Helping San Diego, California and beyond since 1997
Click here to subscribe and connect!
|
|
Helping San Diego, California and beyond since 1997
Click here to subscribe and connect!
|
|
||||
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?<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason, a KJB believer has just as much right to "look at the Greek" as anyone
else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they don’t. You say the KJV is inerrant. Therefore, you need to defend
your position by using the KJV Bible. You have absolutely no right to look to
the Hebrew or Greek for anything. Your position and the resolution of this
debate is that the KJV, which is an English translation, is inerrant.
Therefore, you cannot use any other Bibles in your arguments.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God knows how to say "love less" but He didn't say that here in Luke 14:26.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re right. God does and God did in the Greek. The KJV did not and this is
why there is an error in the KJV. - snipped off-topic rant by Will that
included slams about my mental health - - snipped your repetitious questions
regarding my premise that was already clearly stated -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a few more thoughts on the earth abiding forever, as ALL bible versions
out there read in Eccl. 1:4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn’t matter what "ALL bible versions out there read." We aren’t talking
about all Bible versions. As I said above, you can only use the KJV because
that’s the topic of this debate and that is the translation you say is
inerrant. It’s clearly in your best interest to try and muddy the resolution
of this debate with other translations and even the ancient manuscripts when
you do not have the luxury of using either in order to prove your case: that
the KJV is inerrant. Stick to the subject. I will call you on your avoidance
and red herrings.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"New" isn’t the same thing as "renovated." Face it. You gave us another ad hoc
explanation to try and convince someone that your biased point of view is
correct. We are all used to them by now and we can all spot them a mile away.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stick to the subject. You are trying to prove the KJV is inerrant.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Any reasonable person can read something and hold it to the truth and
decide whether or not it is true or not. This isn’t rocket science. However,
here are some exegetical principles that we can follow that may help you
understand the scriptures. http://herm.jcsm.org
.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha! You did it again! In order to try and prove the KJV is inerrant, you
appeal to other translations. Get over it. We aren’t talking about other
translations. THEY DO NOT HELP YOUR CASE THAT THE KJV IS INERRANT!!!
- deleted rant about other translations -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You see, Jason, you set yourself up as the final authority and take offense
when some of us do not take you very seriously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is called ad hominem. This is when you turn and attack me instead of the
issue at hand. This is the sign of someone who either cannot debate or who is
losing badly.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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’ve already stated my premise about the inerrant scriptures. Reread it if you
need to. You really should because you keep mis-characterizing my position.
Nonetheless, it is YOUR POSITION that you need to defend.
Do rabbits chew the cud? No. Is the KJV wrong? Yes. You haven’t given us any
other option or any rational defense of your case. In other words, you have
lost this point because you cannot convince us that the KJV is right.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you’re getting disturbed because I won’t join you in your rabbit trail. No
pun intended. Stick to the topic. You’re trying to prove the KJV is inerrant.
So far, you have an errant statement by the KJV.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More ad hominem.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hebrew phrase for ‘‘chew the cud’’ simply means ‘‘raising up what has been
swallowed’’.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don’t have the option to consult the Hebrew. You have ONLY THE KJV. You
claim the KJV is INERRANT. Therefore, you must argue from the KJV. If you
can’t, then you lose.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I’ll keep deleting them and you’ll keep losing the debate. It’s not that I
arbitrarily don’t like it when you quote other translations. It’s that you do
not support your case, which is the resolution of the debate: THE KJV IS
INERRANT, when you quote other translations. It does nothing for your case and
is off-topic. You need to use the KJV to make your case.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You cannot use Hebrew or Greek. This debate is about the KJV. You say the KJV
is inerrant. Prove it. You cannot use other language Bibles because they are
not the KJV. Use the KJV if you can. So far, this is another point you have
lost because you either cannot argue effectively or you are willfully arguing
poorly because you have no case from the KJV.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you manage to squeeze in some ad hominem attacks and off-topic
statements.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...which isn’t the topic of this debate. You either have a really short memory
or you have given up trying to defend your position. Right? What else can we
conclude? By the way you are defending your position, we could conclude that
your position is indefensible.
I don’t think I need to say it again, at least
for those that are reading, but here it is again for you Will. Stick to the
topic. You are trying to prove the KJV is inerrant. You are failing, so
starting talking about the KJV if you want to convince someone you are doing
something other than wasting everyone’s time.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More ad hominem nonsense. However, it does show that you and the KJV desire to
be the final authority. It also goes along with your push to be unschooled in
original languages and the truth. "Turn off your brain and believe the KJV"
seems to be your mantra.
Even in your cultish perspective, why couldn’t another English translation be
better than the KJV? What makes it the best ever and what makes it better than
every future translation? You aren’t taking a scholarly perspective. I’ll
weigh every word of the KJV against the Greek and Hebrew and against the
truth. Do you honestly do this? I don’t think so. We’ve already seen your
twisted ways of arguing and thinking.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you can’t look in the Hebrew to find your answer regarding the KJV’s
inerrancy, but that is where the answer to this question is. There are two,
distinct words used in these passages. They are both translated "inquire" in
the KJV, though. This is why the KJV is inerrant and this is how we find the
answer. I’ll explain it for you.
In 1 Samuel 28:6, this Hebrew word for "inquire" can be translated "demand."
When Saul sought the Lord in this way, He did not hear him. See
http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB75.htm#S7592 .
In 1 Chronicles 10:13 and 14, this different Hebrew word for "inquire" means
"worship," "seek," "search," "follow" and "ask." Saul did not do this and this
is part of the reason why God judged Him by taking his life. See
http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB18.htm#S1875 .
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason, you have no inspired, infallible, complete Bible you can give any
person here or on your vast email list.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you’re wrong. However, even if you are right, this STILL doesn’t help
your case that the KJV is inerrant!
- deleted more ad hominem attacks and nonsense -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s fitting that your one question is regarding the KJV vs. other
translations. This isn’t the topic of the debate, though. You are trying to
prove that the KJV is inerrant. Don’t forget. Eventually, your poor arguments
will be seen as evasion because it’s hard to believe that you are simply
unable to support your position in any way whatsoever.
Conclusion
At this point, it is obvious that Will has given "answers" that do not help
his case. In order to give him a hand, I’m going to avoid giving him new
questions. He needs to either give answers to the old questions or admit that
he doesn’t have any answers from the KJV.
By reading Will’s posts, is anyone convince that the KJV is inerrant?
