Another King James Bible Believer



Fred Butler - Alleged EX- KJB believer's Loopy Logic 101. 

Fred Butler is allegedly a former KJB onlyist who has lost both his Bible and apparently his mind as well.

Fred regularly posts his blogs on the internet and is involved in several Bible discussion boards. He claims to be a former King James Bible only believer who has now “seen the light” and he no longer believes the KJB is the only true Bible.

Fred now finds himself in the position of being a double-minded man whose thinking and reasoning abilities have become so confused that he can’t even see the absurdity of his own blatant, self-contradictions.

Sometimes he says he believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, but he doesn’t bother telling us where this Scripture is found. Another time he writes: “Evangelical Christianity holds to inerrancy and believes the scriptures are totally free from errors ONLY in the original autographs.”

And then he actually says that ALL the bible versions out there are the inerrant word of God, even though they differ from each other in both texts and meanings in hundreds upon hundreds of places, and he still “corrects” the texts of these "inerrant bibles” in numerous places.

As we shall soon see, Fred has somehow managed to completely redefine the meanings of the words inerrant and infallible. In fact, they don’t mean “without error and 100% true” at all. He just likes to SAY he believes the Scriptures ARE inerrant so he won’t appear to be the unbelieving, self-contradictory, illogical Bible denier that he is.

Fred has his own home site where he tells us how he once was a KJV onlyist but went to seminary and got exposed to John MacArthur’s ministry, for whom he now works. MacArthur is another man who does not believe that any Bible in any language is the pure and preserved words of God. 

As for John MacArthur, he is just another "Pastor with No Infallible Bible"  - See

Over the years I have had several opportunities to talk to Fred Butler in various internet Bible clubs. Recently our conversations reached a point where I decided I would write an article about Fred’s self-contradictory Biblical position.

Here are some of our more recent posts: --- In [email protected]wrote:

“I reject the KJV as being the only inerrant Bible. I DO, however, BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS INERRANT AND INSPIRED.” (caps are his)

My response (Will Kinney): “Fred. This has got to be one of the silliest, illogical and most poorly thought out statements a normally intelligent person could make. Does this statement mean that the KJB is one of the inerrant Bibles, and that there are also other inerrant Bibles, even though these other inerrant bibles differ from the KJB in both text and meaning in numerous ways? If the KJB is "one of" the inerrant Bibles, then why do you constantly criticize it?

If however you meant to say that you do not believe the KJB is the true and inerrant word of God and yet you boldly confess that you believe "The Bible IS inerrant and inspired" (thus using a present tense verb 'is' as though it is something that actually exists now in our present day) then why is it that you have never told us exactly what this 'inerrant Bible' is called and where we too can get ourselves a copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we might be reading now?

It seems that when it comes to the Bible version issue, normally intelligent people make some of the dumbest statements.

Final Written Authority is not a head issue as much as a heart issue.

Quit feinting, dodging and posturing and Show us this Book you SAY you believe IS the inerrant Bible. “

Will Kinney

Fred Butler responds:

Fred - “Yes, the KJV is one of those inerrant and infallible Bibles, and no it does not differ with other translations in both text and meaning. KJV apologist want to postulate that the MV are like the Book of Mormon compared to the Bible, that they teach an alternative Christianity. Biblical, orthodox Christianity is revealed, affirmed, and proclaimed in the KJV, the ESV, and even the more liberal RSV. The so-called differences are exaggerated by KJV only proponents. Show me one orthodox doctrine of God, Christ, the sin of man, etc., that is only found in the KJV but missing from the MV.”

“I happen to like the KJV. I believe it was instrumental in the refining of the English language for its time. My criticisms, to be accurate, are aimed at the likes of you and other individuals who insist that God's Word is only found in the text of the KJV; that it is infallible in translation so it is in no need of any meaningful revision (the recent easter/passover discussions being an example of what I meanby "meaningful revision"), and who shipwreck the faith of Christians by saying the ESV or what ever other modern translation they happen to benefit from reading and God is using in their lives, are corrupted by heretics. Those are the issues I criticize, not the KJV itself.”

