Another King James Bible Believer

The Seven Lies Modern Scholarship Tells  Us 

 

Lie Number One - We now have older and better manuscripts

Lie Number One - We now have older and better manuscripts.

 

Lie Number Two - Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Are The Best Manuscripts 

 

Lie Number Three - We Are Getting Closer To The Original Autographs

 

Lie Number Four - Erasmus Was A Catholic, so the King James Bible is also a Catholic Bible.

 

Lie Number Five - We Now Have More Knowledge About The Bible

 

Lie Number Six - Professional Liars Who SAY "I believe the Bible IS the infallible words of God."

 

Lie Number Seven - No Doctrines Are Changed

 

 

 

James White's tells us in his book, The King James Only Controversy, on pages 152-153  "Every one of the papyrus manuscripts we have discovered has been a representative of the Alexandrian, not the Byzantine text type" and "The early Fathers who wrote at this time did not use the Byzantine text-type" and "the early translations of the New Testament reveals that they were done on the basis of the Alexandrian type manuscripts, not the Byzantine text-type" and "the early church fathers who wrote during the early centuries give no evidence in their citations of a familiarity with the Byzantine text-type". 

 

These are such huge whoppers I could not believe he actually wrote this totally false information in his book.

 

There is tons of evidence that even the early papyrus manuscripts, all of which came from Alexandria Egypt, were a mixed bag and there are many Byzantine readings found in them where they agree with the KJB readings and not the Westcott-Hort Alexandrian copies of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

 

Furthermore, concerning the church Fathers, John Burgon compiled over 86,000 citations and quotes of the church Fathers and found that not only did the Textus Receptus readings exist, but they predominated.

 

The early versions like the Old Latin and Syriac Peshitta contain numerous textual readings and entire verses from the Traditional Text of the Reformation bibles that are not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and thus, are omitted in many modern versions.

 

Even Dr. Hort, of the famed Westcott Hort critical Greek text, said: "The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92---as cited by Burgon, Revision Revised, pg 257).

 

You can see Hort's own quote here -

http://books.google.com/books?id=gZ4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA92#v=onepage&q&f=false 

  

Dean Burgon, in his book The Revision Revised, immediately comments: "We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament, ---the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, in short - is, according to Dr. Hort, "BEYOND ALL QUESTION the TEXT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTH CENTURY."

 

In other words, at the very time Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were penned, the Byzantine texts were already the predominate texts of the Christian church!

 

The Case for Byzantine Priority - Maurice Robinson

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zdm2h6Fs7b4C&pg=PA533

"Yet even though the numerical base of the Byzantine Textform rests primarily among the late minuscules and uncials of the ninth century and later, the antiquity of that text reaches at least as far back as its predecessor exemplars of the late fourth and early fifth century, as reflected in MSS A/02 and W/032... the Byzantine Text form is the form of text which is known to have predominated among the Greek-speaking world from at least the fourth century until the invention of printing in the sixteenth century." 

 

 

Somebody is Lying

 

Contrast the quotes from James White with the quotes found in the 1982 edition of the NKJV. Keep in mind that these NKJV textual scholars are NOT King James Bible onlyists, but they have been to the same seminaries and had access to the same information James White and Dan Wallace have. Yet their conclusions are THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what these modern Vatican Version promoters tell us.

 

In the preface of the NKJV, which was translated by some of the same men who worked on the NIV, it says on page vii "The manuscript preferences cited in many contemporary translations are due to recent reliance on a relatively few manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts, especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, is due to the greater age of these documents."

 

"However, in spite of their age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the autographs, since they often disagree with one another and show other signs of unreliability."

 

"On the other hand, the great majority of existing manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none are earlier than the fifth century, MOST OF THEIR READINGS ARE VERIFIED BY ANCIENT PAPYRI, ANCIENT VERSIONS, AND QUOTATIONS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. This large body of manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. It is the Greek text used by Greek-speaking churches for many centuries, presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, of the New Testament."

 

Then on page 1231 the NKJV editors say: "The Byzantine Text. This text was largely preserved in the area of the old Byzantine Empire, the area which is now Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Yugoslavia. OVER EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT of the extant manuscripts belong to the Byzantine text type. Also, from the oldest to the most recent manuscripts of this type, there is greater homogeneity than among the manuscripts of any other text type. The King James Version is based largely on a Byzantine type Greek text."