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
Round 4
By Will Kinney
Brother Jason, I asked about Judges 14:15 because it will reveal a great deal
about how you view the Hebrew Scriptures. You have stated before that the
Hebrew texts were miscopied and they now contain "scribal errors". The example
in Judges 14:15 is just one of many such places where the NASB, NIV, ESV,
Holman, etc. have decided the Hebrew text is wrong and have followed some
other source, in this case, the Syriac.
However by their saying the fourth day, instead of the seventh day, they not
only reject the Hebrew reading, but they also contradict information given in
the passage itself where we are told in verse 17 that "she wept before him the
seven days, while their feast lasted."
I suspect that you do not wish to reveal too much more about your nebulous
textual stand, and that you yourself do not understand the passage. Please
accept my apology if I misread your motives.
You close with: "By reading Wills posts, is anyone convinced that the KJV is
inerrant?"
I would like to ask everyone reading your posts if they are convinced that you
have proven any error so far in the King James Bible. I may not have proven
the KJB to be inerrant, but I think I have done a fair job of showing your six
alleged errors to be no errors at all. I fail to see where you have made one
valid point so far against the inerrancy of the King James Bible.
Jason, if you wish to have your alleged errors knocked down every time, then
get up and claim Victory and walk away from the fight, I guess there is little
I can do about it; but you sure look a little foolish doing this.
"Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law."
Psalm 119:18
Will Kinney
By Jason Gastrich
Round 4
Will,
Let me be painfully clear to you. You claim the KJV is inerrant. Therefore,
you have no right to use other Bibles to prove your case. You must use the KJV
to prove your case.
These are the errors that you cannot answer using the KJV.
1. Did Saul inquire of the Lord? In the KJV, one scripture says he did, but
another scripture says he doesn't. This is called an error, Will. Be honest.
1 Samuel 28:6 reads, And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him
not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.
1 Chronicles 10:13 and 14 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 inquire
of it; 14And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the
kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.
Those verses say two different things in the KJV. If you say they don't, then
you are a liar. If you want to lie to us and say that these two verses don't
contradict in the KJV, then nothing you say can be trusted. In a court of law,
this would be as perjury.
The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you cannot use the Hebrew. You say the
KJV is inerrant. If you have to go to the Hebrew to clear up an error in the
KJV, then you lose the debate.
2. The KJV is in error regarding Jehu. Jehu was the grandson of Nimshi; not
the son. However, we find passages in the KJV that say both.
1 Kings 19:16 reads, And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king
over Israel . . .
2 Kings 9:2 reads, And when thou comest thither, look out there Jehu the son
of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in . . .
Will, these two verses say two different things in the KJV. This means there
is an error. As before, the answer is in the Hebrew. However, you are arguing
that the KJV is inerrant. Therefore, you cannot refer to the Hebrew.
These two verses plainly say two different things. If you claim they do not,
then you are a liar. If you want to lie about this, then we cannot trust
anything you say.
Do the KJV-onlyists really want to lie and support liars? Take this to heart
and stop making yourself look foolish. Agree with the simple truth of God's
Word. There are errors that you cannot reconcile in and within the KJV. You
can only reconcile them by going to the Hebrew and Greek and this is
impossible for a KJV-Onlyist to do. This is what normal people do; normal
people who understand there are some errors in the KJV. You cannot have it
both ways. If you have to look to another text to help the KJV be correct,
then you have lost the debate and admitted error.
3. Hares don't chew the cud. The KJV says they do. This is an error. If you
say it's correct, then you are ignorant of science.
Leviticus 11:6 reads, And the hare, because he cheweth the cud . . .
The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you don't have the liberty of looking in
the Hebrew. You claim the KJV (KING JAMES VERSION) is inerrant. So, prove it.
Prove the KJV is inerrant with the KJV. Hint: You cant.
Do rabbits chew the cud, Will? Yes or no? No, they don't. If you say they do,
then you are a liar.
4. Unicorns don't exist. The KJV says they do. Therefore, the KJV is in error.
Many verses in the KJV claim that unicorns exist. Here is one. Psalm 92:10
reads, But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be
anointed with fresh oil.
Do unicorns exist, Will? No, they don't. The KJV is in error. We have an
answer from the Hebrew text, but you cannot use the Hebrew text if you want to
say the KJV is inerrant.
Conclusion
There are errors in the KJV. There are errors in the KJV that cannot be
explained with the KJV, with science, or with logic. If Will wants to look at
the errors in the KJV and tell us they are not errors, then he is a liar and a
willful deceiver.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
Round 5
by Will Kinney
What Jason says versus what Jason does:
What Jason says:>>> 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.
What Jason does:
Jason>>>>"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."
Well, Jason, I guess then by implication I and many others are not rational,
but irrational and we hold to absurd beliefs.
Previous post by Will>>>The only thing some members of Without The Camp told
you to repent of was your bogus and inconsistent stand on the Bible."
Jason>>>Aren't these KJV-Onlyists sweet and loving? I'm sure many people
reading are ready to run out and be one, now.<<<
Will>>>Why are we so sweet and loving? Because we thought you needed to repent
of your wrong views about the inerrancy of the Holy Bible? Is thinking you
need to repent being so harsh? If so, then why in your opening statements did
you think I need to repent as well? You clearly stated:
Jason Gastrich
Member # 8973
posted August 18, 2004 01:27 PM
"Thanks for the heads up Bro. Bill. In my experience, the things you listed
are generally the positive results from a formal debate. Even though the vast
majority of my opponents have been atheists, I DON'T necessarily EXPECT HIM TO
REPENT; even if I put forth an excellent argument."
So, Jason, are you being sweet and loving when you think I need to repent, but
I, on the other hand, am being harsh and unkind for thinking the same of you?
Jason>>> 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.
Jason>>>
You are taking part in a certain practice that atheists love. I call it
becoming "conveniently confused."<<<
Jason>>>"...this is another similarity you have to the atheists. They love to
do this.<<<
Jason>>>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.<<<
Jason>>>With all due respect, YOU are the "Bible corrector" (another phrase
you have used for me).<<<
Jason>>>>... you and the KJV desire to be the final authority. It also goes
along with your push to be unschooled in original languages and the truth.
Turn off your brain and believe the KJV seems to be your mantra.
Jason>>>The only question left is whether or not the KJV-Onlyists are
willfully trying to deceive or just simply ignorant.
Jason>>>10 out of 10 honest people will admit that those scriptures say
opposite, contradictory things.
Jason>>>then you are a liar. If you want to lie to us and say that these two
verses don't contradict in the KJV, then nothing you say can be trusted.
