Another King James Bible Believer



The Infallibility of Scripture - are you a Bible believer or a Bible agnostic?

It is a fact that most professing Christians today do not believe in an infallible Bible nor in the infallibility of Scripture in any language. I have put together an rather extensive article with various quotes and polls from present day Evangelicals which prove that this is the present state of Christianity all over the world. You may see it here if you wish. It is called “The Bible is NOT the inspired and infallible word of God.”



In the picture above both men are saying "I believe we have the inspired, inerrant word of God."  But one has a single, in print Bible he can give to anyone. The other is pointing to a conflicting and contradictory pile of thousands of textual variants. Which one really has an inerrant Bible?  


Are you a Bible Agnostic?



I know the term "bible agnostic" is accurate though confrontational.  I use it because I want people to realize that that is in fact what they are - Bible Agnostics.  They do not know what the Bible is or where to get one.  In fact, I found out later that the "great" Bruce Metzger himself put out a Textual Criticism book in which one of his contributors used this word.  In his  book titled, New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger, a collection of essays by various textual critics. In an essay on the textual variants concerning the doxology in Romans, and the writer concluded with these words:  "In short, THE SITUATION CALLS FOR A SCHOLARLY 'AGNOSTICISM' AND CONTINUING RESEARCH." (p. 199).  This comes straight from the mouth of a textual critic. 


American Heritage Dictionary - Agnostic -
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Relating to or being an agnostic.
DOUBTFUL OR NONCOMMITTAL: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

Merriam-Webster's dictionary

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

A well known modern day Evangelical - John MacArthur.  Here is just one of many examples of John MacArthur's Biblical Agnosticism. In one of his sermons about Matthew 6:13 he has this to say: "The doxology is simply this; “For Thine is the kingdom, the power, the glory forever, Amen.” That’s a doxology. You just say it, you just think it, you just offer it to God, you don’t dissect it. And by the way, there’s manuscript evidence that Jesus didn’t even say this, that’s why it’s not included in some of your versions of the Bible. WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE SAID IT OR NOT. Some manuscripts have it, some don’t."


Agnostic = One who does not know for sure.  


(If you want to see more about what a typical Evangelical leader like John MacArthur really believes about "the Bible", see "John MacArthur - the pastor with no infallible Bible" ) 



K. Aland, M. Black, C.M. Martini, B.M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, eds., The Greek New Testament, third edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), p. viii. Although this edition is dated 1975, Metzger's Commentary upon it appeared in 1971. The second edition is dated 1968. It thus appears that in the space of three years ('68-'71), WITH NO SIGNIFICANT ACCRETION OF NEW EVIDENCE, the SAME GROUP of five scholars CHANGED their MIND in over five hundred places. 


It becomes obvious that they are unstable and make it up as they go. Which of the 28 editions of the NA is the correct one? These fellas are not able to come to acknowledge of the Truth!


James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.



I have been in the Bible version discussion now for several years at many different Christian internet forums. During this time I have talked about the inerrancy of the Bible, and more specifically, the inerrancy of the King James Bible, with many different church pastors, seminarians and every day Christians.

What people really believe about “The Bible” can essentially be broken down into 5 different positions regarding the inspiration, preservation and infallibility of the Bible. Four of them are complete nonsense, yet normally intelligent people often spout them off as though they were irrefutable facts. Only one of them is Biblically correct and in keeping with the truth and faithfulness of Almighty God.

Five Basic Views on the Inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures.

#1. ONLY the originals were inspired and inerrant.

#2. God’s words are preserved somewhere out there among the 5500+ Greek manuscripts.

#3. ALL “reliable, valid versions” are the inspired, perfect, and inerrant words of God.

#4. NO Bible or translation can be the complete and inerrant words of God because they are all made by man. The originals are lost, and thus, there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible in any language.

#5. God has been faithful to His many promises to give us a preserved and inerrant Bible. The sovereignty of God in history and the internal truth of the English text shows us that this inerrant Bible is the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

I will address each of these principal views concerning the inerrancy of Scripture, and will use actual internet discussions to point out the differences and highlight the logic (or total lack thereof) of each position.

#1 ONLY the originals were inspired and infallible.

A seminarian named Barry takes the ‘originals only’ point of view and posted a “confession of faith” called the Niagara Creed. It is much like the recent Chicago Confession of Faith signed by a bunch of well known modern day Evangelicals.

MY RESPONSE: Hi Barry, I did see the post. In it you mention that you believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture, and then you immediately put as a qualifier "original manuscripts".

Barry, what this means to anybody who thinks about it and takes language literally, is that you believe in something that you know does not exist.

You also said you believe like the the Niagara Conference. I looked it up. It is basically saying the same thing as the recent Chicago confession of faith, and what you will find on most Christians sites and church confessions. Here it is:

The Niagara Bible Conference also resulted in the fourteen point creed otherwise known as the "Niagara Creed."

1. We believe "that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," by which we understand the whole of the book called the Bible; nor do we take the statement in the sense in which it is sometimes foolishly said that works of human genius are inspired, but in the sense that the Holy Ghost gave the very words of the sacred writings to holy men of old; and that His Divine inspiration is not in different degrees, but extends equally and fully to all parts of these writings, historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical and to the smallest word, and inflection of a word, PROVIDED SUCH WORD IS FOUND IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS: 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:13; Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Acts 1:16; 2:4."

Now THINK about what these men are actually saying. If they were to be cross examined in a court of law, or even by a high school debating team, their "bold confession" would be found to be an empty show of pious sounding words signifying NOTHING.

They like the philosophical concept of the inspiration of Scripture, but utterly lack the reality of an inspired Scripture they can hold in their hands. Notice these last qualifying words (which are just like your own) - "PROVIDED SUCH WORD IS FOUND IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS.”

They talk about the original manuscripts as though they all had these original manuscripts right there in front of them and were able to simply look over and compare their English (or whatever language) translation to what these non existent and never seen "original manuscripts" say, so they can then see how they line up and compare.

Your confession of faith in the Infallibility of Scripture "provided such word is found in the original manuscripts" means NOTHING! It is a very poorly thought out piece of nonsense which contradicts itself on the foundational level. You are claiming to believe in something you KNOW you do not have and have no way of proving one way or the other.

