This interchange with a bible agnostic occurred at the Christian Forum. Here is the link. If you wish, click over to pages 13 and 14 where these comments are found.http://www.christianforums.com/t7525825/
Originally Posted by CTS
The inciteful and arrogant rhetoric from the KJV-Only believers I've read does absolutely nothing to convince people of the KJV's divine infallibility. If anything, it makes people much less likely to ever want to read from the KJV again. Besides the several errors in the AV (i.e. turtle instead of turtledove, Easter instead of Passover, etc etc.) Sure, the KJVO's have rigorously accumulated an arsenal of apologia for the KJV, focused on defending the KJV until death - but the countless explanations and smoothing over of KJV errors and difficulties proves to be a desperate attempt to uphold the "infallibility" of a Bible translated by men in the 1600s in Elizabethan English. Some of the explantions I've read are ridiculous at best. It's time to put away the pride and arrogance in the KJV as if it's an ultimate authority."
Hi CTS and others who might be interested in this discussion. I just wanted to make a few comments on this particular paragraph posted by CTS.
We are approaching the issue of the infallibility of The Bible from very different points of view. CTS tells us that ONLY the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic ARE inspired. If anybody takes the time and THINKS about what he just said and follows his logic, then we must conclude that No translation in any language is the infallible words of God NOW and NO inspired and infallible bible exists in Hebrew or Greek either, since we do not have and have never seen a single word of these long lost, turned to dust, inexistent originals that WERE (not "are") inspired and infallible.
Simply put, CTS and those like him do not have nor do they believe that any Bible in any language on the earth today IS the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. So, they think that because we King James Bible believers DO believe such a Book exists and are willing to defend it in the midst of an ever increasing and wide spread unbelief in the Infallibility of the Bible, that we are "proud and arrogant" simply because we take the position that God promised to preserve His words, heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away, and "the Scripture cannot be broken".
Obviously if we KJB believers are convinced that God has given to the world such an infallible Book, then all those versions that differ from it in both texts and meanings are not the infallible words of God. This is the only consistent and logical position of faith to take. If one Bible is true and the other "bibles" either omit the verses all together (some 17 to 45 entire verses in just the N.T. alone) or completely changes the meaning (42 to 22, or 7 to 4 or numerous other things like this), then one is true and the other is false. They cannot both be equally true and infallible in the same place when they both read entirely differently. This is just God given common sense.
Notice too how CTS complains about that 1600's Elizabethan English. You know, like all those "thee"s and "ye"s I suppose. And just what does a man like CTS recommend as the only inspired and infallible words of God? Well, it those "originals in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek", don't ya know. Yes, indeedy, the archaic Hebrew Greek and Aramaic is much easier to read and understand than anything you will find in the English language of the King James Bible, right?
By the way, I wonder if CTS or any other modern version promoter out there actually knows what the important difference is between "thee, thine, thou" and "ye, your, and your". I have asked several of them here and not one of them has yet responded to this. Did you know that the use of all those archaic 'thee, thine, thou" and "ye"s are far more accurate to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts?
Why Thee and Ye are more accurate and should be kept
So, because we King James Bible believer point out the obvious to them, those who do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS right now the infallible words of God accuse us of being "proud and arrogant" because we do not agree with their biblical agnosticism.
Now, who is really being guilty of pride and arrogance, the Bible believer or the Bible agnostic who has made his own mind and understanding his final authority?
We KJB believers did not write the King James Bible. None of us were on the translation committee and we receive no royalties or personal recognition from promoting and defending it as God's pure words. It wasn't even written in my own country. It came from England.
We simply take God's promises regarding His words as true and do not try to change the texts or the meanings of the English words God has put His pure words into. We do not say things like "this text does not belong in the Bible" or "it really should not be translated this way but that" or "this reading has been corrupted or lost from the originals" or "I like this translation better".
The people who do these types of things are the bible agnostics, each of whom has set up his own mind and understanding in judgment on God's Book and reason for themselves which whole verses, or phrases or individual words either should be or should not be in The Book of the LORD. And of course not one of these bible agnostic fellas agrees 100% of the time with anybody else out there. They have become their own final authority. Now, which of these two very different approaches to the words of God found in His Book do you think God would consider to be "proud and arrogant"?
Something to think about.
By the way, the two "errors" CTS brought up - turtle and Easter - only reveal his own methods of placing his own mind and understanding as his final authority. Many other Bible translators agree with the KJB's use of both "turtle" and Easter. In fact, the Greek word used for Easter (paska) means just that today. That is how they say Easter in many languages even today.
To see more on both "turtles" and "Easter" you can go here if interested.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15
The initial exchange with this bible agnostic at Christian Forums
The bible agnostic's invisible "bible"
Originally Posted by CTS Hi CTS. It is a documented FACT that fewer and fewer Christians today believe that ANY Bible in ANY language is the infallible words of God. Not even you do in spite of all your protests to the contrary.