Well, Jason, I guess I was taking "the low road" and being un-Christian for
calling you a Bible corrector - God forbid - , but then you turn around and
liken me unto an atheist, a cultist, call me a liar, accuse me of being a
dishonest, "turn off your brain", "unschooled" kind of guy, and nothing I say
can be trusted. Do you call this "showing Will respect"; - "speaking the truth
in love" - and "attacking the topic, not the person"?
Jason, I want to make one thing clear about all this name calling. I am not
reacting out of spite or retaliating in kind when I accused you of being a
Bible corrector and a fraud for your Biblical position. I called you these two
things long before you challenged me to this debate here at Baptist Board. You
should have known what you were getting into when you challenged me to debate
the King James Bible issue.
Even if you really were all sweetness and light, I would still call you a BC
and a fra.., because of your alleged position of defending the inerrancy of a
"bible" that exists solely in your own mind, and nowhere in reality any place
on this earth. When you say on your website that The Bible is a book that is
the inerrant word of God, you really aren't referring to anything anybody can
actually hold in their hands, read and believe.
You accuse of error and "correct" not only the King James Bible, but every
single Bible version that is out there in print today. You are more extreme
than most Whateverists I have met so far, but at least I credit you with
having taken their position to its logical conclusions - that is, - there is
no inspired, inerrant, complete Bible on the face of this earth and God has
not preserved His words in any single Book. Each one of us is then left to our
own devices and everybody disagrees with everyone else as to what God really
said and how or where He said it.
One of the big differences between the King James Bible believer and people
like yourself who have no inerrant, complete Bible, is that when the KJB
believer comes across numbers, names or apparent contradictions in the text,
he or she then turns to God in prayer and asks for understanding. He does not
automatically assume that the text is wrong or that there has been a "scribal
error" or that the text has been lost over time. These latter assumptions are
all made by the people who put out such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV,
NKJV and Holman.
The King James Bible believer actually believes God has kept His promises to
preserve His words of truth and that we have them in the King James Bible.
Over the years, and especially since God gave me the faith to believe the KJB
really is His preserved words, He has cleared up many of these apparent
contradictions and confirmed the truth of the King James Bible. More and more
pieces of this amazing Book have fallen into place over the years.
I hope this last post of yours was not your final round in our discussion. I
noticed you did bring up the old canard about the "unicorns". I congratulate
you. Finally you have chosen an alleged "error" that is not shared by the
NKJV, NIV, NASB.
I would then ask you if you think all these modern versions that speak many
times about "dragons" are also incorrect?
Anyway, here is the info I have about unicorns. It is on one of those dreaded
links to my website;-)
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unicorn.html
Jason, it appears that no matter what you post, you will continue to think you
have proven errors in the KJB and I will not. So get used to the idea that you
and I will not be in agreement, and go on to other things or examples. We will
just have to each post our respective views on the passages your bring up and
let the other readers consider our thoughts and decide for themselves.
Let's not keep going over the same 6 examples again and again. Nothing more is
to be gained from doing this.
Why don't you try the riddle within the riddle in Judges 14:15? Give it a shot
and tell us all how you would go about translating it in your yet to be
written version.
God bless,
Will Kinney
By Jason Gastrich
Round 5
quote:
Will:
Let's not keep going over the same 6 examples again and again. Nothing more is
to be gained from doing this.
Sorry. That's not how I debate. I want straight answers, Will. Ill repost my
questions to you and leave spaces for you to give your replies.
--
These are the errors that you cannot answer using the KJV.
1. Did Saul inquire of the Lord? In the KJV, one scripture says he did, but
another scripture says he doesn't. This is called an error, Will. Be honest.
1 Samuel 28:6 reads, And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him
not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.
1 Chronicles 10:13 and 14 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 inquire
of it; 14And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the
kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.
Those verses say two different things in the KJV. If you say they don't, then
you are a liar. If you want to lie to us and say that these two verses don't
contradict in the KJV, then nothing you say can be trusted. In a court of law,
this would be as perjury.
The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you cannot use the Hebrew. You say the
KJV is inerrant. If you have to go to the Hebrew to clear up an error in the
KJV, then you lose the debate.
Wills answer:
2. The KJV is in error regarding Jehu. Jehu was the grandson of Nimshi; not
the son. However, we find passages in the KJV that say both.
1 Kings 19:16 reads, And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king
over Israel . . .
2 Kings 9:2 reads, And when thou comest thither, look out there Jehu the son
of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in . . .
Will, these two verses say two different things in the KJV. This means there
is an error. As before, the answer is in the Hebrew. However, you are arguing
that the KJV is inerrant. Therefore, you cannot refer to the Hebrew.
These two verses plainly say two different things. If you claim they do not,
then you are a liar. If you want to lie about this, then we cannot trust
anything you say.
Do the KJV-onlyists really want to lie and support liars? Take this to heart
and stop making yourself look foolish. Agree with the simple truth of God's
Word. There are errors that you cannot reconcile in and within the KJV. You
can only reconcile them by going to the Hebrew and Greek and this is
impossible for a KJV-Onlyist to do. This is what normal people do; normal
people who understand there are some errors in the KJV. You cannot have it
both ways. If you have to look to another text to help the KJV be correct,
then you have lost the debate and admitted error.
Wills answer:
3. Hares don't chew the cud. The KJV says they do. This is an error. If you
say its correct, then you are ignorant of science.
Leviticus 11:6 reads, And the hare, because he cheweth the cud . . .
The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you don't have the liberty of looking in
the Hebrew. You claim the KJV (KING JAMES VERSION) is inerrant. So, prove it.
Prove the KJV is inerrant with the KJV. Hint: You can't.
Do rabbits chew the cud, Will? Yes or no? No, they don't. If you say they do,
then you are a liar.
Wills answer:
4. Unicorns don't exist. The KJV says they do. Therefore, the KJV is in error.
Many verses in the KJV claim that unicorns exist. Here is one. Psalm 92:10
reads, But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be
anointed with fresh oil.
Do unicorns exist, Will? No, they don't. The
KJV is in error. We have an answer from the Hebrew text, but you cannot use
the Hebrew text if you want to say the KJV is inerrant.
Wills answer:
I wish Will the very best as he tries to defend his position that the KJV is
inerrant.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
Round 6
by Will Kinney
Hi Jason, I see you are calling this last post of your the 5th round. I guess
you want to get this thing over with as quickly as possible.
You have done nothing more than repeat three of your original six examples of
alleged errors in the King James Bible, and added one more for the second time
about the unicorns.
I have already answered all these questions, pointing out that not only the
King James Bible but also all the other Bible versions read the same way in
the first six examples.
I have defended and explained the "hares chew the cud" by providing three
different links, two from Creation Science ministries and one from a Bible
Dictionary. You personally do not accept the explanation and have not provided
us with how you would translate this phrase in your yet to be written,
inerrant "bible" version.
