-
Skip These Ads
-
Skip These Ads|
|
 |
Click here and add this page to your favorites!
This debate is between Will Kinney and Dr. Jason Gastrich. The resolution of the debate is: "The KJV is inerrant." Will Kinney took the affirmative position and Dr. Gastrich took the negative one. However, Dr. Gastrich does affirm that the original autographs were inerrant and that we can even construct an inerrant English Bible from the variety of inerrant manuscripts that we have, today.
This debate took place on the Baptist Board. However, they accidentally deleted it. After the posts were recovered, JCSM decided to host the debate on our server, so we could make sure it did not disappear, again.
This is a 7 round debate. The limit on posting is 5,000 words. Will goes first.
By Will Kinney
Round 1
Is the King James Bible the only inspired, inerrant word of God?
A formal debate between Jason Gastrich and Will Kinney.
Greetings to all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, who loved us and gave
Himself for us. I want to thank Jason and the other members of Baptist Board
for allowing this debate about the Bible versions to take place.
May God be pleased to open our understanding and allow us to see the wondrous
things found in His Book.
Jason's site:
http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/BBV.htm
Quote from Jason's site:
"God's Word is inerrant in it's original form. This means that the copies of
manuscripts and the English translations cannot be as accurate or perfect as
the original texts."
Jason, it seems you have a lot of fans at this particular Baptist Board who
are rooting for you to demolish any arguments I might present showing the King
James Bible is the inerrant and complete words of God. I wonder if they are
aware that you personally seem to be in opposition to their own preferred
modern versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, and Holman Christian Standard.
Your site criticizes such versions as the NIV, NASB, RSV, Message, etc. for
omitting many whole verses including 1 John 5:7 (the Three heavenly witnesses
Who are One), Acts 8:37, Matthew 18:11 etc.; changing Lucifer to Morning Star,
changing Son to Servant, and "God was manifest in the flesh" to "He appeared
in a body".
You conclude your study about the modern versions with these statements: "The
real reason for the flood of new versions is money...So much for an unchanging
final authority.
Prov 30:5-6 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put
their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and
thou be found a liar. (KJV)
Rev 22:18-19 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the
prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add
unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall
take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his
part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things
which are written in this book. (KJV)
Perhaps some of the publishers and translators of modern versions have no fear
of God. One day, they are going to find out that He meant what He said in the
above verses."
Jason, there is a good chance that maybe nine-tenths of your fan club here
will take offence at your textual position which severely criticizes their own
favorite versions for omitting thousands of God's words, changing sound
doctrine, and perverting the truth of God; but then again, they may lay aside
their "minor differences" and unite in spirit with anyone who would at least
attempt to pick holes in the King James Bible and prove that no Bible on this
earth is perfect and without error.
You close your article with this statement: "God's Word is inerrant in it's
original form. This means that the copies of manuscripts and the English
translations cannot be as accurate or perfect as the original texts.
You also came on Tom Lamb's Without the Camp Christian board
(http://p209.ezboard.com/fwithoutthecamp19095frm9.showMessageRange?topicID=60.topic&start=1&stop=20)
and stated " I conclude that the Bible is a book without error."
When you say the Bible IS A BOOK without error, what exactly are you referring
to? A book is a long printed work on sheets of paper bound together within
covers. Do you have such a Book that you can actually hold in your hands,
read, memorize, and believe every word that is written therein? It is my
contention that you do not have such a book at all.
I then asked you about a couple of alleged errors found in all Hebrew
manuscripts and in the King James Bible. #1 How would you explain the age
difference of Ahaziah in 2 Chron. 22:2 (42 years old) vs. 2 Kings 8:26 (22
years old)
And #2 the age difference of Jehoiachin in 2 Chron.36:9 (8 years old) versus 2
Kings 24:8 (18 years old).
To which you replied: "The translations that indicate he was 42 are incorrect.
Only the original manuscripts and modern translations that indicate he was 22
are correct. Therefore, we can either call this a copyist error or an error in
some of the modern translations (and even some of the ancient ones).
Fortunately, some translations and manuscripts have gotten this number
correct."
Jason, instead of labeling everything you do not understand as a "scribal
error", I suggest that God made no mistakes and He has preserved His perfect
words in the Hebrew texts and in the King James Bible. I believe God has laid
several stumbling blocks in His inerrant words to test our faith and sift out
those who would tamper with His words. There are reasonable explanations for
both these apparent contradictions and many others that appear in the true
Scriptures. But rather than being willing to believe the Book and ask God for
understanding, it seems the multiple-choice modern versionists prefer to
relegate everthing they don't understand to "scribal errors" and correct the
Bible according to their own understanding - and none of them agrees with the
others - and thus we have today's Bible Babel.
Jason, you refer to "the original manuscripts that indicate he was 22 are
correct". Are you aware that there are no "original manuscripts", and there
are no Hebrew copies that say 22? Did you just make this stuff up out of thin
air? You don't believe any English Bible is inerrant; you don't believe any
Hebrew texts are inerrant, and you are in disagreement with the Greek texts
upon which most modern bible versions are based. So, could you please tell us
exactly where we all can find this "final authority" you mentioned and this
"Book that is without error"? Give it a specific name, so we can all go out
and buy a copy for ourselves. Please, don't just keep it to yourself.
The truth of the matter is that you do not really have such an inerrant,
complete, infallible, preserved and inspired Bible anywhere on this earth.
Your final authority is a mystical, hypothetical, ever-changing and peculiar
product of your own individual imagination, isn't it?
Since this debate is about the inerrancy of the King James Bible, I will state
what my position is on the Holy Bible - also known as the King James Version.
The Bible believer first looks to God and His word to determine what the Book
says about itself.
The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:
Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God
shall stand for ever."
Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a
furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou
shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
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."
Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his
truth endureth to all generations."
Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of
his heart to all generations."
Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou
hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every
one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I
have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth
of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith
the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."
Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you,
till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled."
Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass
away."
John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."
God has promised to preserve His wordS here on this earth till heaven and
earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found
today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what
we are reading are the true words of God or not.
I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of
God for the following reasons:
#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in
contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that
frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were
committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins.
(Romans 3:2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass
from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18
#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of
intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern
scholarship.
"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..."
Isaiah 34:16.
#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew
beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible
of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the
earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the
1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign
language translations, and English has become the first truly global language
in history.
#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts
sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English version that do
pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false
witnesses to the truth of God.
"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies."
Proverbs 14:5
#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord
Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son
of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern
versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.
"GOD was manifes in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
1 Timothy 3:16.
#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and
choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every
Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.
The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their
ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur.
The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find
faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the
land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words
of the LORD." Amos 8:11
"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
I await your response to my opening thoughts.
In and by His grace alone,
Will Kinney
By Jason Gastrich
Round 1
Dear Baptist Board Members, Readers, and Will,
I hope you’re well, today.
As you read this debate, please keep in mind the resolution. The resolution of
this debate is “The King James Version Bible is inerrant.” Will is trying to
support the affirmative and I will be supporting the negative.
First, I will explain to you the reason for this debate and my position
regarding inerrancy. Next, I will answer Will’s questions and assertions from
his first round post. Lastly, I will show some errors in the KJV that I will
expect Will to answer.
Introduction
After extensively studying the alleged errors in the Bible, I have come to
several conclusions. Incidentally, much of my research was performed as I
wrote a full rebuttal to The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible and revealed how God’s
Word is inerrant. I found answers to every alleged Bible error. However, in my
rebuttal, I couldn’t fully rely on the KJV. I had to look to the Hebrew,
Greek, and even some other ancient manuscripts for the inerrant truth of God.
Lately, I have met some KJV-onlyists. The devout ones that tenaciously adhere
to this doctrine resemble cult members. They will even claim that people who
do not believe the KJV is inerrant and call themselves Christians really
aren’t Christians at all. In my recent experience with them, they also mocked
me, teased me, and called me a “Bible Corrector.” Instead of engaging them on
their ezboard where they threatened to ban me if I didn’t repent, I decided to
challenge a couple of them to a formal, one on one debate in a neutral venue.
The owner of the ezboard banned me and blocked my emails to him. However, Will
accepted my offer, so this is why we are here debating.
I’m not debating to show the weaknesses of the scriptures. I’m not posting
messages to show the errancy of the Bible. I’m here debating Will because I
know that the original autographs were inerrant, but the KJV is not. We know
that the original autographs are inerrant by the ancient manuscripts that we
possess, today. I affirm that we could compose an inerrant Bible with the lot
of inerrant manuscripts that we have, but the KJV has some minor errors and
problems.
Lastly, I do like the KJV. I think it is a fantastic translation. I use it
often. However, to say it is inerrant is simply either naive or worse. In my
studies, I’ve found a handful of problems in the KJV that could not be
reconciled. If Will can explain them, then perhaps he can convince all of us
that the KJV is inerrant. I’m looking forward to his explanations for the
errors that I present him.
