Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) Deception

Exposing the Dangerous Teachings of the Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) Denomination

KJV Only Deception


As many of you already know the Independent Fundamental Baptist Movement (henceforth IFB) is a King James Version only denomination meaning that they believe that the King James Version of the Bible (henceforth KJV) is the only version of the Bible that Christians of this era should use. They believe that the KJV is the version of the Bible that is closest to the original. As with other areas of the IFB belief system, this falls along a continuum of beliefs. On the more liberal side of the continuum, some IFB churches believe that the KJV is the most accurate version of the Bible and should be used by all Christians to avoid heretical views and beliefs. On the more conservative side of the continuum, some IFB churches believe that the KJV is THE original Word of God. While there are variations among the different IFB churches as to the strictness of their beliefs on this topic, there are very few IFB churches that don’t advocate using the KJV to the exclusion of all other versions of the Bible.

I think it’s fair to say that most of us know how silly the notion is that the KJV is THE original Word of God so for the purposes of this site I would like to share a little insight into the KJV, why it is a dangerous version to use and how it relates to the IFB.

The IFB churches I experienced fell on the more conservative side of the above mentioned continuum. They taught that the KJV is the only acceptable version for the Christian to use, it was the closest translation to the original manuscripts, all other versions of the Bible presented mistakes at best and heresy at worst, it was a sin to read versions of the Bible other than the KJV and because of the aforementioned one couldn’t truly be saved unless he/she got the gospel message from the KJV.

I don’t really know where the IFB gets this information to be honest. It would be interesting to do a study of how the IFB came to the conclusion that the KJV is the closest translation to the original. I never could get a good answer other than the message then “the KJV is the Bible for the English speaking world.” The belief was never validated for me, at least not that I can remember. I simply took it upon faith like every other teaching that came from the IFB.

Like other IFB teachings, I was always troubled by the fact that I had a difficult time reading and understanding the KJV. When I brought this up to my pastors, teachers, parents, leaders, etc. I would get the answer that it is for this reason that I should be in a good IFB church so that the Pastor could explain what the words in the KJV meant. It was weird to me that they would accept the Pastor’s explanation, but refuse to use a different version of the Bible for an explanation. It also made me suspicious. I often wondered if the Pastors really knew what the meanings were or if they were simply repeating what they had learned thus perpetuating the lie.

I was also told that understanding the KJV would come with spiritual maturity. This was strange to me also and I wondered why the Lord would have us use a Bible that was difficult to understand and that understanding the Bible would only come with spiritual maturity. That just seemed backwards to me. I often wondered if it would have been better had the Lord made a Bible that was easier for new Christians to understand and have the more mature Christians use the KJV. As a good little IFB follower, however, I suppressed my curiosity and took them at their word.

When I left the IFB around age 25 I found out some valuable information that flies in the face of the IFB and their KJV only stance. Personal experience became the fuel that burned the fire within me. I started reading the New International Version (henceforth NIV) and after I got over my initial guilt which was highly unfounded, I actually understood the Bible for the first time in my life. Things were jumping off the pages at me and I was like a sponge, absorbing all the information I could. I read the NIV from cover to cover and then went on to read a New Living Translation (henceforth NLT). The NLT became my favorite and is the version I use at present.

The messages contained in the Bible are so clear to me now as I finally have the freedom to read a version of the Bible that I can comprehend. It’s amazing what a difference it makes. If this were my only evidence that the KJV is not a good Bible to read it would be enough for me. I often wonder how many people in our world have their spiritual maturity stunted because of this legalistic philosophy about the KJV Bible. It makes me sad to think that people are trapped like I was so many years ago.

Well, I don’t have to rely solely on personal experience to draw my conclusions from. As I researched this topic, I began to see increasing evidence about just how inaccurate the KJV actually is. I learned that the KJV is nothing more than a translation in a long line of translations. You see, I was taught growing up that the KJV is a translation of the original text and all other translations are just translations of the KJV making them less accurate and reliable. What a lie that turned out to be.