In addition, this 'confession of faith' in the infallibility of Scripture effectively steals the Bible from every common Christian who doesn't have a thorough knowledge of the original languages.

And even if he or she did know these original languages, it would still not do him or her any good, because it is an undeniable fact that we do not have any hope at all of ever seeing one scrap of your "original manuscripts" foundation.

I am somewhat amazed that normally intelligent men can put together such a silly piece of self-evident contradiction and try to pass it off as some kind of pious sounding orthodoxy.

You inevitably end up believing just like you told us earlier. You said you don't believe there is any single text or translation that is the pure, preserved, inspired and 100% true words of God in any language on this earth today.


"The Original Languages"

 Here is the response I got from one of the moderators at a fairly well known internet Christian forum regarding their "doctrinal statement"

Jay C. wrote:- "The plenary Divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word of God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life.

Will, can you affirm the first point of the Sharper Iron Doctrinal Statement?"

Hi Jay. Very good question. The first part of the doctrinal statement about the "plenary divine inspiration of the Scripture in the original languages" is fine but ultimately means nothing if it stops at that. There ARE no originals. Now if you try to obscure things while still trying to sound "orthodox" then you say something like "in the original languages", but what does this phrase "the original languages" mean? Hebrew and Greek texts or copies or manuscripts? Then the question is WHICH Hebrew and Greek manuscripts? Are ALL the thousands of variants found in these "original languages" equally inspired and infallible? That would be utterly absurd.

So your doctrinal statement in a very real way says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what or where this "word of God" is to be found either today or at any time in history. You have identified nothing concrete, tangible or in print that any of us can hold in our hands and read by this mumbo-jumbo "doctrinal statement". If you say you hold these "original languages" as your inerrant and infallible words of God, would you please do us all a favor and tell us where we can get a copy of them so that we can compare them to whatever we are using now (KJB, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, ISV, NET, Spanish Reina Valera, French Ostervald, Luther's German, or Swahili) to see the differences and similarities?

When you can do that for us, then I will admit that your doctrinal statement actually has some substance to it. Otherwise it is just pious sounding, poorly thought out double speak, that means absolutely nothing.

Something to think about,

Will Kinney

Notes from the Internet - Facebook club called King James Bible Discussion

FINALLY we get down to what the Bible Agnostics REALLY believe.  Every once in awhile one of them comes out with what is the essence of their belief system regarding the Bible and the real reason they continually attack one Book in particular, the King James Holy Bible.

One of our resident bible agnostics and unbelievers in the Infallibility of the Bible (a real Book you can hold in your hands and read) by the name of Bobby Valentine posts what most of these guys really believe but are unwilling to come right out and state.

Bobby Valentine     8:52pm Apr 6
"God's infallible word was given in Hebrew and Greek. There is no such thing as an infallible translation. Not in English, Not in German, not in any language"

There you have it, folks. A little bit of honesty about what he REALLY believes and why he has NO infallible Bible in any language NOW.  Bobby V and folks like him who tell us "God's infallible word was given in Hebrew and Greek. There is no such thing as an infallible translation. Not in English, Not in German, not in any language", have never seen "God's infallible words" a day in their lives. There ARE NO originals, and he know this, yet his "bold confession" is that God's infallible words WERE given, past tense verb, not ARE given.

Bobby V has no infallible Hebrew and Greek text he believes either, and he also knows this to be true. So what does he recommend?  He himself has told us that the Catholics are coming out with some really good bibles like the St. Joseph New American bible.  And guess what. This modern day Catholic bible uses the SAME eclectic critical text (Nestle-Aland, UBS) for the New Testament that his other Vatican Versions use (the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET) and also rejects many of the inspired Hebrew readings in the same places as his also recommended ESV, NIV etc.  What a shocker! ;-)  BUT, Bobby V even tells us that not even his recommended Vatican Versions ARE the infallible words of God because in his mind "There is no such thing as an infallible translation."

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

So, who or what is Bobby V's final authority?  Well, you can bet on one thing for sure; it is NOT "the Bible". It's gonna be either his own mind and understanding subject to change at any moment, or the Pope or some other lying bible agnostic like James White.  Men like James White speak out of both sides of their mouth.  They will SAY they believe The Bible IS the infallible words of God, but when asked where we can get a copy of this infallible Bible they PROFESS to believe in, they get just a tad uncomfortable and immediately try to change the subject, usually by dragging out their laundry list of alleged errors in our beloved King James Holy Bible - the ONLY Bible believed by thousands of redeemed children of God to be the complete, inspired and 100% historically true and doctrinally pure words of God in the English language.

There is no middle ground in this issue of God's final written authority - the Holy Bible. Either you are a bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the Infallibility of the Bible like Bobby V, James White and a multitude of other modern day professing Christians, or you are a King James Bible believer with the true, infallible and preserved words of God you can actually hold in your hands, read and believe every word.  You are either a bible agnostic or a Bible believer.  Which side are you on?

Will Kinney

Another Cemetarian

Another seminarian who criticized our belief that the King James Bible is the perfect and infallible words of God, took a similar view. He writes:

“This does not follow logically... God does not inspire versions or translations, He inspired the originals, well this is what the orthodox believe... the King James is a translation into English of God's Word, it is definitely not perfect! How could it be? It is the work of man.” (end of quote)

MY RESPONSE: Hi _____ What I have noticed about every single individual who no longer believes in a complete and inerrant Bible, is that there is a fundamental breakdown in their ability to think straight. And then they call their twisted and unbiblical thinking "logical".

First, when you say "God does not inspire translations", you didn't get this from the Bible. Seminary maybe, or from some other pastor who likewise does not believe in an inerrant Bible, but certainly not from the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches that a translation CAN BE the inspired words of God.

“Can a Translation be the Inspired words of God?”

Secondly, when you say God only inspired the originals, and the originals no longer exist, then the ONLY logical conclusion is: THERE IS NO INSPIRED BIBLE NOW. But, of course, this is what you really believe isn't it?

Thirdly, If God cannot use "the work of man" to bring forth His perfect words, then there NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN the “originals" in the first place. DUH.

See what I mean? (I doubt it). Once you reject the King James Bible as being the only true words of God, your thinking becomes absurdly illogical and anti-biblical.

#2. God’s words are preserved somewhere out there among the 5500+ Greek manuscripts.