Answers to Will
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason, there is a good chance that maybe nine-tenths of your fan club here
will take offence at your textual position which severely criticizes their own
favorite versions for omitting thousands of God's words, changing sound
doctrine, and perverting the truth of God; but then again, they may lay aside
their "minor differences" and unite in spirit with anyone who would at least
attempt to pick holes in the King James Bible and prove that no Bible on this
earth is perfect and without error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The people who posted in this thread are people I barely know or people I
don’t know at all. I surely wouldn’t call them my fan club. I’m sure they are
fans of the truth, though.
Saying I believe that no Bible on earth is perfect and without error is
disingenuous. Stick to the resolution of the debate. This is a straw man
argument. The debate is about the KJV Bible and whether or not you can prove
its inerrancy.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you say the Bible IS A BOOK without error, what exactly are you referring
to? A book is a long printed work on sheets of paper bound together within
covers. Do you have such a Book that you can actually hold in your hands,
read, memorize, and believe every word that is written therein? It is my
contention that you do not have such a book at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I say the Bible is a book without error, I’m referring to the original
autographs. I’m also referring to the manuscripts that reveal the autograph’s
inerrancy. Furthermore, you can take an English translation like the KJV and
NKJV and use it effectively, while going back to the manuscripts to correct
the handful of errors and problems.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I then asked you about a couple of alleged errors found in all Hebrew
manuscripts and in the King James Bible. #1 How would you explain the age
difference of Ahaziah in 2 Chron. 22:2 (42 years old) vs. 2 Kings 8:26 (22
years old)
And #2 the age difference of Jehoiachin in 2 Chron.36:9 (8 years old) versus 2
Kings 24:8 (18 years old).
To which you replied: "The translations that indicate he was 42 are incorrect.
Only the original manuscripts and modern translations that indicate he was 22
are correct. Therefore, we can either call this a copyist error or an error in
some of the modern translations (and even some of the ancient ones).
Fortunately, some translations and manuscripts have gotten this number
correct."
Jason, instead of labeling everything you do not understand as a "scribal
error", I suggest that God made no mistakes and He has preserved His perfect
words in the Hebrew texts and in the King James Bible. I believe God has laid
several stumbling blocks in His inerrant words to test our faith and sift out
those who would tamper with His words. There are reasonable explanations for
both these apparent contradictions and many others that appear in the true
Scriptures. But rather than being willing to believe the Book and ask God for
understanding, it seems the multiple-choice modern versionists prefer to
relegate everthing they don't understand to "scribal errors" and correct the
Bible according to their own understanding - and none of them agrees with the
others - and thus we have today's Bible Babel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything, everything? You used that word twice to characterize my entire
process of exegesis and my understanding of the Bible. If you know me or the
way I wrote my rebuttal to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, then you’ll know
that I do not label ANYTHING as a scribal error. In fact, this is one of the
major things that sets apart my work from the online work of J.P. Holding and
his explanations for alleged Bible errors. I like J.P. and we are friends, but
I have told him that he jumped to the conclusion of scribal errors when there
were other answers.
In truth, this isn’t a scribal error because we have the truth in certain
manuscripts. Those manuscripts give us the correct number! How can their be a
scribal error when there isn’t any error at all? The only way you would have
to call this a scribal error (or call it a different kind of error if you
wish) is if you choose to believe the KJV is inerrant.
Since you do believe the KJV is inerrant, then how do we account for this KJV
error? You scold me for my research and revelation regarding this subject, but
you do not offer any other solutions. Remember, this isn’t a big issue for me
because I do not claim the KJV is inerrant. I claim the original autographs
are inerrant, evidenced by the manuscripts we have today.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason, you refer to "the original manuscripts that indicate he was 22 are
correct". Are you aware that there are no "original manuscripts", and there
are no Hebrew copies that say 22? Did you just make this stuff up out of thin
air? You don't believe any English Bible is inerrant; you don't believe any
Hebrew texts are inerrant, and you are in disagreement with the Greek texts
upon which most modern bible versions are based. So, could you please tell us
exactly where we all can find this "final authority" you mentioned and this
"Book that is without error"? Give it a specific name, so we can all go out
and buy a copy for ourselves. Please, don't just keep it to yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You finished this paragraph in a condescending manner. Unfortunately, this has
been my experience with every KJV-onlyist. Why do KJV-onlyists always feel the
need to belittle Christians that don’t believe like them? Furthermore, how
could a KJV-onlyist even begin to mock a Christian like me when they can’t
even give an answer to this question?! Perhaps you should spend more time
trying to show how the KJV is inerrant. So far, you haven’t addressed the
resolution of the debate, so you are failing in your task of proving the KJV
is inerrant.
Concerning the issue of 22 years of age, there are Greek Septuagint
manuscripts and Syriac manuscripts that give the correct number. It is safe to
conclude that at least these parts of manuscripts were taken from either the
original autographs or (at least) an inerrant section of an early manuscript
that had the truth in it.
Concerning the issue of 8 years old vs. 18 years old, one Hebrew manuscripts,
some Septuagint manuscripts, and the Syriac all get the number right. The KJV
translation did get it wrong though. How can you still call the KJV inerrant?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth of the matter is that you do not really have such an inerrant,
complete, infallible, preserved and inspired Bible anywhere on this earth.
Your final authority is a mystical, hypothetical, ever-changing and peculiar
product of your own individual imagination, isn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the contrary, I’ve already shown you the inerrancy of the scriptures. You
have not explained how the KJV could be inerrant, though. You are the one
without an inerrant Bible because you believe and errant translation is
inerrant without any proof.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God has promised to preserve His wordS here on this earth till heaven and
earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found
today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what
we are reading are the true words of God or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are arguing for biblical inerrancy with the scriptures you provided,
then you are preaching to the converted. If you are saying that those verses
apply to the KJV, then you have some explaining to do. You’ll also need to
explain a few other things like:
1) Do those scriptures apply to all translations?
2) Do those scriptures regarding inerrancy apply to all English translations?
In short, you have yet to explain where or how the Bible says only the KJV is
inerrant.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of
God for the following reasons:
#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in
contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that
frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were
committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins.
(Romans 3:2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass
from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18
#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of
intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern
scholarship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You rightly call it a belief. You have yet to prove your belief. Your #1 is
your premise and your #2 is your assumption. If you want to prove your
premise, you’ll need to support it. Why not support it by explaining the
alleged errors in the KJV? You had every opportunity to do it in your first
round post. If you ignore or evade the questions that I pose to you regarding
errors in the KJV, I will repost them because you need to prove the KJV’s
inerrancy to us.
Incidentally, your premise is just as flawed as your assumption. Do you have a
copy of an original Hebrew Old Testament? Can you prove that the Septuagint
and Syriac manuscripts weren’t taken directly from inerrant Hebrew
manuscripts?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew
beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible
of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the
earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the
1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign
language translations, and English has become the first truly global language
in history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This may sound nice to KJV-onlyists, but you have no evidence that any of this
is true. The Koran has influenced billions of people. Are you saying the
because the KJV influenced lots of people it must be the only inerrant Bible?
If influence is the litmus test for accuracy and truth, then the Koran must be
true as well. Incidentally, the Koran is not true and it is riddled with
problems and errors.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts
sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English version that do
pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false
witnesses to the truth of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, you are drifting far from the resolution of the debate. You aren’t
even addressing my position regarding the inerrant scriptures. You are simply
professing your faith in the KJV. Don’t forget that this isn’t a debate
between the KJV and modern translations. You are trying to prove the
resolution of this debate. You are trying to prove the KJV is inerrant.
My Questions to Will
In my studies, I found a handful of minor errors in the KJV. I’d like you to
clarify them and tell us why we should believe the KJV is inerrant.
1. In the KJV, Luke 14:26 reads, “If any man come to me, and hate not his
father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea,
and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
As a KJV-onlyist, you would need to hate your family. Right? Of course, I have
an answer to this and it comes from the Greek. The word translated “hate” in
the KJV is the Greek word “miseo” which means “love less.” See
http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRGRK34.htm#S3404 . However,
as a KJV-onlyist, you do not have the luxury in looking to the original
languages, so how do you say this is inerrant?
2. Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead? The KJV says he was. However, I
distinctly remember an Old Testament resurrection.
1 Kings 17:22 reads, "Then the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of
the child came back to him, and he revived."
In the KJV, Acts 26:23 reads, “That Christ should suffer, and that he should
be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the
people, and to the Gentiles.”
How do you reconcile this KJV error? I reconcile it like this: the Greek word
“protos” was translated into the English word “first.” It means “foremost in
importance.” See
http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRGRK44.htm#S4413 .
3. Will the Earth really last forever? The KJV says it will.
Ecclesiastes 1:4 reads, “One generation passes away, and another generation
comes; But the earth abides forever.”
We read about the true fate of the Earth in the New Testament. 2 Peter 3:10
reads, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the
which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall
melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be
burned up.”