Advertisement:

A Brief History of the KJV

It’s well known that we only have fragments of the original manuscripts. All current versions of the Bible are simply English translations of first translations. The KJV is actually nothing more than a translation in a long line of translations. The KJV New Testament (and all editions since Tyndale) was compiled primarily from the Byzantine family of manuscripts (AD 500 – 1000) frequently referred to as the Textus Receptus (Latin for Received Text). Modern translations such as the NIV are compiled primarily from the Alexandrian Family of manuscripts which are believed to be closer to the original than the Textus Receptus manuscripts, which is why they have been chosen by the translators of the modern versions. In the early and mid 14th century John Wycliffe attempted many translations of the Greek and Latin Vulgate text and in 1388 The Wycliffe bible was completed in the German language.

William Tyndale later translated The Wycliffe Bible which also had many revisions and corrections. In 1534 The Tyndale’s Revised and Corrected Bible was completed. Unsatisfied with this work, an exiled group of scholars driven out of England with the help of the Church of Geneva produced an English Bible without the need for the approval of either England or Rome and formed the Geneva Bible in 1553. The Geneva translators produced a revised New Testament in English in 1557 that was essentially a revision of Tyndale’s revised and corrected edition of 1534. Three years later another revised Bible was published and translated in accordance with the Hebrew and Greek text. This was during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Elizabeth was determined to move England towards Protestantism. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth the Geneva Bible was translated into what scholars refer to as the Bishop’s Bible in 1568 which became the official Bible for use in Church services at that time.

King James I succeeded Queen Elizabeth I in 1603 and almost immediately began to translate the Bible into a newer version based on his ideals of what he thought were a political threat to his reign. He made many changes to his version of the Bible to reflect his beliefs and reduce the political message for the purpose of security in his reign. In 1611 the first King James Version of the Bible was published and the Geneva Bible was officially replaced by the King James Version.

This version of the Bible in 1611, which became known as The Authorized Version, went through several editions and revisions itself. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. The years 1881-1885 brought many revisions and changes beginning with the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. [1]

Brooke Westcott served on the committee that produced the Revised Version and obtained the services of editor Fenton Hort. Wescott and Hort eventually brought us our modern day KJV translation which is based on the Westcott-Hort translation of The Revised Version and is actually the 4th revision of the original Authorized 1611 King James version. It is interesting to note that the original Geneva Bible contained the Apocrypha, which is commonly believed by Protestants to be extraneous material not inspired by God. Many scholars believe that the Apocrypha was actually left out of the KJV 1611 version simply because King James I was more interested in publishing this version for his political career. He forced his translators to rush through the translation. This caused many omissions, additions and other errors in the KJV 1611. In the original preface to the KJV the translators themselves admitted there were many Hebrew and Greek words and even whole sentences they did not understand, but were were forced to make guesses at there meanings in order to produce the KJV more quickly.

This brief overview of the history of the KJV is not meant to be all inclusive. There are many details of the succession of translations, editions and revisions that should be read and understood in order to get a full understanding of the issue. For the purposes of this site, however, I simply wanted to share the basics to give the reader adequate understanding of the origins of the KJV and to make the point that the KJV is certainly NOT a perfect Bible, is nothing more that a translation of other translations and is by no means the original Word of God.

I would even argue that the KJV has become an idol for some in that it is elevated to the status of a god and worshiped rather than read and used to develop spiritual maturity. I remember feeling so much better than other “Christians” – if they were Christians at all – because I used the KJV rather than those other versions. It became a source of pride for me and I imagine that many others in my church felt the same way. There was a strong message that if you wanted to be a good Christian you had to use the KJV. I was even told that the KJV was a sacred text and that my Bible was to be kept in pristine condition or I was defacing the Word of God. I remember feeling so guilty one evening after having spilled some water on my KJV Bible. I prayed and prayed for forgiveness. It was really pretty silly in hind sight. Like I said before, everything changed for me the day I finally got up enough courage to pick up a NIV and read it.

