King James Bible Debate with Bob Enyart and Will Duffy November 2, 2015 at Theologyonline.com
Here is the link where you can read the debate.
Why I believe the King James Bible is the only complete and inerrant words of God.
Hello saints of God at Theology Online. Thank you for hosting this debate/discussion between Bob Enyart and Will Duffy and me. I appreciate the invitation and hope that we can all profit from the discussion.
I am a King James Bible Only believer.
I do not mean by this that ONLY the King James Bible believers are saved, or that only the King James Bible believing Christians have all the right doctrines or live more righteously than do other Christians. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not God has worked in history to give to the world a complete and inerrant Bible in any language or not.
The gospel of salvation through the substitutionary death of the Lord Jesus Christ who paid for our sins and rose from the dead is found in any bible version in any language, no matter how corrupt that bible version may be in other ways. God can and does bring people to faith in the risen Saviour through using them. Again, that is not the issue we are discussing.
There are many good reasons why I and thousands of other blood bought Christians believe the King James Bible is the only complete and inerrant words of God.
I will be listing many of these reasons in this opening statement and I will provide links to my own articles at my website "Another King James Bible believer" that expand upon them at the end of this debate for those who may be interested in learning more.
My belief that the King James Bible is the only complete and inerrant words of God is based on a God given faith that our Creator meant what He said, and did not exaggerate or lie about preserving His words and giving us "the book of the LORD."
It is not a blind faith nor an unreasoning faith. God said He would preserve His words (Psalm 12:6-7) in a real book - “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD and read” (Isaiah 34:16) and the Lord Jesus promised “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)
I believe God is the Sovereign Governor among the nations (Psalm 22:28; Daniel 4:32 & 35) and that He cannot lie (Numbers 23:19 & Hebrews 6:18)
And since I believe God inspired His Book, then I believe what the Book says about itself - that it is the very words of God and not of men.
I also believe that many throughout history have corrupted the words of God, whether by accident or by evil intent.
2 Corinthians 2:17 - "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
I also believe there is an adversary named Satan who sows doubt as to what God said - “Yea, hath God said…?” (Genesis 3:1) and who came to steal, destroy and to catch away the words of God that are sown in the hearts of men (Matthew 13:19; John 10:10)
I used to naively think that all bible versions were basically the same and that they all taught the same things but just with different or more modernized words.
It wasn’t till someone started to show me the very real and significant differences, both in texts (omissions or additions) and totally different meanings that I began to look into this issue more seriously.
Some versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, RSV omit about 3000 words from the texts found in the KJB and NKJV, including anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses, and they often reject the Hebrew readings. They also add to them, and not even in the same places.
Hundreds of verses have completely different meanings, including verses that teach essential doctrines.
In the light of the revealed truths of God’s character and His promises as found in the Bible, after years of being a Christian, I began to question whether the Bible was inerrant after all. And so I started to dig deeper into this issue to see if there really was such a thing as a perfect book of the Lord that is without corruption or the falsehoods of men and devils.
After much study and prayer I came to believe that this Book really does exist and that God has acted in history and born witness to it in many ways so that we can know which one it is.
I believe that the evidence, both theological and historical, has led me and thousands of others to the King James Bible as being that perfect and inerrant book of the Lord.
One of the reasons I believe the King James Bible is the inerrant words of God is the FACT that all those who are not King James Bible Only believers do NOT believe in a real and tangible Bible they can hold in their hands and read and believe is the inerrant words of the living God.
There are three basic responses I get when I ask most people who are not King James Bible believers the following questions -
“Do you believe there IS such a thing as a complete and inerrant Bible in any language, translated or untranslated? If you do, can you show me a copy of it, or tell me exactly which one it is, so I can go out and get one too? Yes or No?
If you do not believe there is such a thing as an inerrant Bible, are you honest enough to admit it?”
Three Typical Responses
# 1. The most common response or statement of faith is like the one found on Bob Enyart and Will Duffy’s church site. It says: “The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, in their original state, ARE the inspired Word of God.”
This is the typical and ultimately meaningless mantra of “only the original autographs are inspired and inerrant.” Everybody believes the originals WERE inspired and inerrant. But that leaves us with no inerrant Bible now.
Notice that Bob and Will’s statement uses a present tense verb - “are” - when they say the originals ARE the inspired Word of God.
Hint: there ARE no originals to compare anything to. The originals turned to dust thousands of years ago, and never did make up an entire Bible.
Those on the “originals only” side have NO inerrant Bible to believe in now, nor can they give one to anybody who asks them. They have never seen a single word “in the original autographs” a day in their lives. Most people couldn’t read them if the had them, and, most importantly, they are confessing a faith in something that even they know does not exist!
They have a Phantom, Hypothetical, Philosophical, Imaginary, Non-Existent, Never in Print, Fairy Tale “Bible” they profess to believe in, and everybody knows it doesn’t exist and never did. That is why I call it “The Santa Claus Version” position.
Both Mr. Enyart and Mr. Duffy “use” the NKJV. But do either of them believe the NKJV is the inerrant words of God? Of course they don’t. They are probably honest enough to admit it. They also like to consult “the” Greek and Hebrew.
They, like most Christians today, are “originals onlyists”, and they do not believe there actually IS such a thing as a tangible, inerrant Bible in any language on the face of this earth. And neither does anybody else who is not a King James Bible only believer.
You don’t believe me? Ask anybody who is not a King James Bible only believer to show you a copy of this inerrant Bible they profess to believe in. They will NEVER do it.
Those who deny that the King James Bible is the only complete and inerrant words of God Bible often mock at our belief. They say things like "Do you mean that nobody had an inerrant Bible before 1611?" or, "Do you mean that God shows favoritism that that only white English speaking folks get to have an inerrant Bible?"
The answer to the first question is Yes, that is what I mean. There was no complete and inerrant Bible before the King James Bible. God was in the process of purifying His preserved words from the accumulated corruptions, omissions and additions, both textual and in meaning, that had crept in over the centuries. God's true words were still preserved, but they were in different Bible versions and manuscripts that also contained many corruptions.
Kept in mind that these King James Bible critics themselves do NOT believe that there EVER was and IS NOT NOW such a thing as a complete and inerrant Bible in any language. Try to get them to answer the very question they raise. Ask them: "Can you show us a copy of a complete and inerrant Bible NOW, let alone before the King James Bible?"
They can't. And they know they can't.
As for the second charge, God is no respecter of persons but He does chose to place His pure words in a specific language at a specific time in history. Psalms 147:19-20 tells us regarding His revelation in the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not done so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."
Then God used the Greek language to give us His words in the New Testament. And when He worked in history to combine both testaments into one single far reaching language, he chose English, which just "happens to be" the closest thing to the end times universal language there is.
God waited till the invention of the printing press so that His words could be widely distributed and Bibles placed in the hands of the common people. The Reformation had occurred which restored many fundamental truths of the Christian faith, and the great missionary outreach was about to begin. And the Bible most of these English and American missionaries carried with them and translated into other languages was the King James Bible.
Another characteristic of most bible agnostics (they don't know for sure what God said (a = not + gnostic = to know) is that they often confuse “the Word of God” (capital W) which is the Lord Jesus Christ, with “the word of God” which is His written words.
Notice again their statement of faith - “The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, in their original state, ARE the inspired Word of God.”
We know absolutely nothing about the Word of God (the Lord Jesus Christ) apart from the revelation God has been pleased to give us in history by means of the written “word of God” - His inspired words we find in this Book we call The Bible.
#2. The second response I often get (IF they even answer the questions; most just dodge them) is “No translation is the inerrant words of God. They all have errors in them. God never promised us a perfect Bible.”
This view attempts to make you think that they have some kind of an UNtranslated Bible in “the” Hebrew and “the” Greek, and they have diligently compared all bible translations to these non-existent and never identified “the original languages” they seem to want you to think they DO have. But they really don't believe there is an inerrant “original languages Bible” either. They will never tell you what it is or show you a copy of it.
They will also tell us that man is fallible and therefore he cannot make a perfect translation. But if God cannot use fallible and sinful men to give us His perfect words in a translation, then He also couldn't have used sinful and fallible men to give us those long lost originals in the first place. Think about it.
And secondly, where did they ever get the idea that a translation cannot be the inerrant words of God? Maybe they got is from some seminary, but they sure didn't get this idea from the Bible. The Bible itself gives us several examples of where a translation into another language CAN BE the true and inerrant words of God.
#3. This third response is not quite as common, but I have heard several people give me what I call The Looney Lobotomized Logic Response. These people will actually say: “All bible versions are inspired and inerrant.”
Only someone who’s mental faculties have become completely unhinged and who has the spiritual discernment of a radish could come out with such an absurd statement. Most five year children can see right through it, and know that it just doesn’t make any sense at all.
Most Christians today are not using the NKJV like Mr. Enyart and Mr. Duffy are. Most are using modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET or Holman Standard.
What they are either ignorant of, or just don’t care about, is the fact that these are the new "Vatican Versions" that nobody seriously believes are the inerrant words of God. To call them the new Vatican Versions may seem outrageous, but it is true and can easily be documented from their own Nestle-Aland Critical text 27th edition. They come right out and tell you.
One of the chief editors of the UBS Critical Greek Text was the Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini. Just open your UBS text and look at the first page. There you will see his name.
I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 AND the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.
If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:
"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."
There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".
The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
This from their own site -
Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible
“Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture (Dei Verbum, n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. TOGETHER WITH THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT PUBLISHED THE GUIDELINES FOR INTERCONFESSIONAL COOPERATION IN TRANSLATING THE BIBLE.” (1968; new revised edition 1987).
Then go on to Part Two of Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new "Vatican Versions", and look at the whole verses, phrases and word omissions common to them all.
Since the Vatican Version users cannot refute this clear evidence, then then try James White’s tactic of linking the King James Bible to the Catholic church by telling us “Erasmus was a Catholic” and his Textus Receptus was the basis for the King James Bible.
They conveniently overlook some basic facts.
They ignore the fact that Erasmus never was a practicing Catholic priest; he often criticized many doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church; he tried to reform the Catholic church from within and he died in the presence of his Protestant friends.
In fact, the Council of Trent (1545-1564) branded Erasmus a heretic and prohibited his works. In 1559, Pope Paul IV placed Erasmus on the first class of forbidden authors, which was composed of authors whose works were completely condemned.
And most importantly, no Catholic bible version ever used the Greek text of Erasmus to make up their translations, but ALL Reformation bibles did use Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza as their textual basis.
The King James Bible and other Reformation Bible translators did not even primarily use Erasmus but relied far more on the Greek texts of Stephanus and Beza.
Some criticize the King James Bible because of its “archaic language” and tell us that it is too hard to understand.
I find it amusing that if you take with these people at any length, they eventually end up telling us that we need to learn "the Hebrew and Greek" in order to find out what God really said. It never seems to dawn on them that trying to learn two very difficult and archaic foreign languages is far more difficult to master than just learning the meanings of a few "archaic" words you will find in the English text of the King James Bible.
The real reason people criticize the KJB is because they do not really believe that ANY Bible is the inerrant words of God, and so they treat “the Bible” as though it were a mere human book that constantly needs to be modernized and updated “to meet the needs of the contemporary reader.”
It matters little to them what the texts actually say or teach, just as long as it's “easy to read”.
The fact of the matter is, the use of a few “archaic” or unfamiliar words has nothing to do with inerrancy. The constant use of words like Thou, Thee, Thy and Ye are far more accurate to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts than is the generic “you”, and it makes a big difference in how you read hundreds of verses.
The “We need a modern version” mantra is really a bait and switch tactic to get you to abandon God’s inerrant Book for a modern one that no one believes are God’s inerrant words.
The polls show that few people actually read these modern versions, let alone study them, and that Biblical ignorance has now reached what even the modern version users call “scandalous proportions.”
To close out my opening statement in this debate, I believe the King James Bible is the only complete and inerrant Bible because of it’s purity of doctrinal truth.
Many modern version promoters tell us that “No Doctrines Are Changed”, yet this is not true at all. They just haven’t done their homework.
I have compiled a list of over 25 concrete examples of how the modern Bible Babble Buffet versions are watering down and corrupting many of the doctrines of the Christian faith. Most of these are not even textual issues, but the way in which they have translated the same passages.
If you would like to learn more, pick one you are interested in and take a look.
"Fake Bibles DO Teach False Doctrines" - links to examples. You will be able to see the linked articles at the end of this debate. I'm sorry I can not post them for you now.
Fake Bible Versions DO teach and pervert several biblical doctrines, and the infallibility of the Bible (any bible in any language) is a huge doctrine that most Christians do not believe anymore.
“For ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God.” Jeremiah 23:36
# 1. Can God be deceived? In Psalms 78:36 the NASB says that the children of Israel deceived God. Not just "tried to deceive" or "thought they had deceived" but deceived Him.
# 2. Did the Son of God have an "origin from ancient times" or "his goings forth are from everlasting"? Did He have a beginning or is He eternal?
Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH have been of old, FROM EVERLASTING."
“from everlasting” - Coverdale, Bishops’ bible, Geneva, RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB
Micah 5:2 - “The NIV - "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose ORIGINS are from of old, FROM ANCIENT TIMES."
“Origin from ancient times” - NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness version, more recent Catholic versions
# 3. Who controls the world, God or Satan?
Several modern version teach it is Satan -
1 John 5:19 “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world LIETH IN WICKEDNESS.” Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’ Bible, Geneva Bible, Youngs, Third Millennium Bible
The NIV says: "The whole world is UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EVIL ONE." NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman, Catholic St. Joseph, NET
# 4. Is your righteousness before God the fine linen of the righteousness of Christ, or your "righteous deeds" as several fake bibles and the modern Catholic versions teach?
Revelation 19:8 - “And to her (the Bride of Christ) was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; FOR THE FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."
“The fine linen is the righteousness of saints” - Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops’ Bible, Geneva Bible, Third Millennium Bible
Revelation 19:8 NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Catholic versions - “for the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.”
# 5. Can man "speed up" the coming of the day of God's judgment, or is it already marked by God on the calendar to the day and month?
2 Peter 3:12 KJB - "Looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.”
ESV - "Waiting for and HASTENING the coming of the day of God"
NIV - “as you look forward to the day of God and SPEED ITS COMING.”
# 6. Do ghosts, or the departed spirits of the human dead exist? Modern Versions say they do.
# 7. Lucifer or morning star?
Isaiah 14:12 - "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God..."
LUCIFER - Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale's 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishop's Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, Geneva Bible 1599, Darby, NKJV 1982
Revelation 22:16 - “I Jesus...am the bright and MORNING STAR.”
Isaiah 14:12 - "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR.”
MORNING STAR - NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, RSV, ESV, NET, Catholic St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible.
ESV - "How you are fallen from heaven, O DAY STAR, son of Dawn!"
NIV - "How you have fallen from heaven, MORNING STAR, son of the dawn!"
# 8. Fornication or Immorality?
1 Corinthians s 6:18 - "Flee FORNICATION. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth FORNICATION sinneth against his own body."
FORNICATION = ”Sexual intercourse between unmarried people” Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops Bible, Douay-Rheims, Geneva Bible, RV, ASV
1 Corinthians 6:18 "Flee from SEXUAL IMMORALITY. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the SEXUALLY IMMORAL PERSON sins against his own body."
IMMORALITY = However you want to define it. What’s immoral for you may not be immoral for me. NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem bible
# 9. Rejoice or Be Proud? Are Pride and Boasting Christian virtues?
Philippians 2:16 “Holding forth the word of life; that I MAY REJOICE in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.”
REJOICE - Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Young's literal, Webster's 1833, NKJV 1982
Philippians 2:16 NIV - "in order that I MAY BOAST in the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing."
ESV "THAT I MAY BE PROUD that I did not run in vain"
BE PROUD, BOAST, GLORY - NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman
On the day of Christ, when we finally see the full glory of God Almighty, we will not be standing around boasting of our accomplishments and patting one another on the back and telling them how proud we are of them. Nobody will be boasting or proud of his personal accomplishments in the day of the Lord Jesus. Instead we will all be flat on our faces worshipping the Lamb who alone is worthy to receive praise, honor and glory
# 10. Heretic or A Divisive Person?
According to the Modern Versions even Jesus Himself should be avoided because He was divisive; but He was not a heretic.
Titus 3:10 KJB - “"A man that is an HERETIC after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
Heretic - Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva Bible, Revised Version, Third Millenium Bible.
Titus 3:10 NKJV 1982 - "Reject A DIVISIVE MAN after the first and second admonition.”
A Divisive Person - NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET
# 11. Who was with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace, “the Son of God” or “a son of the gods”?
Daniel 3:25 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."
“The Son of God” Wycliffe, Bishops’ bible, Geneva Bible, Douay-Rheims, Lamsa’s Syriac Peshitta, NKJV, Third Millennium Bible
Daniel 3:25 - “and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”
“a son of the gods” - NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman, Catholic Jerusalem bible, Jehovah Witness New World Version
# 12. 2 Samuel 14:14 KJB- "Neither doth God respect any person" or NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV - "God does not take away life"?
# 13. "the just shall live by his FAITH" or "the just shall live by his FAITHFULNESS"?
KJB - "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live BY HIS FAITH."
NIV 1978 and 1982 editions - "See, HE is puffed up; his desires are not upright - but the righteous will live BY HIS FAITH."
NIV 2011 edition - "See, THE ENEMY is puffed up; his desires are not upright - but the righteous PERSON will live by HIS FAITHFULNESS."
There is a world of difference between the just living by faith and the just living by his faithfulness. The first is the principle of living by the faith God has given us to believe the gospel of the grace of God in redeeming us through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The second - "the just shall live by his FAITHFULNESS" - is to remove the entire focus away from what Christ has done for us and to place it on ourselves, our performance and our own works.