How do you reconcile this KJV contradiction with the KJV? I found the answer
in the Hebrew. The Hebrew word “olam” was translated “forever” and it actually
means “the vanishing point is concealed.” Link:
http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB57.htm#S5769 .
I have many more errors in the KJV and I have many more answers as well. I’m
going to stop with those three and the ones from your post. I’ll be waiting
for your reply.
Lastly, I got these answers from the CD-ROM called The Skeptic’s Annotated
Bible: Corrected and Explained -
http://skepticsannotatedbible.org . I thought it would be appropriate to
cite my source; even though I did the research and wrote the book.
I think you’re beginning to see that it is silly to deem the KJV inerrant. The
Greek and Hebrew autographs were inerrant. Yes. However, there are simply some
small errors and problems in the KJV.
May God richly bless you.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
Round 2
By Will Kinney
JASON'S FIRST ROUND
Greetings saints and sinners, Bible believers and members of the Baptist Board
community, and brother Jason,
Again, I want to thank you all for allowing us to publicly debate the Bible
version issue here and I welcome the opportunity to defend the inerrant,
preserved, inspired words of God as found in all their completeness and purity
only in the King James Bible.
I will try to address the issues as brother Jason brings them up.
Jason>>>"Lately, I have met some KJV-onlyists. The devout ones that
tenaciously adhere to this doctrine resemble cult members. They will even
claim that people who do not believe the KJV is inerrant and call themselves
Christians really aren’t Christians at all. In my recent experience with them,
they also mocked me, teased me, and called me a “Bible Corrector.”
Jason, if it is only "lately" that you have met some of us who actually
believe the King James Bible is the only pure words of God, I can only assume
you have just recently gotten into the Bible version issue. You undoubtedly
will have the opportunity to meet a lot more of us in the future.
I'm sorry to hear that you consider the Christian who actually believes we can
hold in our hands a real Book printed on pages of paper and ink that is now
the inerrant, preserved words of God to "resemble cult members". It appears
that your view which promotes the idea that only the non-existent originals
were at one time inspired and inerrant, but today we are left with a multitude
of uninspired, mixed with error, multiple-choice, conflicting, "reliable"
approximations of what God may or may not have said, is now, by implication,
"the orthodox view".
As for those who claim that people who do not believe the KJV is inerrant are
not really Christians at all, I personally know of no one who is a King James
Bible believer who thinks this way. There may be a handful of them out there,
but the vast majority that I know of do not hold this view. I certainly do
not. The gospel of Jesus Christ is found in any version, no matter how poorly
translated, and God can and does use them to bring His people to a saving
faith in Christ. I do not dispute this.
However, I did and still do call you a Bible corrector and a fraud as far as
the Bible version issue is concerned. I do not retract these statements in the
least and hope to show that my evaluation of your present position in these
matters is accurate.
The only final authority you have and present as "the book without errors"
exists solely in your own fertile imagination. It is a mystical, non-existent,
potential but not yet realized product of your own peculiar understanding.
The only thing some members of Without The Camp told you to repent of was your
bogus and inconsistent stand on the Bible. On the one hand you said: "the
Bible is a book without error". Then when we asked you where this Bible you
speak of can be found, you said: "I'm referring to the original autographs."
Then you said: "I do not know where the original autographs are located...If
we have enough inerrant manuscripts to compile an inerrant Bible, then who is
to say that the original autographs were not inerrant? One could conclude that
they were."
Jason, it is simply mind boggling to me and many others that you speak of a
Book that IS, and yet when pressed to identify it for us, you go into all this
tap dancing routine to explain that it once WAS, but you don't know where it
IS now, but we can maybe piece it together today "IF we have enough inerrant
manuscripts", but no one has done so yet to your personal satisfaction.
You now say: "I’m here debating Will because I know that the original
autographs were inerrant, but the KJV is not."
Jason, how do you KNOW the original autographs were inerrant, when you have
never seen them, you admit you do not know where they are, and you claim the
Hebrew copies have been corrupted?
You are asking us to place our faith in something that does not exist now, and
never did exist in a single Book, or you are asking us to place our faith in
you to sort out the whole textual mess for us. Of course, your findings and
conclusions will differ from those of everyone else who attempts to do the
same thing, as it witnessed by today's conflicting, multiple-choice versions.
On the other hand, the King James Bible believer encourages people to place
their faith in a tangible Book we can hold in our hands that God in His
providence has been pleased to give us, and we don't need anyone else, no
matter how many impressive letters they have attached to their name, to
"correct or revise" it for us.
Jason>>>"We know that the original autographs are inerrant by the ancient
manuscripts that we possess, today. I affirm that we could compose an inerrant
Bible with the lot of inerrant manuscripts that we have"
Dear Jason, there you go again with that little word "are" as though it were
something that really exits. If "We know that the original autographs ARE
inerrant by the ancient manuscripts that we possess", then why is there so
much confusion about WHICH of these ancient manuscripts has the correct
reading?
You personally do not believe the Hebrew texts are always correct. Your niv,
nasb, esv, Holman CSB etc. are all filled with conflicting readings and
footnotes telling us that One Hebrew mss. reads...., the Syriac, LXX, Vulgate
read...., the Hebrew is obscure..., the text has been corrected to read...,
the Samaritan Pentateuch has..."
And by the way, Jason, who is this "WE" you are talking about? Apparently it
is not the translators of the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NKJV, because they all
disagree with each other about many readings, numbers, names, and meanings
found in these ancient manuscripts. Don't you really mean "I", me, yours
truly, Jason Gastrich?
Jason>>>"Saying I believe that no Bible on earth is perfect and without error
is disingenuous. Stick to the resolution of the debate. This is a straw man
argument. The debate is about the KJV Bible and whether or not you can prove
its inerrancy."
Jason, the word "disingenuous" means: lacking in frankness, candor or
sincerity; insincere. I think you used the wrong word here. I am being quite
frank, candid and sincere when I say that you openly admit that you don't
believe any English translation or any Bible on this earth is perfect and
without error. That is exactly what you believe. It is not a straw man
argument. It is central to this discussion. You sit in judgment on the
authority and truth of the King James Bible, and yet the basis and standard by
which you criticize it is nothing more than empty air and your own
idiosyncratic fantasies.
Jason, you really ought to pay more attention to what you yourself state. You
seem to have a slight problem in the area of self contradiction. We noticed
this before when you posted your "terms", remember? Well, here we go again.
You now say: "If you know me or the way I wrote my rebuttal to the Skeptic’s
Annotated Bible, then you’ll know that I do not label ANYTHING as a scribal
error. In fact, this is one of the major things that sets apart my work from
the online work of J.P. Holding and his explanations for alleged Bible errors.
I like J.P. and we are friends, but I have told him that he jumped to the
conclusion of scribal errors when there were other answers."
"I DO NOT LABEL ANYTHING AS A SCRIBAL ERROR"
Uh, Jason. You might want to go back just a paragraph or two and look again at
the answer you previously gave me. Here it is again to help refresh your
memory.
I then asked you about a couple of alleged errors found in all Hebrew
manuscripts and in the King James Bible. #1 How would you explain the age
difference of Ahaziah in 2 Chron. 22:2 - 42 years old vs. 2 Kings 8:26 - 22
years old And #2 the age difference of Jehoiachin in 2 Chron.36:9 -8 years old
versus 2 Kings 24:8 - 18 years old.
To which you replied: "The translations that indicate he was 42 are incorrect.
Only the original manuscripts and modern translations that indicate he was 22
are correct. Therefore, WE CAN either CALL THIS A COPYIST ERROR or an error in
some of the modern translations and even some of the ancient ones.
Fortunately, some translations and manuscripts have gotten this number
correct."
So, Jason, did you or did you not call those two examples a "copyist error"?
Jason>>>>"Since you do believe the KJV is inerrant, then how do we account for
this KJV error? You scold me for my research and revelation regarding this
subject, but you do not offer any other solutions."
As for these two examples I mentioned of the differing accounts of the ages of
these two kings, I have addressed these two examples (of which there are many
more we may look at).
For those who are interested, you can see that there certainly is no consensus
or agreement among the various scholars who translate the Bible, but there are
reasonable explanations that can be given to solve these apparent and not real
contradictions, if we believe God's word and don't try to correct it with
other conflicting sources like the Syriac, Vulgage or Septuagint - none of
which are always followed or agree with each other, let alone with the Hebrew
text.
The age of Ahaziah, 22 or 42, or both?
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html
The age of Jehoiachin - 8 or 18?
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/8or18.html
Jason>>>"You’ll also need to explain a few other things like:
1. Do those scriptures apply to all translations?
Will K>>>No. Many bibles got it right, but only the King James Bible is ALWAYS
right.
2. Do those scriptures regarding inerrancy apply to all English translations?
Will K>>>No. See answer above.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of
God for the following reasons:
#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in
contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that
frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were
committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. Romans
3:2 The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the
law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18
#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of
intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern
scholarship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason>>>You rightly call it a belief. You have yet to prove your belief. Your
#1 is your premise and your #2 is your assumption. If you want to prove your
premise, you’ll need to support it. Why not support it by explaining the
alleged errors in the KJV?