General Information about Translations

During the formation of the KJV, the translators ran into several major problems. Scholars of the day had to rely on manuscripts or copies of the original documents because no one had access to the original documents. Some of these copies were even copies of copies and copies of translations. If you’ve ever played the game of “whisper down the lane”, you can understand that copies of copies can end up being quite different from the original document. The responsibility to decide what to include in the KJV and what not to include rested solely on the shoulders of the translators. This process of “textual criticism” can be very difficult.

Much of the work in translating the KJV was done in England. It is generally believed that England didn’t have any ancient Greek manuscripts until about 1628. Therefore, the translators were at a definite disadvantage when trying to decide which passages were in the texts originally, and which were added later by someone who was copying or translating another copy or translation.

Today, there are many documents that we can use to compare and to find out what belongs and what was added making modern translations much more reliable and accurate. The translators of the KJV didn’t have such information for comparison. For example, the committee for the formation of the NIV consisted of over a hundred scholars from five different countries who had much older manuscripts that are more true to the originals and have a much better grasp on ancient Hebrew.

Some in the IFB, when comparing the KJV with other modern versions, will find some differences and automatically assume that the new versions are adding to or subtracting from the Word of God. They will often make several references to verses that have been seemingly “left out”. It’s important to remember that these verses are not being left out, nor is the Bible being changed. We have access to better information now and the newer translations are just trying to correct some mistakes that have been made in the older translations.

There is also the need to consider the problem of capturing the idea of the message and not just the message itself. It’s a problem of how to make the new version read as closely to the original as possible, but still get the author’s idea across. We have to remember that we live is a much different culture than the people of Jesus’ era. Even so, that culture had their own idioms that need to be understood in order to capture the flavor of the message.

For example, it would be difficult for me to translate the phrase “I made it by the skin of my teeth” into another language because that phrase is unique to the US culture. That is a phrase that is only used in this region of the world. If I were to translate that word-for-word or literally into lets say French, it wouldn’t make much sense to the French speaking culture. They would wonder how I got skin on my teeth and how I managed to use it to assist me in whatever I was doing. This phrase would have to be translated using the idea of the sentence such as “I just barely made it”.

Sentence structure and syntax varies across cultures as well. Translating a work from Greek to English would require many adjustments to the structure of the sentences. Words, phrases and concepts which meant one thing to a 17th Century reader often mean something totally different to a 20th Century reader. It would be important for the translator to substitute the correct English phraseology for something that doesn’t make sense when translated word-for-word.

The IFB promotes the KJV as the only, or at least one of the few, versions of the bible that is a literal or word-for-word translation. It’s important to remember that no translation can be exactly word for word because it just wouldn’t be understood. Even the KJV has some text translated using the idea of the text rather than the actual words.

The translators of the KJV, along with the New American Standard and some others tried to keep the word order as close as they could. In contrast, the translators of the NIV wanted to develop a Bible that is easy to read and understand so they made a thought by thought translation which conveys the essence and meanings of the original documents, but becomes much more natural and conversational to the modern reader since our sentence structure and syntax is vastly different from ancient Greek, Hebrew and Latin.

An emotional response

Looking back on my experiences in the IFB churches I can remember strong emotions surrounding the KJV controversy. Preachers and teachers often presented a one sided argument for the authority of the KJV. The unsubstantiated claims were shrouded in sarcasm and illogic and never was even one piece of evidence or proof given. Their appeals are based largely on emotion rather than evidence. We were expected to take their word for it and accept it on faith. I would often repeat these empty arguments with others who used versions of the Bible other than the KJV.

I have a feeling that those who give me the message of KJV onlyism and try to discredit the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have never really investigated the data. They simply repeat the manipulative message that they themselves learned. For whatever reason, be it a need for control, indoctrination, manipulation, etc. followers of the IFB aren’t allowed to question anything and this issue of the KJV is no exception.

