is largely derived:

A Summary of the Differences in the Greek between the received Text of the New Testament (Trinitarian Bible Society, 1976) and the United Bible Societies' Text (Third Edition, 1976).

(The NIV was largely based on this latter text, although in over 650 instances fails to follow it — Fowler, p. 22).

SUMMARY OF ALL WORD DIFFERENCES
Total Greek Word Count in T.R. *140,521
[in Waite, p.42] * Total Greek Word Count in U.B.S. Text *138,019*
[in Wright]
Greek words in T.R. omitted from U.B.S. Text *3,602 * Greek words in T.R. substituted in U.B.S. Text *3,146
Greek words not in T.R. added to U.B.S.Text *976 * Greek words in T.R. spelled differently in U.B.S. Text (but not different words) *950
Total Word Differences between Texts* *8,674 (= 6. 2% of words in T.R., 1 word in 16).
U.B.S. Text is 2,502 words shorter than T.R., or 1.8%, or 1 in every 56 words.

The reason why this figure is less than the total for Greek words omitted (3,602) minus Greek words added (976) [=2,626] is that some differences classed as substitutions involve the substitution of a longer phrase in the U.B.S. Text than the one being replaced in the Received Text, thereby increasing the total word count of the U.B.S. text.

Then, another huge problem is not just the texts, but how to translate them. The niv, nasb, nkjv all have false theology and false statements in them because they have translated certain texts in the wrong way. I can provide several examples of this if you wish.

Anyone who is not King James Bible only, does not believe The Bible IS (not WAS) the inerrant words of God. And Yes, I do believe the originals WERE inspired and inerrant, but I also believe God's promises to preserve His perfect words here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away, and I can tell anyone who wants to listen and receive it, exactly where they can get a copy of them today - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

God bless,



Will Kinney

 

[Clete]

You guys are wearing me out! :ugh:

Can somebody please just tell me what difference it makes? Who cares about this stuff anyway? It's not like the Christian faith is going to suddenly dry up and blow away if an error is found in the King James, so what the beepety beep beep beep difference does it make?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[brandplucked]

Deuteronomy 33:2 - good example of Bible Babel

Deuteronomy 33:2 - good example of Bible Babel

John, here is a good example of how the modern versions supposedly take the same Hebrew text and come up with totally different meanings. Remember, all these guys have gone to seminary and learned "the original languages", yet they totally differ from each other.

It is because of HUNDREDS of such examples found in the various "bibles" that the Muslims, the atheists and the scoffers mock at the ridiculous idea of an inspired and inerrant bible. This too is why fewer and fewer Christians take any of the versions very seriously.

Deuteronomy 33:2 "The LORD came from Sinai, and ROSE UP from Seir unto THEM; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came WITH ten thousands of saints; FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM."

The multitude of conflicting, multiple-choice, Let's go to the Original Languages, Do It Yourself Scholars really strut their stuff in this verse.

First of all, the phrase "the LORD...ROSE UP from Seir UNTO THEM" is the reading of the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the RV, ASV, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, Webster's, Darby, Young's, Hebrew Names Version, Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Beginning with the RSV and now in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, it now reads: "The Lord DAWNED ON them from Seir."

More importantly, the part that reads "FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM" is found in Tyndale 1630, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, the NKJV 1982, Green's MKJV, Webster's 1833, Third Millenium Bible, the Douay-Rheims, the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew - English versions, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960, and Darby.

John Wesley comments: "A fiery law - The law is called fiery, because it is of a fiery nature purging and searching and inflaming, to signify that fiery wrath which it inflicteth upon sinners for the violation of it, and principally because it was delivered out of the midst of the fire."

Compare Deuteronomy 4:11-12 and 5:26. "And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven...and the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice." "For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?"

Now let's see what the noted scholars of today, all of whom have gone to seminary and consulted "the original languages", have done with this passage.

Instead of "FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM" we read:

The RSV 1952, and ESV 2001 - " dawned from Se'r upon US; he shone forth from Mount Paran, he came FROM the ten thousands of holy ones, WITH FLAMING FIRE AT HIS RIGHT HAND."

In this verse the RSV, NRSV, and ESV all change the Hebrew reading of "unto THEM" to "upon US" and then footnote that the word "us" comes from the Syriac, the LXX and the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew texts read "them".

The 1989 New RSV - " With him were myriads of holy ones; AT HIS RIGHT HAND, A HOST OF HIS OWN."