Another well educated Christian (jbh) writes: “Hey, this is what I believe now. That there is no one particular manuscript that is the perfect complete nor is there a translation that is perfectly translated. There is nothing in the Bible that speaks of the perfecting of the Bible."

jbh continues: “The problem is that you equate Bible with book. The bible is made of many books. The Bible was written at different times. The Word of God was promised by God to be preserved. We trust that He has done this. And guess what, He has. we have over 5000 Greek Manuscripts of the Word of God. Some have parts, some have the whole. The issue isn't' that i don't believe the Bible, the issue is that you have made up this fictions idea and used "Bible Believer" for your fictions idea.”

jbh later adds: “My answer, if there is somewhere a perfect copy of the Bible, complete (Gen - Rev) all together in one "Book" we don't know which one it is.    (Note: "We don't know" = agnosticism)

MY RESPONSE: Hi jhb. Like I have been saying all along jbh, you are a Bible agnostic, and every day more and more professing Christians are taking the same position of unbelief you have taken regarding the inerrancy of Scripture.

The word "Bible" means "book". This Bible is composed of 66 individual books now that it is complete. I and many thousands of other Christians believe we have the sure and pure words of God in a single book called the King James Bible (Holy Bible).

Now, let's look at your theory, shall we. You tell us that what we now have are 5000 pieces (mostly scraps and small sections of diverse verses), and not a single one of these is a complete Bible - not one. Not the goofy Sinaiticus nor the Vaticanus mss. are complete Bibles or even New Testaments, and they disagree with each other some 4000 significant times in the New Testament alone.

You do not accept all the conflicting readings found in these 5000 + manuscripts, and will not take a stand on anything for sure as being the complete and 100% true words of God.

You have already told us: "This is what I believe now. That there is no one particular manuscript that is the perfect complete nor is there a translation that is perfectly translated. There is nothing in the Bible that speaks of the perfecting of the Bible."

I have told you where I believe the perfect Bible is now and has been for almost 400 years - the Authorized King James Holy Bible. You yourself have admitted that you do not know nor even believe that such a thing exists.

God calls us to faith in His words and promises. I believe The Book. You do not. You don't even have "the book" to believe in. Instead you now have 5000+ scraps of wildly conflicting readings and you do not know which ones are right and which are not.

Your view of Preservation is like saying God's words are preserved in Webster's unabridged dictionary - "they're in there SOMEWHERE, all mixed up with thousands that are not right and all out of order, but Hey, they're "preserved" somewhere in there."

Now, you can dispute all this as much as you please, but the end result is that I and thousands of other Christians believe we have the perfect Bible (all present 66 books in a single volume), and You do not have nor believe in any bible in any language as the pure and complete words of God.

jbh then comes back with this response:”He is saying Faith in having a pure and perfect Bible being in our hands knowing that every English word is pure and perfect. this is not Faith in God. If it is, then tell me where this "BOOK" was prior to 1611. Tell me where these promises of the perfect "BOOK" are. Remember, Paul didn't have a "BOOK."

I have faith in what the Bible teaches. I believe that Jesus died, was buried and rose again. It is in the Bible This is faith in the Word of God. I believe that Salvation by grace and not works. It is in the Bible. This is faith in the Word of God. I believe in the trinity. it is in the Bible. This is faith in the Word of God. I do not believe that the KJV is THE perfect Bible. It is NOT in the Bible. To still believe this is faith in man.” (end of quotes)

MY RESPONSE: Hi jbh. As I read the Scriptures (and by the Scriptures I mean the King James Bible) it gives me a lot of promises about the true words of God.

You keep telling us you have faith in what "the Bible" teaches, yet it is abundantly obvious that you have no such tangible thing as "the Bible"; instead you have 5000+ scraps of conflicting partial readings.

What I think is a more honest evaluation of your position is that you have faith in SOME PARTS of what WOULD make up a bible IF there WERE such a thing.

You say there is no such "Book" and tell us that the Bible never promises there would be a perfect book. However the Scripture definitely seems to teach that there is "the book of the LORD" somewhere in existence on this planet, and it definitely would not be in those 5000+ wildly divergent readings found in these confused and contradictory scraps. That is not a book nor are they "The Bible" you say you have faith in.

(By the way, I DID answer jbh’s question about where the words of God were before 1611. He just didn’t like the answer. Here it is for those who wish to see it.)


The Bible says in Psalm 19:7 "The law of the LORD is PERFECT, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is SURE, making wise the simple." God says His word (same as law) is perfect.

There are a multitude of verses that teach there will be a tangible Book. Sure, the revelation of God's words was a continuing process carried out over centuries, and even a silence of more than 400 years between testaments, but "the Scripture cannot be broken". Your "scripture" is all broken up into 5000+ conflicting and partial manuscripts, and that is not even considering the Hebrew texts that are so often rejected by such modern versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and even the NKJV, and not even in the same places.

You accuse me of using circular reasoning, and yet your reasoning has left you with no sure or perfect words of God. I see my reasoning as the logic of faith. God said there would be "the book of the Lord" and I assume He really meant what He promised. I then look for the evidence of where this book is found NOW, and all the evidence clearly points to the King James Bible as being the providentially approved true Bible.

I also look at what has been the result of your side of things with your 5000 + yada, yadas, and "nobody knows for sure" philosophy, and clearly see an abandoning of the doctrine of the Inerrancy of Scripture and people read and believe the multitude of conflicting and watered down modern versions less and less. The Bible itself says that GOD Himself will send a famine of hearing His words, and this is happening right now. (Amos 8:8)

 Additional note on this same man jbh.  A few months later (July of 2010) I got into another discussion with him over at the Fighting Fundamentalist Forum, and he has now modified his previous position.  Here is a sample of our latest dialogue:

I wrote jbh the following:  "Hi jbh.  Would you please clear something up for me and make it more concise?  The last time I asked you where your perfect bible was before 1611 and where it is now, you said you believe the perfect bible was found everywhere, in many different English and foreign language translations.  Do I have this right?  I do not want to put words in your mouth, so please just tell us as concisely as you can how you would answer the question "Where can I find the perfect Bible?"  Would you please do that for us?  Thanks, Will K
JBH immediately came back with: "The Bible, or the Scripture, is the words that God gave us. Yes, they can be found in many English translations and many foreign languages. Thank the Lord that we have people that have translated the Bible is so many languages."

