Another King James Bible Believer

King James Bible Debate at Christian Forums August 2014

King James Bible Debate


This debate took place in August of 2014 at Christianforums.


http://www.christianforums.com/t7839370/#post66250761


Formal Debate - The King James Bible - Do we have an inerrant Bible?

1. Title:The King James Bible - Do we have an inerrant Bible?

2. Topic: The King James Bible is this Book of the Lord and that all others are to varying degrees less than the inspired and 100% true words of the living God.

3. brandplucked will be taking the affirmative position and will post first; FreedByte will be taking the negative position.

4. This debate will consist of 3 alternating rounds (3 posts each, a total of 6 posts).

5. Maximum lengths of posts will be 1000 words.

6. Maximum time between posts will be one week from the time a post is approved and made visible.

7. Outside quotes will be allowed, but will be subject to the 20% rule.

8. Start date: Any time.

9. The Peanut gallery for all members to discuss this debate is located here; for those who are not participants in this debate but wish to discuss this topic and the progress of this debate: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate - The King James Bible - Do we have an inerrant Bible?


MY FIRST POST (Will Kinney)


Why I believe the King James Bible is the infallible words of God.


Hi all. My name is Will Kinney and I am a King James Bible believer. Brother Freed Byte wished to have a debate/discussion about the Bible version issue, and I gladly accept. It is my position and belief that God has acted in history to give us an absolute Standard of written truth - a complete, inspired and infallible words of God Bible. I believe the King James Bible is this Book of the Lord and that all others are to varying degrees less than the inspired and 100% true words of the living God.


By saying I am King James Bible only, I mean that I believe it is the only infallible Bible on this earth. But I do NOT mean that only those who read and believe the KJB is God's infallible words are saved or true Christians. I do not believe that way at all. The gospel of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ is found in any bible out there in any language, no matter how corrupt it may be in other ways.


I also maintain that most Christians today do NOT believe in the inerrancy of the Bible - any Bible in any language. If FreedByte agrees to the topic, then we can begin discussing it. Thank you, and God bless.


 

 

Is King James onlyism Scriptural?


We who believe God has preserved His inspired words only in the Authorized King James Holy Bible are accused of being unscriptural. I usually run into two kinds of people I refer to as Bible Agnostics who hold two very different opinions. A Bible Agnostic is a person who does not know for sure (a = not + gnostic = to know) what God said in hundreds of places.



Try to take The Bible Agnostic Test I have provided in this article about what many Christians believe today. 


The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy = just more Evangelical mumbo jumbo signifying nothing


http://brandplucked.webs.com/chicagostate.htm



Some maintain that "only the originals" were the inspired and true words of God. What this means is that they are confessing a faith in something they have never seen and they probably couldn't read if they had them. But it also means that they believe in something that THEY KNOW DOES NOT EXIST. There ARE no originals, and this position leaves us with NO infallible Bible now.


Others actually try to tell us that "ALL the 'reliable' versions are the infallible words of God", even though they differ from each other in thousands of ways both textually and in meaning. The one and usually only thing they are united on is their belief that the King James Bible is not the complete and 100% true words of God. 


What we DO know from Scripture is that God has promised to preserve His words. He says Heaven and earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away. He also says The Scripture cannot be broken. 


The Bible also tells us that God is a God of truth and He cannot lie. If I find lies in a "bible" version, then I know this is not the true words of God. This would be things like teaching that the children of Israel DECEIVED God as the NASB, NET versions have it in Psalm 78:36. Or that Jesus Christ had "origins" as the NIV, RSV, ESV 2001 edition have it in Micah 5:2. Or that teach that Jesus lied in John 7:8-10 as the NASB, ESV and NIV 2011 teach.


Yet God tells us to search out and read "the book of the LORD" (Isaiah 34:16), so such a book must exist somewhere. It is NOT in the varied Hebrew texts; that is only part of a bible. It certainly is not in the thousands of variant readings in piles of manuscript scraps in Greek that few can read and that do not make up a Bible either.


Either God has acted in history to bring us "the book of the LORD" or He lied and is not to be trusted.


We King James Bible believers maintain that God did not lie but has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done this in the end times masterpiece He provided and that has been mightily used as no other to bring the gospel to the nations, and is the ONLY Bible seriously believed by thousands throughout history and today to be the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.