As for the Jehu son of Nimshi example, I showed how ALL Bible versions say the
same thing and explained the use of the word "son" in both Hebrew and Greek. I
even asked you the following questions, taken right from the KJB, and yet you
have refused to answer these. This was my defence, yet you never attempted to
refute it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the Samuel inquiring of the Lord and not inquiring, I explained to you
that you are confusing two different events as being one, and therefore you
see a contradiction where none exists. ALL Bible versions, including the three
Hebrew translations agree with the King James reading.
I have every right to consult the Hebrew texts and the Greek text that
underlies the King James Bible as you do. I at least believe the underlying
Hebrew and Greek texts of the KJB are the preserved and infallible words of
God. You do not believe the Hebrew text is without error, and yet you tell us
the answer is in the Hebrew, which you don't consider to be inerrant. Funny
position to hold, Jason.
I consider the King James Bible to be the inerrant, inspired, complete words
of God in the English language, and its underlying base is the inspired,
preserved Hebrew and Greek texts, and these have correctly been translated in
the English language and God has put His clear stamp of divine approval upon
this English Bible.
You, on the other hand, have no inspired, inerrant, complete WRITTEN words of
God anywhere on this earth, and in an inconsistent attempt to support your own
peculiar, mystical, non-existent "bible" you appeal to the Hebrew texts which
you yourself consider to be plagued with errors. Then, when you refer to the
Hebrew, you don't even tell us how you would translate it. All you do is
repeat your refrain "the KJV is in error".
Here is your latest example of "error" in the King James Bible. Jason>>>
4. "Unicorns dont exist. The KJV says they do. Therefore, the KJV is in error.
Many verses in the KJV claim that unicorns exist. Here is one. Psalm 92:10
reads, But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be
anointed with fresh oil.
Do unicorns exist, Will? No, they don't. The
KJV is in error. We have an answer from the Hebrew text, but you cannot use
the Hebrew text if you want to say the KJV is inerrant."
Jason, I already gave you my response to this alleged error.
What I said is that many Bible translators have considered "unicorn" to be an
accurate translation of this Hebrew word. Even the Jewish translation of 1936
does this.
The "scholars" are not at all in agreement among themselves as to what this
animal was or how to translate the word. Many think it was the buffalo, or the
rhinoceros, or a dinosaur, a unicorn, or some other extinct animal of some
kind.
I think it was either a unicorn in much the same way we think of unicorns
today, or maybe it was one-horned dinosaur, or possibly a rhino. I don't
really know, but it is obvious that the NKJV, NIV, NASB etc. have gotten it
wrong with "a wild ox".
You could give us your personal opinion as to what this animal was, but that
is all it would be - your opinion. Many Bible translators both ancient and
modern and in foreign languages too have considered "unicorn" - a one horned
animal- to be a perfectly good translation.
Then you and a lot of fellow KJB bashers mock at the idea that there ever
could have been such a thing as a unicorn, but when I ask you about the
"dragons, satyrs, and many headed monsters" found in your modern versions, you
fall strangely silent.
Here is an article about the dragons and other "mythological" animals found in
your modern versions.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/satyrs.html
You cannot "prove" that the King James Bible is wrong here. You certainly have
not made your case for any error in the King James Bible so far.
Here are a few excerpts from my article about the unicorn:
The King James Bible is not at all alone in translating the Hebrew word as
unicorn. In fact the word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation, Tyndale
(he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdales
Bible 1535, Taverners Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible 1568, the
Geneva Bible 1599, the so called Greek Septuagint version, the Italian Diodati
as well as the Spanish of 1602, all of which preceeded the King James Bible.
Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the
Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999
edition, the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darbys translation, the 21st
Century KJB, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Websters translation of the
Bible, published in 1833, Lamsas 1933 Bible translation of the Syraic Peshitta,
and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew
Publishing Company of New York.
The Greek Septuagint (LXX) - Regardless of when you think this Greek
translation of the Old Testament was made or by whom, this version is
chock-full of satyrs, devils, dragons, and unicorns. The word unicorns is
found in Numberbs 23:22; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9; Psalms 22:21; 29:6;
78:69, and 92:10.
One other verse that puts the lie to the modern versions use of wild ox,
besides the reference in Job, is Psalms 92:10. But my HORN shalt thou exalt
like the HORN of AN UNICORN. The NASB, NIV, NKJV read: You have exalted my
HORN like THAT OF A WILD OX. Now, I ask you a simple question. How many horns
does a wild ox have? Not one, but two.
People who are interested in reading the whole article can see it at:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unicorn.html
Jason, you have repeatedly avoided answering any of my questions to you. I
have tried to answer every one of your questions to me. You may not like the
answers I have given, but I don't see how a good form of debate is to continue
to ask the same questions over and over again when you keep getting the same
answers. If you are hoping my answers will change to ones that will be more to
your liking, I'm afraid you will be disappointed.
It is clear that neither one of us is going to change the other person's mind
on this issue. All we can profitably do is finish our debate in the 7 rounds
you suggested. There seem to be quite a few people interested in our
discussion and I hope we can cover some new ground. I suggest you not keep
bringing up the same old examples hoping for a different response from me. It
isn't going to happen. We will let the other readers decide who has made the
best case for their Biblical position, and leave the results with God.
Hoping to hear from you soon,
Why don't you try the riddle within the riddle in Judges 14:15? Give it a shot
and tell us all how you would go about translating it in your yet to be
written version.
God bless,
Will Kinney
By Jason Gastrich
Round 6
Will,
If you could avoid your off-topic opining about other translations, you would
probably have room for another entire round post.
You keep trying to use the Greek and Hebrew to explain the errors in the KJV.
You also want us to think this is allowable. It may be allowable to some, but
it isn't allowable to you. Why?
You are forbidden to use the Greek and Hebrew texts to correct the errors in
the KJV because of the resolution of this debate. In case you forgot, the
resolution of this debate is: The KJV is inerrant.
quote:
I have defended and explained the "hares chew the cud" by providing three
different links, two from Creation Science ministries and one from a Bible
Dictionary. You personally do not accept the explanation and have not provided
us with how you would translate this phrase in your yet to be written,
inerrant "bible" version.
Hares don't chew the cud; even the thought is laughable. Hares practice
refection. They chew partially digested dung. This is very different from
chewing the cud.
Once again, I have an answer because I can read the ancient, non-English
scriptures and discover the answer. Conversely, you have no answer because you
chose to try and defend the following resolution: The KJV is inerrant.
quote:
As for the Jehu son of Nimshi example, I showed how ALL Bible versions say the
same thing and explained the use of the word "son" in both Hebrew and Greek.