“Geesh Will, I have told you a gazillion times where you can find an inerrant Bible. In the NKJV, the ESV, the Papua version in Papua New Guinea. Your error is to set up the KJV as the authority from which to compare rather than the preserved word of God found in the Hebrew and Greek textual apparatuses.” [End of Fred's comment]

Answering Fred’s Response.

Notice Fred’s amazing statements here. He says: “Yes, the KJV is one of those inerrant and infallible Bibles, and no it does not differ with other translations in both text and meaning.”

So, according to Fred’s new way of thinking, the King James Bible is ONE OF those inerrant Bibles, and he now affirms the NKJV, ESV (and by extension the NASB, RSV, NIV, Holman) Papua version, and probably the Daffy Duck version too are all different varieties of the many “inerrant and infallible Bibles”. Wow. Talk about a turn around from his former KJB only position!

Then Fred tells us another huge whopper by saying: “No, it does not differ with other translations in both text and meaning.”

Has Fred lost his mind as well as his Bible? It is easily documented and quite clear to most children over the age of 5 years old that by simply comparing the various, multiple choice Bible of the Month Club ver$ion$ on the market today that they do differ in both texts and meanings, and this significantly, in hundreds upon hundreds of places.

Here are just a few examples to look at:

If you mistakenly think that all bibles are basically the same, I recommend you take a look at this site. It is in two parts, but very easy to read. It shows what is missing in most modern New Testaments.

Some of my own comparative studies to consider:

Bible Babel Buffet Part One -

The Pslams -

No Doctrines are Changed? -

Fred contradicts himself by his own articles.

Fred shows how he has completely redefined the words ‘inerrant and infallible’ by the very articles he writes. Here are a couple of examples of Fred’s new found thinking in action.

1 Samuel 13:5 - 30,000 chariots

Fred: “The second problem in 1 Samuel 13:5 is more significant.  The verse reads in the NKJV, "Then the Philistines gathered together to fight with Israel, 30,000 chariots and 6,000 horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the seashore in multitude."  

The problem is with the extreme number of chariots deployed by the Philistines. Thirty thousand IS WAY TOO MANY CHARIOTS. (Caps are mine)  There would not be enough men to drive them, not to mention that historically no ancient, near-eastern army had such a massive number of chariots.  Second Chronicles 14:9 records that Zeriah the Ehtiopian maintained an army of a million men, the largest army of men at one time mentioned in scripture, but only had 300 chariots.... I believe this is what we have here in 1 Samuel 13:5.  The 30,000 are not the physical chariots, but THE NUMBER OF FIGHTING MEN who would ride in them, or fight along side it.”

Fred has every right to think what he wants in his efforts to correct the Bible, but you should be aware of a few facts. First of all, there is NO Bible I am aware of that reads “30,000 FIGHTING MEN”, as Fred suggests it should read.

The NET, NIV and Holman Standard have changed the text to read “3000 chariots”, and then the NIV tells us this number comes from “SOME LXX manuscripts and the Syriac” but the Hebrew reads 30,000”. The Holman Standard says the number 3000 comes from ONE LXX copy and the Syriac, but the Hebrew text reads 30,000. My copy of the LXX reads 30,000 chariots, just like the Hebrew texts.

Thirty thousand chariots is also the reading of Jerome's Latin translation of 382, the Latin Vulgate of 425 A.D., Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale, Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva bible 1599, the RV of 1881, the 1901 ASV, the 1995 NASB, the 1982 NKJV, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, Youngs, the World English Bible, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, the Complete Jewish Bible, the New English Bible 1970, the RSV, NRSV 1989, the 2001 ESV, the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996, Luther's German Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 and 1995,the Italian Diodati 1649 and the Italian Riveduta 1927, and the Portuguese Almeida.

Fred also thinks the number of chariots is way too large, but he fails to mention the fact recorded by ALL bible versions in 1 Chronicles 19:7 where the Amonites hired an army of “32,000 chariots”, and not even his NIV changes this number there.