What do the bible agnostics have to offer us in its place? The Vatican Versions that continue to change with each new edition and that NOBODY believes are the infallible words of God and that people actually read and study less and less. THAT is what you have to give us.


See - Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"


http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm



God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.


God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8


"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16


"And if any man shall take away from THE WORDS OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK." Revelation 22:19


God can and does refer to the Book of the Lord as being a real object even though it is still in the process of being written and perfected. Yet He sees the end from the beginning and refers to a future event (from our point of view) as a present reality.


Daniel 10:21 - 11:2 - "the Scripture of Truth"


Another clear example of God's Book being progressively revealed to us is found in one of the heavenly visions revealed to the prophet Daniel. In chapter 10 a heavenly messenger is sent to Daniel who tells him: "But I will shew thee THAT WHICH IS NOTED IN THE SCRIPTURE OF TRUTH". The angel then says - "And now will I shew thee THE TRUTH. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings of Persia: and the fourth shall be far richer than they all..."


Here the angel refers to a Book of Scripture that is ALREADY WRITTEN IN HEAVEN, and that is progressively revealed to man. This "Scripture of truth" has already recorded coming events BEFORE they happen in time. Nothing takes God by surprise; He sees the end from the beginning, and there is a completed Book in heaven that God progressively reveals to His people in time and history. 


Another verse that confirms this truth concerning the preservation of God's words is Psalm 119:89 "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." 


Scholars tell us God has preserved His words somewhere in a few thousand conflicting manuscripts which only they can read. Yet they cannot agree among themselves as to which texts to put into their "bibles", nor how to translate the meaning once they agree on the text.


Get 10 scholars into a room and you will come up with 12 different opinions. They try to piece together the original words from the remaining, conflicting manuscripts. Yet God can work through this "scholarly process" Himself much better than they, and place His true words in one volume, because He knows which words are His and which ones are not.


I believe the King James Bible is the complete and inerrant words of God because it has NO proven errors. Nobody believes versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET or any other bible version is; not even the people who put them out and keep changing them.


All the evidence points to the King James Bible as being the true and inerrant Book of the LORD. It is the all time best seller; it was read from outer space and has become the Standard by which all others are measured - even by its enemies.


All of grace, believing the Book, the Authorized King James Holy Bible.


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8


God bless,


Will Kinney



FREED RESPONDS #1.


I'll jump right into the debate:


Responses


Originally Posted by brandplucked

We who believe ... Bible Believer

 

 

Freed - Unfortunately, none of this contributes to either of your arguments, because you are simply describing supposed "Bible Agnostics".



Originally Posted by brandplucked

Some maintain that "only the originals" were the inspired and true words of God. What this means is that they are confessing a faith in something they have never seen and they probably couldn't read if they had them.

 

Freed - It is not that only the originals are inspired, but that there are enough copies of the originals existing today that we can accurately determine what the originals said with only negligible differences between different copies.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

But it also means that they believe in something that THEY KNOW DOES NOT EXIST. There ARE no originals, and this position leaves us with NO infallible Bible now.

 

Freed - The fact that the originals no longer exist does not mean that someone can't believe that they were inerrant when they did exist, nor does it mean that someone can't believe that copies of the originals that remain today are inerrant.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Others actually try to tell us that "ALL the 'reliable' versions are the infallible words of God", even though they differ from each other in thousands of ways both textually and in meaning.

 

 

Freed - "Reliable" is too subjective a term for this to be a useful example.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

What we DO know from Scripture is that God has promised to preserve His words. He says Heaven and earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away.

 

 

Freed - And His words haven't passed away, they are maintained in copies of the original manuscripts passed down to today.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

This would be things like teaching that the children of Israel DECEIVED God as the NASB, NET versions have it in Psalm 78:36.

 

 

Freed - Deceived is clearly a correct translation here. To deceive is to lie, and the KJV here says:


Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues.


On top of that, "to flatter" is actually a synonym of "to deceive" in the context which it is used:


5. (tr) to beguile with hope; encourage, esp falsely: this success flattered him into believing himself a champion.

6. (tr) to congratulate or deceive (oneself): I flatter myself that I am the best. 


- flatter - definition of flatter by The Free Dictionary


Even further, the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, like the KJV, does not translate it to deceive.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Or that Jesus Christ had "origins" as the NIV, RSV, ESV 2001 edition have it in Micah 5:2.

 

 

Freed - "Origins" being plural is a synonym of goings forth. How could Christ have multiple origins if this were not the case?