Which doesn't mean one single thing. You're supposed to be trying to defend
the resolution of this debate. Resolution: The KJV is inerrant.
quote:
I even asked you the following questions, taken right from the KJB, and yet
you have refused to answer these. This was my defence, yet you never attempted
to refute it.
I'm going to refuse again because I'm passing the football in the air while
you're trying to defend a ground attack.
quote:
As for the Samuel inquiring of the Lord and not inquiring, I explained to you
that you are confusing two different events as being one, and therefore you
see a contradiction where none exists.
This is a bizarre bit of ad hoc, piecemeal exegesis. Both of those scriptures
are talking about the exact same event: when Saul (NOT SAMUEL) wasn't/was
inquiring of the Lord before he met the witch of Endor. This is a very clear,
KJV contradiction. However, it is cleared up quite nicely in the Hebrew. It
even lends for a fantastic sermon based on the right/wrong kinds of inquiring
of the Lord.
quote:
ALL Bible versions, including the three Hebrew translations agree with the
King James reading.
One KJV verse said Saul (NOT SAMUEL) did inquire. One KJV verse said Saul (NOT
SAMUEL) did not inquire. How could anything agree with both passages?
Furthermore, I've already illustrated how the Hebrew text DOES NOT agree with
the KJV's contradiction. Two completely different Hebrew words are used for
the English word inquire.
Once again, the KJV got it wrong, but the Hebrew shows us the truth.
Unfortunately for Will, he cannot fall back on the Hebrew to help him in his
quest to make the KJV inerrant. We have decided on the following resolution
for this debate: The KJV is inerrant.
quote:
I have every right to consult the Hebrew texts and the Greek text that
underlies the King James Bible as you do.
Maybe in another debate with another resolution. Not in this one though, Will.
quote:
Here is your latest example of "error" in the King James Bible. Jason>>>
4. "Unicorns don't exist. The KJV says they do.
Therefore, the KJV is in error. Many verses in the KJV claim that unicorns
exist. Here is one. Psalm 92:10 reads, But my horn shalt thou exalt like the
horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil. Do unicorns exist,
Will? No, they don't. The KJV is in error. We have an answer from the Hebrew
text, but you cannot use the Hebrew text if you want to say the KJV is
inerrant."
quote:
Jason, I already gave you my response to this alleged error.
What I said is that many Bible translators have considered "unicorn" to be an
accurate translation of this Hebrew word.
Perhaps these numerous Bible translators also believe in gremlins, fairies,
Odin, and Thor, but this doesn't make unicorns exist.
Just so were clear, here is the one and only definition of unicorn in
Merriam-Websters Dictionary:
A mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the
hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of
the forehead.
I ask you, again. Do you believe in unicorns?
quote:
I think it was either a unicorn in much the same way we think of unicorns
today,
Really? Today we obviously recognize unicorns as the mythical creature defined
by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Are you so crazy about the KJV that you would
prefer to reject actual, animal possibilities that the Hebrew gives us in
favor of a mythical being with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of
a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead?
quote:
or maybe it was one-horned dinosaur, or possibly a rhino. I don't really know,
but it is obvious that the NKJV, NIV, NASB etc. have gotten it wrong with "a
wild ox".
Its only obvious because you have an irrational, a priori bias against any
Bible translation that doesn't start with a K and end with a V.
quote:
You could give us your personal opinion as to what this animal was, but that
is all it would be - your opinion. Many Bible translators both ancient and
modern and in foreign languages too have considered "unicorn" - a one horned
animal- to be a perfectly good translation.
Ill save my personal opinion, but you can guess where I derive it. Not from
the English text that was translated a few hundred years ago, but from the
scriptures that preceded your idolized translation by about 3000 years.
quote:
There seem to be quite a few people interested in our discussion and I hope we
can cover some new ground.
I know you do, Will. You'd like me to avoid mentioning how you cannot stick to
or support the resolution of the debate: The KJV is inerrant. If I didn't have
a handful of airtight, completely obvious KJV errors, then maybe I'd labor to
dig up some more. However, at this point, and at every other point in this
debate, you've failed to support the resolution of this debate, so you are the
loser.
I'm looking forward to your Round 7 post and making mine.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
http://jcsm.org/
By Will Kinney
Round 7
Hi saints and sinners, Bible believers and those who wish they had one. I want
to thank Jason Gastrich for asking me to debate him about the King James Bible
, and I thank Baptist Board for allowing us to openly discuss this issue here.
My closing remarks will be relatively brief.
It seems Jason's last primary objection was to the use of unicorns in the King
James Bible and many other versions both ancient and modern.
I had said: "I think it was either a unicorn in much the same way we think of
unicorns today, or maybe it was one-horned dinosaur, or possibly a rhino. I
don't really know, but it is obvious that the NKJV, NIV, NASB etc. have gotten
it wrong with "a wild ox".
To which Jason replied: "Its only obvious because you have an irrational, a
priori bias against any Bible translation that doesn't start with a K and end
with a V.
Just so were clear, here is the one and only definition of unicorn in
Merriam-Websters Dictionary: A mythical animal generally depicted with the
body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a
single horn in the middle of the forehead.
I ask you, again. Do you believe in unicorns?
Are you so crazy about the KJV that you would prefer to reject actual, animal
possibilities that the Hebrew gives us in favor of a mythical being with the
body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a
single horn in the middle of the forehead?"
My final response.
Jason, What I said was a unicorn COULD HAVE BEEN an animal much like what
people think a unicorn looks like, or it could have been a type of dinosaur,
or possibly the rhinoceros unicornus. I said I do not know and neither do you
nor other scholars.
Do you believe in the Devil? Do you think such an entity exists? When most
people hear the word "devil" they think of a tiny red man with horns and a
tail. I doubt he really looks like this, but I do believe in a devil. Yet
most people who are not Christians, and unfortunately more and more professing
Christians today, do not really believe the Devil exists - he is just a myth
or a symbol of evil.
If you push me into a corner, I will say, Yes, I believe in unicorns because
they are found in the Holy Bible. I also believe that Balaam's ass actually
spoke to him and I believe a whale swallowed Jonah and vomited him back up. I
believe God became a man, and that He was born of a virgen. I believe He died
for my sins and rose from the dead after three days.
I personally have never witnessed any of these things and the world mocks that
these things ever occurred. I guess I am just gullible enough to believe God
has given us a Book that is inerrant and true in every detail, even though
much of the world thinks the whole thing is a myth.