 So, jbh's progression of thought over several months has gone from "there is no perfect Bible" to something like  "the perfect Bible is found in a multitude of conflicting versions that differ from each other by thousands of words and hundreds of different meanings, and yet they are all somehow the words that God gave us."  It just gets loopier and loopier.



Another seminarian wrote this: “The best thing for you to do is to stop reading KJV Only historical revisionism and to learn Greek, how to translate and the process of textual criticism.”

MY RESPONSE: "The best thing we can do is learn Greek and textual criticism". Yeah, right. Then we can become just as confused and uncertain about our Bibles as you guys are.

Your so called "science" of textual criticism is a hugh and pathetic joke. It will probably lead most of you Textual Scholars off into Agnostic Land just like it did with Bart Ehrman.

Bart Ehrman was a “born again” Evangelical who started studying textual criticism in seminary and sat under Bruce Metzger, chief editor of the UBS critical text, which forms the basis of such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman Standard versions. Bart is now going around the country giving seminars on how The Bible is a man made book filled with contradictions and errors. He even refers to himself as “a happy agnostic”.

I have read his book, Misquoting Jesus, and have written a response to it that can be seen here:


If anybody wants to see what the whole buffoonery of "Textual Criticism" is, I have studied it for a few years now and can document what this farce is all about. I have five of my own articles documenting the fickleness and foolishness of this so called "$cience". It starts here:


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

#3. ALL “reliable, valid versions” are the inspired, perfect, and inerrant words of God.

Once in awhile I have run into a professing Christians who tries to tell us that all “valid versions” (they usually list 5 or 6 like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, KJV, and Holman Standard) are the inspired, perfect and inerrant words of God.

A man who goes by 1611ED posts the following: “God's word as found in the HCSB is inerrant, inspired by God, and FLAWLESS in all matters in what it means. I believe in All English Bibles are the complete, perfect, preserved, inspired and inerrant words of God. That includes the three different KJVs, the TNIV, the HCSB, the two Geneva Bibles that I have (1560 & 1599), that includes NLT I have.

MY RESPONSE: Hi Ed. I guess that only among present day Christian circles could somebody make the statement that "ALL English Bibles are the complete, perfect, preserved, inspired and inerrant words of God.", and still be thought of as a "deeply spiritual" and rational person.

In spite of the FACTS that all your English bibles differ from each other by as many as 5000 words, 45 entire verses omitted in the texts of some but not in others, scores of different Old Testament texts affecting numerous names, numbers, and entire verses, and literally hundreds of very different meanings in hundreds of verses, many of them affecting essential Christian doctrine, yet these are "all perfect and inerrant".

This is the level to which modern day Christiandumb has now sunk. Try taking your totally illogical and obviously absurd position that all these contradictory and confused versions are all perfect and inerrant before any court of law or even a high school debate team and see how long your silliness would last before they shot it down in flames.

We have enough opposition from the world because we believe in the living God and the gospel of redemption through our Lord Jesus Christ. But when professing Christians come out with the nonsense you just gave us, small wonder that they think Christians are idiots.

The more I see how you fellas reason the truer this saying seems - "If you mess with The Book, God will mess with your minds." Will K


 Notes from the Internet -

 How a Bible Agnostic Thinks -  

If you wish to see the utter confusion in the Critical text versions in the book of Jude, see The Book of Jude - James White and his  "inferior" texts

I had posted: - "Hi James Snapp. I find it almost humorous to watch you go on and on about the added words "through Jesus Christ our Lord" in Jude 25. Let me ask you a simple question, James. Would YOU include those extra words in this personal translation you are working on and putting together? Yes or No? Thanks."

And James Snapp succinctly and clearly says "Yes"

Hi James. Interesting. This just reveals where you are coming from on the Bible version issue. You jump around among the various Greek texts and manuscripts as you go about putting together your "infallible Greek New Testament".  

Sometimes you go with the so called "Majority Text" - BUT NOT THIS TIME.  Then you may pick up a Textus Receptus reading you happen to fancy, and then on another occasion (like here) you decide (undoubtedly led by the Divine Hand of Providential Guidance) to go with the ever changing Vatican Critical Text.

Of course NO Bible in history has ever read like the not yet in print James Snapp Official Inerrant Greek New Testament nor will there ever be one like it again.  

And no other "also ran but not called" Greekophile scholar will ever totally agree with Mr. Snapp's  findings that he diligently obtained through his finely honed intellect and unparalleled spiritual discernment, but such minor considerations do not stop our undaunted hero Mr. Snapp from pursuing his calling.

So the world awaits the soon to be unveiled and  long anticipated masterpiece Mr. Snapp has been laboring to bring forth to the world for wide distribution and the general improvement of all mankind - his very own "James Snapp's Official Inerrant Greek New Testament".

Golly, James. It gives me goosebumps just to think about it.  Can I be one of the first to get an autographed copy?


More Notes from the Internet


There is another man out there on the internet who is well known on many Christian forums. He goes by the screen name of Robycop, and we King James Bible believers have been dealing with his wacko ways for years now. I like to refer to him as the Elmer Fudd of the internet. He is always tripping over his own tongue and speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Brother Brent Riggs, a strong King James Bible believer and missionary to Poland, had this very well expressed response to Robycop’s double-speak:

Brent writes: Dear Robycop, I do not believe a myth - any myth. I do not promote any myth. I do believe the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures in the English language is clearly the word of God. You have made the same profession. The difference between our professions is simple: I'm honest and consistent with my profession. You, however, waver in the wind. One moment in a gallant attempt to prove that you believe the word of God you say: "Valid versions are the word of God", "The AV is a valid version" and "Every valid version is equally inspired". And to press your point further you have said: "The AV (along with other valid versions) is perfect, inerrant, 100% God's word." But then the wind shifts and you proclaim: "The KJV is NOT perfect", "The KJV has undeniable errors in it" and "The KJV has boo-boos". This type of behavior is normally found in younger people who are unsure of their profession. By your own profession you are not a young man, so I must ask: What is your excuse?

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Make up your mind! Do you want to stand with the skeptics of the world or believe the word of God? Make up your mind and then stick with it. Honesty and sincerity demands it of you.