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Or that teach that Jesus lied in John 7:8-10 as the NASB, ESV and NIV 2011 teach.

 

 

Freed - Each of those versions includes "yet" in the verse.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Yet God tells us to search out and read "the book of the LORD" (Isaiah 34:16), so such a book must exist somewhere. It is NOT in the varied Hebrew texts; that is only part of a bible. It certainly is not in the thousands of variant readings in piles of manuscript scraps in Greek that few can read and that do not make up a Bible either.

 

 

Freed - We have enough pieces of copies of the originals to translate a complete Bible. Therefore we have the Bible in copies of the originals.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Either God has acted in history to bring us "the book of the LORD" or He lied and is not to be trusted.

 

 

Freed - He did bring us the Bible and many people have translated it into many languages.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET

 

 

Freed - None of those translations are approved by the Church for reading by the laity. Here's the USCCB page on approved translations: Approved Translations of the Bible


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Here the angel refers to a Book of Scripture that is ALREADY WRITTEN IN HEAVEN, and that is progressively revealed to man.

 

 

Freed - Nothing you quoted indicates progressive revelation of the Bible.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

conflicting manuscripts

 

 

Freed - The conflicts are negligible.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Nobody believes versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET or any other bible version is; not even the people who put them out and keep changing them.

 

 

Freed - Revisions to a translation has nothing to do with how many people "believe" those versions, so this is simply inaccurate.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

It is the all time best seller; it was read from outer space

 

 

Freed - Sorry, not relevant


Originally Posted by brandplucked

and has become the Standard by which all others are measured - even by its enemies.

 

 

Freed - evidence?



Arguments


1. Other translations are very similar to the KJV in many ways. 


If the KJV is really the only true Bible, then there would have to be no other translation like it. Otherwise, there would be multiple translations that are the "only true Bible". The fact is, translations like the Catholic Douay-Rheims (which is older than the KJV) translates many things very similarly to the KJV. Many of the supposed "perversions" in modern Bible translations that KJV-onlyists describe are not found in the Douay-Rheims. 


2. The KJV is written in English, and only English


Not everyone speaks English. For God to give a single authoritative Bible that cannot be translated (from one language - English, spoken by less than half of the global population) or modified lest it be "perverted", makes no sense and frankly needs no further explanation.


3. The KJV translators weren't intending their translation to be the one authoritative translation. This alone should be a huge red flag to a KJV-onlyist.


4. The KJV has errors


Instead of pulling out a huge list of all the errors, I will simply point out that the KJV was updated multiple times to remove errors (see the Cambridge edition and Oxford edition). If the KJV was really the one inerrant translation, it wouldn't have had to be updated. In addition, the original 1611 KJV contains the Catholic Deuterocanonicals, which were removed in later updates.



MY RESPONSE #2


Hi FreedByte, thank you for your responses. Let me address some of them.


I said: "Some maintain that "only the originals" were the inspired and true words of God. What this means is that they are confessing a faith in something they have never seen and they probably couldn't read if they had them."


Freed responded: [It is not that only the originals are inspired, but that there are enough copies of the originals existing today that we can accurately determine what the originals said with only negligible differences between different copies.]


Sir, this simply is not true at all. There are those who hold to the so called Majority text, then there is the Traditional Reformation text of the Textus Receptus, and then we have the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical text - and this is just for the New Testament.


See "Are the bible versions 99% the same?"


http://brandplucked.webs.com/arebibles995same.htm


Even James White says the textual differences among printed N.T. texts is 5%, while Maurice Robinson (Majority text) puts it at 15%.


Dr. Kurt Aland and Dr. Barbara Aland calculated that all the variants between all of the New Testament manuscripts calculated to a 37.1% difference. (Dr. Kurt Aland and Dr. Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 29.) That means that over a third of the New Testament has meaningful variants.


Just to make it simple for everyone, go to my comparative study "Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, Holman Standard, NET, NASBs are the new "Vatican Versions" Part TWO and take a look at the textual differences involving many entire verses and hundreds of words and phrases that are omitted in some bibles but found in others. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the obvious here.


http://brandplucked.webs.com/esvcatholicpart2.htm


I posted - What we DO know from Scripture is that God has promised to preserve His words. He says Heaven and earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away.


Freed responds: [And His words haven't passed away, they are maintained in copies of the original manuscripts passed down to today.]