It appears that to your way of thinking the idea that God Himself would
providentially provide us with a tangible Book that is now the complete,
infallible, inerrant, inspired and pure words of the living God is itself a
myth.
You do not have such a Book. You don't know where it is or what it looks like.
You can't tell us where to get one. You talk about the inerrant Bible, but you
cannot pick it up in your hands and show it to us. The only inerrant "bible"
that exists in your world is the mystical invention of your own mind, and your
particular version of it differs from every other bible out there, whether in
print or in someone else's mind. And you think I am the one who believes in
something that doesn't exist!
You ask me if I am so crazy as to believe in unicorns because they are found
in the King James Bible. Well, I guess I am. I'm not sure what they were
exactly, but I believe in them because they are in the Book that I really
believe is the word of God.
Apparently a whole bunch of other Christians who were far more educated in
ancient languages and English than I am also believed in unicorns and put them
in their Bible versions.
What should be obvious to anyone who has been following our discussion and
reading the other link you provided for comments, is that all those who are
not King James Bible believers do not have nor believe in any single Book that
is the inerrant and complete word of God.
Here is a quote from one of them when I asked him these simple questions.
Will>>>>Do you personally believe there is any Bible or any single Hebrew
and/or Greek text that is now the complete, inerrant, inspired words of God?
Or do you believe there is any text in any language that is now the inerrant,
complete words of God. If so, what is it called?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian>>>>"No, I do not. I believe that each manuscript or fragment is
reliant upon others for support, but we will never have anything conclusive
until we see God in Glory (1Corinthians 13:12). To believe that any human or
group of humans could perfectly preserve the original text, as well as the
true intention of the text, is to elevate these men to the status of God."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will>>>>Do you believe that all Hebrew texts have been corrupted or miscopied
in some places, as in Judges 14:15 for example?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian>>>>"I believe that they all contain errors of various sorts, but
they do not neccessarily occur in the same places. We are left with examining
"majorities" of "agreements."
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are many others who likewise have posted what they think are errors in
the King James Bible, yet invariably what they allege to be errors are also
found in other Bible translations that agree with the King James readings.
You will find widespread disagreement among each of those who presume, as you
do, to be able to put together a perfect Bible. But in every case, there is
not one of them who is able to point to any specific "bible" that they believe
is now the inerrant word of God. Each one of them thinks he is an expert and
knows what the text should be and how to translate it, and yet they all differ
from everybody else's views, and I am sure they do not agree 100% with you
either.
"In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right
in his own eyes." Judges 21:25
All of you who are not King James Bible believers focus on man and his
inability to put together a perfect Bible. You say no translation can be
inspired or perfect. You also affirm that all the Hebrew and Greek texts have
been corrupted and are uncertain. Yet, ironically, each of you think YOU can
do it. You all seem to have either forgotten or explain away all the promises
of God Himself to preserve His words in this world in a Book till heaven and
earth pass away. "Seek ye out of THE BOOK OF THE LORD, and read" Isaiah 34:16
Isaiah 59:21: "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My
Spirit that is upon thee, 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."
Jason, I am sorry you do not have an inerrant Bible. You say the words, but
lack the reality.
For those who I'm sure have breathlessly been waiting for the answer to the
riddle within the riddle found in Judges 14 about the 7th day, I have now put
the article on my website.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/riddle.html
I will close with this Scripture I was reading the other day. Apply it to His
promises to preserve His words on this earth.
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should
repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he
not make it good?" Numbers 23:19
In and by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
Will Kinney
By Jason Gastrich
Round 7
Dear Readers and Will,
Thanks to Baptist Board for hosting this debate. I appreciate their moderation
and I also appreciate how they provided us two threads: one for debate and one
for commentary. Plus, thanks to Will for debating.
The Most Important Thing
The doctrine of salvation reveals to us that we are saved by repenting from
our sins and believing, trusting, and accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and
Savior. Whether we agree on non-essential doctrines should be secondary in
importance. Our salvation is the most important thing.
This debate covered some of the KJV’s errors. By the tone of the emails I
received from KJV-Onlyists, it would seem that they have forgotten the most
important thing. I hope and pray that neither side forgets the doctrine of
salvation and that we all strive to be like Christ as we take His message into
the world.
The Inerrancy of the Scriptures
God is perfect. The Word that He breathed through the original Bible authors
was inerrant. Glory to God. Furthermore, He has preserved His Word through the
manuscripts that are copies of the originals. This can be confirmed.
I’ve studied hundreds and hundreds of the "very best, alleged Bible errors." I
have also found answers to every one of them. Therefore, I have informed faith
that the scriptures are inerrant. Glory to God.
During my studies, I found that I had to return to the original languages in
order to understand the answers to some of the alleged errors. Was this wrong?
Well, for someone who does not claim that an English translation is inerrant,
it was not wrong. It was perfectly right and normal. Would you really think
that there would be no problems in translating the Bible from Greek and Hebrew
into English? As small as they may be, there were some
issues.
It has been my pleasure to invest thousands of hours of research on alleged
Bible errors. My faith in God and His Word has increased a great deal.
Wouldn’t yours if you found all of the answers to the tough questions about
the scriptures?
I cannot honestly say that the KJV is inerrant. There are some obvious
contradictions that I will summarize in a minute. In my humble opinion, those
that have read the obvious errors in the KJV and still say there are no errors
are lying and are dangerous people. They have let their pet belief dominate
their intelligence and their life. They have exchanged diligent study and
rational thinking with blind faith and foolishness.
These people that ignore the obvious KJV errors can resemble cult members. The
cults make extreme statements like people need to be baptized in their church
in order to go to Heaven. The cults use impertinent scriptures (as Will has
done) when they feel like they need to control thought and conversation. They
apply these scriptures to whatever they feel like; even when these scriptures
say nothing about the topic. In this case, the topic is the inerrancy of the
English translation called the King James Version.
Now, I’m not saying that Will is a cult member. I’m also not saying that all
KJV-Onlyists are cultists. However, I am saying that the ones I have met share
qualities with the zealous cult members.
Baffling
It’s baffling how Will can proclaim the KJV is inerrant. We have firmly
established that this is a faith-belief and not one based on facts. Perhaps
the KJV was read to him as a child. Perhaps it was always used in his family.
Nonetheless, it is absurd and irrational to blindly proclaim that the KJV is
inerrant; especially after all of the evidence to the contrary.
Will likes to talk about preservation and how God must have preserved His Word
for English speaking people. This is fine and good. However, Will was never
able to tell us why this preserved Word had to be the KJV. Why couldn’t it be
another, existing translation? Why couldn’t it be another yet-to-be-written
translation? This will always be a problem for people who believe like Will.