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume29/GOT029003.html

Manuscript Comparison Chart

PAPYRUS	(ALEPH) SINAITICUS	(B) VATICANUS	TEXTUS RECEPTUS
p 45 agrees with	19 times	24 times	32 times
p 66 agrees with	14 times	29 times	33 times
p 75 agrees with	9 times	33 times	29 times
p 45, 66, 75 agrees with	4 times	18 times	20 times
p 45, 66 agrees with	7 times	3 times	8 times

(The above chart data, taken from A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospel & Acts; part two 1949-1969, by A.F.K. Klijn.)

Papyrus (p45) contains excerpts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts. It is presently in the Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin, Ireland.

Papyrus (p66) contains excerpts from the Gospel of John. It is presently located at Cologne/Geneve, in the Bibliotheque Bodmer.

Papyrus (p75) contains excerpts of Luke and John. It is presently located at Cologne/Geneve, in the Bibliotheque Bodmer.

Note, please, that these lately discovered manuscript fragments, agree more frequently with the Textus Receptus, than they do with Westcott and Hort's favored Aleph and B. p45 is thought to date from the 3rd century. p66 is dated circa 200 A.D. And, p75 is dated from the beginning of the 3rd century.

 

 

Lie Number Two - Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Are The Best Manuscripts

 

Most modern version promoters who keep repeating this Mantra have no idea what these two so called "Oldest and Best Manuscripts", upon which today's modern versions are based, are actually like.  I have done a fairly extensive comparative study of these two manuscripts proving that they not only differ from the vast Majority of remaining Greek texts, but also from each other. There are many concrete examples you can see here, but this is just a sampling of what you will find.

 

The character of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts - the so called "Oldest and Best Manuscripts" 

 

Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substituted, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. IT IS IN FACT EASIER TO FIND TWO CONSECUTIVE VERSES IN WHICH THESE TWO MSS. DIFFER THE ONE FROM THE OTHER, THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE VERSES IN WHICH THEY ENTIRELY AGREE."

 

 

SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32 - "And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side."; 17:35 - "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."; John 9:38 - "And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him."(omitted in Sinaiticus original and P75, but found in Vaticanus and P66);  16:15 - "All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."; 21:25 - "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."; and I Corinthians 2:15- "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." and 13:1b -2 - "I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not - (charity, I am nothing)."

VATICANUS (B) omits Matthew 12:47 - "Then one said unto him, Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." and Luke 23:17 while Sinaiticus retains them. Luke 23:17, "For of necessity he must release one onto them at the feast", is omitted in B, the NASB, and NIV, yet it is in Sinaiticus and the majority of all Greek texts. Yet B omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaiticus and this time kept in the NASB, ESV and NIV. But James White does not believe it is inspired Scripture and says he would not preach on it. Go figure. Vaticanus also omits the entire verse of 1 Peter 5:3 but it is found in Sinaiticus and the Majority of all manuscripts and Bible translations - "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."

Here are a few more examples taken from what James White and other bible agnostics refer to as an "embarrassment of riches" found in the Sinaitic and Vaticanus "oldest and best"

 

Luke 10:1,17 KJB - "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face." V.17 "And the SEVENTY returned again with joy."  Majority, Sinaiticus, A, C all say 70 and so do Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, Darby, Young's,  RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, Holman and ISV.

 

But Vaticanus says 72 and so do the NIV, ESV, NET and all Catholic Versions.  (See more on this verse at Bible Babble Part Three -   http://brandplucked.webs.com/biblebabel3.htm)

 

John 17:15- "I pray not that thou shouldest take them OUT OF THE WORLD". Vaticanus says: "I do not pray that you should take them FROM THE EVIL ONE."

Acts 27:37 - "216 souls" or "about 76"?

Vaticanus alone has a silly reading in this verse. The Holy Ghost is relating the shipwreck that occured when Paul was on his way to Rome. The Scripture says: "And we were in all the ship two hundred and sixteen souls."

So read the majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus and C.  Alexandrinus uniquely reads "275" instead of "276", but Vaticanus alone reads "we were in all the ship ABOUT 76 souls". Now, you can have about 200 or about 300, but it is more than a little silly to say ABOUT 76. The number 76 is an exact number, not a round number.

Westcott and Hort initially followed the erroneous reading of Vaticanus and placed "about 76 souls" in their critical Greek text, but later revisers decided to reject this unique reading, and changed their texts to read 276 souls.

The only version I am aware of that actually followed this bogus reading found in the Vaticanus manuscript is Rotherham's Emphasized bible of 1902. It reads: "Now we were, in the ship, in all, ABOUT SEVENTY-SIX souls."