Freed, this is like saying "God's words are found in Webster's complete dictionary. There are all mixed up with a bunch of other words, and we are not sure which ones they are, but, Hey, they're in there somewhere."


The fact is you cannot show us a copy of what you honestly believe are the infallible words of God. Do you drive around in a dump truck full of thousands of scraps of contradictory and conflicting manuscripts, and when someone asks you where God's words are found, you point to your loaded truck and say "There they are. See they have been preserved."?


I posted - "This would be things like teaching that the children of Israel DECEIVED God as the NASB, NET versions have it in Psalm 78:36."



Freed responds - [Deceived is clearly a correct translation here. To deceive is to lie, and the KJV here says: Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues.


On top of that, "to flatter" is actually a synonym of "to deceive" in the context which it is used.]


Sir, the NASB in Ps. 78:36 does not say "they lied to him". It says "they DECEIVED HIM", and this is impossible. To flatter does NOT mean to deceive. People can flatter you by giving false praise and insincere adulation, but you recognize it as flattery; you are not deceived by it.


You are really stretching the English language in your attempt to defend this ridiculous translation in the NASB.


See "Can God be Deceived? Psalm 78:36"


http://brandplucked.webs.com/eze149ps7836deceive.htm


I posted - Or that teach that Jesus lied in John 7:8-10 as the NASB, ESV and NIV 2011 teach.


And you responded [Each of those versions includes "yet" in the verse.]


Sir, you really need to pay better attention. It is amazing that you completely missed this. See Did Jesus Lie in John 7:8-10?

 

John 7:8 Did Jesus lie? - 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/john78didjesuslie.htm


I posted - Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"

http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm


And you responded [None of those translations are approved by the Church for reading by the laity. Here's the USCCB page on approved translations]


Freed. Did you actually take the time to READ my article? I present lots of documentation from right out of the Nestle-Aland critical Greek textbook, the UBS homepage and the Vatican's own site. Plus there is a list of recommended bible versions on the Catholic site I showed where they advertise the ESV complete with the Apocrypha and recommend the NIV and Dan Wallace's NET version. Did you even look at it?


Here is just a small part of what is easily seen there - 



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.


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 - 


THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_pro_20051996_chrstuni_pro_en.html 

 

 

Brother, you are completely missing the point. I am talking about a complete and inerrant Bible in King James Bible. You clearly have none in any language that you can show us. Yes, the KJB is written in English and not everyone speaks English. Obvious. I do not believe there is an infallible Bible in any other language. Some are close, but I believe God chose the English language to give us His pure and perfect words. English is the closest thing to a universal language there is. You don't need to have an infallible Bible in your language to be saved. The gospel and much truth is in all bible versions, no matter how corrupt they may be in other ways. That is not the point. We are talking about the complete and 100% true and infallible Bible.


You have none. I and many others through history believe we do and I can tell anybody where to get one. I believe God has born witness in history to His true Book. It must come out of England and be in the English language. Here are some of those "coincidences" of history.


See - God's Persistent Witness to the Absolute Standard of Written Truth - The King James Holy Bible.


http://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm


You close by telling us "The KJV translators weren't intending their translation to be the one authoritative translation. This alone should be a huge red flag to a KJV-onlyist." and "Instead of pulling out a huge list of all the errors, I will simply point out that the KJV was updated multiple times to remove errors (see the Cambridge edition and Oxford edition). If the KJV was really the one inerrant translation, it wouldn't have had to be updated. In addition, the original 1611 KJV contains the Catholic Deuterocanonicals, which were removed in later updates."


Freed, I do not hold the KJB translators themselves or their thoughts as my final authority. It is the TEXT of the KJB that is. But have you ever actually read what they said about the KJB?


The King James Bible translators themselves wrote in their Preface: “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."


Secondly, there are NO errors in the KJB. What you are referring to are mere printing errors, most of which were caught and corrected within the first 30 years. See The Printing Errors Ploy -

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/printingerrors.htm


And lastly, regarding the Apocryphal books, you really ought to actually read my linked articles before making your responses. ALL English bibles before the KJB included these books but not as inspired Scripture. They tell you this in the 39 Articles. And you can get the ESV with the Apocryphal books and Dan Wallace has them in his NET version.


Take the time to actually read the article and learn more about this Apocryphal books argument of yours. You are only cutting your own throat.