The big theological question to ask is this - Does the just live by FAITH, meaning by what he believes about what God has done for us in Christ, or by his FAITHFULNESS, meaning how he lives?
The whole Reformation began with God opening the eyes of Martin Luther when he read the passage "The just shall live by his FAITH." He was finally freed from the heavy yoke of trying to obtain his own righteousness through the works and self merit system of the Roman Catholic Church.
# 14. John 7:8-10 Did Jesus lie or tell the truth? If He lied, then He sinned, and He can't be our Saviour.
KJB - "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, THEN went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."
ESV, NIV 2011 edition, NASB - "You go to the feast. I AM NOT GOING up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come. After saying this he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, THEN HE ALSO WENT UP, not publicly but in private." (ESV)
# 15. KJB - Acts 13:33 and Psalms 2:7 "Thou are my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE."
NIV, NET - "You are my son; TODAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER."
In the true Bible Acts 13:33 speaks of the day the Son of God was raised from the dead and became the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18) and the first begotten of the dead (Rev. 1:5).
The fake bibles teach that the was a time when God became the Father of the Son, and thus the Son is not from everlasting to everlasting.
# 16. Are there different “races” among men? The King James Bible does NOT teach this, but many modern versions do, and that there are some that are a pure race and others are a mongrel race. Which is true?
# 17. Daniel 9:26 What Did Christ Accomplish With His Death?
KJB - "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"
ESV (NIV, NASB, NET) - "an anointed one shall be cut off AND SHALL HAVE NOTHING."
# 18. Psalm 8:5 "Thou madest him a little lower than the angels", or "a little less than God"?
RSV, Holman Standard, NASB "You made him LITTLE LESS THAN GOD."
There is a huge difference between the King James Bible's translation of Psalm 8:5 and those of many modern versions. The KJB tells us that God made us a little lower than angels.
The KJB reading is also the one found in the Greek Septuagint and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta.
Psalm 8:5 "For thou hast made him a little lower than THE ANGELS, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."
The verse is even quoted in the New Testament in the book of Hebrews.
Hebrews 2:7 - "Thou madest him a little lower than THE ANGELS; thou crownedst him with glory and honour"
However, in Psalm 8:5 many modern versions tell us that we were made a little lower than God himself.
# 19. "to KEEP His words" versus "to OBEY His words"
John 14:23 “If a man love me, he will KEEP MY WORDS” Versus “Anyone who loves me will OBEY MY TEACHING”
King James Bible - "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we KEEP his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and KEEPETH NOT his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but WHOSO KEEPETH HIS WORD, in him verily is the love of God perfected." 1 John 2:3-5
NIV 1984 edition - "We know that we have come to know him if we OBEY his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does NOT DO what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone OBEYS his word, God's love is truly made complete in him."
# 20. How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies - Three examples
Number 1 - Haggai 2:7 The Desire of all nations shall come
Number Two - Isaiah 66:5 But He shall appear to your joy
Number Three - Daniel 9:26 "Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself"
Dan Wallace and his NET version and the ESV are wrong on all three. The NKJV is wrong on two of them.
# 21. THE GRACE OF GOD DESTROYED - Four Examples -
# 1. Numbers 23:21 -
In Numbers 23:19-21 we read these beautiful truths: “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.”
The next verse, 21, expresses a great truth in the KJB, but this is where the error of the new versions occurs. Verse 21: “He hath NOT BEHELD INIQUITY in Jacob, NEITHER HATH HE SEEN PERVERSENESS in Israel: the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them”.
The ESV, NIV, NASB, NET all get this wrong.
#2. Deuteronomy 32:5 Are they God’s Children or Not His children?
The NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET all get this wrong.
#3. 2 Samuel 23:5 "Although my house BE NOT SO WITH GOD; YET he hath made with me an everlasting covenant"
The NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB all get this wrong.
#4. Isaiah 35:8 “THE WAYFARING MEN, THOUGH FOOLS, SHALL NOT ERR THEREIN.”
The NIV, NASB, NET all get this wrong. The ESV, NKJV got it right.
# 22. Jeremiah 8:8 "the pen of the scribes is in vain"
Jeremiah 8:8 "the pen of the scribes is in vain" - the Muslims & Bogus bibles
Were the Old Testament Scriptures corrupted or not?
KJB - "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? LO, CERTAINLY IN VAIN MADE HE IT; THE PEN OF THE SCRIBES IS IN VAIN."
NKJV (ESV, NIV, NASB) - “How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the Lord is with us'? LOOK, THE FALSE PEN OF THE SCRIBE CERTAINLY WORKS FALSEHOOD."
# 23. Did men “WORSHIP” the Lord Jesus Christ or just “BOW BEFORE” Him?
Matthew 8:2 KJB - “And, behold, there came a leper and WORSHIPPED him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.”
ESV, NIV, (NASB) - “And behold, a leper came to him and KNELT BEFORE him, saying, Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”
# 24. Acts 17:22 "Too Superstitious, Worship Demons or Very Religious"?
Acts 17:22 KJB - "Then Paul stood in the midst of MARS' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things YE ARE TOO SUPERSTITIOUS...whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."
NKJV (ESV, NIV, NASB) - "Then Paul stood in the midst of THE AREOPAGUS and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are VERY RELIGIOUS."
The Living Oracles of 1835 has “you are ADDICTED TO THE WORSHIP OF DEMONS.”
Darby's translation says: "I see YOU ARE GIVEN UP TO DEMON WORSHIP"
#25 - 2 Corinthians 2:17 "Corrupt" or "Peddle" the word of God?
King James Bible - ”For we are not as many, which CORRUPT the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV "For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING the word of God..."
The Geneva Bible 1587 was deficient here (as in other places) and read: "We are not as many which MAKE MERCHANDISE OF the word of God".
# 26 - Luke 2:14 KJB, NKJV - "on earth peace, GOOD WILL TOWARD MEN."
NASB, RSV, ESV, NET - "on earth peace AMONG THOSE WITH WHOM HE IS PLEASED."
NIV, Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 - "peace on earth TO THOSE ON WHOM HIS FAVOR RESTS."
Catholic Douay Version - "peace among MEN OF GOOD WILL."
Thank you for allowing me to express to you all why I believe the King James Bible is the complete and inerrant words of God. I look forward to the Questions and Answers portion of this debate.
1 The ordinary Bible read in the church commonly called the Bishops Bible to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit.The translators adhered so strongly to this rule that many tens of thousands of words in the King James match word-for-word unchanged from the Bishops’ Bible. The following example from Luke 2:13 shows the process. The translators struck “heavenly soldiers”; changed it to “heavenly army” (note the handwriting in the margin directly to the left of the word “multitude”); and then in a later stage of their well-ordered work decided, appropriately for the underlying Greek, to go with host. So they finally crossed out “army” in the margin note and wrote ‘hoste’ directly above it, so that the 1611 KJV reads identical to the 1602 Bishops’ Bible except for the annotations in the margin that replace the crossed out words:
However Will Kinney answers our question 12, Round Two should be absolutely stunning!
Round 2 - Will Kinney Responds to Bob Enyart's opening post.
Hi all. Again I wish to thank you all for allowing us to discuss this most important issue of whether or not God has given us an inerrant Bible or not, and if so, can we know which one it is.
Hi brother Bob. Throughout your first post you make some typical unfounded claims about what I, as a King James Bible believer, actually believe, and it seems that your main focus so far has been on the issue of “Printing Errors”
I am not at all against translations of God’s written words (not Word - that is the Lord Jesus Christ). I do not believe that a person has to read English to get saved. Nor do I even believe that a person has to believe in a real, in print, complete and INERRANT Bible in order to be saved. If this were true, then neither you, nor Will Duffy, or James White, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur or most Christians today all over the world would be saved.
I find it somewhat amusing that those like you who do NOT believe in the existence of an inerrant Bible (both historical and theological inerrancy) are quick to label the King James Bible believers as “idolaters” and “self-asserted authority”.
I guess that by dismissing us KJB believers as being some kind of idolatrous, fanatical egomaniacs, you can somehow feel better about the fact that you yourself do not really believe in an inerrant Bible in any language (including those non-existent originals you claim to believe in).
We King James Bible believers are NOT idolaters, but we worship our Creator God and our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, in both spirit and in truth.
We love the words of God and have a deep reverence for them because we believe this is the attitude and spirit God wants us to have towards His words.
“If a man love me, he will keep my words.” John 14:23
“but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.” Isaiah 66:2
“for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” Psalms 138:2
“Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.” Jeremiah 15:16
WKA - BWQ1: Is God able to produce a robust message that could remain effective even as reproduced by mere men (i.e., without the need for divine intervention)?
Brother Bob. I find your choice of words to be both interesting and revealing. “An effective robust message”? Is that how you now refer to the inspired words of the living God? I have already told you that the gospel message of salvation through the atoning, substitutionary death and resurrection our Lord Jesus Christ is found in any bible version in any language.
But the issue is whether or not there is an INERRANT Bible, both in the related historical facts and in sound theology. The polls show that the majority of present day Christians do not believe the Bible (any Bible in any language) is the infallible words of God, and among the clergy the percentage is in the 90’s.
WKQ1 - You don’t believe in an inerrant, 100% true and inerrant words of God type of Bible. Right? If you think you do, can you tell us exactly which one of these following bible versions got it right and are at least in the running to be considered “perfect and inerrant”?
Let’s take a look at this very partial sampling from today’s Bible Babble Buffet versions. I call it The Bible Agnostic Test.
Even The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.”
I agree that the true and infallible words of God must also be 100% historically true. IF it is not, then we should ask at what point and when does God start to tell us the truth about all those other things found in His Book?
The Bible Agnostic Test - from the Bible Babble Buffet Versions
Among these “historic details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, Douay-Rheims) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)
Judges 18:30 Manasseh or Moses?
KJB - "And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of MANASSEH, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land."
ESV (NIV, NET, Holman Standard, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "And the people of Dan set up the carved image for themselves, and Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of MOSES, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land."
Or whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads MICHAL (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or MERAB (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)
Three or Thirty?
or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)
Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET, Douay-Rheims) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, Catholic New Jerusalem), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard
or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)
Or 1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (C...omplete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years."!
But wait. There's even more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out, and now says: "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel..."
1 Samuel 17:4 How Tall Was Goliath?
In 1 Samuel 17:4 the Hebrew texts tell us that the height of Goliath was SIX cubits and a span, which would make him about 9 feet 6 inches tall. That indeed is a giant. However the LXX tells us that Goliath was a mere FOUR cubits and a span - "ὕψος αὐτοῦ τεσσάρων πήχεων καὶ σπιθαμῆς" - which would make him only 6 feet 6 inches tall, which would hardly be much among NBA players today. King Saul himself was head and shoulders taller than the other Israelites, and yet he was afraid of this giant. If he were only 6ft. 6 inches, this would not make much sense.
Agreeing with the Hebrew text the he was 6 cubits and a span tall are the RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and all Jewish translations.
However there are a few out there like Daniel Wallace and gang's NET version that says: "His name was Goliath; he was from Gath. He was CLOSE TO SEVEN FEET TALL."
Dan Wallace's group chose the reading found in SOME LXX copies of FOUR and a half cubits tall. Other LXX copies have FIVE and others still have SIX cubits and a span. Also reading this way are the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Catholic St. Josepeh New American bible 1970. So, which one is right? Was he 4 or 5 or 6 cubits and a span tall?
Or in 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (KJB, Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV, Douay-Rheims) OR “four years” (NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, Douay-Rheims) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read "males from THREE years old" (Hebrew texts, KJB, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or "males from THIRTY years old" (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, Douay-Rheims) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition!!! and once again the Catholic New Jerusalem)
Luke 10:1,17 were there 70 sent out to preach (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) or 72 sent out? (NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV 2001, 2007 editions, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times? (NRSV, NIV, ESV 2011 edition, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness New World Translation)
If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions. So……
WKQ2 - Which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
The Printing Errors Ploy
Bob Enyart states: “At the beginning of the process, the Kings’ Printer, Robert Barker of London, delivered forty unbound copies of the 1602 Bishops’ Bible to the translators... The origin of the KJV is the opposite of what is envisioned by thousands of King James Only advocates. God did not bring about a brand new divinely inspired English Bible."
Brother Bob. This was part of the misinformation you posted. I don’t know of any KJB believers who say that the King James Bible was “a brand new translation” Anybody who has actually read the Preface to the KJB has seen these words from the translators -
The indebtedness of the King James Bible translators to their predecessors is recognized most clearly in the Preface to the reader where they state in no uncertain terms: "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought, from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."
The King James Translators also wrote: "Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are the thoughts to be the wiser: so if we build upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make better which they left so good...if they were alive would thank us...the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished."
WKA2 - BWQ2: “Of any actual error that appeared in the 1611 KJB (like ones corrected in later versions), if that error was made not by the printers but by the translators themselves, would that falsify the KJO position?”
Hi Bob. Good question. I think that it might change the KJB only position somewhat, but so far I have seen nothing that cannot be attributed to a printing error. The original hand written, finalized copy of the King James Bible that was given to the printers was destroyed in a fire along with many other resources they used.
And apparently we only have one of the 40 copies of the Bishops’ Bibles that those 47 or so translators used while they were debating which readings and translations to use. So I don’t see how you can prove that the printing errors are anything other than that.
Printing errors (typos) did happen in the printings of the King James Bible. There is one undeniable example of where the printer was obviously not paying close attention to what he was doing. He may have been tired or his eyes blurred what he was reading or he just had a mental lapse.
The example is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-7. You can get a copy of the first printing of the King James Bible 1611 from Thomas Nelson publishers. I have a hard copy myself. When you go to 1 Corinthians chapter 15 we see the verses are numbered in the following fashion. The verses themselves are the same. But the numbering of the verses is not. What we see here is verse numbering as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7…. Notice the two 5’s and the absence of the number 6.
This is clearly a printing error and not what was originally written in the handwritten manuscript the printer had received from the hands of the King James Bible translators. This printing error was soon caught and corrected.
In the first printing of the 1611 Holy Bible there were hundreds of very minor printing errors such as omitting or duplicating a word, or the misspelling of a simple word. None of these printing errors seriously affected the sense of the passage nor introduced any false doctrines. The printing process was laboriously done by hand, backwards! and one letter at a time. It was very common in all printed works of that day to contain "typos". These are things like "the shearer" to "his shearer" Acts 8:32; "sacrifice" to "sacrifices" 1 Peter 2:5 ; "made a" to "made thee a" Isaiah 57:8; "the field" to "thy field" Lev. 23:22; "Bozra" to "Bozrah" Genesis 36:33; "Jabok" to "Jabbok" Lev. 21:24, and "while the feast" to "while their feast" Judges 14:17.
The King James Bible contains 791,328 words. Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED in the English text aside from these minor corrections of printing errors nor in the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts that were used in the making of this magnificent Holy Bible.
Even the American Bible Society, no friend to the King James Bible, had this to say about the "revisions" of the King James Bible. The American Bible Society wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).
This is sharp contrast to such modern versions like the NKJVs, NIVs, NASBs, ESVs, etc. that DELIBERATELY keep changing both their English texts and even the underlying Hebrew and Greek from one edition to the next. ALL these modern versions continue to intentionally change their texts. The 1995 NASB has omitted some 7000 words that were in the 1977 NASB. The ESV 2001 has already been revised in 2007 where they changed over 300 verses from the previous ESV and now in 2010 the NIV has once again been revised and they tell us they have changed about 10% of the verses from the way they read in the 1984 NIV edition, and they change not only the English text but in some places also the underlying Greek and Hebrew.
WKA3-BWQ3: Does God’s perfect Word exist anywhere on Earth today?
Bob Enyart says: “We will answer our own third question here. Yes, God’s perfect Word exists on Earth today, and it is in the same place that it was in 1610. For as we wrote in our introduction, God’s Word has filled the world in a thousand tongues.”
Hi Bob. Now we are finally getting to the central issue of this debate/discussion.
You now refer to “God’s perfect Word”. It should be “God’s perfect word”. We are not talking about the Lord Jesus Christ here. We all agree that The Word (Jesus Christ) is perfect. “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” John 1:14.
We are talking about a perfect, complete, and 100% true written words of God in a real book we call The Bible. That IS the topic, right?
I assume that by “perfect” you mean 100% true and inerrant.
WKQ2 - Do you happen to have an actual copy of this “perfect word of God” that you claim to believe in that you can show us? Or give us a link to where we can see what it says and compare it to whatever bible version we are now using so we can see the similarities and differences?
WKA4- BWQ4: “Will Kinney, please provide a list of King James Bibles, listing publisher and year published, for which you and, to the best of your knowledge, the KJO camp generally, claim them to be free of error (i.e., God’s perfect Word). Please also specifically indicate, by presenting the year published, which edition was the very first that was free of error.”
Hi Bob. I don’t know what year it first came out, but I would say that the Cambridge edition of the King James Bible that you can find in any bookstore today is the complete and inerrant Bible.
WKA5-BWQ5: “Did God’s perfect Word exist in English in 1610, and if so, in which version?”
Hi Bob. No, it is my firm belief that there was no perfect and infallible Bible in any language until the King James Bible. There was a purification process taking place and the King James Bible was the final product and God’s masterpiece.
WKQ3- Same question for you - Did God’s perfect Word exist in English in 1610, and if so, in which version?
Bob Enyart states: “A Roman Catholic’s defense of their claim of inerrancy for the Pope, when he speaks officially regarding the faith, is similar to the KJO camp’s claim for the 1611 translators.”
WKQ4- Bob and Will Duffy. If you now claim that the belief in an inerrant (perfect) Bible is the same as the Catholic’s claim of inerrancy, then what exactly are YOU referring to when you affirm: “God’s perfect Word exists on Earth today.”?
And concerning the inerrancy (infallibility) of the Pope, this is easy to disprove since they directly contradict not only each other, but themselves as well. However when it comes to disproving the inerrancy of the King James Bible, you have not even begun to make a case yet.