Will expects us to believe with him that there was no inerrant English Bible
for over 1600 years, then God gave us the KJV as His inerrant Word. This seems
a bit arbitrary. Doesn’t it? Why the KJV? Why then? Why not a different
translation and why not later? If God could wait 1600 years to reveal His
preserved Word to the English speaking people, then why not wait 400 more
years?
Obvious Errors
During this debate, a number of obvious errors were revealed from the KJV.
Will never had any legitimate answers. If you can recall, you will remember
that Will ran to and fro using external books, translations, and even ancient
scriptures to try and defend the English translation called the King James
Version. Of course, this was an inappropriate defense. If the KJV - and
English Bible translation - is inerrant, then Will should not need to consult
any external books, translations, or ancient scriptures in order to prove his
case. The fact that Will had to leave the KJV on the shelf while trying to
defend its inerrancy is to his detriment and significantly tarnishes his
credibility.
Here is a summary of the handful of errors that were discussed in this debate.
1. Did Saul inquire of the Lord? In the KJV, one scripture says he did, but
another scripture says he doesn’t. This is called an error, Will. Be honest.
1 Samuel 28:6 reads, "And when Saul inquired of
the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by
prophets." 1 Chronicles 10:13 and 14 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
inquire of it; 14And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and
turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse." Those verses say two
different things in the KJV. If you say they don’t, then you are a liar. If
you want to lie to us and say that these two verses don’t contradict in the
KJV, then nothing you say can be trusted. In a court of law, this would be as
perjury. The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you cannot use the Hebrew. You
say the KJV is inerrant. If you have to go to the Hebrew to clear up an error
in the KJV, then you lose the debate.
–
Will’s answer:
–
2. The KJV is in error regarding Jehu. Jehu was the grandson of Nimshi; not
the son. However, we find passages in the KJV that say both. 1 Kings 19:16
reads, "And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel .
. ."
2 Kings 9:2 reads, "And when thou comest thither, look out there Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in . . ."
Will, these two verses say two different things in the KJV. This means there is an error. As before, the answer is in the Hebrew. However, you are arguing that the KJV is inerrant. Therefore, you cannot refer to the Hebrew. These two verses plainly say two different things. If you claim they do not, then you are a liar. If you want to lie about this, then we cannot trust anything you say. Do the KJV-onlyists really want to lie and support liars? Take this to heart and stop making yourself look foolish. Agree with the simple truth of God’s Word.
There are errors that you cannot reconcile in
and within the KJV. You can only reconcile them by going to the Hebrew and
Greek and this is impossible for a KJV-Onlyist to do. This is what normal
people do; normal people who understand there are some errors in the KJV. You
cannot have it both ways. If you have to look to another text to help the KJV
be correct, then you have lost the debate and admitted error.
–
Will’s answer:
–
3. Hares don’t chew the cud. The KJV says they do. This is an error. If you
say it’s correct, then you are ignorant of science. Leviticus 11:6 reads, "And
the hare, because he cheweth the cud . . ." The answer is in the Hebrew.
However, you don’t have the liberty of looking in the Hebrew. You claim the
KJV (KING JAMES VERSION) is inerrant. So, prove it. Prove the KJV is inerrant
with the KJV. Hint: You can’t. Do rabbits chew the cud, Will? Yes or no? No,
they don’t. If you say they do, then you are a liar.
–
Will’s answer:
–
4. Unicorns don’t exist. The KJV says they do. Therefore, the KJV is in error.
Many verses in the KJV claim that unicorns exist. Here is one. Psalm 92:10
reads, "But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be
anointed with fresh oil." Do unicorns exist, Will? No, they don’t. The KJV is
in error. We have an answer from the Hebrew text, but you cannot use the
Hebrew text if you want to say the KJV is inerrant.
–
Other Arguments and KJV- Onlyists
There are plenty of other arguments against the KJV’s inerrancy. It’s
unfortunate that the handful of KJV-Onlyists who have been posting in this
thread and the commentary thread will not see that the original autographs
were inerrant, but the KJV is not.
Throughout the debate, Will mocked me and told me I had no inerrant Bible. Do
you think this was appropriate? If Will has an inerrant KJV, then it came from
inerrant manuscripts that came from inerrant autographs. I affirm the inerrant
autographs. I even affirm the fact that we have enough inerrant manuscripts to
compose a single, inerrant Bible. However, I will not be intellectually
dishonest like Will and turn a blind eye to the obvious, KJV errors.
I encourage the KJV-Onlyists to join the other inerrantists. We know that
God’s Word is inerrant. However, we also know that the KJV is not. This is
obviously a valid and tenable belief. In fact, I tell people that I have
"informed faith" because my belief stems from both my faith and what I have
discovered by reading the Bible.
It must be a fearful thing for a KJV-Onlyist to consider leaving their
doctrine. Pride is obviously a factor. It must also worry them that they will
be seen as less faithful to God. However, it is quite normal and right for
people to change their minds and have a more informed viewpoint as they grow
older and increase in knowledge. Don’t you think?
How does it feel to be mocked by people who tell you that unicorns don’t
exist? How does it feel to use poor and illogical arguments to atheists who
show you KJV errors? Don’t think that you are suffering for the cause of
Christ. Your irrational belief in the KJV-Onlyism doctrine has nothing to do
with the cause of Christ. Countless educated and faithful people are making
great strides for the kingdom of God and we know without any doubt that there
are some errors in the King James Version. You should repent from your
unbiblical belief that this one, English Bible translation is inerrant and
consider that the ancient autographs were inerrant; revealed by the inerrant
manuscripts we have today.
The inerrant autographs are not evidenced by the KJV. The KJV contradicts
itself. Who can two opposing things be true? Saul inquired of the Lord. Saul
didn’t inquire of the Lord. In the KJV, THAT IS AN ERROR. It is talking about
the exact same event.
The KJV-Onlyists are handcuffed and cannot use one of the greatest weapons
that we have available to us. This weapon, of course, is the ancient
scriptures. The KJV-Onlyist has no right whatsoever to avoid using the KJV to
prove that the KJV is inerrant. Only a fool would try and use ancient Hebrew
and Greek to prove that a modern, English translation is inerrant. If you want
to be a KJV-Onlyist, at least do not be a fool.
Uneducated?
There are good educational institutions and there are poor ones. There are
people who go to learn and there are people who go to get by. However, I’m
very concerned about the KJV-Onlyists who have been posting at the Baptist
Board. If you have read their posts, then you probably share the same concern.