My question for KJVO believers:
Do you believe that the King James Version of the Bible more inerrant and accurate than the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts?
If your answer is "YES, the KJV is more accurate" - than you are elevating the KJV to an idolatrous level, claiming it exceeds the original written and God-breathed words of Scripture (1 Timothy 3:16).
If your answer is "NO, the original manuscripts are more accurate" - then you are admitting that the KJV is not the perfect and infallible translation of God's Word.
Let's look at a few of your very poorly thought out, shallow and meaningless statements. You tell us: " we do know this: we HAVE God's Word....The original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts ARE the ONLY inspired and God-breathed Scriptures."
Tell us, CTS, where exactly we can get a hold of these "original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts" that you affirm ARE the ONLY inspired and God-breathed Scriptures". You use a present tense verb here - "ARE"- meaning that they EXIST NOW, and you tell us that they "are" exclusively the "only" inspired Scriptures.
Your whole foundation is non-existent, invisible, imaginary and never seen by you a day in your life. Here is a big hint - THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS!
You are professing a faith in something that you know does not exist, and yet speak of it as though it did, and imply or outright state that we Bible believers (who DO have a real Bible) are ignorant, proud, arrogant and divisive.
Brother, at least we DO have a real and tangible Book that we hold out to the world as the absolute Standard of Final Written Authority from God, and we don't have to pretend to be something we are not. We really do believe in a tangible Bible you can hold in your hands, read and believe every word.
By contrast, what do you have? NOTHING. "The original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts ARE the ONLY inspired and God-breathed Scriptures" never did make up an entire 66 book Bible and you have never seen a single word of these "only" inspired originals and never will. You can't tell anybody else where to find them if your life depended on it.
If I am mistaken about your stated position that "only the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts ARE inspired" and "we HAVE God's word", then all you have to do to put me in my place and show how "proud and arrogant" I am for presuming to point out to you the utter absurdity and meaningless of your pious sounding statements, is to tell us exactly where we can go to see these "originals that ARE inspired" or even where we can get a hold of a copy of them. Would you do that for us? Show us all just how wrong headed we Bible believers have been all this time, OK? Thanks.
The second exchange with bible agnostic at Christian Forums.
"accurate and trustworthy translations"???
Originally Posted by CTS
Some of the accurate and trustworthy translations that are available to us now, i.e. the NASB, NKJV, ESV, etc., are sufficient for a very long time. -CTS
You fellas have a very strange way of using words to define things that are very, very different. You tell us that the NASB, NKJV and ESV are "accurate and trustworthy" translations. Oh, really? Are you aware of the fact that the NKJV contains some 17 entire verses in the New Testament that are not found in your "accurate" ESV, plus another 1000 or so words from other phrases and partial verses? And that is just in the New Testament. Then the ESV rejects or adds to the Hebrew texts found in the NKJV several hundred more words and both your NASB and ESV differ in meaning in well over a hundred other verses where they supposedly are translating the same underlying texts. Yet you call them "accurate and trustworthy".
Here is just a small sampling I have posted a few times now and all you professing Bible believers keep avoiding it. Would you mind telling us how "accurate and trustworthy" are apt adjectives to describe the NASB, ESV and NKJV in the light of these outright contradictions? Please help me to see the error of my ways.
Just pick one example if you wish, and let us know how "accurate and trustworthy" that reading really is. Maybe you could consult those "originals that ARE the only inspired words of God" you seem to be privy to and then let us know which bible version got it right. OK? Thanks.
“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?
The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples.
Among these “historic details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)
whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, ISV, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET, 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, ISV, Douay-Rheims, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV, Catholic New Jerusalem)
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 "the NEXT day" ISV (they just made this up!)
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, ISV, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET, ISV, 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, ISV, 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), 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, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" ISV, or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!
2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (KJB, Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV, Douay-Rheims) OR “four years” (NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem). The ISV ADDS words to the Hebrew text to make it say what they think it means, saying: "And so it was that forty years after Israel had demanded a king, Absalom asked the king..."
or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV, Catholic New Jerusalem) The ISV completely omits any number and just makes up their own text saying: "in charge of the platoons"
or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, ISV, 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, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac, 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”, ISV -"every male 30 years old and older", 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, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition!!! and once again the Catholic New Jerusalem)
or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV, Holman, NET, ISV, Catholic New Jerusalem).
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, ask yourself 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?
All modern bible versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman Standard,etc. often reject the clear Hebrew readings and not even in the same places. These are undeniable facts. Here are many examples:
NIV, NASB reject Hebrew - Another King James Bible Believer
NIV,NASB reject Hebrew2 - Another King James Bible Believer
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15