I and many other King James Bible believers can actually show you a hard copy of this “perfect word of God” and place it in your hands so that you can read it for yourself.
WKQ4- (continued) What exactly is it that you have to give us in the way of a perfect and inerrant Bible?
WKA6- BWQ6: “Will Kinney, please explain how God revealed to mankind that the KJ is the only inspired version of the Bible, and please indicate when, i.e., what year, this was first known?”
Interesting question, Bob. There have been many Bible believers before you or I were even born that held the belief that the King James Bible was and is the inerrant words of God. I guess that at this point I can tell you that I came to this conclusion about 15 years ago. How is it done? It’s called a spiritual revelation of truth. That’s how God does things, you know.
What I can do is to give you the testimony of a few others. (Actually, I have quite a list of them, but will only post a few for you to consider.)
Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830 - We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptized upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.
1890: The Supreme Court said, “…the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects…” (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).
In 1882 author William W. Simkins wrote, “I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire [KJV] Bible in the English language. And I also say, that NO VERSION SINCE, BROUGHT OUT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, HAS THE DIVINE...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not....I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED TRANSLATION" (The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, W.W. Simkins, pp. 41,42)
Commenting on the KJV Bible in 1922 William L. Phelps, Professor of English Literature at Yale, wrote, “The Elizabethan period—a term loosely applied to the years between 1558 and 1642—is properly regarded as the most important era in English literature.... the crowning achievement of those spacious times was the Authorized Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611.... the art of English composition reached its climax in the pages of the [KJV] Bible. WE ANGLO-SAXONS HAVE A BETTER BIBLE THAN THE FRENCH OR THE GERMANS OR THE ITALIANS OR THE SPANISH; OUR ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS EVEN BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW AND GREEK. THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS; THE AUTHORIZED VERSION WAS INSPIRED." (Human Nature in The Bible, William Lyon Phelps, 1922, pp. 10, 11)
WKA7- BWQ7: “Will Kinney, because neither the Bible nor the Gospel is only for English-speaking persons, from the insights gained by the KJO movement, please explain how Chinese Christians, or those who speak Spanish or Hindi, for example, could evaluate whether God’s Word was available for them and their children in their own language?”
Bob, you seem to be going over the same ground we have already covered. I already told you that the basic gospel is found in any bible version. Most people, if they only have ONE Bible in their language, assume that it is the infallible words of God.
It isn’t until they get two or three different Bibles in their own language that have different texts (omissions or additions) and totally different meanings for the same texts, that they then begin to wonder and ask themselves which one is right.
They all have to varying degrees the words of God. But there are also varying degrees of corruption, wrong texts and wrong meanings mixed in among them.
WKA8- BWQ8: “Will Kinney, from your past statements, we believe that you will agree with us, and here help to dispel the myth believed by many KJO adherents, that there was only a single 1611 King James. So will you affirm that in fact there were two 1611 King James Bibles, and that these two differ in hundreds of instances?”
No, Bob, there were not “two different King James Bibles”. There were some minor printing errors, none of which seriously affected any doctrines and most were probably not even noticed by most readers except for the one about “Thou shalt commit adultery.” This of course was an obvious printing error and it was easily noticed even by the common reader and was immediately corrected
Bob Enyart continues: “Let’s consider now some of the changes in the early editions of the King James, starting with one of the changes between the two 1611 KJBs.
He/She: In Ruth 3:15, the first 1611 edition read, “he went into the city” which was corrected (along with many other changes) in the second 1611 to read “she went”. (The Hebrew text underlying the KJB, by the way, has “he”, whereas the Septuagint, the early Greek translation of the Old Testament often used by Jesus and the Apostles, has “she”.) This is why these first two editions of the King James are called the He/She editions.”
WKA8-BWQ8 continued: Hi Bob. The Septuagint version itself does not say either “he” or “she”. The English translation done by some guy who obviously did not write the multiple versions out there called “the” Septuagint, says “she went into the city” but the Greek text itself merely has the verb eiseelthen (και εισηλθεν εις την πολιν) with no subject attached to it, which could mean either “he went” or “she went into the city”.
Ruth 3:15. The Cambridge edition, which I use, says: "Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and SHE went into the city."
There was a discrepancy between the edition published in 1611 and the one published in 1613. The verse in question was Ruth 3:15. In the 1611 edition, it read, “HE went into the city,” referring to Boaz. In the 1613 edition, it read, “SHE went into the city,” referring to Ruth. These two editions became known as “the Great He Bible” and “the Great She Bible,” respectively. This printing error was soon discovered and changed back to the reading of "she" went into the city.
The simple fact is, they BOTH ended up going into the city.
There still continue to be differences among the many versions even in Ruth 3:15. Those versions that read: "And HE went into the city" are the NIV 1984-2011, Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Jewish 1917 translation, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible translation, the World English Bible, New Century Version 1991, New Living Translation 2007, the New Revised Standard Version 1989, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the 2005 TNIV (Today's NIV), Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, Context Group Version 2007, the New European Version 2010, the Online Interlinear 2010 (Andre de Mol), the Names of God Bible 2011, The Voice of 2012 and the Hebrew Names Version 2014 - "and HE went into the city."
The NIV, which reads HE, has a footnote here that tells us: "Most Hebrew manuscripts "he"; Many Hebrew manuscripts, Vulgate and Syriac "she".
The versions that read: "And SHE went into the city" are Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the King James Bible 1611, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, Revised Standard Version, Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay, 1950 Bible in Basic English 1961, 1936 Jewish translation, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the Amplified Bible of 1987, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Holman Standard 2003, New English Bible 1970, New Jerusalem Bible 1985, The New Jewish Version 1985, the Revised English Bible 1989, The Word of Yah 1993, the Third Millennium Bible of 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God's First Truth 1999, the 2001 English Standard Version, the Message 2002, Green's Literal 2005, Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2008, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Common English Bible 2011, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Knox English Bible 2012, the Lexham English Bible of 2012, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012, The World English Bible 2012, the International Standard Version 2014, and the Modern English Version 2014.
Notice in the case of the RSV, NRSV, and ESV, each of which is a revision of the other, that the RSV went with "he", then the NRSV read "she", and the latest ESV has now gone back to "he" again.
WKA9- BWQ9: “It is your camp, and not the Scriptures, that claims that in the production of the King James Bible, God inspired the translators, but not the printers. (Thus you blame the errors on the printers.) So Will Kinney, can you explain why that is a reasonable claim for you all to attribute to God, considering that the printers’ work would be read by millions, whereas the translators’ work was only read by the printers?”
Hi Bob. This was one of the pieces of misinformation that you posted. I do NOT believe, nor do I know of any other King James Bible believers who believe, that the KJB translators were inspired. It is THE TEXT that is inspired; not the translators. And once again, you seem to be going over the same thing - the printing errors thingy - again and again. Maybe this is all you have, so you keep throwing it against the wall and hoping that something sticks.
WKA10- BWQ10: “In 1611, any particular minister may not have been convinced that King James was even in a position to authorize a new translation of God’s Word. Such a minister could count and find literally thousands of differences in the new text as compared to the 1537 Matthew Bible that his great-grandfather had preached from. If a minister back then had the kind of spiritual insights of today’s KJO leaders, how would he have been able to refute the one who declared: “King James’ corrupt 1611 translation has hundreds of changes as compared to the Word of God”?
Hi Bob. This is another interesting question. Different people are entitled to their opinions. Some think the ever changing NASBs or ESVs or NIVs or the Daffy Duck Version is the best. I have never met one yet who honestly and consistently believes that any of these are truly INERRANT, but just “the best”. All a person can do if he really believes the King James Bible is the 100% true and inerrant words of God is to show the Bible Babble Buffet version user the very real differences that exist, both textually and in theological meanings.
Only God can reveal His truth to someone and open their eyes and hearts to receive it.
WKA11-BWQ11: “If the King James translators have taken a position on a matter regarding their work that differs from your position Will Kinney and that of the KJO camp, who would have more authority as to the truth of that particular matter, you and the KJO camp, or the translators themselves?”
Hi Bob. This too is kind of interesting. Two things I would say at this point. Number One - I think you (like James White and other bible agnostics) probably misunderstand and misapply some of the things the KJB translators said. And Number Two - the King James Bible translators are not my final authority. The Book is. I know a few things about the KJB translators and their stated beliefs. I agree with much of what they believed theologically, but not everything. They were just fallible men like you and I are and I don’t think any of us has a handle of all truth yet. We still see through a glass darkly, and so did they.
Bob Enyart says: “Now consider Deuteronomy 26:1, and note the error made, not by the printer, but by the translators, when they removed “thy God” (which thankfully was correctly restored in future editions):Notice that the translators annotations and strikethroughs recorded in the 1602 Bishops’ Bible were followed exactly and became the text of Deuteronomy 26:1 in the 1611 King James Bible:
Bob, how do you know this was not a printing error? That is exactly what it was. Also reading “the Lord thy God” are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587. With the constant repetition of the words “God” and “Lord” over and over again, it would have been very easy for a tired and slightly distracted printer to have omitted one of them.
Bob Enyart says: “See also from the 1602 Bishops’ Bible that at 2 Chronicles 32:5 the translators changed the correct word “repaired” to the incorrect word “prepared” by crossing out the “i” and using a caret (upside down v) to prepend a “p”:Because the translators made this error, the 1611 followed it with the incorrect “prepared”, yet this was corrected in the 1616 KJ edition and has remained corrected in virtually all future revisions”
Bob, I think you are mistaken on this one as well. The Bishops’ Bible that I know of that is online reads “repaired” not “prepared”. Also reading “repayred” were Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549 and the Geneva Bible. It would have been very easy to confuse “repaired” with “prepared”, and it was caught and corrected in 1616. Most people would never have even noticed this typo.
WKA12- BWQ12: “Will Kinney, do you agree that these actual handwritten notes from the 1611 translators themselves demonstrate that various errors previously admitted by the KJO camp were not the fault of the printers, but that these errors were generated by the translators themselves?”
Uhh…No, I do not. I maintain they were simple printing errors.
All of grace, believing the Book - the King James Holy Bible,
Round 2 of 5: Bob Enyart & Will Duffy: KJO Battle Royale XIV -
Thank you Will Kinney for your help in this effort to understand the nature of God’s Word in the world today. (In the future Will, when you address us generally, please address both of us, me and Will Duffy. Thanks! -Bob E.)
Common Ground — Kinney Agrees Translators Not Inspired: Responding to our ninth question Will Kinney wrote:
“I do NOT believe... that the KJB translators were inspired.”
He has mentioned this claim previously on his site. But as we’ve shown that contradiction runs throughout the King James Only arguments, even on this topic Will Kinney has also presented the exact opposite claim, thus taking both sides on this important matter. In defense of KJO claims (as we hear from the KJO rank-and-file and as we expect that other KJO leaders do also), Kinney repeatedly quotes those who say that the translators themselves were inspired. On his site, he quotes approvingly:
“I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire [KJV] Bible… [bracketed KJV on Kinney’s page]
This next quote appears in the same article, with Kinney’s site showing this in all caps and bold, that:
“IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS MORE INSPIRED THAN THE ORIGINAL.”
Also there he presents the following quote saying that it refers to the “one version that ruled supreme... the King James Bible”, that:
“the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired…”
And of that very quote, in defending KJOnlyism, Kinney insists that when this statement, “written by men divinely inspired”, was issued, that at that time this particular statement did not refer to the original writings of the Apostles and Prophets, but that it only applied to the KJB. Then he presents another quote approvingly:
“...that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles... inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language.”
So this TOL debate could claim a small success already if Will Kinney would now edit his site to remove these false quotes. Or he could clarify them and state that both he and the KJO movement (according to him) reject that the 1611 translators were inspired.
The testimony of the translators themselves, as being presented in this Battle Royale XIV debate here on TOL, via their own handwriting, is so powerful that we think it might have a significant lasting impact. For example, the translators’ own notes might convince even more and more rank-and-file KJO advocates that the 1611 translators were not inspired.
Bad Translations in Modern Versions: Will Kinney, for now we will respond to your list of 26 problem verses by letting you see what it is like for someone to talk with a KJO leader. So here we use the KJO tactics:
Regarding the verses in modern versions that seem to have problems, these are all the result of printing errors. But regardless of the source of those errors, by faith we believe that sometime over the next 150 years that those errors will be corrected. We expect that you will be satisfied with our explanation of these problems, but if you disagree, then you need a spiritual revelation, because that is how it’s done.
Absurd, no? And again we warn against the contradictions of the KJO movement and we will continue to demonstrate that many of its criticisms commit the logical fallacy of special pleading, invoking a double standard without which their own argument fails.
Kinney’s Seven Examples of Printer Errors: In Round Two you provided seven verse references that did in fact contain 1611 KJB mistakes (including the/their at Judges 14:17). Later KJBs did correct these errors. You asserted that these were printing errors. But now we are going to look at the evidence that has been hidden from thousands of KJO believers, evidence available for some years in the scholarly literature (Ward Allen’s work from 1964 to 1995; David Norton’s 2005 work; etc.). KJO leaders have been either unaware of this evidence or they’ve decided to ignore it. For in the Judges 14 passage that you listed Will Kinney, looking at the very handwriting of the 1611 translators themselves, we see the evidence that this was not a printer error but an error of the translators.
Adam blamed Eve; Eve blamed the serpent; Barack blames Bush; and you blame the printers. This one verse contains eleven of the translators’ edits showing how they wanted this verse to read, and by comparing this to the 1611 KJV displayed just below, we see that all eleven of the translators' edits were followed exactly.
Notice that the translators retained (i.e., did not annotate) from the 1602 Bishops’ Bible the incorrect reading that you listed, “the feast”, when the underlying Hebrew states that this was the “feast of them”, i.e., “their feast”, so it was not the printer’s fault that the 1611 King James Bible failed to get this right.
Correcting this to “their feast” in 1638 was among the revisions that produced an improved KJB version that year. (Yet the KJO camp seems unable to acknowledge that fixing errors, even hundreds of them, amounts to an improvement.) And today that corrected reading remains in most KJ Bibles including in the 1762 Dublin King James.
Will Kinney, regarding the seven particular errors in the 1611 KJB that you listed, their own handwritten notes indicate that the translators themselves were the ones responsible for all seven of the problems that you claimed as examples of printer errors. All seven. A very high eighty-four percent of the many thousands of translator annotations in the 1602 Bishops’ Bible became the actual text of the 1611. And so much of this Bible is annotated that, when you randomly picked 1611 errors and guessed that you should blame them on the printers, there was a good chance (100% in your list of seven) that the translators will testify against your guess, in the form of their handwritten notations in the Bishops’ Bible showing that they were the ones who made the mistakes. As it turns out, translating is harder than typesetting.
If you would like to see the annotations for another one of the seven 1611 errors that you blamed on the printers, just ask.
Will Kinney, you answered our BWQ2 saying that if any actual errors that appeared in the 1611 KJB were made not by the printers but by the translators, that this “might change the KJB only position somewhat”.
Through this debate we will continue to bring the translators’ own testimony to bear, their handwritten affidavits if you will, to demonstrate that many of the errors admitted by the KJO camp were made by the translators themselves and not by the printers. So we now ask you two follow-up questions:
BWQ13: Will Kinney, if in truth the actual 1611 KJB errors long blamed on the printers could be shown to have been caused by the translators, would you publicly call for the KJO leaders to join you in humbly retracting those incorrect statements?
BWQ14: Will Kinney, can you describe in a thoughtful way how the KJO movement might be able to survive if many of the actual King James Bible errors that it has admitted to were actually the fault of the translation work itself?
Kinney Blaming the Printers for Deuteronomy 26:1
Will Kinney denies that the translators’ crossing out of “thy God” in Deuteronomy 26:1 is the source of the 1611 KJ error, yet this single verse contains 18 annotations that the printer followed perfectly.
Further, that passage is the first full verse of fifteen verses forming the entire right column of that page. Those fifteen verses contain a total of 159 notations by the translators, all of which the printers followed exactly in the text of the 1611 King James.
But these denials by Kinney, against the testimony of the translators themselves, adds to his previous contradiction regarding his claim that: “I do NOT believe, nor do I know of any other King James Bible believers who believe, that the KJB translators were inspired. It is THE TEXT that is inspired; not the translators.” If this is that gnat, image what the camel looks like.
BWQ15: Will Kinney, if you do not believe that the translators were inspired (which we are thankful that you do not) then why can you not agree with their own testimony, which is right before your eyes, and acknowledge that some of the errors that the KJO camp has always attributed to the printers were instead, demonstrably, caused by the translators?
Will Kinney’s Answers and His Replies to our Twelve Questions
Will, thank you for the questions you answered, but others you failed to answer. In this concern, we don’t mean that we disagree with a particular answer, but that you did not answer certain questions, so we put those to you again, in bold, below. Please answer them.
BWQ1: Is God able to produce a robust message that could remain effective even as reproduced by mere men (i.e., without the need for divine intervention)?
Will Kinney, you said the question used an interesting choice of words, but you did not answer the question. We respectfully request that you answer BWQ1. Also, a KJO advocate in the Grandstands answered this with something like: Well of course God can do anything. God cannot make a duplicate of Himself. God cannot make Satan into God and Himself into Satan. God cannot forever bless and reward those who hate Him forever. So our question is not trivial.
WKA-BWQ2: Discussed above.
BWQ3: Does God’s perfect Word exist anywhere on Earth today? [Please answer yes or no, and feel free to expound of course.]
Will Kinney, the rules require that you number your answer as, WKA-BWQ3. The purpose of that is to try to get both sides to answer clearly and forthrightly. You numbered your reply, but your comments did not contain an answer to this reply. So we respectfully put it to you again and ask for you to simply repost this question, number your reply again, but this time please provide an answer in your numbered reply.