We can all cite multiple spelling and grammatical errors from all of the
KJV-Onlyists. Why is this so? Why do they all have this in common?
It is of no surprise to me that the KJV-Onlyists seem uneducated. Look at the
belief that they’re trying to defend! Look at they way they are trying to
defend it! There are some scriptures in Revelation that speak to people like
the KJV-Onlyists. They read:
Revelation 3:15-20 "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I
could wish you were cold or hot. 16So then, because you are lukewarm, and
neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17Because you say, ‘I
am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that
you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked—18I counsel you to buy
from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments,
that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed;
and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19As many as I love, I
rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. 20Behold, I stand at the
door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to
him and dine with him, and he with Me."
My Experience With Bible Translations
When I was 7 years old, I repented from my sins and believed, accepted, and
trusted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. I attended church with my
parents and began growing spiritually.
Unfortunately, between the ages of 16-20, I faced some hard times. I wasn’t
overly interested in kingdom things and I sort of went my own way. However,
God helped me become devoted to Him after that period and I have been very
blessed ever since.
When I was 20 (the year God helped me turn my life around), my Mom gave me a
Bible. This Bible was in the Living translation. I could not put it down. I
read it all of the time. It was my favorite Bible and I really liked it.
In the years shortly after my repentance, I studied the Greek and Hebrew texts
and found that it was convenient to use the KJV to do so. I also found that
some of the translations had some changes and word choices that I didn’t like.
Frankly, some translations I’ve studied use poor and misleading words.
The following two web pages illustrate some of my research. Please visit them
when you have some time.
Modern Translations of the Bible vs. the KJV
http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/KJV.htm
The Best Bible Versions (and the Worst)
http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/BBV.htm
Those web pages simply take scriptures from various translations and show how
things have been changed or omitted. They are also very pro-KJV. In fact, the
only Bible that is directly linked from every one of JCSM’s 70,000 web pages
is the KJV. It is an excellent translation. See
http://bible.jcsm.org for this Bible.
My ministry sells a CD-ROM with an apologetics book in it. This book gives
nearly 4,000 answers to the tough questions about the Bible. Many of the
answers come from the Hebrew and Greek.
In this CD-ROM, we include one Bible and a Strong’s Hebrew and Greek
Concordance and Dictionary. This Bible is a KJV Bible. See
http://skepticsannotatedbible.org for more.
Kingdom Work
Another common thread among the KJV-Onlyists seems to be their lack of kingdom
work. It would seem that their zealous adherence to the doctrine of
KJV-Onlyism has caused them to be paralyzed for the cause of Christ. We do not
see them leading people to Christ. We do not see them prioritizing the gospel
message. We do not see them zealously serving the Lord.
On the contrary, we see the KJV-Onlyists acting like cult members. They are
desperately trying to get people to see things their way. Look at Will’s web
site. He posted enough links for us, so surely you visited at least once. His
entire internet presence, his entire web site is devoted to the defense of the
King James Version Bible! If this isn’t misdirected and if this isn’t
paralyzing him regarding the important things, then I do not know what is.
Here are the first words on Will’s main web page. They read:
"Hello and welcome to my website. Several years ago I became interested in the
Bible version issue. After much study and prayer I am convinced God's pure,
perfect and preserved words in English are found only in the Authorized King
James Bible."
Is this really what Christian ministry is all about? Are these really the
words of a person who has his priorities in order?
Here is the remainder of the words on Will’s main web page:
"Feel free to read any of these articles which defend the Holy Bible as being
the inspired, inerrant words of the living God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ.
I welcome any comments, questions or suggestions you might have concerning
this most vital matter. Just e-mail me and I will get back to you as soon as I
can.
By His grace -the only way to get there from here, Will Kinney"
Of course, we see some sleight of hand from Will. He calls the KJV the "Holy
Bible" while obviously excluding any other scriptures from that title. Is this
healthy? Is this the sign of someone who is well?
Will makes it sound like he is defending the Word of God, when in actuality,
he is defending his personal, pet-belief that the King James Version is the
only inerrant Bible on the Earth. This endeavor is more important to him than
the gospel. It’s more important than posting Bible lessons about love. It’s
more important to him than sharing about Bible prophecy and its fulfillment.
It’s more important to him than revealing miracles and his relationship with
Jesus Christ.
Where is the gospel, Will? Why isn’t it on your site? Isn’t it important to
you?
Conclusion
All throughout this debate, Will had an incredibly difficult time staying on
topic. He continually wanted to bash other translations. He continually wanted
to try and defend the KJV with ancient scriptures. These things did him no
good.
Until Will and people like him repent from their short-sightedness and
radical, zealous faith in KJV-Onlyism, they should be approached with caution.
They are dangerous people who call black white. They ignore sound arguments
and the ancient scriptures until they are convenient for them. Their arguments
do not support their premise and they use scriptures like daggers to promote
their opinions; regardless of whether or not the biblical authors had
KJV-Onlyism in mind.
The errors in the KJV are so obvious that only someone with an a priori belief
in them that willfully and continually tried to do damage control could think
otherwise.
Who are the great defenders of KJV-Onlyism? Why didn’t Will quote from them?
Where did these people go to school? Where are they now?
Perhaps Will didn’t quote from Peter S. Ruckman - a primary defender of
KJV-Onlyism - because his stance is so absurd. In "A Christian's Handbook of
Manuscript Evidence", Ruckman has a chapter entitled, "Correcting the Greek
with the English." He claims, "Where the majority of Greek manuscripts stand
against the A.V. 1611, put them in file 13" (p. 130). "When the Greek says one
thing and the A.V. says another, throw out the Greek" (p. 137). Citation:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5951/KJVOnly.html
As you know, there aren’t any institutions that say the KJV is inerrant. If
there are, I have never heard of them and no KJV-Onlyist has ever revealed
them to me. The blind faith belief in the KJV’s inerrancy is an extreme
minority viewpoint held by uneducated zealots. Why? Because most people will
be honest and because most educated Christians will agree that the original
autographs were inerrant, but the KJV is not.
Dr. Daniel B. Wallace summarized this controversy as follows, "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." Citation:
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=706
Bob L. Ross summarizes KJV-Onlyism as well. He says, "This bias is contrary to
the views of the King James Translators themselves and ALL professing
Christian denominations, including all Baptist Confessions of Faith, and is
plainly a modern innovation — except, of course, for old-line Roman
Catholicism which taught that the Latin Vulgate was the "one-and-only" Bible."
Citation:
http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/whatkjvo.htm
Thanks again to the readers of this debate. I pray that God richly blesses
you.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
|
Sponsored Advertisements