NIV- "The LORD came from Sinai and DAWNED OVER them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones FROM THE SOUTH, FROM HIS MOUNTAIN SLOPES." (That's right, this is what it says in place of "from his right hand went a fiery law for them".)

NASB - "The LORD came from Sinai, and DAWNED ON them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came FROM THE MIDST OF (not with?) ten thousand holy ones, AT HIS RIGHT HAND THERE WAS FLASHING LIGHTNING FOR THEM."

The Bible in Basic English 1960 says: "coming from Meribath Kadesh: from his right hand went flames of fire: HIS WRATH MADE WASTE THE PEOPLES."

This is the only version I found that instead of saying "Yea, HE LOVED the people" changes this to "His wrath made waste the peoples" -- pretty close in meaning, isn't it?

The New English Bible 1970 - "He showed himself from Mount Paran, and with him were myriads of holy ones STREAMING ALONG AT HIS RIGHT HAND."

Young's translation - "Jehovah from Sinai hath come, And hath risen from Seir for them; He hath shone from mount Paran, And hath come with myriads of holy ones; At HIS RIGHT HAND ARE SPRINGS FOR THEM."

The Greek Septuagint and the Syriac Peshitta are of no help at all in this verse. They both give conflicting readings as well. The Greek Septuagint reads: "The Lord has hasted out of Mount Pharan with the ten thousands OF CADES, on his right hand WERE HIS ANGELS WITH HIM."

Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta has: "he came with ten thousands of saints AT HIS RIGHT HAND. YEA, HE SUPPLIED THEIR NEEDS: he also made them to be beloved BY THE NATIONS."

Was it a "fiery law", "flashing lightning", "he supplied their needs", "his angels with him", "tongues of fire", "streams", "a host of his own", or "from the south"? Who really cares? They all mean the same thing, right? As Professor James White says, "If we compare all the bible versions together, we arrive at a better understanding of what is really being said." Don't you agree?

Will Kinney

 

[Huldrych]

Hello Pot, this is kettle...

Hello Pot, this is kettle...

Just as bible translators do today, they piece together from varying manuscripts what they think are the words of God. The problem with your view is that you leave out the sovereignty of God to direct any group of translators to come up with a perfect Book.

The KJV was also pieced together by the same process.

So, how do we determine which is the perfect, inspired, or preserved words of God?

If all you can say is "I believe," then we see the argument was pointless in the first place, and neither side can claim superiority over the other.

jth

 

[logos_x]

You guys are wearing me out! :ugh:

Can somebody please just tell me what difference it makes? Who cares about this stuff anyway? It's not like the Christian faith is going to suddenly dry up and blow away if an error is found in the King James, so what the beepety beep beep beep difference does it make?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I'm so glad someone finally said that!
AMEN!!!! :jump:

 

[Johnthebaptist]

brandplucked

You talk about the newly discovered manuscripts from Egypt that form most of the Greek text of such modern versions as the nasb, niv, esv. What are these "oldest and best"? Why, its Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, right? I also include here a repeat link to the article I put together about what these two false witnesses really say. If these are your "oldest and best", then we are indeed in a world of hurt.

Will, that is all you Kjv Only guys can focus on are the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanius. Also many other papyri finds were made in Egypt.

I know how you KJV only guys twist the facts.

Here is what Wallace say about the accuracy of the manuscripts both Alexanderian and Byzantine.
There are many other scholars who agree with him.

"If the quality of the text (i.e., its doctrinal purity) is not at stake, then what about the quantity? How different is the Majority Text from the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament or the Nestle-Aland text? Do they agree only 30 percent of the time? Do they agree perhaps as much as 50 percent of the time? This can be measured, in a general sort of way. There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among New Testament manuscripts. The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. But the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about 6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of the time. 27 Not only that, but the vast majority of these differences are so minor that they neither show up in translation nor affect exegesis. Consequently the majority text and modern critical texts are very much alike, in both quality and quantity.

To sum up: as long as the doctrine of preservation and the majority text view are inseparably linked, it seems that no amount of evidence can overcome the majority text theory. 28 But if the doctrine of preservation is not at stake, then evangelical students and pastors are free to examine the evidence without fear of defection from orthodoxy. 29 (Daniel B. Wallace)

"Taking the number mentioned above 200,000, we first noted that there variants occur in only about 10,000 places. HOw important are these variants. . . .Westcott and Hort, the two men most vilified by KJV Only advocates, indicated tat only about one eight of the variants had any weight, the res being of the variants had any weight, the rest being trivialties. This would leave the text 98.33 percent pure.