Then for our next question, which you didn’t answer either, we are splitting that into two questions, a & b, to make it more clear what we are asking you.
Regarding this fourth question, you may recall your previous interaction with researcher Rick Norris. Back in July via email Rick made a prediction to us via email that you may not want to answer a question about what particular KJB edition you claim is perfect. Norris has meticulously documented the thousands of differences between the various King James Versions. In your reply to a question from Rick on a forum, you implied that the 1762 Cambridge edition of the King James was inerrant. Norris then pointed out to you a number of the differences between that edition and present KJV editions; thus his prediction. So now we ask you again to answer us.
BWQ4a: Will Kinney, please provide a list of King James Bibles, listing publisher and year published, for which you claim them to be free of error (God’s perfect Word).
We’re asking for this list partly because the King James is the most confusing version of the Bible ever produced, with far more than 100 varying editions published, more than one every four years. We’re not asking you to list all KJBs (we have a list of scores of editions), but just to list three or four, by year published, and preferably from two or three different publishers, that are claimed to meet the KJO standard.
You partially answered: “I would say that the Cambridge edition of the King James Bible that you can find in any bookstore today is the complete and inerrant Bible.” Which Cambridge? At Acts 7:28 as Moses was challenged about the Egyptian he had killed, we read alternately:
1769 Cambridge: as thou “killedst” the Egyptian
2005 Cambridge: as thou “didst” the Egyptian
There are 30 editions, mostly from Cambridge and Oxford, from the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, which have “killedst” while “didst” appears in seven Oxford, seven Cambridge, and dozens of other editions during that time.
In that same chapter, at Acts 7:45, more than a dozen King James editions say of the tabernacle made by Moses that “Joshua” brought it into the promised land, whereas Cambridge and Oxford editions and the others say that “Jesus” brought it in. You would say Cambridge. But there are many KJBs that differ from Cambridge and Cambridge KJBs that differ from one another.
The purpose of the next question is to determine if the KJO camp has any idea of when the first error free KJB came into existence. For, not counting the changes in the Apocrypha, there were over 400 differences between the two 1611 King James He/She Bibles.
BWQ4b: Please specifically indicate, by presenting the year published, which edition was the very first KJB that was free of any type of error.
We’re not asking if you know this off the top of your head Will. Presumably, you have access to some of the learning of the last half-century of the KJO movement. And please accept this encouragement: you rushed out your last post without proofreading it nor checking your references, nor re-reading to make sure that you understood (see BWQ11) and answered our questions. So if defense of the King James is worth the effort, please take the time allotted to you Will to produce a thoughtful and responsive post. If you don’t know the answer to this question, then please try to look it up. You are representing the movement. Perhaps other KJO leaders can answer this. Perhaps you can ask on one of the massive KJO forums.
WKA-BWQ5: “Did God’s perfect Word exist in English in 1610, and if so, in which version?”
“Hi Bob. No, it is my firm belief that there was no perfect and infallible Bible in any language until the King James Bible.”
So Will, to use your preferred term, you would have called yourself a Bible agnostic if you met yourself four hundred and five years ago. Again, the KJO camp is guilty of special pleading, exempting its own claims from the harsh criticism is lashes out on everyone else.
WKA-BWQ6: Kinney: “...before you or I were even born… How is it done? It’s called a spiritual revelation of truth. That’s how God does things, you know.” [emphasis added]
Over the last forty years occasionally witnessing to Mormon and Moonie cultists, I (Bob), have heard the same from them, as both groups are infamous for claiming, that the Spirit will reveal to you that Joseph Smith/Sun Myung Moon were sent from God. The Mormon/Moonie/KJO camp approach is the opposite of the standard of proof that Jesus offered for His own authority, and it flies in the face God’s method in the Old Testament: let us reason together, and in the New Testament: faith is the evidence of things not seen.
John 5:31 quotes Jesus Himself raising this concern: If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not credible. Why not? Because anyone can say, “I am the One.” Googling: Christian answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, will bring you right back here to TOL, where we learn about the Old and New Testament standard that a matter is settled by the testimony of two or three witnesses. When it comes to establishing His own authority, Jesus doesn’t invoke the KJO/Mormon/Moonie look-into-your-heart approach, but the biblical standard of two or three witnesses. So He points to the testimony of His own Father’s voice from heaven, to the Scriptures which prophesied of Him, and to the works that He had done.
(Presuppositionalism of course is true, but we’ve seen its proponents struggle to account for the Lord’s evidentiary application of that presuppositionalism. But that is a topic for another time.)
So Will Kinney, if you can’t do more than claim that God will reveal it to you, in answer to our BWQ6, “please explain how God revealed to mankind that the KJ is the only inspired version of the Bible”, then again you’ve replaced God’s standard with your own, rather convenient, subjective standard.
For this next question, you spoke about what people will wonder, and that different Bibles can disagree, but that doesn’t answer the question.
BWQ7: “Will Kinney, because neither the Bible nor the Gospel is only for English-speaking persons, from the insights gained by the KJO movement, please explain how Chinese Christians, or those who speak Spanish or Hindi, for example, could evaluate whether God’s Word was available for them and their children in their own language?”
We request that you either answer the question forthrightly or indicate that you cannot answer it.
WKA-BWQ8: “Will Kinney... will you affirm that in fact there were two 1611 King James Bibles [He/She], and that these two differ in hundreds of instances?”
Kinney: “No, Bob, there were not ‘two different King James Bibles’.”
Since your answer to BWQ8 does not acknowledge that there were two different 1611s, we’ll ask you this follow-up question (which ignores the Apocrypha):
BWQ16: Do you deny that there were at least 400 textual differences between the “He” 1611 and the “She” 1611?
Regarding the preamble to our BWQ9, “It is your camp, and not the Scriptures, that claims that in the production of the King James Bible, God inspired the translators, but not the printers”, you wrote:
Kinney: “I do NOT believe, nor do I know of any other King James Bible believers who believe, that the KJB translators were inspired. It is THE TEXT that is inspired; not the translators.” [emphasis added]
But “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”, (2 Tim. 3:16) when “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” and thus for example, “David himself said by the Holy Ghost” (Mark 12:36), and “the Holy Spirit spoke… through Isaiah the prophet” (Acts 28:25). This forms the basis of the doctrine of inspiration: God worked through men inspiring them to write His Word.
BWQ17: If you really agree with us, Will Kinney, as you have stated, that the 1611 translators were not inspired, then why can’t you admit the overwhelmingly obvious truth that errors in the 1611 that come from the translators’ own handwritten notations were caused by the translators?
If the KJO camp does not claim that the translators were inspired, just like you do not claim that the printers were inspired, then why do you blame the one, yet cannot acknowledge the responsibility, of the other?
So here’s where we’re at:
KJO camp rejects that the printers were inspired.
KJO camp rejects that the translators were inspired.
KJO camp admits that errors in the 1611 text were gradually corrected.
Here is the part of our ninth question that you didn’t address, which we re-submit to you for an answer:
BWQ9: [Please explain the KJO defense of the translators and criticism of the printers] “considering that the printers’ work would be read by millions, whereas the translators’ work was only read by the printers.”
Please answer. Thanks. For the next question, you told us that “Different people are entitled to their opinions.” That’s what Denver’s liberal radio host Mike Rosen says when he doesn’t have a good answer handy. So please answer our Q10 or let us know that you cannot, despite years of studying with the KJO camp.
BWQ10: “In 1611... a minister could count and find literally thousands of differences in the new text as compared to the 1537 Matthew Bible that his great-grandfather had preached from. ...how would he have been able to refute the one who declared: “King James’ corrupt 1611 translation has hundreds of changes as compared to the Word of God”?
You described a believer in 1611 who was concerned with the hundreds of changes introduced into Scripture by the KJB as a “Bible Babble Buffet version user”. Then you say to just show him “the very real differences that exist”, presumably between the 1611 and his grandfather’s 1537 Bible. So please answer BWQ10, showing how you could have refuted his claim that it was the KJ that was changing God’s Word which had been good enough for the Church for generations, and that it was the KJB that was adding yet another version to the Bible Buffet.
BWQ11: “If the King James translators have taken a position on a matter regarding their work that differs from your position Will Kinney and that of the KJO camp, who would have more authority as to the truth of that particular matter, you and the KJO camp, or the translators themselves?”
Thank you for replying that “the King James Bible translators are not my final authority.” We couldn’t agree more, and that they were “fallible men”, of course. With that understood, could you now please answer BWQ11.
Defending the Printers on 2 Chronicles 32:5
Will Kinney, please look again at this verse at the detailed handwritten work of the translators (whom the KJO leaders claim to respect but whom the camp subjugates under its own authority). You rushed right past what they had written so that (like other KJO folks including in the Grandstands) you misunderstood what they did with this verse, and what the whole matter represents.
Blaming the printers again, you wrote, “It would have been very easy to confuse ‘repaired’ with ‘prepared’ … it was [a] typo.” Look again Will:
This wasn’t a typo. And it wasn’t the printers who came up with this brand new, never before seen English translation. The translators crossed out the “i” in repaired, and used a caret to insert a “p”, to erroneously change the Bible to say “prepared”, which was later corrected.
BWQ18: Will Kinney, can you see from the 1602 Bishops’ Bible that the 1611 translators explicitly changed the correct word “repaired” to the incorrect word, “prepared”, by adding a “p” to the beginning of the word and then striking out the “i”?
WKA-BWQ12: “...do you agree that these actual handwritten notes from the 1611 translators themselves demonstrate that various errors previously admitted by the KJO camp were not the fault of the printers, but that these errors were generated by the translators themselves?”
Kinney: “No, I do not. I maintain they were simple printing errors.”
Thank you for answering.
Will Kinney’s Questions for Bob Enyart and Will Duffy
WKQ1: You don’t believe in an inerrant, 100% true and inerrant words of God type of Bible. Right? If you think you do, can you tell us exactly which one of these following bible versions got it right and are at least in the running to be considered “perfect and inerrant”?
BWA-WKQ1: We believe that God’s Word has filled the world in a thousand tongues and we agree with, and apply to today also, your own published answer to this question regarding 1500 years of Church history, “God's words from the Old Testament were most likely preserved in the Hebrew texts. A good educated guess for the New Testament words would be that God preserved them in the Old Latin Bibles.” And to that we add that it also existed in all the other languages to which it was translated, including into English beginning in the eighth century. We reject however (what we are documenting as) the KJO’s self-contradicting standard for the “type of Bible” that the KJO camp pretends to believe in, which even they hesitate to point to one specific one and say, “This is it.”
We agree with your pre-1611 answer Will Kinney, but with the clarification that a believer does not need to weaken their answer by using the subjunctive mood, nor undermine centuries worth of the scriptural foundation of Israel and of the Body of Christ by saying that it was “likely” and that it’s just a “guess” that God’s Word was in the world from the time of Job and Moses, through the Apostles, and until 1611.
WKQ2: Which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. *IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?*
BWA-WKQ2: God’s Word is historically true in the events that it narrates. This demonstrates the robustness of God’s method of communication, not unlike the robustness of the biological genetic language that He developed. Rather than a mere series of didactic statements, God has revealed Himself through an account of His actual historical interventions. This sacred history has a plot, which ensures that His message can remain effective even though transmitted for centuries by mere human scribes and translators, not unlike the human genome He wrote for Adam and Eve that remains so effective that it enables parents, thousands of years later, to procreate and bring into existence and for eternity boys and girls who are made in God’s image.
WKQ3: Same question for you - Did God’s perfect Word exist in English in 1610, and if so, in which version?
BWA-WKQ3: Will, we believe that God’s Word has filled the world in a thousand tongues, and that English is one of those beginning from back around 730 A.D. within a century of the emergence of what we call Old English. And we agree with, and apply to today also, your own published answer to this question regarding 1500 years of Church history, “God's words from the Old Testament were most likely preserved in the Hebrew texts. A good educated guess for the New Testament words would be that God preserved them in the Old Latin Bibles.” We reject the superstitious, self-contradicting, and superficial “type of Bible” that the KJO camp pretends to believe in, which even they hesitate to point to one specific one and say, “This is it.”
WKQ4: Bob and Will Duffy. If you now claim that the belief in an inerrant (perfect) Bible is the same as the Catholic’s claim of inerrancy, then what exactly are YOU referring to when you affirm: “God’s perfect Word exists on Earth today.”? (continued) What exactly is it that you have to give us in the way of a perfect and inerrant Bible?
BWA-WKQ4: Perhaps we were not clear enough, but we did not compare the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy to that of papal infallibility. Rather, we compared a common Catholic defense of blaming the news media’s translation to that of the KJO camp’s defense of blaming the printers. What exactly is this Word and where is it? You can find it everywhere. From a Bible bookstore, to Amazon, to where it is hid in the hearts of believers (Ps. 119:11); again, it is where it was in 1610 (you can find many of those Bibles online for free); it is as you said Will Kinney, in the Hebrew and Latin texts, to which we add also, the Greek texts; for God’s Word has filled the world in a thousand tongues. And remember, as per above, we assert that your standard is very different than God’s standard for what it means for a book to be His Word.
Will Kinney also said, “I and many other King James Bible believers can actually show you a hard copy of this “perfect word of God” and place it in your hands so that you can read it for yourself.” Yet Will Kinney, you refused to do just that, to name a specific KJB by publisher and year. We believe that you hesitated to do so, as you have in the past, for example on August 9, 2011, when Dr. James White asked you to identify a single specific printing of a King James Bible that you believe meets the KJO camp’s standard. You refused then also. (By the way, we highly recommend Dr. White’s excellent KJO Controversy book, and I (Bob) have debated James, of course on another topic, last summer in Denver at the Brown Palace, and that’s available on YouTube .) You hesitate to identify a single KJB because you know that those who are educated on the matter can list hundreds of differences, some substantive, between that version and other KJB versions. We understand your hesitancy.
And we just noticed that Will Kinney gave two WKQ2 questions. Here’s his second:
WKQ2(b): Do you happen to have an actual copy of this “perfect word of God” that you claim to believe in that you can show us? Or give us a link to where we can see what it says and compare it to whatever bible version we are now using so we can see the similarities and differences?
BWA-WKQ2(b): Will Kinney, have you noticed when you debate that:
1) You refuse to name a single edition of the King James Bible for which you would claim that it meets the KJO camp’s standards, and
2) Your opponents likewise tend to refuse to name a specific printing of a Bible.
The reasons are one. You won’t name a specific printing of the KJB because you know that hundreds of inconsistencies can be found between it and dozens of other KJBs. (For example there are many inconsistencies even between Cambridge KJB editions, which publisher you seem to prefer.) And your opponents hesitate to name a specific Bible because they know that while you will not acknowledge even the black and white differences between any KJB you specify and all the others, inconsistently, you will pounce on any inconsistencies between a Bible they mention and the KJB.
Further, we’ve discussed the circular argument made by the KJO camp. It is circular whenever they are trying to demonstrate that the KJ is God’s only approved Bible, when the point to any and all differences between the modern version and the KJ, and say: Look, God’s Word was changed here, and here, and here. See, your version has corrupted God’s Word.
Another Vindication of the Poor Printers: The King James translators did not notice the error of the 1602 Bishops’ Bible at Deuteronomy 5:29 which omitted the word “all” and translated only “my commandments” instead of “all my commandments”.
So as additional evidence that there was no divine intervention in its translation, the 1611 translators passed along to the printers that same error of omission.
This error of the translators was not corrected until the revision of 1629, and as with most corrections, that one continues through most of today’s KJ Bibles as it is here in this 1769 Oxford King James.
We spoke earlier of the rank-and-file KJO false impression of the origin of the King James as a new translation resulting from divine intervention upon 40 translators, whereas in reality the translators produced a revision of an Anglican Catholic Bible following instructions to retain catholicisms and traditions (see rules 2-5), as they spent years correcting the work of one another (whose translations to that point therefore could not have been divinely inspired), and then bringing to the printer a remarkably wonderful text that nonetheless reflected their own human weaknesses as imperfect translators.
Move now from the rank-and-file to the KJO leaders and we find a false impression that they promulgate, that after the 1611 was first published with hundreds of errors, that the ensuing decades saw only a process of continual improvement. In reality, like two steps forward one step back, the new editions continued to introduce new textual errors. For example, the following is documented by David Norton (who produced Cambridge’s latest KJB text).
Thirty two years after the 1611 was published, Christians who bought the latest King James would have been told by an anachronistic KJO forerunner that, “they were holding God’s perfect word in their hands.” But they would have found out by reading their 1643 King James Bible:
- that their “condemnation draweth nigh” at Luke 21:28, rather than their redemption.
- that the Lord gave Ruth “corruption” at Ruth 4:13 rather than conception, and
- that “rulers” were “found… in the wilderness” at Gen. 36:24 rather than mules.
In the 1648 King James Bible in the plagues of the Exodus when the river turned to blood God didn’t slay their “fish” but their “flesh.”
The 1653 KJB omitted “who hath opened his eyes” at John 9:21 and the Apostle Paul warns the Christians in Rome against yielding the members of their bodies as “instruments of righteousness” (Rom. 6:13) and in a similar way, tells those in Corinth that “the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9). The originator of the more militant KJO belief system was Seventh-day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson (d. 1968). If he were were alive 300 years earlier, Wilkinson would have railed, would he not, that:
These three very specific errors cannot be just a coincidence! The King James Bible has to be rejected! It is man’s attempt to corrupt God’s perfect word! There is no other explanation for such a series of heretical statements! This King James Bible is trying to turn the reader’s attention away from the One who hath opened the blind man’s eyes. It is warning men to not give themselves over to righteousness! And worst of all, it gives a promise to the “unrighteous” that they “shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Blasphemy! Reject this modern translation. Repent from your King James delusion and return to the Geneva Bible.