A Keen Observation

During my early post IFB years I secretly took my NIV with me to the IFB church when I would return to visit with my family hoping that no one would notice. Later I secretly wished someone would notice. I really wanted to explain why I was using the NIV rather than the KJV (and at that time all I knew was that I actually understood what the Bible was saying for the first time) and how proud I was to be free from the legalism of having to use the KJV.

Anyway, during the messages I sat listening to with my NIV Bible I noticed a peculiar pattern emerge. I found that in almost every circumstance the preacher would explain a difficult to understand passage in the KJV using very similar if not the exact words from the NIV. I don’t think they did it on purpose because they didn’t know what the contents of the NIV were. But I got to thinking, if a pastor is explaining the KJV with words that the NIV already uses, why not just use the NIV?

The Conspiracy Theorist in Me

As I ponder the dilemma mentioned above, I can’t help but wonder if all this manipulation surrounding the KJV isn’t on purpose. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if it isn’t the intention of the IFB leaders to purposefully want to keep people in the dark with a difficult to understand version of the Bible because they know that if people read the NIV or other easier to understand version they will discover the truth and an end will come to the IFB. I also wonder if the IFB leaders use our naivety to spread the IFB message. It’s just a thought and I don’t really believe it, but I often wonder. I don’t think I will ever have an answer to this, but it peaks my curiosity to say the least.

Bibliography

  1. A Brief History of English Bible Translations by Dr. Laurence M. Vance.
  2. Based on an article found at: http://www.comereason.org/theo_issues/theo025.asp
  3. Smith, Wilbur M. The English Bible and its Development The Open Bible Thomas Nelson Pub. Nashville 1979 p.1251
  4. Why I Quote The NIV Bible by Graham Pockett
  5. A Response to the King James Only Debate by Eric Pement
  6. “The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism”, by D. A. Carson (Baker Book House, 1979)
  7. “Demystifying the Controversy Over the Textus Receptus and the King James Version of the Bible,” I.B.R.I. Research Report No. 3, by Douglas S. Chinn and Robert C. Newman (Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, PA, 1979);
  8. “The Truth About the King James Version Controversy”, by Stewart Custer (Bob Jones University Press, 1981).
  9. Charles V Taylor “Bibles With Holes?”
  10. Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 99
  11. Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman, “The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration”, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 152
  12. T. Robertson, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman, 1925, pp. 107-108
  13. D. Whitby, Examen variantium Lectionum Johannis Milli, London 1709
  14. J. J. Griesbach, Novum Testamentum Graece, (London 1809)
  15. An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament; in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed; the Integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated; and the Various Readings traced to their Origin (London, 1815), ch. 1. The sequel mentioned in the text is Nolan’s Supplement to an Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament; containing the Vindication of the Principles employed in its Defence (London, 1830)
  16. ibid., ch. 5
  17. Daniel Wallace, “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text”, Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September, 1989, p. 276



Email Question:

From: Dave
Subject: Translations
Message Body:

Interesting site sir, and one I stumbled across very recently.

Having come out of the IFB circle some years ago, it was refreshing to see another person who identifies many of its unscriptural problem areas.

However, I urge you to take a good look at the translation issue again. Despite the “archaic” language, I for one have VERY little trouble, if at all, understanding the KJV.

At the heart of the translation issue are the key manuscripts used, and everything sort of spirals out from there.

I’ve looked at both sides, and am convinced that the KJV is THE most faithful and accurate ( I didn’t say “understandable” ) translation in print today.

Once you understand, as I did, that most modern English translations are based on the Critical Text ( instead of the Majority Text or even the TR ), then you may think differently about them…another thought I had, regarding what I noticed in one of your articles:

The NLT is a PARAPHRASE ( as is the NIV and several others ) using Dynamic Equivalency instead of Formal Equivalency…”thought-for-thought” instead of word-for-word literalness. To the natural mind, it WILL read easier…don’t let this deceive you. Just because it may be easier to read, doesn’t necessarily mean it is God’s very word.

One question I have to ask:

Do you care about God’s very words? If you do, give this issue some more research, DESPITE being able to read the NIV and NLT easier…the labor will pay off, if you are led of the Holy Spirit.