You discredit scholars who do not agree with your views. Yet how much Greek do You have
and knowledge of the manuscripts. Are you a scholar, I think not.

this is the last I will say since as others say, the KJV is trustworthy as ell as thr ASV and others.

 

[MartianManhuntr]

"Also many other papyri finds were made in Egypt."

Only fragments. The stupid critics take a fragment of Mark that contains only Mark 1:1 and say that this fragment is evidence against the ending of Mark because it leaves it off!!!!!!!!! What a bunch of goofballs! Of course it leaves it off! It's a fragment that only contains one verse! It leaves EVERYTHING OFF!

 

[MartianManhuntr]

The KJV was based mainly on Erasmus Greek New Testament. Erasmus only had abut 6 very late manuscripts to work with. There is absolutely no factual evideince he had excess to the vaticanus.

The KJV translators had access to the Vaticanus. In fact, they refer to it in a margin note in one of the Apocryphal books "the Vaticanus manuscript says..." They held that manuscript to be so corrupt that they didn't even trust it enough to translate the Apocrypha from. They were wise. I wouldn't translate a smut novel from it even if it did contain one.

 

[brandplucked]

John 1:18 and the "scholars"

John 1:18 and the "scholars"

You discredit scholars who do not agree with your views. Yet how much Greek do You have and knowledge of the manuscripts. Are you a scholar, I think not.

this is the last I will say since as others say, the KJV is trustworthy as ell as thr ASV and others.

Hi John, there you go with Daniel Wallace again. This guy is a flake and he continues to change the Hebrew texts and admits it in his footnotes. Neither he nor you believe any Bible is now the infallible words of God.

Notice your last sentence. "the KJV is trustworthy as ELL as THR ASV and others."

The irony is amusing. I know they are spelling errors, but it represents how "trustworthy" versions like the ASV are.

Let's look at one classic example, that seriously affects sound doctrine about the Person of the Son of God. See how all your "trustworthy sholars" agree so much with each other.

As for my being a scholar, again I take note of your mind set. You and people like you think that unless a Christian is a scholar, then he can't know or recognize the true words of God. What bunk. I am not a scholar and I am thankful every day that God did not lead me to some goofy seminary where they would have robbed me of both my faith in an inerrant Bible and my money.

Now, John, can you tell us which is the true Holy Bible from all this mess the modern versionists have come up with? I trow not.


JOHN 1:18

"No man hath seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

John 1:18 presents us with a classical case of confusion caused by the modern Bible correctors. The phrase in question is "the only begotten Son." There are two variants here: one with the Greek text and the other with the translation.

The Greek of the Traditional Text reads, "o monogenes huios" (the only begotten Son). The Greek of the Alexandrian Text reads, "o monogenes theos" (the only begotten God). Additionally, the Greek word "monogenes" is no longer looked upon by some as meaning "only begotten" but is now considered better translated as "unique" or "one and only." However there is much disagreement among today's "scholars" as to which text to adopt and how to translate it.

Notice the total confusion that exists in the multitude of modern bible versions today.

1. "The only begotten Son"- King James Bible, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Daniel Mace New Testament 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster's 1833 translation, Darby 1890, Young's, Douay 1950, Spanish Reina Valera 1960, Italian Diodati 1602, Luther's German Bible 1517, the NKJV 1982, Third Millenium Bible, and KJV 21.

Even the RV and ASV, which introduced thousands of radical changes in the New Testament based on the Alexandrian texts, did not follow Sinaiticus/Vaticanus here but stuck with the Traditional Text. It wasn't till the NASB appeared on the scene that the false reading of "the only begotten God" was introduced.

2. "The only begotten God" NASB

3. "God the only Son" NIV 1973

4. "God the One and Only" NIV 1984 with a footnote "or only begotten"

5. "but the one and only Son, who is himself God" TNIV 2001 with footnote "some manuscripts - but the only Son".

The 1973 and 1977 NIV's read, "No MAN has ever seen God, but God the only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known". The 1978 and 1984 NIV editions now read, "No ONE has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." Thus, the NIV has been revised and changed " no man" to "no one", altered "only" to "One and Only" and omitted [Son]. Then the TNIV further changes "One and Only" to "one and only" and again adds "Son".

These next three are all related to one another as each is a revision of the last one in line, yet they all three differ from each other. See how consistent modern scholars are.