This demonstrates that the KJO movement is nothing if not inconsistent and fails by the application to itself of the exact same criticisms that it levels at others. For who could doubt that if all three were anachronisms, Wilkinson, his follower J. J. Ray who heavily plagiarized Wilkinson’s book, and David Fuller who re-published much of Wilkinson’s work, would each in turn have condemned the King James had they lived in the 17th century? For so the publishing of the KJB continued for more than half-a-century, turning God into a “cod”, and sending His “Sou”, with His kingdom not “of this word”, turning the Spirit into “Spirits”, and warning the people to not serve other “goods”. Etc., etc., etc.
Hi Bob Enyart and Will Duffy. Thank you for your responses and the points that you bring up.
You listed some quotes that are on my site by some of my fellow KJB believing brethren who say that the KJB translators themselves were inspired and suggested that I should delete these comments if I do not agree with them. Let me explain to you how some of my fellow KJB believers may be using the term “inspiration”.
The Bible uses this word only two times. One is in Job 32:8 where we read: “But there is a spirit in man; and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.”
This is a very real and biblical way of using the word “inspiration” when the Almighty gives a man or a group of men true understanding. This may well be the sense in which they use the term when saying that the King James Bible translators were "inspired", and they would be correct.
But the more common way the word “inspiration” is understood (and the way in which you most likely intended it) is found in 2 Timothy 3:16 where we read: “All scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
Please notice that the context is not referring to “the originals” at all, but rather to accurate copies that young Timothy as well as his mother and grandmother had in their home, and from which he had been made “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”
The King James Bible itself is the inspired words of God in a similar way that those long lost and never seen by you “original Greek and Hebrew scriptures” were inspired. Inspiration does not cease with the loss of the originals nor when those scriptures are translated into another language.
We can call this type of inspiration “derivative inspiration”. I do not believe the KJB translators were inspired in the sense that they were giving us NEW revelations or NEW Scriptures, but they were inspired in the sense that I believe the Almighty did give them understanding.
Let the major difference between what Bob Enyart and Will Duffy and myself be stated very clearly. I believe that we have in print, a real book between two covers that is the inspired and complete and inerrant words of God and I can tell anyone who wants to know where they too can get a copy of them for themselves.
It is called the King James Holy Bible.
Brother Bob Enyart and Will Duffy do NOT really believe that such a book exists now or ever did exist. If you think they do, then please ask them to show us a copy. They will never do it and neither will men like Rick Norris, James White, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Dan Wallace, Doug Kutilek, James Price or Billy Graham.
Bob E. and Will D. continue - “Bad Translations in Modern Versions:
Will Kinney, for now we will respond to your list of 26 problem verses by letting you see what it is like for someone to talk with a KJO leader. So here we use the KJO tactics:
Regarding the verses in modern versions that seem to have problems, these are all the result of printing errors. But regardless of the source of those errors, by faith we believe that sometime over the next 150 years that those errors will be corrected. We expect that you will be satisfied with our explanation of these problems, but if you disagree, then you need a spiritual revelation, because that is how it’s done.
Absurd, no? And again we warn against the contradictions of the KJO movement and we will continue to demonstrate that many of its criticisms commit the logical fallacy of special pleading, invoking a double standard without which their own argument fails.”
Bob and Will. You fellas have totally missed the point here. Those 26 examples of bad and corrupted theology found in today’s Bible Babble Buffet versions you guys like so much have NOTHING AT ALL to do with “printing errors”.
Most of them have to do with the way they have mistranslated the same texts. And these were deliberate choices. Only a couple of them have to do with the use of variant readings. NONE of them have anything to do with alleged “printing errors”.
The only thing “absurd” and that can rightly be called a “logical fallacy of special pleading” here is your trying to equate accidental “printing errors” with deliberate choices made by the translators of the modern versions on how to translate the same texts.
Bob E. and Will D. next bring up an example of alleged changes in the text of Judges 14:17 and claim there were “11 translators’ edits” that were followed exactly. From the picture provided I can only see 4 examples of change to the Bishops’ bible, not 11.
We have the change from “Samson’s wife” to “she”.
The change from “seven days” to “the seven days”.
The change from “her folk” to “her people”.
And the HUGE ERROR you gnat strainers think you have found is the one where both the Bishops’ bible and the 1611 first printing had “while THE feast lasted”, which in 1638 was changed to the present reading of the KJB to “while THEIR feast lasted.”
The copy you fellas show us is just one of the 40 copies of the Bishops’ bible that the translators were given to work with. None of us knows what the other 39 copies looked like before they finally decided on which changes to make.
We do not know what was finally handed over to the printers because all handwritten copies of it were burned up in a fire shortly after the KJB was first published.
If we compare the previous English Bibles, this is what we find. The KJB corrected “Samson’s wife” (Bishops, Great Bible 1540, Geneva 1587) to “she” because that is what is in the Hebrew text. “She” is also the reading of Coverdale and Matthew’s Bible.
“seven days” was the reading of the Great bible 1540, Matthew’s bible 1549, the Geneva bible and the Bishops’ bible, while Coverdale had “those seven days”.
The KJB translators made this “the seven days” and most bible versions today read this way.
The BIG one you seem so concerned about is the change from “while THE feast lasted” (Bishops, Matthew’s, the Great Bible) and in the first printings of the KJB, to the present reading of “while THEIR feast lasted” which is also the reading of the Geneva Bible 1587 and is also the reading of the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, the Jewish Publication Society Bible 1917, the ESV, NASB and NKJV while the Holman Standard and the NIV merely have “the feast”
This is a change of two letters being added to the word “the” to make it “THEIR feast” and this was the reading found in the Geneva Bible.
“THEIR feast” may well have been what the KJB translators intended but a printer made this very easy to make “typo”. I don’t know and neither do you. And either reading ends up meaning the same thing anyway.
And you guys have a bee in your bonnets about this? This is the best you guys have to offer us in the way of proving to us that the King James Bible is a corrupt and flawed Bible?
[B]WKA - BWQ13[/B]: “Will Kinney, if in truth the actual 1611 KJB errors long blamed on the printers could be shown to have been caused by the translators, would you publicly call for the KJO leaders to join you in humbly retracting those incorrect statements?”
I do not believe for a moment that you have proven your case that these examples are nothing more than very minor printing errors that most people would never have even noticed, but that were soon caught and corrected in further printings of the King James Bible.
[B]WKA - BWQ14[/B]: “Will Kinney, can you describe in a thoughtful way how the KJO movement might be able to survive if many of the actual King James Bible errors that it has admitted to were actually the fault of the translation work itself?”
Guys, this is the same thing you brought up in the previous question. The petty examples you fellas have brought up are nothing more than minor printing errors that were soon caught and corrected.
And STILL neither of you have or believe in a complete and inerrant words of God Bible to believe in yourselves or to give to anybody else. That much has most definitely not changed.
[B]WKA- BWQ15[/B]: “Will Kinney, if you do not believe that the translators were inspired (which we are thankful that you do not) then why can you not agree with their own testimony, which is right before your eyes, and acknowledge that some of the errors that the KJO camp has always attributed to the printers were instead, demonstrably, caused by the translators?”
Once again, guys, you have not proven by any means that any of these examples are anything more than minor printing errors. And the King James Bible translators did NOT give any testimony to having made errors in their translation, and they never even mention the printers as far as I know.
[B]WKA- BWQ1:[/B] “Is God able to produce a robust message that could remain effective even as reproduced by mere men (i.e., without the need for divine intervention)?”
Bob E. and Will D. This is an absurd and very poorly thought out question. Think about what you just asked.
IF GOD produced what you refer to as “a robust message” (whatever [I][U]that[/U][/I] might mean) by mere men, how could He possibly do it “without the need for DIVINE INTERVENTION”???
Guys, does the obvious need to be pointed out to you? If God does something, even through mere men, then there necessarily has to be some degree of “Divine Intervention” in the process. Right? Get it?
Yes, I fully believe God can use mere men to give us not only “a robust message” but an actual Book in print that is the complete and inerrant words of God. I not only believe God is able to do this, but I believe that He has in fact already has done so. You men do not; and that is the major difference between us at this point.
[B]WKA- BWQ3[/B]: Does God’s perfect Word exist anywhere on Earth today? [Please answer yes or no, and feel free to expound of course.]
Yes. You gentlemen may have even heard of it. It is called the King James Bible. You can pick one up at any bookstore.
[B]WKQ3[/B]: Bob E. and Will D. You gentlemen did not answer this question. Here it is again. Same one.
“Is any in print Bible you can show us God’s perfect, complete and inerrant words either today or before the King James Bible? If Yes, can you tell us which one it is? If No, are you honest enough to admit it?
[B]WKA-BWQ4a[/B]: “Will Kinney, please provide a list of King James Bibles, listing publisher and year published, for which you claim them to be free of error (God’s perfect Word).”
I already gave you the only answer I know of regarding this. The Cambridge printings of the King James Bible you can find in any bookstore today. Since there is no copyright on the KJB outside of England, there are lots of different publishing companies that print the KJB and some of them make minor spelling or word changes. I have no way of knowing how many there are, nor does it interest me in the least. I do know which one is totally right and have already told you what it is and where you too can get one if you like.
[B]WKA-BWQ5[/B]: “Did God’s perfect Word exist in English in 1610, and if so, in which version?”
“Hi Bob. No, it is my firm belief that there was no perfect and infallible Bible in any language until the King James Bible.”
Bob and Will D. continue: “So Will, to use your preferred term, you would have called yourself a Bible agnostic if you met yourself four hundred and five years ago. Again, the KJO camp is guilty of special pleading, exempting its own claims from the harsh criticism is lashes out on everyone else.”
Bob E. and Will D. Sirs, it gets pretty old really fast when you guys REFUSE to answer my own questions to you. I asked you to respond to this same question, and you simply DODGED it completely. There is no answer here from either of you. Answer the question, sirs.
Now, for your additional comments. Had I met myself 500 years ago and I had a bible and was a believer in Christ, I probably would have thought that the one bible I had was the true words of God. I would have been wrong, but that is what I probably would have believed. If a person has only one bible, they probably believe it is true. But when you have 2 or 5 or 10 different bible versions that have different texts, and different names and numbers and very different meanings in the same verses, then you quite naturally begin to question which one (if any) is right.
I do not believe the KJB translators themselves thought that there was already a perfect and inerrant Bible in their times, or else they would not have undertaken the task of producing the King James Bible itself.
[B]WKQ13[/B] - Please actually try to answer the question this time, guys. OK? Are you both Bible Agnostics (you don't know for sure) and unbelievers in the existence of a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in any language (translated or untranslated) NOW? Yes or No?
If not, then can you please tell us exactly what this inerrant Bible is you supposedly believe in and where we can get a copy of it? Yes or No?
Bob E. and Will D. next mock at the idea of a revelation from God that the KJB is His inerrant Book by trying to equate my answer to the Mormon’s and the Moonies.
They then post: “So Will Kinney, if you can’t do more than claim that God will reveal it to you, in answer to our BWQ6, “please explain how God revealed to mankind that the KJ is the only inspired version of the Bible”, then again you’ve replaced God’s standard with your own, rather convenient, subjective standard.”
Guys, I never said that God has revealed to mankind that the KJB is His inerrant Book. He obviously has not revealed this to either of you. You both remain unbelievers in the existence of such a book.
I did say, and I say again, it is by spiritual revelation. Just because the enemy or the devil uses the word “revelation” does not negate the truth that that is the way God does things. At this point you sound more like mockers than Bible believing Christians.
“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast REVEALED them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.” Matthew 11:25-25
“For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the REVELATION of Jesus Christ.” Galatians 1:12
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
[B]WKA-BWQ7[/B]: “Will Kinney, because neither the Bible nor the Gospel is only for English-speaking persons, from the insights gained by the KJO movement, please explain how Chinese Christians, or those who speak Spanish or Hindi, for example, could evaluate whether God’s Word was available for them and their children in their own language?”
We request that you either answer the question forthrightly or indicate that you cannot answer it.”
Bob and Will D. I already answered this. Just because you did not like or grasp the simple meaning of what I said, does not mean that I did not answer it. I repeat - If a person has only one bible, they probably believe it is true. But when you have 2 or 5 or 10 different bibles that have different texts, and different names and numbers and very different meanings in the same verses, then you quite naturally begin to question which one (if any) is right.
[B]WKQ14[/B] - Since neither of you gentlemen actually believes that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God (you have so far avoided telling us which one it is) then how do you evaluate whether or not you have His true words? (I assume this is another question you are going to dodge as well)
[B]WKA-BWQ16[/B]: “Do you deny that there were at least 400 textual differences between the “He” 1611 and the “She” 1611?”
No, I do not deny that there were very minor printing errors, none of which affected any doctrines, and most of which did not even change the meaning of the verse. Most of them would not even have been noticed by the average reader.
Like your “big example” of “the feast” versus “their feast” in Judges 14:17. In both cases it was their feast which they all had together. You are making mountains out of molehills and straining at gnats. But since this is all you’ve got, I guess you just have to run with it and hope that others will become Bible doubters like yourselves.
[B]WKA-BWQ17[/B]: “If you really agree with us, Will Kinney, as you have stated, that the 1611 translators were not inspired, then why can’t you admit the overwhelmingly obvious truth that errors in the 1611 that come from the translators’ own handwritten notations were caused by the translators?”
Guys, you really are sounding like a broken record. You keep asking the same questions about these “printing errors” and I keep telling you the same things. You have heard of the definition of lunacy right? It’s asking the same question over and over and hoping that the answer will change.
Will Kinney’s Questions for Bob Enyart and Will Duffy
[B]WKQ1[/B]: You don’t believe in an inerrant, 100% true and inerrant words of God type of Bible. Right? If you think you do, can you tell us exactly which one of these following bible versions got it right and are at least in the running to be considered “perfect and inerrant”?
BWA-WKQ1[/B]: We believe that God’s Word has filled the world in a thousand tongues and we agree with, and apply to today also, your own published answer to this question regarding 1500 years of Church history, “God's words from the Old Testament were most likely preserved in the Hebrew texts. A good educated guess for the New Testament words would be that God preserved them in the Old Latin Bibles.” And to that we add that it also existed in all the other languages to which it was translated, including into English beginning in the eighth century. We reject however (what we are documenting as) the KJO’s self-contradicting standard for the “type of Bible” that the KJO camp pretends to believe in, which even they hesitate to point to one specific one and say, “This is it.”
Guys, I see that you gave us the usual “non-answer” tap dance routine complete with balloons and dancing bears. Very entertaining, but you completely avoided naming any specific Bible in any language, translated or untranslated, as being God’s inerrant words.
The simple reason you gentlemen do this is because you don’t really believe that such a book exists, and you are just too dishonest to admit it.
And you took a small part out of one of my articles and quoted it, but you conveniently did not quote what I said in the same article as THE CONCLUSION.
What I stated was this - “If push comes to shove I am willing to confess that it just may be that the first time God sovereignly placed both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek, or Latinized translation of the correct Greek texts, into a single Book translated in the end times universal English language, was when He finally brought forth the Authorized King James Bible. Does this sound shocking or scandalous? Well, YOUR side doesn't believe there EVER was a perfect Bible in one volume, much less one now. What evidence do I have for this position? In the sovereignty of God the first time the universal Church began to make their formal confessions about the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Bible was AFTER the King James Bible came on the scene and the modern day missionary movement began.”
Then you repeat the same evasive non-answer in the following.
[B]WKQ3[/B]: Same question for you - Did God’s perfect Word exist in English in 1610, and if so, in which version?
[B]BWA-WKQ3[/B]: “Will, we believe that God’s Word has filled the world in a thousand tongues, and that English is one of those beginning from back around 730 A.D. within a century of the emergence of what we call Old English.”
Once again, you guys sound like politicians rather that Bible believing Christians. You have been at this for so long, you probably can’t even see how empty and meaningless your “bold confession of faith” really is.
You end up telling us nothing and giving us NO Bible to believe in as the in print, hold it in your hands and believe every word is the 100% truth of God. You are still hanging on to that Santa Claus Version myth.
Bob and Will D. I HAVE told you exactly which King James Bible is the inerrant words of God. It is the Cambridge printings you can buy in any bookstore today. There are also a couple of printing houses here in the USA that print excellent King James Bibles I can name for you.
I am not dodging the question. I am just not all that concerned like you guys seem to be about what different publishing houses in the past have done to make very minor (no real change in meanings) alterations in the text of the KJB. If you chose to get hung up on “biggies” like the difference between “the feast” and “their feast”, that is on you. I don't have that problem.
What we have in today’s Bible Babble is literally thousands of entire words and between 17 and 45 entire verses omitted or called into question in just the New Testament.
Then you have versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, etc. that all reject numerous Hebrew readings and add hundreds of words (ESV especially) to the Hebrew O.T., and they pervert many sound doctrines of the faith by the way in which they translate things.
The polls tell us that Biblical ignorance has now reached scandalous levels and 90% of the clergy is at least honest enough to admit to the pollsters (though most still lie to their congregations) that they do not believe that The Bible is the infallible words of God.
The polls also show that fewer and fewer “Christians” actually read their “modern, easy to read” versions, let alone study them. And the polls also inform us that many of the young people are leaving the church and their faith, and one of the top reasons given was that they do not believe the Bible is true and reliable. And if they attend Sunday School classes (where multi, conflicting versions are used), they are more likely to leave the faith than those who do not even go to Sunday School.
This is all documented in a recent book by Ken Ham.
And you two evasive “gnat straining” Bible agnostics are concerned about a few minor printing errors that happened long ago and have since been corrected by approved publishing houses like Cambridge and some others I can name.
But neither one of you will EVER come right out with a clear and unambiguous answer and show us a copy of what you honestly believe is the complete and inerrant words of God.
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8
“But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” 1 Corinthians 14:38
Bob Enyart's 3rd post
Hello TOLers! Thanks for being a part of this debate, and please join us in praying that we would honor God in our efforts and please Him with our demeanor and labors. We will further develop our argument before addressing our KJO opponent’s latest comments. And also Will Kinney, we know that more than anything in this debate you want us to name one very specific Bible version that we stand behind (and so we want you to do), so in this post, we are going to offer to you exactly what you have been asking for.