Why was the Apocrypha in the early King James Bible?


http://brandplucked.webs.com/apocryphakjb.htm

 

If you think you have an actual error to show us that you picked up from somebody like James White, then give us your Number One All Time Big Hits example, and we can take a look at it if you like.


We King James Bible believers have a real, tangible, complete and inerrant words of God Bible to believe in. Your side of things does not. You will never show us a copy of what you honestly think is the complete and infallible words of God.


Thank you and God bless.


Will Kinney



FREED RESPONSE #2


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Sir, this simply is not true at all. There are those who hold to the so called Majority text, then there is the Traditional Reformation text of the Textus Receptus, and then we have the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical text - and this is just for the New Testament.  Even James White says the textual differences among printed N.T. texts is 5%, while Maurice Robinson (Majority text) puts it at 15%.

 

 

FREED - I am very aware of the differences between different text types. My point was that doctrinally speaking the differences are negligible.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

take a look at the textual differences involving many entire verses and hundreds of words and phrases that are omitted in some bibles but found in others.

 

 

FREED - Most of the "omissions" you claim exist in non-KJV translations are not omissions at all. If you took the time to actually read the footnotes for these verses in modern translations, you would realize this. Let's take one that you listed: Matthew 17:21.


In the KJV this says:


“Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”


In the NIV, it is empty except for the following footnote:


"Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29."


So, if we go over to Mark 9:29, we find that it is indeed found in Mark 9:29 in the NIV:


"He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer." (with footnote: "Some manuscripts prayer and fasting")


So you can see that these are not actually omissions but corrections based on analysis of text types. The verses still remain in other places.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Freed, this is like saying "God's words are found in Webster's complete dictionary. There are all mixed up with a bunch of other words, and we are not sure which ones they are, but, Hey, they're in there somewhere."

 

 

FREED - Sorry, but this is a strawman. The copies of the originals, even in their fragmented state, cannot be compared to the separated words in a dictionary. They can and have been compiled into complete texts as you well know.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

The fact is you cannot show us a copy of what you honestly believe are the infallible words of God.

 

 

FREED - The fact that the copies we have today contain transcription errors in many cases does not mean that God's Words weren't preserved. All it takes is a little textual criticism 


In addition, the differences between the manuscripts don't cause theological differences. 


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Do you drive around in a dump truck full of thousands of scraps of contradictory and conflicting manuscripts, and when someone asks you where God's words are found, you point to your loaded truck and say "There they are. See they have been preserved."?

 

 

FREED - This is just an extension of your strawman, sorry


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Sir, the NASB in Ps. 78:36 does not say "they lied to him". It says "they DECEIVED HIM", and this is impossible.

While that is true, neither could they flatter God. To flatter is to praise excessively, and can God be praised excessively?


FREED - What we can then infer is that this verse is describing an attempt to flatter/deceive God, not that the attempt was successful, as it is impossible to flatter or deceive God, is it not?



Originally Posted by brandplucked

It is amazing that you completely missed this.

 

 

FREED - I didn't completely miss it. Your point is that the KJV has "yet" in two places and is more clear that Jesus is saying He is going to go later rather than not at all. My point is that all the versions you describe as being unclear actually do make it clear that He is going later because they say things like "my time has not yet fully come". 



In addition, some (most? all?) of those translations include footnotes such as "John 7:8 Some manuscripts not yet"


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Did you actually take the time to READ my article?

 

FREED - No, I consider it a violation of the 1000 word limit. 


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Plus there is a list of recommended bible versions on the Catholic site I showed where they advertise the ESV complete with the Apocrypha and recommend the NIV and Dan Wallace's NET version.

 

 

FREED - 1. That doesn't make it a Catholic Bible

2. Even if it was a Catholic Bible, in what way does that remotely contribute to your arguments?


Originally Posted by brandplucked

They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS

 

 

FREED - So what?


Originally Posted by brandplucked

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".

 

 

FREED - It changes if new insights are found in terms of copying errors. Theologically there are no changes.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

You clearly have none in any language that you can show us.

 

 

FREED - Yes I do, it is in Greek and there are many translations available.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

I do not believe there is an infallible Bible in any other language.

 

 

FREED - So what you're basically saying is that if someone in an impoverished country who can barely read their own language wants to read the only fully true Bible, they have to become fluent and literate in English first? 


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Some are close, but I believe God chose the English language to give us His pure and perfect words.

 

 

FREED - On what do you base this belief?


Originally Posted by brandplucked

English is the closest thing to a universal language there is.