In other words, if you are His, then it shouldn’t matter how “old” the translation is, HE will make it understood to you.

May you grow in the knowledge and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Dave.

My Reply:

Hi Dave,

Thanks for writing and for your thoughtful defense of the KJV. I understand where you’re coming from and I respect your position. There are just a few flaws in your logic, however, that you should consider. I’ll try to tackle them one at a time…

First of all, I find it quite interesting that different people can “look at both sides” of the bible translation debate (although I think there are more than just two sides – I’m assuming that by “both sides” you mean KJV advocates vs. the rest of the world??? – I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “both sides”) and come up with very different ideas and convictions. Even the most influential and brilliant theological scholars can’t agree on this issue. And there’s the rub… this is an issue first and foremost of personal and individual conviction and preference. There is nothing inherently unscriptural about using a version of the Bible other than the KJV (if there is please show me). Those who say otherwise, without Biblical evidence, are either severely mistaken or trying to push personal conviction and preference on others which is nothing short of manipulative.

Secondly, and I’m assuming here that you are using a modern version of the KJV, if you are using a modern version of the KJV you are doing the very thing that you warn against. You are using an easier to read version of the KJV. If you were to do what you say is important then why would you be using a modern version of the KJV? Why wouldn’t you use the KJV 1611, or the Geneva Bible? Shouldn’t you be using those versions and rely on the leading of the Holy Spirit to help you understand it? In other words, if you are His, then it shouldn’t matter how “old” the translation is, HE will make it understood to you. See, it works both ways. You’re doing the same thing I’m doing (reading an easier to understand version of the Bible), you’re just doing that with the KJV and I’m doing that with a different version. To me there’s very little difference.

Third, it doesn’t follow from your premise that using the KJV, despite not being able to understand Shakespearean era English, is the best option for the simple reason that it is in English. What does the rest of the non-English speaking world do? What about versions translated into Spanish, German, Russian, or a thousand other languages? Should those who don’t speak English try to read your KJV and simply rely on the Holy Spirit to guide them? If not, since they don’t have the KJV and are using a version of the Bible that’s easier for them to understand, then why is it wrong for me to do so? I hope you see the futility in that line of thinking.

Fourth, yes you can make the argument that even though you are reading a modern version of the KJV you are still using the KJV, however, your premise is inherently flawed. You’ve bought into the lie that the KJV is the most accurate, which it isn’t (which I discuss very carefully in my articles about the KJV). Sticking to your logic, you really should be using any one of a number of translations (the Interlinear, NASB, AMP, ESV or RSV that are more accurate versions based on formal equivalence of the original language than the KJV. This idea that the KJV is the best translation is based on misinformation and myth (and perhaps tradition). Yes the KJV is a literal word-for-word translation, but that doesn’t make it more accurate or more trustworthy. As I stated in the article, a literal translation misses the mark on many cultural and language idioms. For example, if we were to take an English, North American idiom such as “he made it by the skin of his teeth” and try to translate that literally (word-for-word) into another language, the point would be misunderstood and misapplied. Many would wonder why this person has skin on his teeth and what that has to do with being on time. A translator would have no choice but to translate that using a dynamic equivalence interpretation. The translator would have to translate “he made it by the skin of his teeth” into “he made it just before the deadline”. Sometimes a word-for-word translation misses the message and that is very dangerous. Scriptural examples of this can be found in several articles throughout my site. As a result, there are certain instances where a dynamic equivalence translation reflects a more accurate translation of the original language and intent. A version of the Bible that’s based entirely on formal equivalence thus would contain errors (or at least what seems like errors to the typical non-seminary trained reader). It’s not only important to simply translate the words, but to translate the meanings of idioms, euphemisms, culturally significant meanings of words and phrases, etc.

Fifth, I will answer your question about caring for God’s very words… Yes I do. Just because I use a translation that has a dynamic equivalence process of translation doesn’t mean I don’t care about God’s very words. In fact, making the claim that the KJV is the only translation that accurately reflects “God’s very words” is a very silly argument – especially if you’ve spent the time to “study both sides of the issue” as you claim. The KJV is nothing more than an English translation in a LONG line of translations.