Well, Look Who’s Here: When this debate was agreed to, we had no idea that the translators themselves would show up to participate and to testify on their own behalf. We are humbled and thrilled that they are raising their collective voices in opposition, no less, to the King James Only movement. The 1602 Bishops’ Bible is the star witness, and there are two others sequestered, hoping to get a chance to come to the witness stand, John Bois and Manuscript 98. These courageous scholars are setting the record straight and not accepting help from false friends who would blame others for the translators’ own mistakes.
Translators Take Responsibility for Hosea 6:5: This passage in the 1611 contains one of the more than 400 places where the second 1611 KJV corrected or improved (or even accidentally broke) a reading in the first 1611 He Bible. We will “shew” you the problem:
This 1611 passage quotes God as saying that He has, “shewed (showed) them”. However, the Lord had inspired Hosea to remind the unrepentant of how God judged those who reject Him. (Afterall, they are willing to lead others into Hell itself.) The Hebrew text, and the future corrected KJBs, say of those who would not repent that they were “cut down” (not showed) and “slain”.
Nicer than God — Kill vs. Murder — Cut Down vs. … Show? The Nicer than God weakness manifests itself throughout the history of English translations. This subtle form of self-righteousness resurfaces in various erroneous readings in the King James Bible, including in all the KJ versions used by today’s leaders of the KJO movement. Consider the mistranslation of God’s command at Exodus 20:13 as “Thou shalt not kill.” (At least they got the “not” right . ) However, a few verses later, God instructs men to execute, the KJB says “put to death”, i.e. kill, the convicted murderer and the kidnapper. The correct translation, by the context and by the Hebrew verb, is as with many modern translations, You shall not murder. Like English, Hebrew and Greek have words that appropriately distinguish between murder and kill. Moses used the correct word for murder in the Ten Commandments as you would expect him to; he did not use there the word for kill, which word he used earlier in Exodus 4:24 when God sought to kill someone. God may kill, that is, He may end someone’s earthly life, either in judgment or perhaps even to bring the righteous home to heaven; but He does not murder. Jesus and the Apostles also use the appropriate Greek word in the New Testament parallel passages. Yet by a happy inconsistency, the 1611 translators (and modern KJVs) correctly render Matthew 19:18, “Thou shalt do no murder”. Modern editors of our King James Bibles have conflicting commitments and often their commitment to tradition takes precedence over their commitment to accuracy. So the KJB publishers continue the 1611’s inconsistent and erroneous translation within, of all places, the Decalogue.
Widespread False Doctrine Result of Error in King James Bible: With the Ten Commandments being so central to the message of the Scriptures, an easy-to-avoid and especially reckless translation error there in Exodus 20 could easily wreak moral and spiritual havoc. Thus with this single sentence on one of the two tablets of stone being incorrectly translated, the tragic results include:
- countless liberal Christians using “prooftexts” to defend their nicer-than-God opposition to the death penalty
- countless believers advocating a sinful public policy against capital punishment by following the 1611 translation and thus ignoring God’s severe warning, “will you profane Me [by] killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live”
- liberal Christian ministers who use “thou shalt not kill” to argue that execution is unjust, whereby they unwittingly impede evangelism, for if there is anything immoral about capital punishment, then the Bible’s message of reconciliation is undermined, for the death penalty is at heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and
- a million Bible teachers today who overlook the extensive New Testament support for capital punishment (as listed right here on TOL in the #1 Google-ranked article, out of 13 million, for the search term: God and the death penalty).
Handwritten Confession: This same nicer-than-God tendency also produced the 1611 error of softening Hosea 6:5 from “cut down” to “show”. The translators revised Hosea 6:5 from the 1602 Bishops’ Bible to moderate the message by producing a rendering never before seen in any text, to say that God “shewed [showed] them by” the prophets that they were slain by His words.
This error, admitted here in this written affidavit by the translators to be their own, and not the printers, was:
- corrected in the She Version, and in the 1612 edition, and the 1613, and in the 1629, for example, but it
- reappeared (not surprisingly) in 1616 and again in the 1817 octavo (one-eighth size of a standard edition).
Miracles on Demand: We say the error “not surprisingly” reappeared because transmission of a text, whether by copying, translating, or even printing, is a human endeavor subject to human weaknesses. Will Kinney addressed, but has so far not answered, our very first question, BWQ1, “Is God able to produce a robust message that could remain effective even as reproduced by mere men (i.e., without the need for divine intervention)?”. That question requires a yes or no answer, and any clarification would be happily considered. If the answer is No, then God would have to provide miracles on demand (an idea which disgusted Jesus, as we explain for anyone who Googles: miracle dynamics).
God Finds a Way Out: God loves to serve but do not treat Him like a servant. The Lord extricates Himself from any situation that would require Him to supernaturally intervene when called upon. For example, at the very moment that God entered into the Covenant of Grace with Abram (in Gen. 15, and two chapters later, the Covenant of Circumcision), the Lord revealed that this man’s descendants would sojourn for 400 years in a foreign land (Egypt) and would come out with great substance (the Exodus). Why, and why was this relevant right at that moment? God wanted Abraham to become the father of a mighty nation, but the land was filled with warring tribes, so God knew both that the Gentile nations would want to murder Israel’s men, plunder their goods, steal their land, and kidnap their women and children. Further, with the way that we human beings are, God also knew that the Israelites would from time to time provoke their pagan neighbors (as indeed Scripture documents). But the Lord didn’t want to spend centuries doing routine miracles while Israel grew from a man into a nation, perhaps having to supernaturally intervene in the springtime of every year when nations go to war (2 Sam. 11:1), with miracles on demand whenever the Jews were attacked or whenever they got themselves into big trouble, maybe 400 times. Instead, God devised a plan. He could have a great empire welcome in the fledgling tribe and give them a large and protected land within a land, so that His children could grow into a mighty nation, minus the annual miracles. And that is what happened.
400 KJB Miracles on Demand or a Better Plan? Likewise, if God shared the KJO standard for Scripture, then He would become the servant, and man His master. For every time that some university, some scholar, some publisher, some upstart KJO ministry in the outback, decided to publish a King James Bible, then God would have to supernaturally intervene to make sure that He preserved His Word to this exacting standard. The Egyptian sojourn of 400 years about equals the time now since 1611 during which more than 400 editions of the King James Bible have been published (with more than 100 varying from the others). In that time, God would have had to do routine annual miracles if in fact He shared the KJO standard. But His standard is far better.
God Is Into Robustness: Sadly Will Kinney didn’t understand our BWQ1. We asked if God could produce a robust message for which He then could refrain from intervening while mere men with their frailties nonetheless were able to reproduced that message without it losing its effectiveness. With the Egyptian sojourn, the Lord set up the nation so that He could achieve His goals yet without constant intervention. God did exactly what we asked in our question when He authored the human genome which remains effective to this very day toward bringing eternal creatures made in God’s image into existence. He created a worldwide ecosystem with today a million species redundantly providing thousands of biological services to one another such that the world is still lush with life even through the global judgment of the flood and millennia of man’s imperfect husbandry. And finally, He did this also with His Word which He began revealing four thousand years ago, which mere men have ever since reproduced, without a requirement for God intervening because of its robustness. And even to this very day it remains effective in virtually any manuscript, text, codex, language, copy, edition, version, translation, download, in revealing, the power of God unto salvation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
What God permits, let not man forbid, lest he make an idol. idolatry doesn’t so much attempt to elevate the idol above God, but the idol maker. The idolatrous KJO doctrine elevates man above God by turning the Lord into a butler who must obey a man’s command to supernaturally intervene whenever someone get the urge to publish another KJB.
Reading the Handwriting: For those who can’t read the translator’s handwriting in the picture above, of Hosea 6:5 in the 1602 Bishops’ Bible, you’re not alone. We are fifty-five days into working with these texts and of course we still struggle, but it’s getting easier to recognize the handwriting of this and the other translators who notated this Bishops’ Bible. The scholars easily recognize where one scribe’s work ends and another’s begins, as we’re learning to do also. They note those writers who have done most of the work and mark where others happen to sit in for just a few annotations here and there. For this Hosea passage, we compared the shape of these letters with the same letters written by this and other scribes in other verses to confirm the reading. Further, regarding the Secretary Hand that was in widespread use in the Elizabethan Era, we asked David Norton for tips on how to read it. When he needed a consultation, he contacted perhaps the world’s leading expert on Secretary Hand, the man who both Oxford and Cambridge look to as editor for their academic works and updated releases of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Preparing for this Battle Royale XIV back in September we were able to track down Dr. John King and on October 28th he graciously found the time to help out and he wrote to us that he sees:
“shewed them by” written by hand to replace “cut down” in Hosea 6.5. I hope that this helps.
Yes, thank you Dr. King, that helps greatly and it’s humbling to have your input.
This Particular 1602 Bod. Bishops’ Bible: Will Kinney suggested that this particular book, sometimes referred to as the 1602 Bod. (held at the Bodleian Library), “is just one of the 40 copies of the Bishops’ bible that the translators were given to work with.” We will see now that this copy is far more than just one of the forty. But first, the KJO authors seem to have almost no use for this 1602 Bishops’ Bible. Shouldn’t they be the most interested in the handwritten work of the original translators? On Kinney’s extensive website, he references it only once as best we can tell, in a piece titled Strain at a gnat, and in that article, believe it or not (this is shocking, really), he argues:
“...in said Bishop's Bible... we find the [translators handwriting showing their intention.] So much for a ‘mistake’; it was a deliberate choice the translators made.” -Kinney
Yes, you read that right. Of course in this debate so far, Will Kinney has acted as though he can’t even understand our point, much less agree with it. The KJO movement is nothing if not everywhere contradictory.
The 1602 Bishops’ Bible that we traveled to study documents the translation process through the multiple stages, beginning in 1604 among the forty unbound Bishops’ Bibles distributed to the translators. This particular book initially went to one of the translators of the Second Oxford Company, and eventually bore translation work from four of the six companies. That it was one of the unbound Bibles originally distributed to the forty translators is known by the work product recorded in the book itself. Additionally, that this was one of those first forty unbound Bishop’s Bibles is known also because the handwriting often dives down into the binding, and for the thousands of times that it does that, it nonetheless remains consistent and the lines evenly spaced with one another, unlike what would happen if a scribe were trying to squeeze letters down toward the binding. You can see this for yourself.
Further, there are places where the writing goes out of sight right down into the binding. (With Will Kinney trying to rush this debate, that has forced us to work through much of the last four nights on two rounds now, and so we haven’t had the time to look for the photos that we wanted to present so that you could see that particular feature.)
The seven year process was one of accumulating the work of forty, and eventually over fifty, minds into a single result. That process began with forty texts and gradually the work from multiple translators in one company was compiled into a single book. And then if that particular book was of especially excellent quality, then the work of other companies would gradually be incorporated into that same Bible. Again, eventually, this particular book, extraordinarily, held the translation work from four of the six companies, including at least one each from Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster! In 1609, this book was brought to the general meeting in London, and the work there continued until 1611.
This particular book is much more heavily annotated in the Old Testament than in the New Testament. Nonetheless, in the New Testament this 1602 Bishops’ Bible shows extensive work from three translators and bears the record of the Stage 1 work of the second Oxford Company, which was completed by 1608. It also contains the Stage 2 work by three different hands (translators/scribes) for work done from 1608 to 1609, and it evidently contains the translation revision work that resulted from a successful review from that company. Two-thirds of the revisions in Matthew, from the Bishops’ Bible to the 1611 KJV, came from the 1602’s Matthew scribe. Three quarters of the revisions in Mark and Luke came from the 1602’s Mark/Luke scribe. And five-sixths of the revisions in John 17-21 came from the 1602’s John scribe.
In the Old Testament, the 1611 KJV retains an astounding eighty-four percent of the handwritten annotations. This is an estimate based on David Norton’s survey of 639 verses. This 1602 Bod. is annotated from Genesis to Isaiah 4, then in Jeremiah 1-4, Ezek 1-4, Daniel 1-4, and all of Hosea to Malachi. This represents work done at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster, again, in four of the six companies (minus the two companies doing work on the Apocrypha, making this particular Bible especially relevant to Protestant Christians who reject the inclusion of those extra-biblical texts. One company’s work ends at the end of 2 Kings, and another’s ends at the end of Song of Songs, yet in both cases, the translator (or their scribe) who had been annotating the text continued on into the work of the next company. This also seems to indicate that this 1602 Bod. was being heavily used in the later stages of the work, when the translation was being compiled from multiple companies.
CAMBRIDGE vs. CAMBRIDGE: During this Battle Royale, Will Kinney posted this in the TOL Grandstands:
IF you really believe the NIV is the inerrant words of God… the question then becomes “WHICH NIV are you referring to?” … The NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 all read: “FILLED WITH COMPASSION…” Well, the 2011 NIV finally did it! [That edition translated that same phrase] “Jesus WAS INDIGNANT.” … I have TONS more [examples that] I can show you if you like.
The KJO camp cannot but contradict itself. Will, which KJB have you been referring to? Is there an explanation, perhaps hypocrisy, which explains why you to refuse to identify any particular King James Bible?
A KJO advocate wields the phrase “complete and inerrant” as a club to beat fellow Christians over the head, but they refuse to apply their same persnickety standard to whatever Bible they use.
* Regarding the three different readings of Joshua 5:14, the all caps is wrong because the Hebrew is not YHWH, and the all lowercase “lord” is wrong because when referring to God, the King James uses an uppercase Lord.
This chart shows that the entire KJO movement lacks credibility when they claim that God has supernaturally intervened to provide a perfect and inerrant King James.
In our chart, these differences are between one or more Cambridge editions of the Bible and other Cambridge editions. This is just the tiniest sampling of the changes, and out of a review of only a fraction of all the KJ editions. The changes fill small-print volumes many hundreds of pages long.
In our next post, we expect to provide a list of differences between the 1769 Cambridge and the 1769 Oxford. We also plan to present more examples of errors that continue to be printed in today’s King James Bibles. The King James Only movement seems to especially respect the 1769 Cambridge and the very widely distribute 1769 Oxford KJVs, both of which have been used as a basis for other editions.
We noticed in the Grandstands that Will Kinney asked: “Did you notice that... the NIV changed THE TEXT from one edition to another, AND that they REVERSED THEIR CHOICES? What is going on here…” Will, the KJB does that all the time.
BWQ19: Will Kinney, will you dispel the myth believed among many KJO advocates that the KJB was only being perfected from 1611 to 1769, by affirming that in reality, there are many instances where the text incorporated additional errors?
BWA-WKQ3b: “Is any in print Bible you can show us God’s perfect, complete and inerrant words either today or before the King James Bible? If Yes, can you tell us which one it is? If No, are you honest enough to admit it? [We numbered that 3b because Will Kinney changed his original WKQ3 question.]
We’ve been at a standoff on this question Will, and we’d like to make you an offer right here and now. You have refused to answer our question BWQ4, to list a specific KJ publisher and year. If in Round 4 you will answer that question, and two or three specific King James Bibles by publisher and year, that meet the standard of the KJO movement, then also in Round 4, we will specify a Bible currently in print that meets our standard. We know that you will then attempt to show changes or errors in the Bible we specify, while you will dismiss any changes in whatever KJBs that you identify.
BWQ20: Will Kinney, will you take our offer and specifically identify two or three King James Bibles, by publisher and year, that meets your standard? And if you do, we will specifically identify a Bible currently available that meets the standard that we’ve been proclaiming.
BWQ21: Will Kinney, you have been referring to the complete, perfect and inerrant word of God. Is the 1769 Oxford edition complete?
BWQ22: Will Kinney, how did you come to the conclusion that it was the Cambridge edition of the KJB, and not the Oxford, London or Edinburgh editions, for example, that are free of error?
The Battle Royale Moderator Weighs In: TOL’s webmaster and our debate moderator Knight is ever so gracious, and so he admonished our KJO opponent not here in the Coliseum’s Battle Royale Center Ring, but off in the Grandstands (where those viewing the debate can themselves comment on and debate our topic, both now and after this event closes). But to empathize with our reader’s disappointment, and to put on the record what any observer can see, we are embedding Knight’s chastisement here, as he wrote early yesterday morning, Nov. 5th, to Will Kinney:
Please take more time and construct your posts more carefully before posting them in the battle. You had plenty of time (which you didn't use) and then made a sloppy post and a follow-up post with a correction. This is yet another rules violation. It's also clear that you didn't make an attempt to answer questions....
BWQ4b BWQ9 BWQ10 BWQ11 BWQ18
You must respond to the questions asked of you just as Bob and Will must respond to your questions. Take more of your allowed 48 hours between posts and make every round count.
Will Kinney, please answer those five questions in your next post.
Was the 1611 “Authorized”? — Did It Appear on the Stationer’s Register — Is it a Revision?
The term “Authorized” on the title page of an Anglican Bible appears to have had a very important, specific, and technical meaning. Bishops' Bibles issued after 1585 were marked “Appointed” and “Authorized.” Ironically enough, the 1611 King James Bible lacks the imprimatur of “Authorized.” And this was not a printers’ error.
Here is an example of an actual authorized text, from the 1595 Bishops’ Bible.
This next hard-to-read scan is of the frontispiece of an even older pulpit-sized 1585 Bishops’ Bible currently for sale at liveauctioneers with bidding starting at $1,250. Nonetheless, it does show, “Authorized and appointed to be read in Churches.”