6. "the only Son" RSV 1952. The liberal RSV was the first major English version to translate monogenes as "only" rather than the traditional and more accurate "only begotten", but yet it retained the word Son rather than God.

7. "God the only Son" NRSV 1989

8. "the only God" English Standard Version 2001

9. "the one and only Son" Hebrew Names Version,

10. "God's only Son" New English Bible

11. "the only conceived Son" World English Bible

Several of these modern version don't follow any Greek text at all but combine divergent readings from different texts, such as the NIV 1973, TNIV, the NRSV, and the New English Bible.

The King James Bible is the correct reading both as to text and meaning. The Alexandrian texts which read "the only begotten GOD, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" teach that there are two gods and one of them is inferior to the other. There is the God whom nobody has seen and then there is the only begotten God who has explained the unseen God. The only other version I know of that reads this way, besides the NASB, is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, which says: "the only begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."

One of the newest in the long line of bible revisions, the English Standard Version, reads: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." This is totally absurd. It teaches not only that there are two Gods, the one nobody has ever seen, and the one who has made the unseen God known; but one of them is God and the other is the only God.

Jesus Christ is by nature very God of very God. John 1 says "the Word was God". Notice it does not say the Word was THE God. God is triune yet one. If it had said "the Word was THE God" it would be a theological error. All that God is in the three Persons is not limited to the Word, but the Word (Jesus Christ) is by very nature God.

What the ESV teaches is a confusion of the nature of the Trinity. Jesus Christ is not "THE ONLY GOD" who makes known the God no one has seen. Jesus Christ is God by nature, but He is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost.

We now have two more late$t and greate$t ver$ion$ coming on the scene. The ISV or International Standard Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

The ISV reads: " No one has ever seen God. The UNIQUE God, (Other mss. read Son) who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him." Again, we have two Gods. One nobody has ever seen and then the "unique" God! Does this mean the God no one has seen is just an ordinary, run-of-the- mill, garden variety god, while the other one is totally unique?

But wait, the newest of them all is the up and coming Holman Christian Standard Bible, and it says: "No one has ever seen God. The only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him." Hey, this one went back to the reading of "Son" instead of "God". What gives here?

Those versions that teach that Jesus Christ is the "only Son" or "the one and only Son" are also incorrect in that angels are also called sons of God and so are Adam and all of God's other children. In either case, the corrupt and confusing readings found in many modern bible versions diminish the glory of the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity is turned on its head.

The Nicene Creed (344 AD) states:

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, . . . And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible . . ." (as cited from Athanasius: De Synodis, II:26).

The Old Latin manuscripts of John 1:18, which precede anything we have in Greek, read, "deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius. qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit." The word "unigenitus" means, "only begotten, only; of the same parentage." (Dr. John C. Traupman, Latin Dictionary, 323).

In 202 AD, Irenaeus wrote,

"For 'no man,' he says, 'hath seen God at any time,' unless 'the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].' For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible."(Against Heresies, 3:11:6)

In 324 AD, Alexander of Alexandria wrote:

"Moreover, that the Son of God was not produced out of what did not exist, and that there never was a time when He did not exist, is taught expressly by John the Evangelist, who writes this of Him: 'The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.' The divine teacher, because he intended to show that the Father and the Son are two and inseparable from each other, does in fact specify that He is in the bosom of the Father." (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith Of The Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, p. 300)

Ambrose (397 AD) writes,

"For this reason also the evangelist says, 'No one has at any time seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him.' 'The bosom of the Father,' then, is to be understood in a spiritual sense, as a kind of innermost dwelling of the Father's love and of His nature, in which the Son always dwells. Even so, the Father's womb is the spiritual womb of an inner sanctuary, from which the Son has proceeded just as from a generative womb."(The Patrarches, 11:51).

Finally, Augustine (430 AD) wrote:

"For Himself hath said: No man hath seen God at any time, but the Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. Therefore we know the Father by Him, being they to whom He hath declared Him."(Homilies On The Gospel According To St. John, XLVII:3)

The point is that most of the early Theologians in the Church not only recognized that monogenes means "only begotten," and defined it as such, but that the popular reading was "only begotten Son."

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." Westminster Confession, Chapter III.

In spite of some Greek lexicons, like Thayer's, which insist the meaning of monogenes is "unique" or "one of a kind", there are many others like Kittel's, Liddel and Scott and Vine's that tell us the Greek word monogenes emphatically means "only begotten" and not "one and only". It is significant that Thayer did not believe that Jesus Christ was God.