 

 

FREED - Why, because global businessmen and global political elites learn it? Because people who live near you know it?


The fact is, Mandarin and Spanish both have far more native speakers than English.


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ative_speakers


Originally Posted by brandplucked

It must come out of England and be in the English language.

 

 

FREED This is a radically Western and borderline nationalist point of view. Only the English were capable of producing the one true Bible?


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Secondly, there are NO errors in the KJB. What you are referring to are mere printing errors, most of which were caught and corrected within the first 30 years.

 

 

FREED - This is not true. Many of them were printing errors, but certainly not all. Here's a very small sample of other changes made in the Oxford Edition:


Mat 6:3 Add hand after right. Approved by Scrivener.

Luke 19:9 Read a son of Abraham instead of the son of Abraham.

Acts 18:5 Add the before spirit.

1 Tim 1:4 Add godly before edifying.

1 Tim 2:9 Read shamefacedness instead of shamefastness.

Rev 12:14 Read fly instead of flee.

etc etc (there are dozens, maybe hundreds)


Originally Posted by brandplucked

you really ought to actually read my linked articles before making your responses.

 

 

FREED - No, because linking articles defeats the whole purpose of a word limit.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

If you think you have an actual error to show us that you picked up from somebody like James White

 

 

FREED - James White? Who?


MY LAST RESPONSE 



The King James Bible - God's Infallible Book


Hi members of Christian forums. This will be my final round. I want to thank you for allowing us to discuss the Bible version issue from both sides. 


I believe the doctrine of the inerrancy of The Bible is the most important issue facing the Church today. It is the basis of everything we believe and know about our Creator and Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ.


“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3


It is a well documented fact that the majority of todays professing Christians do NOT believe that any Bible in any language IS the complete and infallible words of God. And Freed is included among this majority.


All Freed was able to produce as alleged “errors” in the King James Bible was a handful of well know early printing errors, all of which were caught and corrected within the first 30 years. The TEXT of the King James Bible has not changed in over 400 years, and it is the only Bible seriously believed by many thousands even today to be the infallible words of God.



One of Freed’s major points was the repeated affirmation that “the differences between the manuscripts don't cause theological differences.”


This simply is not true. There are two types of serious problems with the new Vatican Versions.


The fact that the Vatican is directly involved in creating this “inter confessional” text found in versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible, as well as the Jehovah Witness New World Translation apparently doesn’t bother Freed. 


I said: They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS” to which Freed responds - “So what?”


Though Freed doesn’t read my linked articles because he thinks they violate the 1000 word limit, those who are interested in learning the truth about this might want to read “The Whore of Babylon, Revelation 17-18, who is it?”


http://brandplucked.webs.com/whoreofbabyloncatholic.htm


Again, the problem with these versions that nobody seriously believes are the complete and infallible words of God is twofold. One is textual - they omit from THE TEXT some 3000 to 5000 words, often reject the Hebrew readings and add hundreds of words to the Old Testament.


The second big problem is that even when they are using the same texts, the way they have translated them definitely ends up so as to “cause theological differences”.


Those who are interested in delving into this a little deeper than 1000 words limit, might be interested in looking at these concrete 15 examples of where sound doctrines of the Christian faith are either watered down and even perverted in these modern versions.


“Fake Bible Versions DO teach false doctrines” - 

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/fakebiblesdoctrine.htm 


#1. Can God be deceived? The NASB says that the children of Israel deceived God. Not just "tried to deceive" or "thought they had deceived" but deceived Him. 


http://brandplucked.webs.com/eze149ps7836deceive.htm



#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."

Micah 5:2 - “The NIV - 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 


http://brandplucked.webs.com/micah52heb211origin.htm



#3. Who controls the world, God or Satan?

Several modern fake bibles teach it is Satan -


1 John 5:19 “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world LIETH IN WICKEDNESS.”[bless and do not curse] Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’ Bible, Geneva Bible, Youngs, Third Millenium Bible

The NIV says: "The whole world is UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EVIL ONE." NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman, Catholic St. Joseph, NET

http://brandplucked.webs.com/satanorgodcontrols.htm

 


#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."


Revelation 19:8 NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Catholic versions - “for the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.”


http://brandplucked.webs.com/rev198finelinen.htm

#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.”


http://brandplucked.webs.com/2peter312hastingunto.htm



# 6. Do ghosts, or the departed spirits of the human dead exist? Modern Versions say they do.


http://brandplucked.webs.com/ghosts.htm

Ghosts? - Another King James Bible Believer


#7. Lucifer or morning star?