God's word is not limited by your unbelief, doubt and skepticism, note what God's word says as opposed to your shifting opinion:

Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Ps 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Ps 106:12 Then believed they his words; they sang his praise.

Pr 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. In Jesus' Name, Brent Riggs

#4. NO Bible or translation can be the complete and inerrant words of God because they are all made by man.

This is the claim constantly made by the liberals, atheists, Muslims, and Bible bashers all over the world. Unfortunately, this claim is now also being made by many professing Christians.

One such seminarian who calls himself Budding Theologian even gave us three contradictory views over the course of just 2 to 3 weeks. He actually listed these three views concering the preserved and inerrant words of God as being his own.

#1. "In the 5500+ manuscripts" (but he doesn't know which ones are right)

#2. "There is no one particular manuscript that is perfectly complete nor is there a translation that is perfectly translated." And lastly...

#3. "More than one English translation. We also believe every word found within them.”

MY RESPONSE to BT. - This is typical of the double or even triple speak we hear from today's seminarians and evangelical leaders when they begin to address the issue of the Inerrancy of the Scriptures, along with their "originals only" nonsense.

You guys have nothing to stand on and your case is getting worse and worse with every newly perverted bible version that comes down the pike. This is why fewer and fewer professing Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture every day. In my view, it is all part of prophecy being fulfilled. There will come a falling away from the faith first, before the return of the Lord Jesus Christ in power and glory. It is happening now and nobody is going to stop it.

I and many thousands of other Bible believers are simply telling people that God has not left the scene; He has kept His promises to preserve His words in a real and tangible Book where you can in truth believe every word, and find a refuge for your soul.

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16


Let’s for a moment take a look at what we find in the Introduction of the popular NIV. You may be surprised.

Some versions like the RSV omit some 45 entire verses from the N.T. plus another 2000-3000 words. ALL modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard believe the Hebrew texts have been lost or corrupted in numerous places, and all of these versions omit anywhere from 17 to 45 whole verses from the N.T. Yet God can use them because the gospel is still found in them, though mixed with other errors.

NOBODY who knows the minimum about the textual differences defends any of them as being the complete and inerrant Bible. Surely not the people who put them out.

What do the NIV editors think about their own version? They tell us in the NIV Introduction -"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect men, this one UNDOUBTEDLY FALLS SHORT of its goals."

They got two things wrong and only one right. By their saying all translations fall short, they have effectively stripped the inerrant Bible out of the hands of the common man, and imply that no translation can be the pure words of God. They sure didn't get this unbelief from the Bible itself. The Bible clearly teaches that a translation CAN BE the inspired and pure words of God.

They also reveal their unbiblical stand and deep ignorance by their stupid statement "made by imperfect men". If God cannot use "imperfect men" to give us His words, then we would never have had "the originals" to begin with!

The only thing they got right was " this one UNDOUBTEDLY FALLS SHORT."

You can get saved using versions like the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV and Holman, but your faith will be weakened and you will be more open to the fiery darts of the wicked concerning the truth of your faith in the gospel of Christ. Why? Because this gospel is only found in a Book than none of them believe is 100% true. At what point does God start to tell them the truth?

The church began to formulate their formal confessions of faith in the inerrancy of Scripture only after the King James Bible came on the scene. People believed in the Inerrancy of Scripture for 300 years or more. But now the majority belief is that "only" the lost and never seen originals "were" (past tense) inspired and inerrant.

It is well documented that the vast majority of seminarians and pastors no longer believe in the infallibility of Scripture.

God is sovereign in history and it is my belief that He directed the bringing forth of the greatest Bible in history and put it in the universal end-times language of English. It is the Bible God uses and Satan hates. It is the only Bible believed by multiplied thousands to be the preserved words of the living God. It is the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

#5. God has been faithful to His many promises to give us a preserved and inerrant Bible. The sovereignty of God in history and the internal truth of the English text shows us that this infallible Bible is the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

Answering the Bible Agnostics in their attacks on The Infallibility of Scripture

There is another seminary educated man who posted at the Fighting Fundamental Forum when I began defending the doctrine of the Infallible Scriptures as found in the King James Bible. Here is our dialogue:

Originally Posted by xtreme_devotion_120: “I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the non-KJV only believers aren't arguing against the bibles innerancy as the word of God, but rather your (and those in agreement with you) naive claims that the KJV is the ONLY inspired bible in the English language, besides all the other ones in the English language before it, of course.” (end of quotes)

MY RESPONSE: Hi xd. It is a simple fact that the vast majority of non-King James Bible believers, and all those who "use" such versions as the NASB, ESV, NIV, NKJV, NET, Holman Standard or anything else DO NOT BELIEVE that ANY Bible or ANY text in ANY language IS NOW the inerrant words of God.

This should be a very easy statement to disprove if you in fact do believe in the Infallibility of the Scriptures. All you have to do to prove otherwise is to tell us what the Infallible Bible is called and where we can get a copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we are using now. Will you do that for us? Not a chance.

Quote from xtreme_devotion: “Now if you believe the translation differences change doctrine, then we should talk. But don't state, for instance, that the NIV takes "Lord" out of the bible x amount of times. That is a two edged statement as it can easily be reversed, yet is only essentially thought to be valid based on the core text (KJV), which is the issue at hand.” (end of quote)

MY RESPONSE: Brother, there are LOTS of serious doctrinal errors in the new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman junk.

Here are some concrete examples. Problem is, most Christians today do not care for and are not interested in doctrine. Are you willing to actually take the time and interest in looking at how the modern versions have perverted sound doctrine?


Quote by xtreme_devotion: “Let me ask you, do you believe God smiles upon you when you accuse other Christians of not taking a stand on the KJV? Do you think God believes you "have His back?" If not, why do you do it?” (end of quote)

MY RESPONSE: XD, Most Christians no longer believe in the infallibility of Scripture or of ANY Bible. This is a fact. This is why people like Barry P. won't tell you where you can find the infallible Bible. This is why some post the incredibly idiotic affirmation that 5 or 6 "valid versions" like the NKJV, NIV, KJV, NASB, ESV and Holman Standard are "all the perfect and inerrant words of God", even though these versions differ among themselves by literally THOUSANDS of words in the very texts, numerous different names and numbers in the same verses, and radically change the meanings of hundreds of verses. That is how loopy modern Christianity has become.