Jason, the premise is that the KJB is based solely on the Hebrew texts,
whereas the NASB, NIV, ESV, HOLMAN frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The
premise is supported by the Bible itself and I already gave you the Biblical
reference. Sorry you missed it. Romans 3:2 "What advantage then hath the
Jew?...Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the
oracles of God."
You might also try Psalms 147:19-20 "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his
statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation;
and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."
See, Jason, I actually believe what the Book says about itself. Now, if you
can just show us all where in the Bible your premise and assumption that the
Hebrew texts would become corrupted with "scribal errors", and that God would
fail to preserve His words in any single Book, but rather they would be
scattered hither and yon in various conflicting Greek, Syriac, Samaritan,
Vulgate, and one or two Hebrew manuscripts, then please produce a verse or two
supporting your thesis. Thank you very much.
As for the alleged errors in the King James Bible, I will gladly address them
as you bring them to our attention. I see you have produced three dubious gems
in the remainder of your first round post, and I will get to them momentarily.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew
beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible
of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the
earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the
1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign
language translations, and English has become the first truly global language
in history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason>>>This may sound nice to KJV-onlyists, but you have no evidence that any
of this is true.<<<
Jason, the evidence is plain to see from what has happened in history.
Jason>>>The Koran has influenced billions of people. Are you saying the
because the KJV influenced lots of people it must be the only inerrant Bible?
If influence is the litmus test for accuracy and truth, then the Koran must be
true as well. Incidentally, the Koran is not true and it is riddled with
problems and errors.<<<
Jason, here at least you seem to tacitly admit the great influence the KJB has
had on history and multitudes of people, which you seemed to call into doubt
in the previous sentence clamoring for "evidence".
We are talking about is the Holy Bible here. That is the topic, isn't it, and
not the Koran? We are talking about the inspired and preserved words of the
one true God, if they exist on this earth and where they can be found today.
It seems to me you tried to slip in a little apple to apricots comparison
there for a minute. Please don't go off on a lengthly tangent about this - it
is not that important a point.
Now, we finally get to your incipient list of alleged errors.
My Questions to Will
In my studies, I found a handful of minor errors in the KJV. I’d like you to
clarify them and tell us why we should believe the KJV is inerrant.
1. In the KJV, Luke 14:26 reads, “If any man come to me, and hate not his
father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea,
and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
As a KJV-onlyist, you would need to hate your family. Right? Of course, I have
an answer to this and it comes from the Greek. The word translated “hate” in
the KJV is the Greek word “miseo” which means “love less.” However, as a
KJV-onlyist, you do not have the luxury in looking to the original languages,
so how do you say this is inerrant?
#1. Well, Jason, not only does the King James Bible say "and HATE not his
father, and mother"...etc. but so also do the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, and
Holman versions.
In fact, none of these versions have translated the word as "love less". Where
on this earth is the Bible you are referring to that does so? Is it that
mystical one that exists in your own mind again? Where are the "ancient
manuscripts" that correct what all Greek texts and English versions say here,
Jason?
It is one thing to interpret a passage and say that Christ is referring to a
love so strong for Him that any other would be considered as "hate", and quite
another to change the inspired text of what Christ actually said and make our
particular interpretation the only acceptable meaning and put it in the Bible
as the correct TEXT, and then accuse the Bible itself of being in error. Your
first "error" shows a lot of chutzpa, even for a Bible corrector.
2. Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead? The KJV says he was. However, I
distinctly remember an Old Testament resurrection.
1 Kings 17:22 reads, "Then the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came back to him, and he revived."
In the KJV, Acts 26:23 reads, “That Christ
should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead,
and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.”
How do you reconcile this KJV error? I reconcile it like this: the Greek word
“protos” was translated into the English word “first.” It means “foremost in
importance.”
#2 Jason, this is really getting silly. I expected a bit more from a guy like
you. Again, not only does the KJB correctly say that Christ should be the
first to rise from the dead, but so also do the NIV, NKJV, Holman, ESV, and
RSV. Only the Nasb screws this verse up badly by saying: "he Christ was to
suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the
first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles." -
which also is an error. Christ certainly was not the first to proclaim light
or truth to the Jews and Gentiles.
Your interpretation is again very faulty. Christ was the first to rise from
the dead IN A RESURRECTED BODY. Get it? Again, I don't know of any Bible
version that translates this verse in the way you have suggested - "that He
should be the foremost in importance that should rise from the dead." Maybe
you should just go ahead and write your own bible version and see how it
sells. Whad' ya think, Jason? It might be a bestseller, what with the great
hunger there is today for innovation and quirkiness.
3. Will the Earth really last forever? The KJV says it will.
Ecclesiastes 1:4 reads, “One generation passes away, and another generation comes; But the earth abides forever.”
We read about the true fate of the Earth in the New Testament. 2 Peter 3:10 reads, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”
How do you reconcile this KJV contradiction
with the KJV? I found the answer in the Hebrew. The Hebrew word “olam” was
translated “forever” and it actually means “the vanishing point is concealed.”
#3 Again, Jason, a little logic and common sense might go a long way in
solving your alleged contradiction. Not only does the KJB translate the verse
this way but so also do the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman, etc. I don't know of
any version that says: "but the earth abides the vanishing point is
concealed", but I have to admit, it has a nice ring to it and makes a whole
lot of sense :-)
Jason, the earth will abide forever. It will be remade and rennovated and will
remain forever. Just like me and every other person redeemed by the blood of
the Lamb. Our bodies will die, decay and rot away in the grave, but God will
raise us up and we shall remain forever. Is it the same me? Yes, just in a
different and better form.
Jason>>>I have many more errors in the KJV and I have many more answers as
well. I’m going to stop with those three and the ones from your post. I’ll be
waiting for your reply.
Jason, I can hardly wait to see what you come up with next. Are you actually
going to post this stuff on your site and allow all 25,000 of your email
recipients to see how you are faring so far? I hope you do, but I personally
would be embarrassed.
Can't wait for your next round.
Purchased by His precious blood,
Will Kinney
Round 2
By Jason Gastrich
Dear Readers,
I pray that you are well, today.
Thank you for following the debate between me and Will. I hope that you are
encouraged and blessed.
Please keep in mind a few things. First, Will claims to be a Christian,
therefore his words should resemble a Christian's words. Despite our
differences, he should be "speaking the truth in love." I've done my best to
do this, to show Will respect, and to attack the topic; not the person. I
encourage Will to begin doing this.
Next, keep in mind the resolution of the debate. Here it is: The KJV is
inerrant. When you read Will's arguments and my arguments, ask yourself, "Is
this leading me to believe the KJV is errant or inerrant?" Keep in mind that
rejecting the inerrancy of the KJV is NOT rejecting the inerrancy of the
scriptures.
Some people have labeled the belief that the KJV is the only inerrant
translation as "single-translation-onlyism." Unfortunately, the achilles heel
of this doctrine is the fact that it exalts the English KJV while lowering the
significance and importance of the manuscripts that were translated into the
KJV! To a rational and freethinking Christian, it is absurd to suggest that
this English translation is more authoritative and accurate than the Hebrew
and Greek texts.
Lastly, if you wish to comment on the debate, please do! We have created a
thread for comments and it is here:
[URL=http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2767.html?
]CLICK THIS LINK[/URL]
Without further adieu, here is my Round 2 post to Will.
Round 2
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for those who claim that people who do not believe the KJV is inerrant are
not really Christians at all, I personally know of no one who is a King James
Bible believer who thinks this way. There may be a handful of them out there,
but the vast majority that I know of do not hold this view. I certainly do
not. The gospel of Jesus Christ is found in any version, no matter how poorly
translated, and God can and does use them to bring His people to a saving
faith in Christ. I do not dispute this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: This web page: click - (middle of this page under King
James Onlyism)
King James Only-ism
An aberrant teaching that considers the King James Version - specifically the
'1611 Authorized Version' - to be the only legitimate English-language Bible
version.
KJV-onlyists who go so far as to insist that people who do not use the King
James Version are not saved, are heretics (in that they violate the Biblical
doctrine of salvation by adding conditions not taught in Scripture).
- Articles -
The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.
So, is there a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I
believe there is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern
translations. Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division
among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to
elevate an anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has
created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as
it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated
and difficult to understand. ... It takes little thought to see who is behind
such a conspiracy.
-
There is an extended entry on KJV-Onlyism on the Apologetics Index site. If
any of you have used AI, then you know that it is a fantastic resource
because it uses documented information instead of third hand information. If
you wish to research this heretical movement, please go to the link I gave
above.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I did and still do call you a Bible corrector and a fraud as far as
the Bible version issue is concerned. I do not retract these statements in the
least and hope to show that my evaluation of your present position in these
matters is accurate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coming from a KJV-Onlyist, I'll take this as a compliment.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only final authority you have and present as "the book without errors"
exists solely in your own fertile imagination. It is a mystical, non-existent,
potential but not yet realized product of your own peculiarunderstanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, are you saying that there must be a single inerrant Bible in every
language? You shied away from this question last time. You claim the KJV must
be inerrant because God would preserve His Word. Well, wouldn't there have to
be inerrant Bibles in all languages? Why just English? Of course, this is no
problem for me. I understand that the original autographs were inerrant.