Finally, I resent the implication that I’m somehow not His simply because I choose to read a version of the Bible other than the KJV or because I don’t understand with the best accuracy the Old English style of writing in the KJV. Reading or even understanding the KJV isn’t a requirement for salvation. To think so, is to elevate the KJV to the status of a fourth member of the trinity – and that is blasphemous. To think this way is to tread on very thin ice as you come to rely on the KJV for salvation rather than the atoning work of Christ on the cross. I hope you can see the danger in that line of thinking.

Please understand that I have no problem with the KJV or with people reading the KJV. What I have a problem with is the KJV being promoted as a better translation then the others when it clearly isn’t.

Thanks again for your question.

Updated: April 26, 2016 — 11:01 am

572 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. Somethings to consider; 1. KJV was authorized by a sitting (God Allowed) King, 2. Jeremiah says no good thing (God’s word) will come out of Egypt anymore, Byzantine or Greek rules, 3. as far as your personal opinion goes, who would want to take advice from somebody who has trouble understanding the KJ choice of words? really, you had trouble understanding it?

    1. 1. No it wasn’t
      2. I’ve never heard that before. Where in Jeremiah is that?

      I didn’t say that I don’t understand the KJV. I said it’s DIFFICULT to understand. Please don’t put words in my mouth. It might be a good idea for you to actually read what I write before making assumptions and trying to shame me. Thanks for being a shining example of the KJV cult mentality though.

      Shakespearean English is difficult for many people, especially new Christians.

  2. All you American fundamentalist xenophobes, who can only speak one language (who probably voted for Trump, your would-be messiah)), need to shut off your TVs, get free of your sports addictions, shut off your smart phones with their social media garbage and learn to read Biblical Hebrew and Greek, the original languages of our infallible, God-exhaled sacred scriptures. These are the only linguistic tangible remainders, other than the lost original autographs, that are nearest to the exhaled, inspired Word of God. Did you even know that the apostle Paul quoted from the modern version of his day, the Greek Septuagint, and not the Hebrew scriptures (which he knew) but wouldn’t have been comprehended by his audiences. Or better yet, go and invest in a conservative translation study Bible with ample cross references and notes. You will put your KJV-only-dictatorial career pastors out of business because you will have all the material they communicates to you in the pews, as though it were their original work. Talk about plagiarizing somebody’s homework…Don’t be hoodwinked by legalism! Bet you didn’t know “study” in 2Tim.2:15 doesn’t mean “crack the books” in an academic sense. Go look it up (first assignment)!

  3. And I know that the Coptics wrote in the Coptic language. If you use the correct line of reasoning, you’ll see why this is irrelevant to my point.

  4. What you have written is deceptive even if unintentional. I know Pastors who could refute everything you have said. I could if I had the time. It is a pity that your Pastors were either ignorant or you didn’t care about the reasons given to use KJV. Let me give examples though of some of this writings errors. If you use anything connected with the Vatican, they are known throughout history to be involved with forgeries. “Let me present my case,” you are saying,”I call a forger and a perjurer as my firsts witnesses.” But The KJV has a chain of of evidence. Also ALL texts are copies, even in Christ’s time. Furthermore Alexandria was the hotbed of Gnosticism. Do you really want to use texts used by Coptics?

    1. When you’re ready to spend the time to “refute everything” I’ve said, I’ll be here waiting. Just let me know.

      Thanks
      Steve

  5. Almighty God has, is, and will continue to preserve His word. Too many have. The 2×4 in their eye as they try to exact that splinter out of mine. When the day comes I witness a person observing the perfectly clear teachings of the Word, then I might consider discussing the merits of which Version/Translation to use.

    “Thy Word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against Thee”. Psalm 119:11.

    If I am hiding, or placing, giving real space, attention, prayer and thought to God’s Word I am not going to have time to swat at gnats over translations.