I don't think God is smiling on me because I accuse other Christians of not using the KJV. You missed the point. I am merely pointing out the fact that most Christians today do not believe in the infallibility of Scripture as a reality now. They do not have any bible or texts that they believe ARE the infallible words of God. The polls show this. Even the modern version advocates are now deeply worried that something is wrong in Christiandumb, because only about 10% of professing Christians even read their 'bibles' from one Sunday to the next.

When the spiritual flavor of these perverted bibles tastes more like cardboard than "the honeycomb" of the pure words of God as found only in the King James Bible, I am not surprised.

However I do believe God is pleased that I take Him at His word and believe the HOLY BIBLE IS the inspired and infallible words of the living God. It should be pointed out, that I have not come to the conviction that the Authorized King James Bible is the only true, preserved, inspired and 100% true words of God by my own intelligence, prayers, or personal righteousness. It is all by the sovereign grace of God that I DO believe the Book. Faith is a gift from God. To those who do not believe, God Himself sends strong delusion that they should believe a lie.

Quote by xtreme_devotion: “Would you say worshipping the KJV as a "god" is in fact putting a "god" before the true God? If not, please explain.”

MY RESPONSE: XD, Why do you fellas keep bringing up this really silly and totally unfounded accusation? Don't you pay attention to our answers? Do you just hear what you want to hear?

I know of no King James Bible believer who worships the King James Bible as his god. I have no altars or candles or burning incense dedicated to my Holy Bible. I often write in the margins, underline passages, and have spilled coffee on it. I toss it in the back of my car and sometimes forget where I put it.

Don't try this childish tactic of trying to discredit the messenger just because you don't like his message.

Now, about that infallible Bible you seem to be claiming you believe in. Will you be so kind as to tell us where we can get a copy of it so we too can find out what God REALLY said? (end of dialogue with xd)

Getting most seminarians and Bible of the Month Club pastors to admit the fact that they do not believe in the infallibility of Scripture is like trying to nail jello to a tree. They will sqirm, and fudge and try to misdirect our attention off into the usual “Well, what about before 1611?”, or “What about the printing errors”, or “What about other languages?”, but even their questions imply what they REALLY believe, that is, that there is no infallible Bible in any language on this earth today.

The King James Bible believer DOES take God at His word and believes The Book. There are a multitude of reasons to do so. You will find many of these listed here under the article titled: “Is King James Onlyism Scriptural?”


The all important question to ask yourself is this: Are you a Bible Believer or a Bible Agnostic?

May God be pleased to open the blind eyes and grant His gift of faith to believe the greatest Book on the earth, the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

Accepted in the Beloved, - Ephesians 1:6,

Will Kinney




It is interesting to me that immediately after I posted this article over at the Fighting Fundamental Forum, where most of these conversations took place, two men posted their responses. Here they are:

A man who calles himself RabbiKnife said: “Guess that all depends on how you describe Bible. I guess -- in your paradigm -- I am one of those silly, misguided heretics that believes in the absolute inerrancy of the original autographs.

Not interested in your KJVO propaganda, although you are of course, welcome to it. The KJV is a fine translation of a select group of texts, but it is not perfect." (end of quotes)

Another man, Joey Porter, says: “Common sense tells us that there is no such thing as an "inerrant bible" in this day and age. Sure, the original scriptures were inerrant, but any decent bible should be full of footnotes on every page saying things like "Original meaning of Hebrew word is uncertain" or "Text does not appear in earliest manuscripts," etc. Just the fact alone that those footnotes exist shows us that the bibles of today are not completely inerrant.

All of this on top of the fact that many publishers have a page at the front of the bible saying that the translation (whatever translation it may be) is not perfect.

The King James may be the worst of all modern translations. Not only is it outdated wording, but there have been literally thousands of corrections made to it over the years since 1611. The Apocrypha was included in the original King James bible. If the KJ is inerrant and inspired, should those books still be in it? Again, it is common sense that we have no "inerrant bibles." (end of quotes)

As you can see, there is a lot of unbelief out there among those who name the name of Christ today. By the way, as for Joey Porter’s mention of the Apocrypha, I have also written an article about this too. It can be seen here:

 As for his remarks about “the outdated wording” of the King James Bible, please see my article about the “old fashioned” language of the Authorized Version here:



"My inerrant Bible"

Another man who calls himself Greek Tim was a bit indignant that I told him he did not believe in the infallibility of Scripture. I had written to him these words: “Sorry, Tim, but it is central to this discussion; not a rabbit trail at all. Since you do not have nor believe in the infallibility of Scripture, then all you have left are your mere personal opinions, and your personal opinions don't count for much of anything.”

To which Greek Tim responded: “I must disagree. I don't see what your argument here has anything to do w/ a textual criticism issue. And I would please ask you to stop telling me what I do or do not believe. I am a full inerrantist. You don't have to be KJVO to hold to inerrancy.

I am somewhat frustrated that you would hurl such accusations against me. First of all, you barely know me. Second of all, you have never asked me my view of inerrancy so you couldn't know my view. Third, Will Kinney is not the plumline of orthodoxy. If we don't agree on a subject does not mean that I am in complete doctrinal aberation. I am a hardline inerrantist. In fact, that is a hill I am willing to die on. So I ask that you would keep to respectful discussions without attacking people. Stick to attacking views and ideas.” (end of Tim’s quotes)

I then wrote back:”Tim, I don't need to know you at all to make the statements that I did. I simply go by what you yourself have said. You SAY you are a hardline inerrantist, yet it is clear as the noon-day sun that you do not believe The Bible (any bible in any language) IS NOW the inerrant words of God.

Here are your own self-contradictory words - "My inerrant Bible is the inspired originals which readings have been preserved in the copies."

First, the originals never did make up The Bible. Secondly, these inspired and inerrant originals are no where to be found and you have never seen one scrap of them in your whole life. In other words, you believe that IF the originals HAD BEEN put into a single book (which they never were), then that WOULD HAVE BEEN the inerrant Bible. As it is now, you believe something would have been inerrant if it had ever existed, but it never did, and certainly does not now.

I am not impressed with your 'hardline inerrantist" point of view. You are confessing a faith in something that never existed and does not exist now. You couldn't show a single person alive today an inspired and infallible Bible if your life depended on it.