And here is the frontispiece from the 1602 Bishops' Bible that we studied at the new Weston Library, part of the Bodleian system at Oxford University:
We’ll see more about Bible authorization in a moment. But first consider the surprising unregistered status of the 1611 KJV. If you prohibit what God permits, you make an idol. The Crown sinfully constrained the general public from participating in the printing trade. Royal charters were granted in James’ time to two King’s Printers, one being Robert Barker. Previously in 1534 Henry VIII had granted a royal charter (a Letters Patent) to Cambridge, which remains the world’s oldest university press. And though Oxford, today the world’s largest university press, though it dabbled in printing early on, began significant printing in the 1580s and in 1586 received its official recognition to print from Westminster Palace. For decades before and long after the appearance of the KJB, upon publication, official texts were entered on the Stationers’ Register. This historical record, maintained by the Stationers’ Company in London, is today of inestimable worth in researching the literature of the era, including, for example, information about Shakespeare’s work. So it is surprising to many that the King James Bible does not appear among the entries for 1611 in the Stationers’ Register. Remember that Will Kinney prefers a Cambridge KJB. And remember also that David Norton is the scholar who made hundreds of decisions for Cambridge University on how the text of their latest King James Bible should read. We discussed with Dr. Norton the fact that the KJB is a revision which is declared explicitly by the translators in their preface to the 1611 and which they demonstrated conclusively in that for seven years they squeezed their work onto the margins of a pre-existing version and they crowded the tiny interlinear space between lines of text with thousands of their handwritten revisions. Thus Dr. Norton sees the fact that the 1611 King James Version was not a new text but a revision as the best explanation for why it was not registered as was customary for any important new publication.
For evangelical Christians who follow the Scriptures, “authorization” is a non-issue because there is no authorization from God authorizing King James to publish the Bible. However, it is ironic that the very Bible that was intentionally not marked as “Authorized” became known as the AV, the “Authorized Version”. Back in 1541, a revered and closely followed royal proclamation ordered, “a Byble of the largest and greatest volume, to be had in euery churche’. Stating that the KJB was “Appointed” to be read in church gave ministers permission to use it; but if “Authorized”, that would have carried the weight of a royal proclamation, meaning that hundreds of parishes already struggling financially would have had to immediately purchase this expense 1611 pulpit Bible. Eventually though, the text did pick up the nickname, the Authorized Version. In October 1881 (not June as reported elsewhere) in Macmillan’s Magazine, pp. 436-444, Randall Davidson reports on the first known reference to the KJB being as authorized, by George Abbot, ordained the Archbishop of Canterbury coincidentally in 1611, who very carefully described: “the Bible of the New Translation, lately set forth by His Majesty’s authority.” His successor though, Archbishop William Laud, had been appointed by King James as president of Oxford’s St. John’s College, intentionally departed from his predecessor's wording and instead used that of the royal proclamation: “the whole Bible of the largest volume”.
Being “Authorized” was no minor issue and would indicate that all the Anglican Churches were required to now adopt this new Bible. Though the effort was massive, and the result sublime, yet the King did not permit, nor did the printer print, the designation of “Authorized” on the King James Bible, and that was no oversight.
BWQ23: Will Kinney, like Bibles published in England in the 16th and 17th centuries, did the printed 1611 King James Bible say anywhere on it that it had the designation of being “Authorized”?
BWA-WKQ13: Are you both Bible Agnostics (you don't know for sure) and unbelievers in the existence of a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in any language (translated or untranslated) NOW? Yes or No? If not, then can you please tell us exactly what this inerrant Bible is you supposedly believe in and where we can get a copy of it? Yes or No?
Will, we are not Bible agnostics. We made you an offer above. It is up to you to accept it.
BWA-WKQ14: Since neither of you gentlemen actually believes that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God (you have so far avoided telling us which one it is) then how do you evaluate whether or not you have His true words?
Evaluating whether or not we have God’s true words takes effort. It does not just fall in your lap. For example, when looking at the chart above containing the differences between the Cambridge editions of the King James Bible, examining the context of the verse, the overall plot of the Bible and the Hebrew/Greek manuscript evidence helps one determine which edition is correct and which one is in error.
Will Kinney - Round 4.
My Final Post
Hi all. Since this is my last post in this debate, I wish to thank everyone involved and those who have been following along in this discussion about the most important issue of our time - Has God given us an inerrant and perfect Bible or not?
Hopefully we have given you some useful information to consider what it is that you really believe about The Bible.
Bob.E. and Will D. open their next response with an emotionally charged, inaccurate and misguided “guilt by association” argument about some of the errant beliefs of Peter Ruckman and his views about an unborn child.
First of all, there is no such thing as “THE KJO leader.” There are thousands of us King James Bible believers and most of the ones I have ever come into contact with are not “Ruckmanites” or followers of Gail Ripplinger or any other “big name” King James Bible promoter. Many of them have never read their books at all.
I most definitely am not a follower of either Mr. Ruckman or Mrs. Ripplinger, and from a theological perspective both Bob Enyart and Will Duffy have far more in common with both of them than I do.
Nor have I called people “floozies” nor “sex obsession neurotics”. But I have referred to both Bob Enyart and Will Duffy as “bible agnostics” (they don’t know for sure what God said in many places) and “unbelievers in the inerrancy of any Bible in any language”, precisely because that is what they are. Something is only slanderous if it is not true. I have not slandered either one of these men, both of whom I consider to be fellow believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.
If they are not “unbelievers in the existence of an inerrant Bible in any language”, then all they have to do is to tell us which one they really believe IS.
I totally agree with them that the child in the womb is a living person. But it is not the King James Bible that says in Exodus 20:13 “you shall not murder”, and since abortion is not legally murder, then people can justify their sin if they wish to, using one of the modern versions.
My inerrant King James Bible says “Thou shalt not kill.” and aborting a baby is definitely killing them.
Bob and Will D. again err when they categorically state - “Kinney ignores that the Hebrew word at Exodus 20:13 is the one for “murder” and says “kill” is better because “murder” only applies to man’s law, and not to God’s law.”
Two things are wrong here. The Hebrew word obviously CAN mean “to kill”, not only because MANY other Bibles have translated it that way, but even the modern versions like the NIV, ESV, NKJV and NASB sometimes translate this same word as “to kill”.
I previously gave them a list of some of the Bibles that read just like the KJB, both in English an numerous foreign language versions, including the NIV in Spanish and in Portuguese, but apparently this did not make a dent in their assertion that the Hebrew word cannot mean “to kill”.
Regarding Exodus 20:13, not only does the King James Bible read "Thou shalt not kill" but so also do Tyndale 1534 (he translated Exodus before his death), Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540 - "Thou shalt not kyll.", Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Douay-Rheims of 1610, Webster's translation 1833, the Longman Version 1841, the Brenton Bible 1851, Lesser Bible 1853, the Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, the Sharpe Bible 1883, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, Darby 1890, the American Standard Version 1901, The Improved Bible 1913, the Douay 1950, the Revised Standard Version 1952, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "You shall not KILL.", the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, the New Life Version 1969, the Updated Bible Version 2003 - "You shall not KILL.", The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Green's Modern KJV 1998, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999 "you shall not KILL", The Complete Apostle's Bible by Paul Espositio 2005 - "You shall not KILL.", The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Context Group Version 2007, the Heritage Bible 2003, Bond Slave Version 2012, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, the Common English Bible of 2011 - "Do not KILL.", The New Brenton Translation 2012 - "You shall not KILL.", The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012, and the Katapi New Standard Bible 2012 - "You shall not KILL."
Bob and Will D. then try to justify their “You shall not MURDER.” versions by telling us that “Do not commit adultery still stands even though America has decriminalized sex outside of marriage, and Do not steal still stands even though we’ve codified thievery in our so-called social programs.”
Yes, Bob and Will, I agree. But these commands are found in the Bible itself, and if you steal or commit adultery, then you are going against God’s word in all bible versions.
But it is not the King James Bible that provides the loophole by saying “You shall not murder.” Here the person who wants to justify aborting a baby can do so without violating what he thinks his “bible” teaches. And that is the difference you have failed to grasp.
Bob E. and Will D. next take just two of the four specific questions I asked them about regarding certain verses. They completely ignored my charge that they are Bible agnostics, when they assured us that they are not.
I will repeat these the sections they ignored. Maybe they will address them in their final round, though I doubt it.
Bob Enyart and Will Duffy closed out their previous round saying: “Will, we are not Bible agnostics.”
To whom I responded -
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is a well known document.
One of the points they make is that inerrancy has to do with recorded historical facts as well as theological truth.
It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.”
As a King James Bible believer (with a real Bible to give to anyone who wants to read it for himself) I agree that the true and infallible words of God must also be 100% historically true.* IF it is not, then we should ask at what point and when does God start to tell us the truth about all those other things found in His Book?
WKQ14- So, Bob E. and Will D. Do you know which of the following historical facts is part of this “robust message” and “God’s perfect word that exists on Earth today” you told us you believe in?
I can give a LOT more examples, but these should suffice for now.
The Bible Agnostic Test
I hear from many unbelievers in the existence of a complete and infallible Bible when they say: "I'm not a bible agnostic! You don't know my heart. How can you say I am a bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the inerrancy of the Bible? How dare you? You are being judgmental."
So I ask them if they are willing to take The Bible Agnostic Test. A bible agnostic is someone who does not know (a = not + gnostic = to know) for sure what God said in many instances.
The Bible Babble Buffet Versions
Among these “historic details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 KJV reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, Douay-Rheims) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)
*Or whether 2 Samuel 21:8 KJV reads MICHAL (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or MERAB (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 KJV (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET, Douay-Rheims) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, Catholic New Jerusalem), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard
Or 1 Samuel 13:1KJV Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years."!
But wait. There’s more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel...". Think about it. "Saul lived for one year and then became king".
Or 2 Samuel 15:7KJV “forty years” (KJB, Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV, Douay-Rheims) OR “four years” (NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)
WKQ15- The Lord Jesus said that heaven and earth shall pass away but that His WORDS would not pass away. These words of the Lord Jesus are only found in Matthew 23:14KJV.
Does this verse belong in your “robust message”, “God’s word in a 1000 tongues” and “the Perfect word of God that exists on Earth today” or not? If they are not found in a particular bible version, is that version then deficient and not “the Perfect word of God” you said you believe in?
AND they ignored this one as well -
WKQ17- Here is one of the over 25 doctrinal issues I have with the modern versions. Which is the true doctrine? Does it matter to you? Is the fine linen the righteousness of the saints (that of Christ) or is the fine linen “the righteous acts” of the saints?
Revelation 19:8 KJB - "The fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints" or
ESV, NKJV - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints"?
Jehovah Witness New World Translation - "the fine linen stands for THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the holy ones."
The Two Examples they did address.
BWA-WKQ15: Matthew 23:14 -“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.”
I then asked Bob and Will D - “Does this verse belong in your “robust message”, “God’s word in a 1000 tongues” and “the Perfect word of God that exists on Earth today” or not? If they are not found in a particular bible version, is that version then deficient and not “the Perfect word of God” you said you believe in?”
Bob E. and Will D. respond: “Will Kinney, as we’ve demonstrated before, the Bible is robust. Matthew 23:14 is missing from some translations who are translating from the Greek text-type called the Critical Text. While we align with the Byzantine text-type (which has 2,000 differences from the KJ’s Textus Receptus) and not the Critical Text’s Alexandrian text-type, Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23:14 is preserved even in the Alexandrian text-type Bibles! See below and you will find Christ’s teaching in Mark 12 and Luke 20 and it’s verbatim to Matthew 23:14.
NIV Mark 12:40
“They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”
NIV Luke 20:47 “They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”
First of all though Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 are similar, they are not the same nor are they in the same context as the Lord’s scathing and directly addressed to them “Woe unto YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for YE devour widow’s houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore YE shall receive the greater condemnation.”
Our Lord Jesus’s public ministry lasted about 3 years and He often gave different or similar teaching to different groups of people at different times.
It is not an issue of “Well, is there something ballpark similar to this verse found somewhere else in the Bible Babble Buffet Versions?” But what did He actually say in this context on this occasion?
You don’t know and don’t really seem to care. Yet you “use” the NKJV and tell us you “align with the Byzantine text-type (which has 2,000 differences from the KJ’s Textus Receptus) and not the Critical Text’s Alexandrian text-type”.
But you apparently have no real CONVICTIONS as to which is the correct, inspired and inerrant TEXT.
And that is why you guys are Bible agnostics and unbelievers in the existence of an inerrant Bible. Your hypocrisy is further seen in the next example where you gentlemen “use” the NKJV, but obviously do not believe it.
BWA-WKQ16: Is 1 John 5:7, the strongest verse on the Trinity, as it stands in the KJB and in the NKJV you brothers “use” inspired Scripture and belongs in “the perfect word of God that exists on Earth today” or not? Yes or No?
Bob E. and Will D. respond: “1 John 5:7 contains text that is not found in a handful of very late manuscripts. In fact, Erasmus, who compiled the Greek text-type family behind the KJV, the Textus Receptus, did not include the phrase "in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth" from verses 7 & 8 because he had not a single manuscript with these words. It was not until the third edition of the TR that these words were added back in due to pressure from the Catholic church and a possible fraudulent manuscript being presented to Erasmus.
We do not believe the phrase above, which is included in 1 John 5:7-8 is original. But as we've already demonstrated, God is able to create a robust message which can withstand these issues. Bob Enyart has proving the deity of Christ in his ministry for over 40 years and has never referenced this verse.”
Gentlemen, first of all, it may have been “a printing error” (you fellas DO have your share of problems with these, you know) or a typo or perhaps you just don’t know what you are talking about. But this text is NOT a “text that is not found in a handful of very late manuscripts.”
Your information is completely wrong. Hopefully this was just some “typo” and not the result of your vast amounts of research.
Since I am now allowed to include links to my articles, I will place it at the end of this final response so that those who are interested can see the evidence for this hotly disputed and very important verse of inspired Scripture that you do not believe is supposed to be in The Bible, even the ones that you tell us you prefer.
But I will show you just parts of my article on this verse and hopefully it will give others a desire to look into it some more.
In the sovereignty of God 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the King James Bible is also in the following Bible versions “in a thousand tongues” all over this earth.
English Bibles that contain all these words in 1 John 5:7-8 are the first complete English Bible ever made by John Wycliffe in 1380. It was in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525 - "For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one.", the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible from 1557 to 1599 -"For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.", the Beza New Testament 1599, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, and the Authorized Version of 1611.
It is also in the Bill Bible 1671, Mace's New Testament of 1729, John Wesley translation in 1755, the Clarke N.T. 1795, and Thomas Howeis N.T. 1795. It was included in The Revised Translation 1815, The Patrick Paraphrase Bible 1822, Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841, The Hammond N.T. 1845, The Morgan N.T. 1848, The Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, James Murdock's translation of the Syriac Peshitta done in 1852 - "For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.", Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Calvin Version 1856, the Kenrick N.T. 1862, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, and Young's literal in 1898.
All the words are found in the NKJV 1982, the New Life Bible 1969, the Amplified Bible of 1987, the 1994 KJV 21st Century Version, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Interlinear Greek New Testament 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Lawrie Translation 1998, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Worldwide English New Testament 1998, God's First Truth 1999, Green's 'literal' translation of 2000, The Tomson New Testament 2002, the 2009 Public Domain Version, the Easter/Greek Orthodox Bible 2008, the Heritage Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Apostolic Bible 2006, the Catholic Public Domain Version 2009, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Online Interlinear Bible 2010 by André de Mol, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010.
Other English Bibles that include the whole verse are The Work of God Children's Bible 2011, Revised Douay-Rheims bible 2012, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), the Knox Bible of 2012 - "Thus we have a threefold warrant in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, three who are yet one.", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013, The International Standard Version 2014 - “For there are three witnesses in heaven—the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” and The Holy Bible, and the Modern English Version 2014 - “7 There are three who testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and the three are one. 8 There are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are toward the one.”
The Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 in Chapter II, Of God, and the Holy Trinity gives 1 John 5:7 as their first reference.
III. 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.
1 John v. 7; Matt. iii. 16, 17; Matt. xxviii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; John i. 14, 18; John xv. 26; Gal. iv. 6.
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 also specifically mentions 1 John 5:7 as being the first verse used to teach and support the doctrine of the Trinity. They certainly believed it was inspired Scripture.
The Belgic Confession of 1561 states, “The testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, which teach us to believe in this Holy Trinity, are written in many places of the Old Testament, which need not be enumerated but only chosen with discretion…“There are three who bear witness in heaven– the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit– and these three are one.” In all these passages we are fully taught that there are three persons in the one and only divine essence. And although this doctrine surpasses human understanding, we nevertheless believe it now, through the Word, waiting to know and enjoy it fully in heaven.” (The Belgic Confession, (CRTA), article 9.)
The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 says, “Since there is but one only divine essence, why speakest thou of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?
The Catholic Connection
The entire reading was included in the earlier Catholic bibles like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and as late as the Douay version of 1950, but removed from later Catholic versions (St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985), but now once again the 2009 The Sacred Bible Public Domain Version has gone back to include it!
Foreign language Bibles that contain all these words are: the Clementine Vulgate - " Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995 editions, La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (put out by the Lockman Foundation, the same people who give us the NASB that omits it) and the 2010 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez bible, "Tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo: el Padre, el Verbo y el Espíritu Santo; y estos tres son uno."
The words are included in the Italian Diodati Bible of of 1603 and 1649 and the New Diodati of 1991- "nel cielo: il Padre, la Parola e lo Spirito Santo; e questi tre sono uno.".
1 John 5:7-8, is in the 1535 Olivetan Bible, the French Martin 1744, the French Ostervald 1996 and La Bible de l'Epée 2005, -"dans le ciel, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit, et ces trois-là sont un.", the Portuguese de Almeida of 1681 and A Bíblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "Porque três säo os que testificam no céu: o Pai, a Palavra, e o Espírito Santo; e estes três säo um.".