I Corinthians 13:3 - Instead of reading, "and though I give my body to BE BURNED, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing", both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read: "and though I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST". The NRSV actually adopted this reading, but the RSV, and the new ESV went back to "to be burned".

I Corinthians 13:5- ". . .charity seeketh not HER OWN". Vaticanus alone reads "love does not seek that which IS NOT HERS" - the opposite meaning.

I Corinthians 15:51- "We shall NOT all sleep, but we shall all be changed" in Sinaticus reads: "we shall sleep but we shall NOT ALL be changed" - the exact opposite.

1 Corinthians 15:54-55- "Death is swallowed up in VICTORY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your VICTORY." In Vaticanus this verse reads, "Death is swallowed up in CONTROVERSY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your CONTROVERSY."

 

 The Book of Revelation. The Vaticanus manuscript is missing ALL of the book of Revelation as well as 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and from Hebrews 9:14 to the end of the book. However Sinaiticus give us some really strange readings in the book of Revelation.

 

Revelation 4:8 - "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." But Sinaiticus says: " Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty..."

 

Revelation 7:4 and 14:3- Both verses mention the number of 144,000. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.

Revelation 10:1 - "And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and A RAINBOW was upon his head..." Sinaiticus says: "clothed with a cloud with HAIR on his head."

Revelation 21:4- "For THE FORMER THINGS are passed away". Sinaiticus reads: "For THE SHEEP are passed away."

Revelation 21:5- "Behold, I make all things NEW", while Sinaiticus says: "Behold, I make all things EMPTY."

 

Lie Number Three - We Are Getting Closer To The Original Autographs

 

 

Some critical text scholars are a little more honest about this than others.  

 

Forever Settled - A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible.

 

http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv3.htm

 

The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, PURPOSELY INTRODUCED THAN IN ANY OTHER BOOK."

 

As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "MORE THAN EVER, AND PERHAPS FINALLY, UNSETTLED." (Caps are mine)

 

Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, IF THERE EVER WAS ONE THAT DESERVES TO BE SO CALLED, IS FOR EVER IRRECOVERABLE." (Caps are mine)

 

Later (1941) Kirsopp Lake, after a life time spent in the study of the New Testament text, delivered the following, judgment: "In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, WE DO NOT KNOW the original form of the Gospels, AND IT IS QUITE LIKELY THAT WE NEVER SHALL."

 

H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, according to its nature, MUST BE AND REMAINS A HYPOTHESIS."

 

Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL IS WELL-NIGH IMPOSSIBLE."  Grant also says:  "It is generally recognized that THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE BIBLE CANNOT BE RECOVERED."  

 

 

Lie Number Four - Erasmus Was A Catholic, so the King James Bible is also a Catholic Bible.

 

It is a proven fact that modern versions that are based on the UBS/Nestle-Aland ever changing Critical Greek text like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. are the new "Vatican Versions".  See "Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET are the new "Vatican Versions"

 

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

 

Here you can see the documentation of this fact from right out of their own Nestle-Aland critical Greek textbook, the UBS homepage and the Vatican's own website.  Then go on to Part Two where you can see the literally thousands of words that have been omitted from the Reformation Bibles in all languages (including the older Catholic bible versions as well) and are omitted in these new "Vatican Versions" and the MODERN Catholic bibles too.  They are ALL based on the same Vatican supervised "inter confessional" texts.

 

 Here is just a sample of what you will see -

 

 

 If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us:

"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STIP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts". 

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

This from their own site - 

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

Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible

"Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the PCPCU (Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture (Dei Verbum, n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. TOGETHER WITH THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT PUBLISHED THE GUIDELINES FOR INTERCONFESSIONAL COOPERATION IN TRANSLATING THE BIBLE." (1968; new revised edition 1987).  

The Erasmus Was A Catholic Argument

So once the modern version user sees all this documentation, they usually come back with "Well, Erasmus was a Catholic and that makes the King James Bible a Vatican Version too."  What these people deliberately choose to ignore is the fact that Erasmus himself criticized many of the Romish doctrines. He tried to reform the Catholic church from within, whereas Luther tried from without. The King James Bible translators did not even primarily use the Greek text of Erasmus at all, but rather those of Beza and of Stephanus. And, more importantly, NO Catholic bible version has EVER used the Greek text of Erasmus for their translations. 