Though many "bible commentators" call into question the accuracy of this number, yet there are some who do not try to change the preserved Hebrew text, such as Matthew Henry and John Wesley.

Matthew Henry comments: “Never did the Philistines appear in such a formidable body as they did now, upon this provocation which Saul gave them. We may suppose they had great assistance from their allies,(1 Samuel 13:5 “and people as the sand which is on the sea shore in multitude”) besides 6000 horses, which in those times, when horses were not so much used in war as they are now, was a great body, they had an incredible number of chariots, 30,000 in all: most of them, we may suppose, were carriages for the bag and baggage of so vast an army, not chariots of war.”

John Wesley likewise comments: “Thirty thousand chariots - Most of them, we may suppose, carriages for their baggage, not chariots of war, though all their allies were joined with them.”

Luke 3:36

Fred has also written an article dealing with the name CAINAN found in the genealogy of Christ. Fred asks: “Did God determine to preserve His Word to mankind in only one Bible translation? Has He moved with divine providence in such a way so as to prevent any copyist’s error from slipping into the original language text from which the KJV is translated and kept the final published KJV free from any translational spoilage?  I DO NOT BELIEVE SO, and I believe it can be proven with a number of examples.  I will limit this study to just one: The name of Cainan found in Luke 3:36.”

Fred then goes on to say: “First, no serious scholar researching variants in Luke's gospel believes this one little name should belong in the text. There is solid, historic precedent for its exclusion. Despite the vid marking, anyone familiar with the papyrus and manuscripts in question omitting the name believe is wasn't there to begin with. “

Did you happen to notice the language Fred uses to describe others who likewise do not believe God has preserved His words in any bible in any language? He says: “no serious scholar researching variants in Luke's gospel believes this one little name should belong in the text”. This is an amazing statement indeed.

The name Cainan is found in Luke’s gospel, not only in the King James Bible, but also in the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Geneva Bible, Revised Version, American Standard Version, the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV ESV, ISV, Holman Standard, and every English Bible version I have ever seen. It is also in the Spanish Reina Valera, the Italian Diodati, and Luther's German Bible. I know of no Bible version in any language that omits this name from the genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter three.

By the way, I have also written an article defending the reading of Cainan as found not only in the KJB but in all other Bibles as well. It can be seen here: 

So, the big questions to ask Fred are these: If “no serious scholar believes this name should be in Luke’s text” then WHO are these serious scholars? WHERE have they been all this time? and WHY didn’t they help put together your modern versions in such a way as to exclude this name from the genealogy found in them ALL ?

Fred, are you saying that not one of your “serious scholars” was behind all these Bible versions both ancient and modern? Are you telling us that all the Bibles out there are put together by incompetents, jokesters and buffoons?

Fred, if everybody has missed it so far, why don’t you gather together all those “serious scholars” you refer to and finally write your own inerrant Bible version for us poor folks who don’t have one?

Oh wait... I forgot. The KJB, NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV and the Daffy Duck version are “all inerrant and infallible Bibles”, aren’t they. They just happen to differ from each other by omitting 45 whole verses in some New Testaments (RSV) 17 in others (NIV), plus changing the Hebrew texts in scores of places (NASB, NIV, ESV) and the meanings in hundreds more (NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV), but they are all inerrant and infallible except in those places where Fred and his “serious scholars” would like to change the texts in ALL Bibles, but they haven’t gotten around to doing it just yet.

Fred, you have forsaken the belief in a complete, preserved, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible in any meaningful and logical way, and have instead gone Fruitloops on us. In your present position we see demonstrated the truth of the saying: “If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind.”

The supreme irony is that Fred Butler, along with his heroes James White and Dan Wallace, have all abandoned a real belief in an actual in print, in hand and in stock Infallible Bible; they have all forsaken the Reformation Bible texts and have now embraced the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. versions that nobody seriously believes are the inerrant words of God. See "Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are  the new "Vatican Versions"  here - 

Give me that old, God honored Book that has stood the test of time - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

“EVERY WORD of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:5-6

Will Kinney

Return to Articles -