Other foreign language Bible that include these words are the Afrikaans Bible 1853 - "die hemel: die Vader, die Woord en die Heilige Gees, en hierdie drie is een", Smith and van Dyck's Arabic Bible - " فان الذين يشهدون في السماء هم ثلاثة الآب والكلمة والروح القدس وهؤلاء الثلاثة هم ", the Basque N.T.; the Western Armenian N.T. "Արդարեւ երե՛ք են՝ որ կը վկայեն երկինքի մէջ.- Հայրը, Խօսքը եւ Սուրբ Հոգին, ու այս երեքը մէկ են", Czech Kralicka Bible, Dutch Staten Vertaling "Want Drie zijn er, Die getuigen in den hemel, de Vader, het Woord en de Heilige Geest; en deze Drie zijn Een.", Finnish 1776 "Sillä kolme ovat, jotka todistavat taivaassa: Isä, Sana ja Pyhä Henki, ja ne kolme yksi ovate", the Hungarian Karoli, Icelandic 1981, Latvian N.T. "Jo trīs ir, kas dod liecību debesīs: Tēvs, Vārds un Svētais Gars; un šie trīs ir viens.", Maori -"Tokotoru hoki nga kaiwhakaatu i te rangi, ko te Matua, ko te Kupu, ko te Wairua Tapu: kotahi ano enei tokotoru., Lithuanian "Mat yra trys liudytojai danguje: Tėvas, Žodis ir Šventoji Dvasia; ir šitie trys yra viena." and the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible of 1998 - "May tatlong nagpapatotoo sa langit, ang Ama, ang Salita, ang Banal na Espiritu at ang tatlong ito ay iisa."
The words are in the Romanian Cornilescu Bible and the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Pentru ca trei sunt cei care aduc marturie in cer: Tatal, Cuvantul si Duhul Sfant; si acestia trei una sunt.", Russian Synodal 1876, Russian Victor Zhuromski, the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the Thai Bible, the Czech BKR - "na nebi: Otec, Slovo, a Duch Svatý, a ti tři jedno jsou." Ukranian Kulish 1871, the Vietnamese bible 1934 - "ấy là Ðức Thánh Linh đã làm chứng, vì Ðức Thánh Linh tức là lẽ thật.", The Indonesian - Terjemahan Baru (TB) - "Sebab ada tiga yang memberi kesaksian di dalam sorga: Bapa, Firman dan Roh Kudus; dan ketiganya adalah sati.", the Ukranian New Testament - "Бо три їх, що сьвідкують на небі: Отець, Слово і сьвятий Дух, і сї три - одно.", the Xhosa language Bible,
the Modern Greek Bible - "Διοτι τρεις ειναι οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω, ο Πατηρ, ο Λογος και το Αγιον Πνευμα, και ουτοι οι τρεις ειναι εν·"
and the Modern Hebrew bible - כי ושלשה המה המעידים בארץ הרוח המים והדם ושלשתם לאחת המה:שלשה המה המעידים בשמים האב הדבר ורוח הקדש ושלשתם אחד
Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.
Cyprian - 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Stephanus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite.
Bob E. and Will D. next give us another song and dance routine about “the originals” but, they never identify for us what they honestly believe is the complete and inerrant words of God that they actually believe in or can show to anyone else.
Instead they do one of the strangest things I have yet to see from the Bible agnostic crowd. They say: “we identify the specific Bible we stand behind as God’s inspired Word” “Here is the Bible we stand behind as the inspired Word of God.”
And what do they do? They now show us the cover of a 1590 Hungarian Karoli bible and tell us that we too can get the 1991 edition from Amazon!
And this is their answer to the question “Can show us a copy of what you honestly believe IS the inerrant words of God?”
It’s a Protestant Reformation bible version that is in a language that perhaps 1% of the world’s population could read (and I highly doubt that either Bob Enyart or Will Duffy are included in this 1%). Oh, and by the way. This Hungarian Karoli Bible DOES include both Matthew 23:14 and 1 John 5:7.
Máté 23:14 Hungarian Károli (KAR)
14 Jaj néktek képmutató írástudók és farizeusok, mert felemésztitek az özvegyek házát, és színbõl hosszan imádkoztok; ezért annál súlyosabb lesz a ti büntetéstek.
1 János 5:7 Hungarian Károli (KAR)
7 Mert hárman vannak, a kik bizonyságot tesznek a mennyben, az Atya, az Íge és a Szent Lélek: és ez a három egy.
Next Bob and Will D ask the following question
WKA-BWQ24: Will Kinney, regarding your utterly contradictory claim that God produced an inspired, 100% perfect, inerrant text from printers that you admit made errors, and from translators that you admit were not inspired, who brought about a text that you admit had errors, can you include these three underlined admissions of your in explaining how this all adds up to the world’s only supernaturally preserved inspired text?”
Bob and Will. You keep asking same questions I have already answered. Yes, there were some printing errors. The KJB translator were inspired in the sense of God giving them understanding, but they were not inspired in the sense of giving us ALL NEW SCRIPTURE, and the text has NO errors in the present day Cambridge editions you can buy at any bookstore today. Is this finally getting through to you gentlemen? (Probably not)
Then, as predicted, brothers Bob and Will get into the issue of the so called Greek Septuagint that they claim “Jesus Himself approved of the Septuagint, as we know because He quoted from it.”
They then ask if I agree with a statement made in the Preface to the Reader found in the King James Bible where they said that the apostles used the Septuagint version.
The simple answer to this question is NO, I do not agree with their statement. They, like you and I, were imperfect men and not always right in the things they stated. I have studied this whole “the” Greek Septuagint issue a great deal and have a rather lengthy article on it.
Here is the introduction to my article on the so called Greek Septuagint and in my article I deal with many of the specific verses that are brought up by the Vatican Version users.
NO LXX - The Fictitious Use of the so-called Greek Septuagint
Short Version - There was no pre-Christian, official and authoritative so called Greek Septuagint. What passes for the LXX today is nothing more than the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus manuscripts, all of which were written some 250 to 300 years AFTER the New Testament was already complete.
If there had been an authoritative pre-Christian LXX in wide use and circulation, there would not have been any need for people like Jerome, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian, Lucian and Hesychius to make their own translations years later. There are several so called Septuagints out there and none of them agree with the others. There are only a few remaining scraps that could possibly be dated as B.C. writings, and even those sites that mention them tell us that they do not agree with other Septuagint copies. In all likelihood they are nothing more than the confused remnants of an independent individual's own attempt at a translation, just as several others did at a later date.
There is no such thing as "the" Greek Septuagint. There are several of them, and they all differ from each other. Three are three different readings on how tall Goliath was.
Just look at a modern version like the NIV and what they tell us in their own footnotes. For example, go to the book of Judges in the NIV 2011 edition. Notice the footnotes in places like Judges 10:12 "SOME Septuagint mss. read...."; 14:15 "Some Septuagint mss. read...."; 16:13-14 "SOME Septuagint mss. read...."; 16:19 "SOME Septuagint mss. read...."; 18:7 "Some Septuagint mss."; 18:30 "Many Hebrew mss, SOME Septuagint mss. read..."20:33 "SOME Septuagint mss... the meaning of the Hebrew for this word is uncertain."
If a person knows anything about the so called Greek LXX, then they know it is a horrible translation, almost a total paraphrase and it differs by literally hundreds of whole verses either added to or omitted from what we have in the Hebrew Scriptures and it differs A LOT in many places from what the Hebrew O.T. says.
A Few Quotes from recognized scholars -
Dr. F. F. Bruce points out that, strictly speaking, the LXX deals only with the Law and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, " The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles." (The Books and the Parchments, p.150). This is important to note because the manuscripts which consist of our LXX today date to the third century AD.
John Owen - "the LXX - IF ANY SUCH LXX THERE WERE"
In his massive exposition of Hebrews, John Owen makes some interesting observations regarding the relationship of the book of Hebrews to the LXX. He was well schooled in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Syriac. He possessed a vast knowledge of manuscripts and other translations. In his work on the book of Hebrews, Owen discusses each passage in great detail about the Hebrew and Greek, along with comments about the LXX translations done by Aquila, Theodotian, and Symmachus. (These last three men mentioned each attempted a Greek translation of the O.T. after the N.T. was already completed. Today, there is little left of their writings, but we know that they all three differed from each other.)
In his commentary, John Owen makes this amazing statement: "It is evident that they are exceedingly mistaken who affirm that the apostle cites all his testimonies out of the translation of the LXX, as we intimated is by some pleaded... Should he [Paul] have had any respect unto that translation [LXX], it were impossible to give any tolerable account whence he should so much differ from it almost in every quotation, as is plain that he doth... And thus, in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, THE APOSTLE TOOK NOT HIS WORDS FROM THE TRANSLATION OF THE LXX, BUT HIS WORDS WERE AFTERWARDS INSERTED INTO THAT TRANSLATION... Whereas the reasons of the apostle for his application of the testimonies used by him in his words and expressions are evident, as shall in particular be made to appear, so no reason can be assigned why THE LXX - IF ANY SUCH LXX THERE WERE - who translated the Old Testament, or any other translators of it, should so render the words of the Hebrew text." Exposition Of Hebrews, Vol I, Exercitation V. (CAPS are mine)
John Gill comments on Psalm 14:3 - "Here follows in the Septuagint version, ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN COPY, all those passages quoted by the apostle, (Romans 3:13-18) ; which have been generally supposed to have been taken from different parts of Scripture."
John Lightfoot, the well known Bible commentary writer, give his opinion of the LXX version saying: "Before the bible had been translated for Ptolemy - AS IT IS SUPPOSED - into the Greek tongue, there were an infinite number of copies in the Hebrew in Palestine, Babylon, Egypt, even everywhere, in every synagogue: and it is a marvelous thing, that in all antiquity there should not be the least hint or mention of so much as one Hebrew copy amongst all these that agrees with the Greek version. WE HAVE VARIOUS EDITIONS OF THAT VERSION WHICH THEY CALL THE SEPTUAGINT, AND THOSE PRETTY MUCH DISAGREEING AMONG THEMSELVES... The interpreters have still abounded in their own sense, not very strictly obliging themselves to the Hebrew text...IT IS PLAIN ENOUGH TO ANY ONE THAT DILIGENTLY CONSIDERS THE GREEK VERSION THROUGHOUT, THAT IT WAS COMPOSED BY DIFFERENT HANDS, WHO GREATLY VARIED FROM ONE ANOTHER, BOTH IN STYLE AND WIT."
End of "Short Version"
Bob E. and Will D. close out their article by bring up their favorite “printing errors” argument, in an effort to prove that there is not now nor ever has been such a thing as an inerrant Bible (which is what they both really believe, but are unwilling to admit it) and they even included two examples that they think are mistakes in the King James Bible that they undoubtedly got from some other Bible critics laundry lists of alleged errors.
These are Hebrews 10:23 “our profession of FAITH” versus “confession of HOPE”
Here is my article showing why this is not an error -
And they bring up Acts 19:37 “robbers of CHURCHES” versus “robbers of TEMPLES”
Here is my article on this verse and why the KJB is not in error.
Thank you all for letting us have this debate. May God graciously open the eyes of more of His people to the absolute truth of His inerrant Book - the King James Holy Bible.
Links to my articles on these verses.
1 John 5:7 "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"
NO LXX - The Fictitious Use of the so-called Greek Septuagint
Revelation 19:8 KJB - "The fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints" or
ESV, NKJV - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints"?
Fake Bible Versions DO Teach False Doctrines - over 25 examples
Is the NKJV the inerrant words of God? Not a Chance!
The NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions reject the Hebrew Texts Part One - Genesis through Psalms
Part Two - Proverbs through Malachi
"Can A Translation Be The Inspired Words of God?"
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"
The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
This from their own site -
The "Old fashioned language" of the King James Bible "Archaic and Inerrant" beats "Modernized and Wrong" Any Day of the Week
Fake Bible Versions DO Teach False Doctrines
Can God be deceived? NASB says Yes in Psalms 78:36
Did the Son of God have “origins”? Micah 5:2
Who Controls the World, God or Satan?
Revelation 19:8 what is your righteousness before God, the fine linen or your “righteous acts”?
2 Peter 3:12 Can man “speed up” the coming of the day of God?
Do ghosts exist? Modern versions say they do.
Isaiah 14:12 - Lucifer or the “morning star”?
Fornication or Immorality?
Modern Versions Teach Pride as a Christian Virtue
Titus 3:10 A Heretic or a Divisive Person?
Daniel 2:25 the Son of God or a son of the gods?
2 Samuel 14:14 KJB- "Neither doth God respect any person" or NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV - "God does not take away life"?
Habakkuk 2:4 “the just shall live by faith” of “by his faithfulness”?
John 7:8-10 Did Jesus Lie?
Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” or “today I have become your Father”
Are there different “races” of men, and are some inferior? Modern versions say Yes.
Daniel 9:26 What Did Christ Accomplish With His Death?
KJB - "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"
ESV (NIV, NASB, NET) - "an anointed one shall be cut off AND SHALL HAVE NOTHING."
Hebrews 2:7 - "Thou madest him a little lower than THE ANGELS; thou crownedst him with glory and honour"
However, in Psalm 8:5 many modern versions tell us that we were made a little lower than God himself.
There is a big difference between “to KEEP God’s words” and “to OBEY God’s words”. See what it is here -
How to Destroy Messianic Prophesies
THE GRACE OF GOD DESTROYED - Four Examples - Numbers 23:21; Deut. 32:5; 2 Sam.23:5 and Isaiah 35:8
Jeremiah 8:8 "the pen of the scribes is in vain" - the Muslims & Bogus bibles
Were the Old Testament Scriptures corrupted or not?
Did men “WORSHIP” the Lord Jesus Christ or just “BOW BEFORE” Him?
# 24. Acts 17:22 "Too Superstitious, Worship Demons or Very Religious"?
#25 - 2 Corinthians 2:17 "Corrupt" or "Peddle" the word of God?
# 26 - Luke 2:14 KJB, NKJV - "on earth peace, GOOD WILL TOWARD MEN."
Will Bob Enyart or Will Duffy tell us the truth about what they REALLY believe?
Hi Bob and Will D. Sirs, when will you tell us the truth about what you really believe?
Throughout this debate I have been consistent in telling you what I believe. You do not have to agree with me about what I believe, and you obviously do not. But I have been truthful about what I believe.
You have basically two main points you bring against the King James Bible as being the inerrant words of God. The printing errors, which you claim were deliberate changes to the text and the alleged use of the so called Greek Septuagint.
I have stated what I honestly believe about these things. The underlying Hebrew and Greek text that forms the textual basis of the King James Bible has NEVER changed one word in over 400 years.
There have been minor printing errors, and this was due to the way in which printing was done. But we can always check either the underlying Hebrew or Greek texts used to make up the KJB or past English versions to see what is the right wording and correct it.
As one KJB pastor has well said: "Some folks need to learn the difference between the work of the translators and the work of the printers. KJV only opponents see the mistakes of the printers and blame them on the translators. God's promise of preservation does not mean that everyone's attempt to copy, translate or print the Bible will be inerrant."
You claim that Jesus and the apostles used the so called Greek Septuagint. There is no such thing as "the" Septuagint, but there are many different Greek translations done by various individuals, and they all differ from each other. Other Bible commentators like John Owen, John Gill, and even Jerome have questioned the use of the alleged LXX.
Your present day LXX is nothing more than what we find in the Vatican, Sinaitic and Alexandrian mss. All of which were written long after that N.T. was already completed. They often took the readings of the N.T. and placed them in their "LXX" copies.
I gave lots of evidence for this, but you either dismiss it or ignore it.
NO LXX - The Fictitious Use of the so-called Greek Septuagint
But at least I am telling you the truth about what I really believe.
Throughout this debate, you have not been truthful. Neither one of you. When you finally get cornered into actually identifying what you SAY you believe is the inerrant and infallible words of God, Bob Enyart says he does not believe 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture, even though it is found in his own NKJV.
Bob Enyart came out with what is probably one of the most bizarre answers I have ever seen when he finally gets around to identifying his "infallible Bible" and Standard of written truth. He tells us it is the Hungarian Karoli bible, which not even he himself can read!
Yet this Hungarian Karoli Bible contains 1 John 5:7 just as the King James Bible does.
So, Bob, which is the truth? You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand you tell us that 1 John 5:7 is NOT original scripture and not inspired, and on the other hand you tell us that the Hungarian bible IS inspired and inerrant, and yet is contains 1 John 5:7
Will Duffy finally identifies his NKJV as being his infallible Bible and Standard of truth. But when I ask him if he believes 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture or not, he DODGES the question and refuses to tell us.
I don't believe for a second that Will Duffy REALLY believes the NKJV is the complete and inerrant words of God. IF he did, then to be consistent, he would have to say that the NKJV is the first bible in all of history that was the inerrant words of God because ALL other bibles in all languages differ both textually and in meaning from what we find in the NKJV.
So when are either of you gentlemen going to tell us the truth about what you REALLY believe?
This is the problem the bible agnostic runs into when he finally gets around to IDENTIFYING what this complete and inerrant words of God Bible IS that they apparently want other people to think they believe in.
Why not just be HONEST about it, and admit that you do not believe there is now or ever has been such a thing as a complete and inerrant Bible in any language, translated or untranslated, and be done with it?
I agree that the gospel of salvation is found in ANY bible, no matter how corrupt it may be both textually and in translation in other areas, and that God can and does use any of them to bring people to faith in Christ as their Saviour. I have always stated that.
Even though we disagree about many things (printing errors and the so called LXX), I have been honest and consistent about what I really believe.
I do not believe that either Bob Enyart or Will Duffy have been truthful and honest or consistent in what they REALLY believe is the true words of God.
So here is the simple question. Is 1 John 5:7 inspired Scripture that belongs in the true words of God Bible or not? Yes or No?
1 John 5:7-8 KJB - "For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
1 John 5:7-8 - ESV, NIV, NASB - "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood: and these three agree."