Saying a translation into another language is inerrant is a laughable claim to
a scholar. People know that the words don't translate perfectly into other
languages. As we see below, you have to resort to adding words and hand waving
to make the KJV inerrant. Quite telling.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing some members of Without The Camp told you to repent of was your
bogus and inconsistent stand on the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aren't these KJV-Onlyists sweet and loving? I'm sure many people reading are
ready to run out and be one, now.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the one hand you said: "the Bible is a book without error". Then when we
asked you where this Bible you speak of can be found, you said: "I'm referring
to the original autographs." Then you said: "I do not know where the original
autographs are located...If we have enough inerrant manuscripts to compile an
inerrant Bible, then who is to say that the original autographs were not
inerrant? One could conclude that they were." Jason, it is simply mind
boggling to me and many others that you speak of a Book that IS, and yet when
pressed to identify it for us, you go into all this tap dancing routine to
explain that it once WAS, but you don't know where it IS now, but we can maybe
piece it together today "IF we have enough inerrant manuscripts", but no one
has done so yet to your personal satisfaction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called scholarship; not tap dancing. Once again, your derogatory and
condescending attitude (which does resemble the cultists) is noted.
Try and describe the trinity for us. Would you like it if I called you a tap
dancer if you couldn't describe the trinity in one sentence? This is what you
are doing to me for explaining biblical inerrancy.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You now say:
"I'm here debating Will because I know that the original autographs were
inerrant, but the KJV is not." Jason, how do you KNOW the original autographs
were inerrant, when you have never seen them, you admit you do not know where
they are, and you claim the Hebrew copies have been corrupted?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already answered this. You even quoted me! Read up a few paragraphs.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are asking us to place our faith in something that does not exist now, and
never did exist in a single Book, or you are asking us to place our faith in
you to sort out the whole textual mess for us. Of course, your findings and
conclusions will differ from those of everyone else who attempts to do the
same thing, as it witnessed by today's conflicting, multiple-choice versions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing is for sure. The KJV is not worthy of the claim of inerrancy. This
is evidenced below and it will be painfully obvious to any reader by the end
of this debate.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, the King James Bible believer encourages people to place
their faith in a tangible Book we can hold in our hands that God in His
providence has been pleased to give us, and we don't need anyone else, no
matter how many impressive letters they have attached
to their name, to "correct or revise" it for us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too bad the English couldn't reproduce exactly what the Greek and Hebrew said
and meant. If it could, then maybe you'd have a case. However, as we see below
by your poor answers to my questions regarding inerrancy, we see that the KJV
is in error.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason>>>"We know that the original autographs are inerrant by the ancient
manuscripts that we possess, today. I affirm that we could compose an inerrant
Bible with the lot of inerrant manuscripts that we have"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the answer to the question you asked above! You quoted me twice, now.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jason, there you go again with that little word "are" as though it were
something that really exits. If "We know that the original autographs ARE
inerrant by the ancient manuscripts that we possess", then why is there so
much confusion about WHICH of these ancient manuscripts has the correct
reading?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There isn't any confusion at all. You are taking part in a certain practice
that atheists love. I call it becoming "conveniently confused." They usually
become this way when it comes to Bible prophecy and such. It suddenly becomes
so darned confusing for them that they just can't figure it out. They won't
study and they can't accept an explanation. They call it tap dancing. They say
they want one word answers and stuff. Sound familiar?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You personally do not believe the Hebrew texts are always correct. Your niv,
nasb, esv, Holman CSB etc. are all filled with conflicting readings and
footnotes telling us that One Hebrew mss. reads...., the Syriac, LXX, Vulgate
read...., the Hebrew is obscure..., the text has been corrected to read...,
the Samaritan Pentateuch has..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the first time you go on your rabbit trail about other translations. I
will delete every rabbit trail below because it is not the issue. You are
trying to prove that the KJV is inerrant. Why do I have to keep reminding you
about the resolution of the debate? You are not trying to prove that the KJV
is better than the handful of other translations that you despise.
Please keep this in mind.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason, you really ought to pay more
attention to what you yourself state. You seem to have a slight problem in the
area of self contradiction. We noticed this before when you posted your
"terms", remember? Well, here we go again. You now say: "If you know me or the
way I wrote my rebuttal to the Skeptic''s Annotated Bible, then you'll know
that I do not label ANYTHING as a scribal error. In fact, this is one of the
major things that sets apart my work from the online work of J.P. Holding and
his explanations for alleged Bible errors. I like J.P. and we are friends, but
I have told him that he jumped to the conclusion of scribal errors when there
were other answers."I DO NOT LABEL ANYTHING AS A SCRIBAL ERROR" Uh, Jason. You
might want to go back just a paragraph or two and look again at the answer you
previously gave me. Here it is again to help refresh your memory. I then asked
you about a couple of alleged errors found in all Hebrew manuscripts and in
the King James Bible.
#1 How would you explain the age difference of
Ahaziah in 2 Chron. 22:2 - 42 years old vs. 2 Kings 8:26 - 22 years old
And #2 the age difference of Jehoiachin in 2 Chron.36:9 -8 years old versus 2
Kings 24:8 - 18 years old. To which you replied: "The translations that
indicate he was 42 are incorrect. Only the original manuscripts and modern
translations that indicate he was 22 are correct.
Therefore, WE CAN either CALL THIS A COPYIST
ERROR or an error in some of the modern translations and even some of the
ancient ones. Fortunately, some translations and manuscripts have gotten this
number correct." So, Jason, did you or did you not call those two examples a
"copyist error"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No! I call it an ERROR IN SOME OF THE MODERN TRANSLATIONS (E.G. THE KJV).
You're doing what we call selective reading to try and slam me, again. Let's
just stick to the resolution that you're trying to prove. Don't forget. You're
not just doing damage control and trying to answer my questions. You are also
trying to prove that the KJV is the only inerrant Bible on Earth. You should
really invest your time wisely because you lose lots of points when
you take the low road and try and attack my character. Just a word to the
wise.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason>>>>"Since you do believe the KJV is inerrant, then how do we account for
this KJV error? You scold me for my research and revelation regarding this
subject, but you do not offer any other solutions." As for these two examples
I mentioned of the differing accounts of the ages of these two kings, I have
addressed these two examples (of which there are many more we may look at).
For those who are interested, you can see that there certainly is no consensus
or agreement among the various scholars who translate the Bible, but there are
reasonable explanations that can be given to solve these apparent and not real
contradictions, if we believe God's word and don't try to correct it with
other conflicting sources like the Syriac, Vulgage or Septuagint - none of
which are always followed or agree with each other, let alone with the Hebrew
text. The age of Ahaziah, 22 or 42, or both?
- snipped link -
The age of Jehoiachin - 8 or 18?
- snipped link -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You need to make your case. I'm not going to your web pages to read what you
have to say. You could have used 1000 more words on your 2nd round post. Why
didn't you? In a formal debate, you need to summarize and present your case.
This isn't a link war. If you cannot or will not make your case, then I'll
conclude that you do not have one.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will K: No. Many bibles got it right, but only the King James Bible is ALWAYS
right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you typed the word "bibles" when referring to non-KJV Bibles, were you
deliberately trying to show disrespect to them by not capitalizing the word
"Bibles"? If so, this is another similarity you have to the atheists. They
love to do this.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You might also try Psalms 147:19-20 "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his
statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation;
and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." See,
Jason, I actually believe what the Book says about itself. Now, if you can
just show us all where in the Bible your premise and assumption that the
Hebrew texts would become corrupted with "scribal errors", and that God would
fail to preserve His words in any single Book, but rather they would be
scattered hither and yon in various conflicting Greek, Syriac, Samaritan,
Vulgate, and one or two Hebrew manuscripts, then please produce a verse or two
supporting your thesis. Thank you very much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another common tactic from the cultists: taking a verse that has nothing to do
with what they are promoting or believing, yet applying it to their argument.
Frankly, my premise is that the KJV Bible has errors because it says
contradictory and incorrect things. I've already illustrated this, too.
However, I also affirm the Bible's inerrancy because it is revealed in the
manuscripts that we have. I snipped your response about the Koran because it
was off. You made an appeal to numbers when you gave one of your points
regarding the KJV's inerrancy. I think it is clear to all that your claim was
a logical fallacy. Claiming that something is inerrant due to its influence is
foolish.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Questions to Will In my studies, I found a handful of minor errors in the
KJV. I'd like you to clarify them and tell us why we should believe the KJV is
inerrant. 1. In the KJV, Luke 14:26 reads, "If any man come to me, and hate
not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters,
yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
As a KJV-onlyist, you would need to hate your family. Right? Of course, I have
an answer to this and it comes from the Greek. The word translated "hate" in
the KJV is the Greek word "miseo" which means "love less." However, as a
KJV-onlyist, you do not have the luxury in looking to the original languages,
so how do you say this is inerrant?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1.