In fact, the Council of Trent (1545-1564) branded Erasmus a heretic and prohibited his works. In 1559, Pope Paul IV placed Erasmus on the first class of forbidden authors, which was composed of authors whose works were completely condemned.  

 

But guess who one of the chief editors of the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical Greek text was. It tells you who on the opening page of the Nestle-Aland Critical Greek textbook; it was the Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini.

 

Lie Number Five - We Now Have More Knowledge About The Bible

 

The truth of the matter is that with the widespread use and acceptance of these modern versions the level of Biblical Illiteracy has reached scandalous and epidemic proportions.  Read more about this here -

 

http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/01/20/the-scandal-of-biblical-illiteracy-its-our-problem-4/

 

A recent Gallup poll reveals "Americans revere the Bible--but, by and large, they don't read it. And because they don't read it, they have become a nation of biblical illiterates." How bad is it? Researchers tell us that it's worse than most could imagine. Fewer than half of all adults can name the four gospels. Many Christians cannot identify more than two or three of the disciples. According to data from the Barna Research Group, 60 percent of Americans can't name even five of the Ten Commandments. "No wonder people break the Ten Commandments all the time. They don't know what they are," said George Barna, president of the firm. The bottom line? "Increasingly, America is biblically illiterate." 

 

Multiple surveys reveal the problem in stark terms. According to 82 percent of Americans, "God helps those who help themselves," is a Bible verse. Those identified as born-again Christians did better--by one percent....Some of the statistics are enough to perplex even those aware of the problem. A Barna poll indicated that at least 12 percent of adults believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. Another survey of graduating high school seniors revealed that over 50 percent thought that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife. A considerable number of respondents to one poll indicated that the Sermon on the Mount was preached by Billy Graham. We are in big trouble.The larger scandal is biblical ignorance among Christians. Choose whichever statistic or survey you like, the general pattern is the same. America's Christians know less and less about the Bible. It shows." (End of article portions)

From the book Already Gone, by Ken Ham

https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/church/sunday-school-syndrome/

Did you often attend Sunday school?

• yes. 61%
• no. 39%

In our survey of 1,000 20-somethings who regularly attended church as children and teens, we asked the question, "Did you often attend Sunday school?" In reply, 61 percent said yes; 39 percent said no. That's about what you would expect, isn't it? After all, not everyone is committed enough to make the effort to get to Sunday school, right? Only those who are more concerned about the spiritual and moral health of their kids, right? Because we all assume that Sunday school is good for them, correct? The ritual of Sunday school is so interwoven into American church life that it's hardly worth mentioning, right? Wrong. Our research uncovered something very disturbing:

Sunday school is actually more likely to be detrimental to the spiritual and moral health of our children.

 

Now before you react to this, please hear us out and consider the real research that is statistically valid and gives us a true look at what is going on.

Compared to the 39 percent who do not go to Sunday school, contrary to what many of you may believe, the research showed that students who regularly attend Sunday school are actually:

• more likely NOT to believe that all the accounts/stories in the Bible are true/accurate.
• more likely to doubt the Bible because it was written by men.
• more likely to doubt the Bible because it was not translated correctly.

The Lord Jesus Christ tells us in Matthew 7:17-20 that a good tree brings forth good fruit and a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit, and that "by their fruits ye shall know them."

The King James Bible has consistently brought forth good fruit for over 400 years now, while the imposter versions come and go almost as fast as the seasons change. The KJB has been used of God to convert multitudes of lost sinners into Bible believing children of God. It was used to begin the world wide missionary outreach, and is the only Bible still believed by multiplied thousands of blood bought saints of God to be the complete, inspired and inerrant words of the living God.

By contrast, the influx of the modern Bible Babble Buffet versions has produced more confusion, Biblical ignorance and unbelief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures than at any time in history.  

Lie Number Six - Professional Liars Who SAY "I believe the Bible IS the infallible words of God."

There are an number of well known men today who promote these new Vatican Versions who still like to put on a pious pretense of being Bible believers. Men like James White, Dan Wallace, Doug Kutilek, James Price, John MacArthur, Hal Lindsey and others who will stand in the pulpit or affirm in their writings "I believe the Bible is the infallible words of God."  

And yet if you ask these same men where we can get a copy of this infallible Bible they profess to believe in, they will NEVER tell you.  Why? Simply because the do NOT believe that any Bible in any language you can actually hold in your hands, read and believe is the very inspired and inerrant words of God actually exists.  