Isaiah 14:12 - "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning! 


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.


http://brandplucked.webs.com/luciferormorningstar.htm

Lucifer or Morning Star? 


#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." 


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

http://brandplucked.webs.com/fornicationimmoral.htm

#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.”

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, honour and glory

http://brandplucked.webs.com/mvsprideasvirtue.htm

#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."

Titus 3:10 NKJV 1982 - "Reject A DIVISIVE MAN after the first and second admonition.”

A Divisive Person - NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET

http://brandplucked.webs.com/hereticordivisive.htm

Heretic or Divisive - 


#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."


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

http://brandplucked.webs.com/dan325thesonofgod.htm



#12. 2 Samuel 14:14 KJB- "Neither doth God respect any person" or 

 

NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV - "God does not take away life"?


http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam14luke24.htm


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. 


http://brandplucked.webs.com/habakkuk24.htm


#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)


http://brandplucked.webs.com/john78didjesuslie.htm


#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.


http://brandplucked.webs.com/acts1333thisdaybegotte.htm


If you want to have the complete and inerrant words of God, then get yourself the King James Bible. All the evidence - historical, textual, theological and the witness of God Himself for 400 years now - all testify to the King James Bible as being the true “book of the LORD” - Isaiah 34:16


Again, I thank you for your times and interest in this most vital subject of our Christian faith. God bless,


Will Kinney



FREED’S LAST RESPONSE


And now I'll wrap up the final round:


Originally Posted by brandplucked

printing errors, all of which were caught and corrected within the first 30 years. The TEXT of the King James Bible has not changed in over 400 years

 

 

FREED - You can't just dismiss valid errors as printing errors, you need a legitimate rebuttal.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

it is the only Bible seriously believed by many thousands even today to be the infallible words of God.


FREED - That's not true because many Christians believe that the original Greek is inerrant. It may be true that it is the only translation of the Greek that is held as the sole word of God, but that doesn't prove anything. There is a group today that still believes that the Earth is flat. That doesn't make them right.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

The fact that the Vatican is directly involved in creating this “inter confessional” text found in versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible, as well as the Jehovah Witness New World Translation apparently doesn’t bother Freed.

 

 

FREED - No, because I am Roman Catholic.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Whoreof Babylon=Catholic - Another King James Bible Believer

 

 

FREED - Ignoring for a second how ridiculous this is, it doesn't even respond to what I said. We were talking about manuscripts, not translations:


Originally Posted by brandplucked

One of Freed’s major points was the repeated affirmation that “the differences between the manuscripts don't cause theological differences.”


Originally Posted by brandplucked

One is textual - they omit from THE TEXT some 3000 to 5000 words


FREED - This is only an omission from the perspective of the KJV. What really happened was that better manuscripts indicated that the KJV manuscripts actually had copies of lines from one of the Gospels placed in other Gospels (like in Matthew 17:21 as I explained above). The end result of this is not an omission, but keeping the text only in the places that it originally was written.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

Those who are interested in delving into this a little deeper than 1000 words limit, might be interested in looking at these


FREED - The purpose of this debate is not so that you can advertise your website. You have to adhere to the 1000 word limit.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

#1. Can God be deceived? The NASB says that the children of Israel deceived God. Not just "tried to deceive" or "thought they had deceived" but deceived Him.


FREED - I already wrote a valid response to this that paralleled "deceived" with "flattered". Ignoring my response and instead repeating yourself and posting a link to your website does not count as valid rebuttal.



Originally Posted by brandplucked

“Origin from ancient times” - NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness version, more recent Catholic versions


FREED - I already responded to this and apparently you think it is ok to simply ignore it and repeat yourself. It's downright rude.


Originally Posted by brandplucked

What is  your righteousness before God ?



FREED - These are all differences in translation, not theological differences between manuscripts which is what we were discussing. On top of that the Douay-Rheims, which is actually a Catholic Bible unlike the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, etc (which are all protestant Bibles), does not have these "errors". So, if these "errors" are the basis against which one determines whether or not a Bible is the sole word of God, then the Douay-Rheims would also pass the test.


MODERATOR CLOSES DEBATE


Thanks Gentlemen.


Final post is up, this debate is now closed.


Mark

Area Supervisor