Well, Jason, not only does the King James Bible say "and HATE not his father,
and mother"...etc. but so also do the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, and Holman
versions. In fact, none of these versions have translated the word as "love
less".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would have snipped your rant about other translations, as I said above, but
it wouldn't have left you with much. I'll leave it this time, so people see
the context of your statement.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where on this earth is the Bible you are referring to that does so?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already answered this question. You even quoted me twice. Read up and see.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it that mystical one that exists in your own mind again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another condescending, non-answer is noted. Is anyone ready to join the KJV-Onlyists,
yet? Will sure seems like a lovely representative from their group.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where are the "ancient manuscripts" that correct what all Greek texts and
English versions say here, Jason?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave a link to the Strong's concordance. It showed you my answer. I'm still
waiting for YOUR answer, though. I think we're all waiting for YOUR
answer.
Since you snipped and forgot my answer, I'll repost it from last round:
As a KJV-onlyist, you would need to hate your family. Right? Of course, I have
an answer to this and it comes from the Greek. The word translated "hate" in
the KJV is the Greek word "miseo" which means "love less." See
http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRGRK34.htm#S3404 . However,
as a KJV-onlyist, you do not have the luxury in looking to the original
languages, so how do you say this is inerrant?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is one thing to interpret a passage and say that Christ is referring to a
love so strong for Him that any other would be considered as "hate", and quite
another to change the inspired text of what Christ actually said and make our
particular interpretation the only acceptable meaning and put it in the Bible
as the correct TEXT, and then accuse the Bible itself of being in error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please try and avoid run-on sentences. When you use them, people can't
understand what in the heck you're trying to say. Let's analyze your
statement, anyway.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is one thing to interpret a passage and say that Christ is referring to a
love so strong for Him that any other would be considered as "hate",
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The KJV commands people to hate their family. The Greek says that people
should love their family less than Christ.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and quite another to change the inspired text of what Christ actually said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. We really shouldn't change the inspired text of what Christ actually
said. Let me be more specific, though. The KJV translators really shouldn't
have changed the inspired text of what Christ actually said. They should have
translated it correctly.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and make our particular interpretation the only acceptable meaning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is our? Mine? Yours? No idea. Anyhow, I'm saying that the KJV is giving
the WRONG meaning and the Greek is giving the RIGHT meaning. Pretty simple.
Why did the KJV change the Greek to give us an incorrect meaning?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and put it in the Bible as the correct TEXT, and then accuse the Bible itself
of being in error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty slick. I know you're used to calling the KJV the "Bible" (capital "B").
However, don't forget that you're trying to prove the KJV is inerrant. Don't
confuse people. I'm not saying the Bible is in error. I'm saying you and the
KJV are in error. In fact, I'm not the one saying it because I'm merely
affirming what the Greek Bible (you know, the one that came before the KJV) is
saying.
This leads me to another question. What did English speaking people do before
the KJV 1611 Bible? Where was this preserved Word of God and where is it,
today?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead? The KJV says he was. However, I
distinctly remember an Old Testament resurrection.
1 Kings 17:22 reads, "Then the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of
the child came back to him, and he revived."
In the KJV, Acts 26:23 reads, "That Christ should suffer, and that he should
be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the
people, and to the Gentiles."
How do you reconcile this KJV error? I reconcile it like this: the Greek word
"protos" was translated into the English word "first." It means "foremost in
importance."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2 Jason, this is really getting silly. I expected a bit more from a guy like
you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More condescending remarks from the one who supposedly has the one, inerrant
Bible.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, not only does the KJB correctly say that Christ should be the first to
rise from the dead, but so also do the NIV, NKJV, Holman, ESV, and RSV. Only
the Nasb screws this verse up badly by saying: "he Christ was to suffer, and
that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to
proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles." - which also is
an error. Christ certainly was not the first to proclaim light or truth to the
Jews and Gentiles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the heck. I've let your last two rabbit trails about the versions stay.
I'll let this one stay as well. Just don't forget. You're not trying to prove
that the KJV is better than those translations that you hate. You're trying to
prove it's inerrant. Please save us all time and avoid translation bashing
while you try and present your case.
quote:
-------------------------------------------------
Your interpretation is again very faulty.
-------------------------------------------------
You'd like to think so.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ was the first to rise from the dead IN A RESURRECTED BODY. Get
it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I get it. Sure. However, I can read what the scriptures say. They don't
say this. The KJV says that Jesus will be the FIRST TO RISE FROM THE DEAD.
And He wasn't.
The GREEK says Jesus will be the FOREMOST IN IMPORTANCE to rise from the dead.
And He was.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I don't know of any Bible version that translates this verse
in the way you have suggested
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabbit trail/red herring.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- "that He should be the foremost in importance that should rise from the
dead." Maybe you should just go ahead and write your own bible version and see
how it sells. Whad' ya think, Jason? It might be a bestseller, what with the
great hunger there is today for innovation and
quirkiness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's that lower case "b" for "bible," again. Your disrespect is noted.
I have considered translating and composing an inerrant translation of the
Bible. There is a possibility that I will do it, too. This has little to do
with this debate, but it is interesting to me that you brought this up; even
though it was in jest. Nonetheless, I have been considering the composition of
an inerrant Bible from the inerrant manuscripts that we have. Too bad the KJV
isn't inerrant. It would have saved me a lot of trouble.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Will the Earth really last forever? The KJV says it will.
Ecclesiastes 1:4 reads, "One generation passes away, and another generation
comes; But the earth abides forever."
We read about the true fate of the Earth in the New Testament. 2 Peter 3:10
reads, "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the
which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall
melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be
burned up."
How do you reconcile this KJV contradiction with the KJV? I found the answer
in the Hebrew. The Hebrew word "olam" was translated "forever" and it actually
means "the vanishing point is conncealed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3 Again, Jason, a little logic and common sense might go a long way in
solving your
alleged contradiction. Not only does the KJB translate the verse this way but
so also do the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman, etc. I don't know of any version
that says: "but the earth abides the vanishing point is concealed", but I have
to admit, it has a nice ring to it and makes a whole lot of sense :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are translation bashing and giving us a rabbit trail/red herring, again.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason, the earth will abide forever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No it won't. This isn't what 2 Peter 3:10 says. This isn't even what
Ecclesiastes 1:4 says! It's only what your flawed translation says.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be remade and rennovated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remade and renovated? Hmm. I guess you disagree with Peter. Being burned up
with fervent heat or abiding forever aren't the same as remade and renovated.
Either it will last forever or it will be burned up with fervent heat. You
can't have it both ways. Of course, if you would prefer the originals over the
English translation, you would be wiser and closer to the truth. However, you
like to think that the English is better than the original.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and will remain forever. Just like me and every other person redeemed by the
blood of the Lamb. Our bodies will die, decay and rot away in the grave, but
God will raise us up and we shall remain forever. Is it the same me? Yes, just
in a different and better form.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this called tap dancing? I'm just curious. You coined the phrase and used
it when I gave you a sound explanation of biblical inerrancy. Now, you are
reaching for an explanation for two verses that contradict in the KJV by
giving us an analogy that has nothing to do with what the verses say. With all
due respect, YOU are the "Bible corrector" (another phrase you have used for
me). I'm a "Bible affirmer" because I affirm the inerrancy of the originals. I
find the truth in them when translations like the KJV let us down.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason: I have many more errors in the KJV and I have many more answers as
well. I'm going to stop with those three and the ones from your post. I'll be
waiting for your reply. Jason, I can hardly wait to see what you come up with
next. Are you actually going to post this stuff on your site and allow all
25,000 of your email recipients to see how you are faring so far? I hope you
do, but I personally would be embarrassed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you could understand how foolish your theory and defense is, you wouldn't
want people to see it. However, you can rest assured that this debate will be
online forever for people to read.
More Questions For Will
I'm going to exhaust my 5,000 words with some more questions to Will regarding
KJV errors. Let's see if he can answer them without adding words to the
scriptures and without using the Greek and Hebrew. He might as well wear a
blindfold and tie both hands behind his back.
Please note. I have the answers to these questions. I can affirm the inerrancy
of the scriptures. However, the answers did not come from the KJV.
The KJV does have some errors. This time, I
will withhold my answers until later. I want to see Will answer these
questions. Please note: I expect will to answer these questions in the 5,000
word limit and in the debate thread; not on his web site. If he thinks he has
the answer on his web site, then I expect him to summarize it in the debate
thread.
1. Do rabbits really chew the cud?
Leviticus 11:6 reads, "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth
not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."
The KJV says that rabbits chew the cud. Rabbits don't chew the cud. Rabbits
practice refection which is chewing partially undigested food that comes out
of the anus.