In Kittel's massive work Volume 4 page 741 the writer says: "In John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9 monogenes denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son. (notice he does not accept the false reading of 'God' in 1:18, and he states this on the previous page). In John monogenes denotes the origen of Jesus as the only begotten."

Even the modern Greek language dictionary, which has nothing to do with the Bible, says that monogenes means "only begotten", and not unique. The Greek word for "unique" or "one and only" is a very different and specific word - monodikos - not monogenes.

The translators of the King James Version were not unaware that monogenes can also be translated as "only" for they did so in Luke 7:12; 8:42; and 9:38, all of which refer to an only child and thus they were the only begotten, not an unique child.

Some who criticize the KJB tell us that the word means "unique" and they refer to Hebrews 11:17 where we are told: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son." They point out that Isaac was not the only son of Abraham at the time, but that Ishmael had already been born of Abraham's union with Hagar. However a look at the text itself in Genesis 22:2,12 and 16 shows that God referred to Isaac as "thine ONLY son Isaac". Ishmael is not even taken into consideration by God since he was not the promised seed with whom God made the covenant of grace. As far as God was concerned, there was only one "only begotten son" of Abraham, and he is the spiritual type of the only begotten Son of God who became the lamb that was sacrificed for the sins of God's people.

The King James Bible is correct as always, and the divergent and contradictory readings in most modern versions are wrong.

NICENE CREED 325 A.D. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER BEFORE ALL WORLDS God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

CHALCEDON CREED 451 A.D. Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER BEFORE THE AGES.

ATHANASIA CREED 500 A.D. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, NOT MADE NOR CREATED BUT BEGOTTEN. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal. The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father, BEGTOTTEN BEFORE THE WORLDS, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.

The BELGIC CONFESSION 1561 We believe that Jesus Christ, according to his divine nature, is the only Son of God-- ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE NOR CREATED, for then he would be a creature. He is one in essence with the Father; coeternal; the exact image of the person of the Father.

The 39 ARTICLES OF RELIGION 1571 Article II The Son, which is the Word of the Father, BEGOTTEN FROM EVERLASTING OF THE FATHER, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father.

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 1646 In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION 1689 In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Will Kinney

For another great article written by Scott Jones dealing with the modern mistranslation of monogenes, please go to this site.

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/monogenes.htm

And for Scott's article showing the assault on the Only Begotten Son of God in John 1:18 please go to this site.

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/begotten_son.htm

Excellent long article on John 1:18 by Jesse Boyd here http://www.biblebelieversbaptist.org/monogenes.htm

John 1:18 The only begotten Son

return to articles

 

[Huldrych]

Luther 1517?

Luther 1517?

While I agree with you on the translation of "only begotten son," (even though I do not agree with the non-substantiated claim that the KJV is God's perfectly preserved words), there is a small phrase I find questionable:

"The only begotten Son"- King James Bible, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Daniel Mace New Testament 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster's 1833 translation, Darby 1890, Young's, Douay 1950, Spanish Reina Valera 1960, Italian Diodati 1602, Luther's German Bible 1517, the NKJV 1982, Third Millenium Bible, and KJV 21.

Now, according to this article here, he dabbled in a little translation here and there in 1517--

"He made his first attempt as translator with the seven Penitential Psalms, which he published in March, 1517.... Then followed several other sections of the Old and New Testaments,--the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Prayer of King Manasseh, the Magnificat of the Virgin Mary, etc., with popular comments. He was urged by his friends, especially by Melanchthon, as well as by his own sense of duty, to translate the whole Bible."

--but, knowing he didn't start translating the New Testament until he took refuge in the Wartburg in 1521, his first New Testament coming out in September of 1522, and his first completed Bible, 1534, "Luther Bible 1517" is a misnomer. Maybe he translated a portion of John 1 and had it published, but suggesting he had a full Bible out in 1517 is not fact.

Helping you with your accuracy where I can,
jth

 

[brandplucked]

Luther

Luther

--but, knowing he didn't start translating the New Testament until he took refuge in the Wartburg in 1521, his first New Testament coming out in September of 1522, and his first completed Bible, 1534, "Luther Bible 1517" is a misnomer. Maybe he translated a portion of John 1 and had it published, but suggesting he had a full Bible out in 1517 is not fact.

Helping you with your accuracy where I can,
jth

Hi Jt, thanks for the information. I will correct this right away.

God bless,

Will K