The ONLY way you can prove the King James Bible is NOT the complete and infallible words of God would be IF you had a real and tangible infallible Bible in front of you and could compare it to the King James Bible and show us the differences. In light of the FACT that you have no such Book, all your arguments are empty and utterly meaningless.

I have a real Bible in mind when I talk about the infallibility of Scripture. You have nothing. An invisible Bible. A philosophical hypothesis. A figment of pure imagination.

I have no hopes of you seeing the absurdity of your own position, but perhaps some who might read these posts will see how phony your "hardline inerrantist" line is. "Something that does not exist is inerrant." OOOOOKaayyy. ;-)

Will K


 God's Pattern in Scripture 

Recently at another Christian Forum a man named Tyler raised this objection to our belief that the King James Bible is the only true, complete and 100% true Bible and Standard by which all others are to be measured. He writes: "However, God's pattern in Scripture for those who spoke for Him was always certain - they state they were speaking for Him. I look for the same verification in anything else that is purported to be His doing. It stands to reason that if God wanted mankind to have one infallable translation, He certainly would have inspired the translators and have them declare such."

To whom I responded: Brother, I believe your thinking here is decidedly unbiblical. Where did you get the idea that all those whom God used to give us His inspired words knew that they were speaking on behalf of God Himself? Can you provide a single verse of Scripture where men like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Jude, James or Solomon knew that what they wrote was in fact the very words of God, and that they were speaking for Him? I am not aware of any such verses.

Paul mentions it a couple of times in passing, and some (not all, by any means) of the Old Testament prophets say things like "Thus saith the LORD", but most of the men God used to give us His inspired words do not use such expressions.

Does a person have to be aware that God is using him or her before it becomes true? I don't believe so.

 Will Kinney 


Were the KJB translators "Bible agnostics"?


This last one is pretty interesting. A Christian then wrote to me asking: "Since as far as I can tell I believe exactly the same way that Christians believed before the KJV came along, and since you consider me to be a "Bible agnostic", then do you also consider pre-1611 Christians to be "Bible agnostics" as well?"


To whom I responded: No, I would not call them Bible agnostics. They believed the Bibles they had and most of them textually in both the Old and New Testaments were far closer to the truth than modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman stuff. The new versions are in fact the new Vatican Versions, especially the ESV. See the proof of this here - 


 Did the King James Bible translators themselves believe there was a perfect and infallible Bible before the King James Bible was made? No, otherwise they would not have done their translation work. As 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."

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."

The King James Bible believer is the only one today who consistently, historically and logically stands for the doctrinal truths that God has kept His promises to preserve His inspired words and that there really exists such a thing as a complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible.

You can believe that the Bible you have is true and that makes you a Bible believer. It doesn't mean you actually have the perfect Bible, but you do believe what you have. The difference today is that people are coming right out and affirming that No Bible translation is perfect nor inspired nor inerrant. They openly admit, and even seem to think it a mark of deep spirituality, that they think all Bible translations have errors in them. There is a huge difference. If you cannot see the magnitude or significance of this difference (faith versus doubt), then there is little else I can tell you to convince you. 

 Will K 

1Notes from the Internet

In December of 2011 at a Facebook Bible club a certain Gary Lehman posted the following typical response and I then answered him in the following manner:

Gary posts: "in all of these debates Will DENIES the Holy Spirit by putting the emphasis on the text. As I have pointed out before it is a form of idoltery."

Gary, the bible agnostic who does not believe that any Bible in any language is the 100% true and complete words of God, as is the case with YOU, will always accuse the Bible believer of being guilty of idolatry. It's a cop out and a way you can justify your own unbelief in your own mind.

The Bible says the words that end up in the TEXT are in fact the words the Spirit of God Himself has inspired. They are God's words and as the true Bible says and where many of your fake bibles have perverted the true text, we read in Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: FOR THOU HAST MAGNIFIED THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME."

That is the value and the position God Himself has placed His word- ABOVE His name. You would probably accuse God Himself of idolatry.

I do not deny the Holy Spirit of God at all. He inspired the Bible and its text. You seem to think the Holy Spirit suffers from some form of Alzheimers since He isn't sure about what He may or may not have said.


In July of 2012 -

10:24am Jul 19
Robert Randall posts: "This King James Bible has become a cultic worshipped idol above the living God who is to be worshipped in Spirit and in truth. If we deny the saving power of God in these new translations then we are no better than the Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons, ec. God can use a pagan cross and use it for his glory to bring sinners to repentance in the redeeming blood of Jesus Amen? So to, he can use a watered down Bible like the NASB and the NKJV to bring souls into the Kingdom of God to give HIM alone all the Glory. Let Gods Holy Spirit do his work and ministry. IF you tell every Christian to believe in the King JAmes Bible and only that BIble you are teaching a man made doctrine because the Bible does not say to believe in one perfect translation. "

Robert, you are totally missing the point. You are with your "good words and fair speeches deceiving the hearts of the simple". (Romans 16:18). We agree with you that the gospel is still found in all these bogus bibles and God can and does still use them to bring His people to faith in the Saviour. However the Bible itself reveals a God who cannot lie and who has promised to give us the book of the LORD. The belief in a perfect Bible is not a man made doctrine but the only necessary and logical conclusion of believing what the Book says of itself.

It is a FACT that most Christians today do NOT believe that "the Bible" (any bible in any language) IS or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God, and this includes YOU! If you really believed the King James Bible is the true book of the LORD you would not be so cavalier, nonchalant and dismissive about the words of God.

The ONLY Book that tells us of the gospel is the Bible and IF people who are reading ever changing bible versions that not even they believe are the infallible words of God, then why should they believe the parts that tell them about the gospel?

Once the belief in the inerrancy of the Bible has been abandoned, then there is of necessity a progressive tailspin into full blown apostasy. The polls now show us that the majority of present day Christians no longer believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. People actually read and believe these modern perversions (Vatican Versions) less and less and are becoming more ecumenical, all encompassing and New Age in their beliefs.

God told us there would be a falling away from the faith in the last days as people turn away their ears from the truth and are turned to fables. And you are promoting one of those fables - that is, that there is no perfect and infallible Bible and that people will do just fine by using the Bible Babble Buffet versions that not even they believe to be the 100% true words of God and that no spiritual damage or compromise will occur as a consequence of this basic unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture.