2. Was Jehu the son or grandson of Nimshi? Yet another KJV contradiction.
3. Did Saul inquire of God? The KJV gives two contradictory accounts.
1 Samuel 28:6 and 7 reads, "And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD
answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. 7 Then said
Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I
may go to her, and inquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there
is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor."
1 Chronicles 10:13, 14 "So Saul died for his transgression which he committed
against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and
also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it;
14And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom
unto David the son of Jesse."
Conclusion
It is clear to all that the originals are better than the English KJV. The KJV
is not inerrant.
If anyone has an argument or a point they want me to use in this debate,
please contact me. I'd be happy to consider it.
Contact link:
http://jcsm.org/contact.php
Sincerely in Christ,
Jason Gastrich
Round 3
By Will Kinney
Hi all. Thank you for your interest in the Bible version issue. I also would
request that this section be limited to a discussion between Jason and myself
alone, and for those who wish to make comments to do so in the other thread
provided. Otherwise it gets confusing knowing who is saying what to whom.
Jason, I will briefly respond to some points you bring up in your second round
and then address your next three examples of "errors" in the King James Bible.
Jason>>>I'm going to exhaust my 5,000 words with some more questions to Will
regarding KJV errors. Let's see if he can answer them without adding words to
the scriptures and without using the Greek and Hebrew. He might as well wear a
blindfold and tie both hands behind his back."
Jason, I never said a King James Bible believer cannot use the Hebrew and
Greek texts that underlie this magnificent Bible. They certainly are not
needed, but I do consult what I can of these languages, mostly so I can refute
the alleged errors people like you bring up.
Jason>>>Some people have labeled the belief that the KJV is the only inerrant
translation as "single-translation-onlyism." Unfortunately, the achilles heel
of this doctrine is the fact that it exalts the English KJV while lowering the
significance and importance of the manuscripts that were translated into the
KJV! To a rational and freethinking Christian, it is absurd to suggest that
this English translation is more authoritative and accurate than the Hebrew
and Greek texts.<<<
Jason, this is more than a little hypocritical of you. YOU are the one who is
telling us that the Hebrew texts are incorrect and corrupted in several
places, not me.
Why is it absurd to claim inspiration and preservation for a translation? Are
you telling us that a translation CANNOT be inspired? Where did you get this
erroneous idea? Certainly not from the Bible.
As a sort of footnote before I continue my response, you criticized me for
posting two links that give explanations to two of the toughest examples of
alleged contradictions in the Hebrew text found in the KJB.
The age of Ahaziah, 22 or 42, or both?
- snipped link -
The age of Jehoiachin - 8 or 18?
- snipped link -
You then said: "You need to make your case. I'm not going to your web pages to
read what you have to say. You could have used 1000 more words on your 2nd
round post. Why didn't you? ...This isn't a link war. If you cannot or will
not make your case, then I'll conclude that you do not have one."
Jason, it seems to be OK for you to post numerous links in your rounds
expecting us to go to them to find out what you have to say, but then it is
not OK for me to post just two of them. I posted two links to articles on my
webpage that give an explanation of these two alleged errors. It is much
easier for a person who is interested in these to just click on the link and
find the article.
I do not need to use up all my allotted words, do I? I don't remember seeing
this requirement in your terms.
Jason>>>As a KJV-onlyist, you would need to hate your family. Right? Of
course, I have an answer to this and it comes from the Greek. The word
translated "hate" in the KJV is the Greek word "miseo" which means "love
less." See THIS LINK However, as a KJV-onlyist, you do not have the luxury in
looking to the original languages, so how do you say this is inerrant?...I'm
saying that the KJV is giving the WRONG meaning and the Greek is giving the
RIGHT meaning. Pretty simple...Why did the KJV change the Greek to give us an
incorrect meaning?<<<
Jason, a KJB believer has just as much right to "look at the Greek" as anyone
else. As I pointed out, there is not a bible version on this earth that says
what you think the Greek should mean here. It is your personal opinion. Not an
undisputed fact, nor even the right translation. One of the reasons we have so
many variant readings in the manuscripts is because of guys like you. Self
appointed critics who think they know more than God. They think "Well, it
really should read this way." And Presto, we now have a new variant. God knows
how to say "love less" but He didn't say that here in Luke 14:26. Sorry to
burst your bubble.
Jason>>>I'm not saying the Bible is in error. I'm saying you and the KJV are
in error. In fact, I'm not the one saying it because I'm merely affirming what
the Greek Bible (you know, the one that came before the KJV) is saying."
Jason, WHICH "Bible" is it that is not "in error" here? Does it exist in paper
and ink somewhere? Remember, you have yet to compose your peculiar inerrant
bible for us yet. Why is it that only you got it right, and every other Bible
translator in all languages throughout history have missed the correct
meaning? And where is this "THE Greek Bible" you refer to. You don't even have
"THE Greek Bible" that you consider to be the inerrant words of God. You are
continually referring to a fabrication of your own imagination that you have
yet to put into print. You are talking about things here as though they really
existed someplace other than your own mind. This is not a sign of good mental
health.
Jason>>>This leads me to another question. What did English speaking people do
before the KJV 1611 Bible? Where was this preserved Word of God and where is
it, today?<<<
Good question. I was wondering when you would get around to this. Before the
KJB the English speaking people use what most BB members and modern bible
promoters call "reliable versions". They were much closer to the text of the
King James Bible than the "reliable" NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman, etc, but they
were not perfect.
As for where it was, I have written an article about this found, - horror or
horrors -, at this link.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html
It is so ironic that you of all people would ask "Where is it today?". Can you
please tell us? I'm sure we would all find your answer to this question quite
illuminating.
Just a few more thoughts on the earth abiding forever, as ALL bible versions
out there read in Eccl. 1:4
Jason>>>No it won't. This isn't what 2 Peter 3:10 says. This isn't even what
Ecclesiastes 1:4 says! It's only what your flawed translation says....Remade
and renovated? Hmm. I guess you disagree with Peter.
No Jason, I do not disagree with Peter. He goes on to say: "Nevertheless we,
according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein
dwelleth righteousness."
I also know there is a different view of what some statements in Ecclesiates
mean about "under the sun". I am familiar with these views, and we didn't even
discuss these. However Psalm 104:4-5 say: "Who maketh his angels spirits; and
his ministers a flame of fire: Who laid the foundations of the earth, THAT IT
SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED FOR EVER."
2 Peter 3 speaks of the present earth being "burned up", "disssolved" and
"melt with fervent heat", but it will not be obliterated to nothing and cease
to exist.
The earth will be renovated and abide forever. Many Christians have held this
view. For example, John Gill comments on these verses: "the earth also will be
purged and purified from everything that is noxious, hurtful, unnecessary, and
disagreeable; though the matter and substance of it will continue." If you
disagree with my conclusions, there is nothing I can do about that, but I am
not the only one to hold this view.
Now for your latest three "errors"
1. Do rabbits really chew the cud?
Leviticus 11:6 reads, "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth
not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."
Jason>>>The KJV says that rabbits chew the cud. Rabbits don't chew the cud.
Rabbits practice refection which is chewing partially undigested food that
comes out of the anus.
Jason, First of all, when you criticize the King James Bible as being in error
here, you show again that not only do you criticize the KJB but the
understanding of a whole lot of other Bible translators as well. Since you
yourself do not have the originals, nor have you written your own peculiar
bible version yet so we can all see what an infallible bible looks like, I
guess we are just supposed to take your word for what this text SHOULD say,
huh?
Agreeing with the King James Bible in Leviticus 11:6 "And the hare, because he
cheweth the cud" are the Hebrew translations into English of the Jewish
Publication Society 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, and the 1998
Complete Jewish Bible. These Jewish translators, even though Hebrew is their
native language, apparently do not have a firm grasp of the nuances of their
own language that you claim to possess.
Not only do the Jewish Bible versions read: "and the hare, because he cheweth
the cud" but so also do every Bible version I looked at. These include
Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, the King James Bible, the
Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Webster's, Green's Modern KJV,
and the Third Millenium Bible.
Here are a few others that many on the Baptist Board prefer. Let's see what
these say, shall we?
Holman CSB 2003 - "the hare, though it chews the cud,"
NASB - "the rabbit also, for though it chews cud"
NKJV - "the hare, because it chews the cud"
RSV, NRSV, ESV - "And the hare, because it chews the cud"
NIV - "The rabbit, though it chews the cud"
Young's - "and the hare, though it is bringing up the cud"
The Message - "The rabbit chews the cud"
You see, Jason, you set yourself up as the final authority and take offense
when some of us do not take you very seriously. You admit on the one hand that
you do not know where the originals are, and you have not yet compiled and
written your own bible version for which the world sorely pines. Are we just
supposed to take your word for what the text really should say and toss all
our error ridden bibles in the trash?
I have run into a lot of King James Bible critics, but they at least usually
refer us to some other written bible version they think is better, but you
can't even do this, can you? You just expect us to take your word for it.
Jason, it really appears that you, and you alone, are the only final authority
for what is God's word and what it really means.
