Another King James Bible Believer

Responding to the statement "I don't think any translation is inerrant."

 

 Responding to the statement: "I don't think any translation is inerrant."


 

 

Charley E. posted: "I don't think it can be shown that any translation is inerrant, and as far as I have been able to tell, I don't think anyone has been able to prove without a doubt which Greek text form is correct in every place either."

 

Hi Charley. Your statement here reveals that you are what I refer to as a Bible agnostic. Not an agnostic, but a "Bible agnostic". It’s like saying: "I don't know for sure what God may or may not have said in His Book and I don’t believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God.”

 

That is where you are today.

 

You ask:"How did it 1st happen when the ancient copies were made...and why? Are these words additions, or subtractions to the original Greek form of the text...and what can be said for certain based on the actual evidence of transmission, other than pure speculation?"

 

I think you are asking the wrong questions in an effort to find out if there really is such a thing as an inerrant Bible. Once a person launches out into what the "scholars" refer to as the "science" of textual criticism (a complete misnomer), you will never know or find out the truth. It sure hasn't resulted in finding an inerrant Bible for any who have tried it.

 


 

For actual quotes from those who have ventured into this field, I refer you to my article called "The Bible is NOT the inspired and inerrant words of God". 

 

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

 

Here is just one of the many quotes from the "scholars" you will find here.

 

"As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).

 

I will briefly tell you how I would approach this issue. I start by believing what the Book says about itself. The Bible claims to be the words of God who cannot lie and He always speaks the truth.

 

 Before I became convinced the King James Bible is God's infallible words, I started to read and compare many bible versions.  When I found ridiculous statements or obvious errors in theology, I then knew it was a fake bible. Things like where the NASB, Young’s, Holman and the NET version teach that the children of Israel DECEIVED God, as they teach in Psalm 78:36.  Or where the NASB says that "there is no such thing as an idol in the world" in 1 Cor. 8:4.

 

Or where the ESV 2011 edition tells us in 1 Samuel 13:1 “Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel, Saul chose 3,000 men of Israel.”

 

KJB “Saul REIGNED ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel-“

 

(Here is why the KJB is right) 1 Samuel 13:1 "Have some words been lost?"

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1samuel131wordslost.htm

 

Or when the NIV tells us in their 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions in  Mark 1:40 - 41: “A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.” FILLED WITH COMPASSION Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean.”

 

But the NIV 2011 edition now says: “A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”  Jesus WAS INDIGNANT. He reached out and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

 

Here are some examples in True Bible or False Bible.

 

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

 

 

And here are over 30 examples of doctrines that have been changed or even perverted in the modern versions.  “Fake Bibles Do Teach False Doctrines”

 

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

 

One by one they were eliminated from the list, till there was only one Book standing - the King James Bible.

 

Another huge step forward in this process was seeing the testimony of God in history and how He has clearly set His mark of approval on this Bible like no other.

 

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

 

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

 

Then ask God in sincerity to open your understanding and to give you the faith to believe what He says about His own Book and to show you if such a Bible exists.

 

He may or may not reveal this to you. I don't know what He has in mind for your walk here on this earth. But this is how He did it for me.  God bless.

 

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

 

Will Kinney

 

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

 

 

Responding to “I don’t think any translation is inerrant."

Charley E. posted: "I don't think it can be shown that any translation is inerrant, and as far as I have been able to tell, I don't think anyone has been able to prove without a doubt which Greek text form is correct in every place either."


Hi Charley. Your statement here reveals that you are what I refer to as a Bible agnostic. Not an agnostic, but a "Bible agnostic". It’s like saying: "I don't know for sure what God may or may not have said in His Book and apparently do not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God.”

 That apparently is where you are today.

You ask:"How did it 1st happen when the ancient copies were made...and why? Are these words additions, or subtractions to the original Greek form of the text...and what can be said for certain based on the actual evidence of transmission, other than pure speculation?"

I think you are asking the wrong questions in an effort to find out if there really is such a thing as an inerrant Bible. Once a person launches out into what the "scholars" refer to as the "science" of textual criticism (a complete misnomer), you will never know or find out the truth. It sure hasn't resulted in finding an inerrant Bible for any who have tried it.

For actual quotes from those who have ventured into this field, I refer you to my article called "The Bible is NOT the inspired and inerrant words of God". 

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

Here is just one of the many quotes from the "scholars" you will find here.

"As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).

I will briefly tell you how I would approach this issue. I start by believing what the Book says about itself. The Bible claims to be the words of God who cannot lie and He always speaks the truth.

 Before I became convinced the King James Bible is God's infallible words, I started to read and compare many bible versions.  When I found ridiculous statements or obvious errors in theology, I then knew it was a fake bible. Things like where the NASB, Youngs, Holman and the NET version teach that the children of Israel DECEIVED God, as they teach in Psalm 78:36.  Or where the NASB says that "there is no such thing as an idol in the world" in 1 Cor. 8:4.

Here are some examples in True Bible or False Bible.


 One by one they were eliminated from the list, till there was only one Book standing - the King James Bible.

Another huge step forward in this process was seeing the testimony of God in history and how He has clearly set His mark of approval on this Bible like no other.

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


Then ask God in sincerity to open your understanding and to give you the faith to believe what He says about His own Book and to show you if such a Bible exists.

He may or may not reveal this to you. I don't know what He has in mind for your walk here on this earth. But this is how He did it for me.

God bless.