Will Kinney


You can see this post here: 

 On December 28, 2009 I was discussing how most Christians today do not believe their Bibles are the 100% words of God and are in fact Bible Agnostics.  I posted a series of examples where the modern versions are all over the board on how and when they reject the clear Hebrew readings. and a seminary educated man responded in this way.


Hi Will,

You wrote:

"It only takes one reading or significant textual difference to make you "not know for sure" if you have God's perfect words or not. Besides the 45 entire verses omitted from the text of the N.T. alone by the RSV (That's 45 entire verses!), and the 17 from the NIV and 18 from ESV, there are about another 2000 words that are either removed or added by the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV when compared to the KJB or NKJV."

Dc replies:
I don't have first-hand knowledge to know whether or not the RSV omitted 45 verses, or whether the KJV added 45 verses. Nobody I know has the original documents, and I couldn't read them if they did exist.

You asked:

"So, which ones are the true readings? Care to pick one example and discuss it?"

Dc responds:
"How could either of us know for sure which readings match the original documents?"
A couple days later another Bible believer posted a small list of verses that teach God will preserve His words and this same Dc comes back with this response: 
"Those verses certainly may belong in the Bible, and I suppose that neither you nor I know for sure, since we were not around when the originals were written.

Some people might argue that those verses have been added, and that therefore the KJV is incorrect in those places.
I don't know either way."

There you have it folks. For one to express today's Biblical Agnosticism any better would be hard to find. Thanks dc. You just gave us another classic Bible Agnostics direct quote. I rest my case.

 More Notes from the Internet 

At our Facebook club called the King James Bible Debate a man named Leonard posts-

Leonard Armstrong posts:" Will (K), have you ever posted a comment directed to someone that did not contain at least one derogatory word or phrase? It seems you are in the bad (read: unchristian) habit of tearing down instead of building up. "

Hi Leonard. Why, Yes, as a matter of fact I have made posts in which I did not use derogatory words or phrases. I have never said anything negative about any true Bible believer, but since you yourself are not in this category, then you will probably not have seen them. Why do you think it is derogatory to refer to people like you who do not know where to find, and who do not believe in any Bible in any language as being the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God as "bible agnostics"?

Is this an inaccurate term? If you don't like being a Bible agnostic, then simply ask God to have mercy on you and open your eyes to see if there really is such a thing as an infallible "book of the LORD" today and to give you the faith to believe it.

As for "tearing down" instead of "building up", I think you have things totally backwards. Which position really tears down or builds up - telling people there IS NO such thing as an inspired and inerrant Bible or telling people there really IS such an thing and here is where you can see it?

It is the bible agnostics and all modern version promoters who are in fact drawing from the wells of unbelief and apostasy and are telling people that the Bible (any Bible) is not the infallible words of God. The polls show that every day fewer and fewer professing Christians believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and they read these modern (per)versions less and less. Biblical ignorance is at an all time high and it is only going to get worse.

The only people I know of who really believe there IS such a book are the King James Bible believers. So which position is the one that builds up faith in the words of God?

Think about it. God bless.

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

Will K 

 Return to Articles -


Around The World, with Ken Ham

In his blog titled More Than Half of Americans Believe the Bible is Inaccurate.

Already Gone

Sadly, our once-Christian nation has drifted far from its roots. Few people actually understand solid, biblical theology and biblical illiteracy is rampant throughout our country. The results of our survey, done by America’s Research Group and published in my book, Already Gone, show that growing up in the church doesn’t necessarily mean that the results will be much different. OF 1,000 TWENTY-SOMETHINGS WHO GREW UP IN THE CHURCH BUT HAVE NOW LEFT IT, 37% BELIEVE THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS AND  43% DON’T BELIEVE ALL THE ACCOUNTS IN THE BIBLE ARE ACCURATE. How people view the Bible has a direct effect on how they behave, what they believe, and what kind of theology they hold to. If the Bible is full of errors and isn’t 100% true, then why do we have to obey its doctrine? Why should we start our thinking in all areas with God’s Word?

That’s why it’s so important that we teach this next generation to stand on the authority of the Word of God in its entirety—from beginning to end! Observational science has confirmed the Bible’s history over and over again. We can trust the Bible, from the very first verse, and that’s why we can trust the morality, theology, and ultimately, the gospel message found in the Bible. 


C. H. Spurgeon on the Infallibility of the English Bible.

Spurgeon's description: a horde of little popelings.

"If this Book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scripture infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? The old silver is to be depreciated; but the German silver, which is put in its place, is to be taken at the value of gold. Striplings fresh from reading the last new novel correct the notions of their fathers, who were men of weight and character. Doctrines which produced the godliest generation that ever lived on the face of the earth are scouted as sheer folly.


But where shall infallibility be found? "The depth saith, it is not in me"; yet those who have no depth at all would have us imagine that it is in them; or else by perpetual change they hope to hit upon it. Are we now to believe that infallibility is with learned men? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have, to-morrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word, or whether it is of dubious authority. It will be well for you to know whether it was written by the Isaiah, or whether it was by the second of the "two Obadiahs." All possibility of certainty is transferred from the spiritual man to a class of persons whose scholarship is pretentious, but who do not even pretend to spirituality. We shall gradually be so bedoubted and becriticized, that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible, and what is not, and they will dictate to all the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy: they will rob us of all that we hold most dear, and glory in the cruel deed. This same reign of terror we shall not endure, for we still believe that God revealeth himself rather to babes than to the wise and prudent, and we are fully assured that OUR OWN OLD ENGLISH VERSION OF THE SCRIPTURES is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and godliness. We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism. "These be thy gods, O Israel!"

"The Greatest Fight in the World"

By C. H. Spurgeon

ALTHOUGH one of the smallest of the Spurgeon volumes, this is among the most notable of his publications. It consists of the inaugural address which he delivered at the Pastor's College Conference in April 1891. Taking "the good fight of faith" as his theme, he exhorted his audience to do their very best "in our great Master's service."

"Published just before his death, this volume constitutes Spurgeon's final address to his fellow pastors. Without a doubt it is one of the most forceful addresses that he ever delivered."