An explanation:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.as
The Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been
swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants
that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at
first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise
refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does
indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the
rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten,
and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
http://www.ldolphin.org/contradict.html
The clue here is in the meaning of 'cud.' Rabbits and hares pass two kinds of
stools. One is feces. The other is a mucous-covered green pellet which the
rabbit will re-ingest, licking it off its anus. These are generally passed in
the early morning hours. If cud is defined as being only what a ruminant, or
animal with a special stomach division which brings up food for chewing, can
have, then rabbits and hares do not chew the cud. However if cud is defined as
undigested matter which is re-ingested, then rabbits and hares certainly do
chew the cud. Here again we have a grouping which includes a unique group with
a general group, in much the same way bats were included with the birds. It
makes perfectly good sense seen from their point of view.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/coney
Easton's Bible Dictionary
When it is said to "chew the cud," the Hebrew word so used does not
necessarily imply the possession of a ruminant stomach. "The lawgiver speaks
according to appearances; and no one can watch the constant motion of the
little creature's jaws, as it sits continually working its teeth, without
recognizing the naturalness of the expression" - Tristram, Natural History of
the Bible.
2. Was Jehu the son or grandson of Nimshi? Yet another KJV contradiction.
Jason, I would appreciate your giving us the verses in question in the future,
OK?
I assume you are referring to 1 Kings 19:16 where God told Elijah: "And Jehu
THE SON of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel." Is this right?
Then I assume you will then refer to 2 Kings 9:2 where Elisha tells someone:
"Look out there Jehu THE SON of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi" and to anoint
him king. Is this right?
So, you now accuse the King James Bible of being in error for calling Jehu the
SON of Nimshi, do I have this right?
On your website I notice you usually quote the NKJV as being your bible of
choice. It is a shame you are reduced to using an error ridden version like
this until you finally get around to producing your own bible. Again, you have
set up your own understanding as being the final authority and have no
inspired, inerrant, complete Bible to give anyone.
First of all, though you dislike my referencing other versions, and believe
me, I can understand why you would not like me to do this, I will continue to
do so to show how absurd your biblical position has become.
Not only does the King James Bible call Jehu the SON of Nimshi in 1 Kings
19:16 but so also do your NKJV, which you constantly use, the NASB, NIV, ESV,
Holman and the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, and the Complete Jewish
Bible 1998.
As you should know, both the Hebrew and the Greek term for "son" has a very
wide application. It means any male descendant, no matter if this son is
generations removed. It can even be used to include those who are female.
We might just as well ask you if Jesus was the son of David as recorded in
Matthew 1:1. Or is this also an error? How would you translate this verse for
us, Jason?
Or was David the son of Abraham as found in Matthew 1:1?
Were the blind men wrong for calling Jesus the son of David in Matthew 9:27?
Or how about Revelation 21:7 where God says: "He that overcometh shall inherit
all things; and I will be HIS God and HE shall be my SON." What? No women
included? How would you translate this verse in your hypothetical inspired
version?
I hope the other members here at Baptist Board realize that you are not only
criticizing the King James Bible of being in error in everything you have
posted so far as your examples, but you are also telling them that they are
all using uninspired, error ridden versions as well. This should be readily
apparent to anyone who has active brain waves and a pulse.
3. Did Saul inquire of God? The KJV gives two contradictory accounts.
1 Samuel 28:6 and 7 reads, "And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD
answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. 7 Then said
Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I
may go to her, and inquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there
is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor."
1 Chronicles 10:13, 14 "So Saul died for his transgression which he committed
against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and
also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it;
14. And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the
kingdom unto David the son of Jesse."
Conclusion
It is clear to all that the originals are
better than the English KJV. The KJV is not inerrant.
#3 Jason, again you show your utter unbelief in any Scriptures out there in
print, and your unwillingness to accept any point of view or understanding
contrary to your own opinion. A more accurate statement by you would be "It is
clear to ME - not ALL- that the NON-EXISTENT originals WERE - not ARE - better
that ANY TRANSLATION EVER MADE SO FAR."
Again, every version I checked says either exactly or essentially the same
thing as does the King James Bible. This includes the Jewish translations, the
NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman, NKJV etc.
Secondly, and more importantly, it is you who miss what the text is talking
about.
There are TWO events referred to in 1 Chronicles 10:14 and two consequences of
these two events. You only see one and are blinded to any other possibility.
You are creating an alleged contradiction where none exists.
Here is my explanation. Notice carefully the language used in the inspired
King James Bible text, and it matches all the others too, - except for that
mystical one you haven't written yet. I hope for your sake you never put it
together. It will only compound your guilt before God who does not take kindly
to those who mess with His words.
In 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 we read: "So Saul died for his transgression which he
committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept
not, AND ALSO for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire
of it;" - TWO events are referred to here. His transgression of not keeping
the word of the Lord, as recorded in 1 Samuel 13, AND ALSO for consulting the
familiar spirit.
Verse 14 continues: "AND ENQUIRED NOT OF THE LORD: therefore he slew him, AND
TURNED THE KINGDOM UNTO DAVID the son of Jesse." - This refers to the other
event which happened earlier as recorded in 1 Samuel 13:8-14.
In 1 Samuel 10:8 Samuel comes to Saul and tells him: "And thou shalt go down
before me to Gilgal; and, behold, I will come down unto thee, to offer burnt
offerings, and to sacrifice sacrifices of peace offerings: seven days shalt
thou tarry, till I come to thee, and shew thee what thou shalt do."
But, 1 Samuel 13:8-14 tells us what Saul did and the consequences of his not
enquiring of the LORD what he should do since Samuel had not yet come. There
we read:
1 Samuel 13:8 "And he tarried seven days, according to the set time that
Samuel had appointed: but Samuel came not to Gilgal; and the people were
scattered from him.
13:9
And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And
he offered the burnt offering.
13:10 -
And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt
offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, that he might
salute him.
13:11 -
And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the
people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days
appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash;
13:12 -
Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I
have not made supplication unto the LORD: I forced myself therefore, and
offered a burnt offering.
13:13 -
And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast NOT KEPT THE
COMMANDMENT OF THE LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the
LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.
13:14 -
BUT NOW THY KINGDOM SHALL NOT CONTINUE: the LORD hath sought him a man after
his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people,
because thou hast NOT KEPT THAT WHICH THE LORD COMMANDED THEE.
When it gives the reason for turning the kingdom over to David in 1 Chronicles
10:13, it is because Saul did not enquire of the LORD. This refers back to the
event recorded in I Samuel 13, - NOT to when Saul enquired of the LORD when
the Philistines came against him later on in his life, God didn't answer him,
and he ended up consulting the woman with the familiar spirit.
The only direct equation between God taking away the kingdom from Saul and
giving it to David is because of the events recorded in I Samuel 13 where Saul
disobeyed the commandment of Samuel and "forced himself to make a burnt
offering". It was at that time that Saul was told that God would take away the
kingdom from him and give it to David.
Saul was guilty of two things. One was not enquiring of the Lord for
directions when Samuel was late, and this is why the kingdom was passed on to
David. The second thing was consulting the familiar spirit, and for these two
things combined, God took his life.
Jason, you have no inspired, infallible, complete Bible you can give any
person here or on your vast email list. You criticize every single Bible
version out there as being full of errors. You "use" the NKJV on your website,
but you don't think it is inspired or accurate either. Your present biblical
position is pathetic in the extreme, and what amazes me even more is that some
people are still taking you seriously, even when you, by extension, blast
their own preferred versions as being equally in error along with the King
James Bible.
I will close this second round with a question for you. You give me three
verses to deal with at a time. I would like to give you just one, if you don't
mind. Your answer will help clarify what your textual position really is for
us.
In Judges 14:12-18 Samson puts forth a riddle to the Philistine companions of
the wedding feast. In verse 15 the Hebrew text and the King James Bible say:
"And it came to pass on THE SEVENTH DAY, that they said unto Samson's wife,
Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee
and thy father's house with fire...
In verse 17 it says "she wept before him THE SEVEN DAYS, while their feast
lasted".
However, in verse 15 such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman have all
changed the SEVENTH day, to the FOURTH DAY, and they got this number from the
Syriac and SOME Septuagint versions.
My question for you is this: Which reading is correct and why? Can you explain
this riddle within a riddle for us? How would you translate Judges 14:15 in
your "inerrant" bible version, if you ever get around to having it printed?
Will Kinney
Round 3
By Jason Gastrich
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason>>>As a KJV-onlyist, you would need to hate your family. Right? Of
course, I have an answer to this and it comes from the Greek. The word
translated "hate" in the KJV is the Greek word "miseo" which means "love
less." See THIS LINK However, as a KJV-onlyist, you do not have the luxury in
looking to the original languages, so how do you say this is inerrant?...I'm
saying that the KJV is giving the WRONG meaning and the Greek is giving the
RIGHT meaning. Pretty simple...Why did the KJV change the Greek to give us an
incorrect meaning?<&l