  6. The KJV is the Bible of the Protestant Reformation. New versions are Vatican versions. They come from and Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus…the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts adopted by the Babylonian Priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church….actually pilfered from trashbins in 1859….lol the bibles you read aren’t Holy Bibles, they are trash!!

    1. @Drew… what’s your source for this? I’d like to check into it to see if it’s accurate.

    2. uhhhh, I don’t know where you got that information from but it’s false.

      Modern Bible translations use information from thousands of manuscripts that were not even discovered when the KJV was written. Some of them in the original languages and some in cognate languages. Even the Syriac version has shed some light on biblical translation.

      To say that all modern translations are based on two manuscript traditions is straight silly.

  7. If you research the indpendent fundamental baptist movement carefully you will find that they are really two separate movements. One believes strongly that the KJV is the best translation and perhaps a smaller portion train their pastors to use the United Bible Societies Greek text which is the text used for the NASB, the NIV, and other modern translations. I grew up in the indpendent Baptist movement and graduated from Bob Jones University with a Master’s of Divinity in 1991. In the late 1980’s the movement began to split in two because of the KJV issue, partucularly because of the influence of Peter Ruckman. At BJU we refered to the KJV croud as hyperfundamentalists. As a self supporting medical missionary in Puerto Rico I have come accross the KJV only IFB people and most of what this website says about them is probably true. However, the non KJV-only IFBs are not like that. They are basically traditional historical Baptists. However, the KJV-only IFBs have so highjacked the Baptist name that I am now starting a church and decided to not use the name Baptist because it has been so severly tarnished. Instead I am using the name Christian Bible Church (but in Spanish, of course). — Raul Lopez, MD.

    1. Raul,
      If you practice medicine in Puerto Rico then you have points in my book. Now, getting points in my book means nothing to anyone else, but you have them. I grew up conservative Southern Baptist, and have earned three postgraduate degrees. The last was broadly labeled “Pastoral Theology” from Liberty University.

      One of my early mentors was Dr. Howard Cleveland, who had actually been named one of Billy Graham’s university teachers a million years ago. Dr. Cleveland always carried a Hebrew and a Greek text to church and was fluent in both. I felt I could read all day the arguments for or against any translation, but since I was not anywhere near fluent enough, I needed someone, an expert linguist, to help me.

      Dr. Cleveland preferred the KJV and believed it was the overall best of any original language translation. But having said that, he believed if a person studied their Bible… STUDIED… then they would receive that Holy Spirit inspired Word… regardless of the translation.

      Well, I study my Word, still use my KJV because it is what I grew up with, is what I have always known, and I am comfortable with it. My library contains others as well, and I use most all of them. And as years have passed I’ve nearly abandoned calling myself a Baptist and even a Christian since neither mean much anymore. I’ve labeled myself A Believer in Jesus Christ and leave it there.

      I have prayed for you and your ministry work, and will continue to do so in the future.

  8. I know met Independent Fundamental Baptist and say they are NOT Protestants. Why do IFB members cling to the KJV bible as the only true English bible while Christian history shows it’s a Protestant Reformation Bible and has John Calvin’s fingerprints all over it.

  9. is the kjv bible a heretic

  10. After a lot of bad experiences in other churches I gave up church entirely but was still concerned about salvation because I wanted to spend eternity in the presence of God, Oddly enough it had never occurred to me to read the Bible. I was handed a New Testament called Good News For Modern Man and read it through. Later I was invited by a relative and her pastor to attend an IFB church. Shortly after I surrendered to Christ, my Lord and Master. After 40+ years of research I believe the KJV to be the most accurate English translation, 99.99% fine. The others a little less so. I have several versions of the Bible including the Catholic Bible. The fact that it is more difficult to read only means that we have to work a little harder to understand it. The saddest thing about this whole issue is that so many complainers actually don’t study the Word at all but depend on others to do their thinking for them.