The polls themselves tell us in no uncertain terms that the majority of professing Christians today do NOT believe in the inerrancy of the Bible - ANY Bible.  

For more documentation on this see - "The Bible is NOT the inspired and inerrant words of God." 

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

Why do so few Christians today believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God?

Why are the Youth and Young Adults Really Leaving the Church?

There is a newly released book from Answers in Genesis entitled "Already Gone". It gives information about why youth and young adults leave the church. Contained therein are the results of a survey of 1000 young adults who have left the church and why. The results are startling. Satan is attacking these areas because he knows these are the foundation for the continued growth of the Church. He is doing that in several ways but mostly by subtly watering down the Word of God, the Bible, thus giving the impression there is no absolute authority.

 

Some of the books results are:

 

Out of 1000 young adults surveyed as to why they have left the church, 68% doubt the Bible and God's Word.

 

Their responses were they do not believe: 

 

-in the Infallibility of Scripture (Ps 19:7) (Bible contains contradictions and errors) 

 

-the Inspiration of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16) (Bible written by regular men) 

 

-or the Preservation of Scripture (Ps 12:6-7) (words and verses missing and contradictory footnotes)

 

They believe the Bible was written by regular men and is full of errors and contradictions. They believe there is NO Absolute Truth!

 

18% give reasons of Science and Evolution as why they left the church.

 

The main reasont the 18% is singled out is that the book and Answers in Genesis teach that Evolution is the main reason the youth are leaving the churches. Evoution is a big part but from the results in the book it is clear that the majority of the 68% doubt the Bible and its Preservation, Inspiration, Inerrancy and Infallibility.

 

What AiG will not admit to is that the biggest and most subtle attack is directly on God's Words. More precisely that every year we hear, "we need another Bible that the youth and young adults can understand" and the footnotes do more damage and cause more doubt than we give them credit for.

 

The Bible is being attacked from within and without; from without by the secular world, with the most damaging attack from within by the pastors in the pulpit and the professors in our supposed Christian Seminaries and Colleges.

 

This is part of the article  in the Book by AIG. Pretty amazing.

 

https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/church/sunday-school-syndrome/

 

Sunday school is actually more likely to be detrimental to the spiritual and moral health of our children.

 

Now before you react to this, please hear us out and consider the real research that is statistically valid and gives us a true look at what is going on.

 

Compared to the 39 percent who do not go to Sunday school, contrary to what many of you may believe, the research showed that students who regularly attend Sunday school are actually:

 

more likely NOT to believe that all the accounts/stories in the Bible are true/accurate.

 

more likely to doubt the Bible because it was written by men.

 

more likely to doubt the Bible because it was not translated correctly.

 

Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.

Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, "The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy."

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

 

 

Recent Gallup Poll On American's View of Bible Reveals Utter Chaos Regarding Nature and Authority of Scripture

http://www.christianpost.com/news/recent-gallup-poll-on-americans-view-of-bible-reveals-utter-chaos-regarding-nature-and-authority-of-scripture-121204/

The Christian Post recently published the findings of a Gallup poll designed to gauge Americans' opinion on the Bible. The findings reveal the utter chaos in our culture regarding the nature and authority of Scripture.

Gallup's poll found that only 28 percent of Americans believe that the Bible is the Word of God and should be taken literally. And yet nearly 50 percent believe that the Bible is the "inspired Word of God" while insisting that not all of its content be taken literally, but rather as "metaphors and allegories that allow for interpretation."

"Allowing for interpretation" seems to be key for our postmodern, pluralistic society, as 58 percent - representing the majority of self-identifying Christians in America - accept that the Bible is the "actual Word of God" but insist, "multiple interpretations are possible."

Clearly, the prevailing belief in our culture is that while the Bible may be the inspired Word of God, IT DOESN'T MEAN WHAT IT SAYS. IT'S ONLY AUTHORITATIVE AS LONG AS THE READER IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS. Debates on Scripture ultimately all come back to the issue of authority, and THE MAJORITY OF PROFESSING CHRISTIANS IN AMERICA HAVE REJECTED THE OBJECTIVE AUTHORITY OF THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD AND HAVE REPLACED IT WITH THE AUTHORITY OF SELF."

At a basic level, self-elevation to ultimate authority falls into the category of circular reasoning, and is a clear failure in logic. However, more importantly, this error reveals a fundamental failure in theological education.

Such mass confusion is only possible as deviance is aided and abetted by Christian pastors who refuse to defend the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of the Word of God. The inerrancy of Scripture is sacrificed in pursuit of so-called academic respectability. The authority of God's Word is explained away to make allowance for homosexuality, fornication and other sins of personal convenience. The result is this situation reflected by this Gallup poll.

Note. To have John MacArthur try to defend the inerrancy of the Bible is like having Hugh Hefner extol the virtues of celibacy.

This quote from that article is right on. "the majority of professing Christians in America have rejected the objective authority of the inerrant Word of God and have replaced it with the authority of self."

And John MacArthur is the Poster Boy for this very thing. He is going to tell people what parts are right and which are not, and which parts he's not sure about and you can't be sure about them either - yet somehow in the midst of 200 bible versions which differ from each other by literally 3000 to 5000 thousands of words of actual text in the N.T. alone, scores of different readings in the O.T., hundreds of words added in some Old Testaments  but not in others, and hundreds of verses that have totally different meanings from one another, we somehow have an "inerrant" Bible. 

Of course John Mac still won't be able to tell people where to get a copy of this inerrant words of God he professes to believe in, but, Hey, it all sounds so nice and religious and you only have to pay him 400 dollars to have him lie to you.  What a deal!

John Mac Arthur does NOT believe that any Bible in any language is or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God.  See how he contradicts himself in his own words.

John MacArthur - Confused and Self-Contradictory Pastor with No Infallible Bible

 

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

 

 

Regarding the REAL beliefs of some of these men like James White, John MacArthur, Hal Lindsey and Dan Wallace, see these studies taken from their own words and videos regarding the Bible version issue.

 

James White - The Protestant Pope of the new Vatican Versions 

 

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

 

Hal Lindsey - Answers Which Bible do you use and Why

 

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

 

Dan Wallace is a Nut!

 

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

 

And finally "Stop Lying About It!"  What the Bible Babble Buffet Versionists Really Believe about "The Bible"

 

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

 

Lie Number Seven - No Doctrines Are Changed 

Fake Bibles Do Teach False Doctrines

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

Fake Bible Versions DO teach false doctrines - Links to over 40 examples

 

 

 

By the sovereign grace and mercy of Almighty God and our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, I and many thousands of other Christians DO believe God has acted in history to give us a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible and we don't have to lie about what we really believe when we affirm this.  AND we can tell anybody who wants to know where to get a copy of it for themselves. It is called the King James Holy Bible.  Accept no substitutes.  

 

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

 

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

 

"Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts."  Jeremiah 15:16  

 

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

 

Notes from the Internet

 

Modern Version Biblical Illiteracy

 

This is just a portion of a recent article by a concerned Christian and the man is not even King James only.

 

http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/default.asp?blogid=6433&url=10&view=post&articleid=78057&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

The young people in churches who say that only the original manuscripts of the Bible were inerrant are for the most part Biblically illiterate. A survey commissioned for Christianity Today magazine found that 80% of Evangelical young people could not place Moses, Adam, David, Solomon, and Abraham in chronological order. 85% could not place the major events of Jesus' earthly life in the actual order in which they happened. Only 20% knew to look in the book of Acts for the account of Paul's missionary journeys. Only 60% of these young people in what claim to be Bible-believing churches could locate the Ten Commandments in Exodus chapter 20. Only 33% knew where to find the Sermon on the Mount.² Although the survey cited in this particular article did not mention it, one wonders if these young people knew how to find any passage where the Bible says how they are to be saved from sin.

What about the adults? Among the people who call themselves Bible-believing Christians in America today, less than one adult in six reads the Bible at least once a week outside of a church service. 35% of the adults in Bible-believing churches never read the Bible at all.³ Yet the latest fad religious books sell by the millions and enjoy avid readership.

Consider these statistics on Evangelicals' beliefs about essential doctrines: 37% of adults in Evangelical churches do not believe the Bible is totally accurate. 45% do not believe Jesus Christ was sinless. 52% do not believe Satan is real. 57% do not believe that Jesus is the only way to eternal life. 57% believe that good works play a part in gaining eternal life. A similar number of Evangelical adults believe that other religions are valid ways to God.⁴

1. Gary M. Burge, "The Greatest Story Never Read," Christianity Today, August 9, 1999.
2. Based on surveys by Barna Research, www.barna.org; Bible Literacy Center, centerforbibleengagement.com.
3. These statistics are from Barna Research, www.barna.org, especially the Barna Research report, Religious Beliefs Vary Widely By Denomination, 2001.
4. Source: Barna Research, http://www.barna.org/