  11. Hi, I noticed that the majority of Independent Fundamental Baptists are King James Only but while I am a strong defender of the King James Version and I am not Baptist, I personally believe that King James Only is wrong. Why? Because it is misleading. King James Only is a trap. I can understand why they might only use the King James because they believe it’s more accurate than any other translation; NIV, New American Standard Bible, New King James Bible, etc. Again I just don’t like the saying, “The King James Version shall be the official and only translation used,” because it’s legalism. I think they got way too legalistic about which translation to use.

  12. “Many scholars believe that the Apocrypha was actually left out of the KJV 1611 version simply because King James I was more interested in publishing this version for his political career.” It wasn’t left out, that was done by the Anglican Church in the 19th century. Why? Because it’s not included in the Talmudic Jewish Masoretic version. Strange, isn’t it, that they would follow the instruction of anti-Christ Jews rather than the bible used by Jesus and the Apostles, the Septuagint ?

  13. I prefer to think that when John mentioned Philadelphia and Laodicea, he actually meant Philadelphia and Laodicea, not two different “church ages”. It never ceases to amaze me how dispensationalists and fundamentalists, who claim to interpret the Bible in a “consistent, literal” manner, do the exact opposite; they selectively choose which passages they want to interpret literally and which ones they want to spiritualize according to their own ends. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox get a lot of flack from Protestants for allegedly “spiritualizing” scripture, yet the RC and EO methods of interpreting scripture are actually fairly literal. The fact is that it’s actually the dispensational Protestants who spiritualize the scripture more than anyone else.

    1. What does this have to do with the KJV only Arugment?

  14. Dear Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ,

    I ask you to consider these points:

    1. When God said that he would preserve his Word, what did he mean? Did he mean that he would preserve the original papyrus and parchment upon which his Word was written? If so, then his Word has disappeared as none of the original manuscripts remain.

    Did he mean that he would preserve his word in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek only? He would not preserve his Word when it was translated into all the other languages of the world?

    Or did God mean that he would preserve his Word…the message/the words…the Gospel: the free gift of salvation, and the true doctrines of the Christian Faith? Would God allow his Word/his message to mankind to be so polluted by translation errors that no translation, into any other language from the three original languages, continues to convey his true words?

    2. There is NO translation of the Bible, from the original ancient languages, into ANY language, ANYWHERE on earth, that translates the Bible as the Baptists/evangelicals believe it should be translated.

    No Bible translation on earth translates Acts 2:38 as, “Repent and believe in Jesus Christ every one of you and you will receive the Holy Ghost. Then be baptized as a public profession of your faith.”

    Why would God allow EVERY English translation of the Bible throughout history to be mistranslated or use such confusing language as to suggest that God forgives sins in Baptism? And not only all English translations, ALL translations of the Bible have retained these “mistranslations or confusing wording”.

    Do you honestly believe that God would allow his Word to be so polluted with translation errors that EVERY Bible in the world, if read in its simple, plain interpretation, would tell the people of the world that God forgives sins in water baptism??

    3. Why is there not one single piece of evidence from the early Christians that indicates that ANYONE in the 800-1,000 years after Christ believed that: Water baptism is ONLY a public profession of faith/act of obedience; sins are NOT forgiven in water baptism? Yes, you will find statements by these early Christians that salvation is by faith, but do Baptists and evangelicals really understand how a sinner obtains saving faith? THAT IS THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION, MY FRIENDS! Does the sinner produce faith by his own free will or does God provide faith and belief as a gift, and if God does provide faith and belief as a free gift, with no strings attached, WHEN exactly does God give it?

    4. Is it possible that: Baptist-like believers, at some point near or after 1,000 AD, were reading the Bible and came across verses that read “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” and “Call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved” and established their doctrine of Salvation/Justification first, based on these and similar verses alone, and then, looked at the issue of water baptism, and since the idea that God forgives sins in water baptism didn’t seem to fit with the verses just mentioned, these early Baptists re-interpreted these verses to fit with their already established doctrine, instead of believing the “baptism verses” literally?

    Is it possible that BOTH groups of verses are literally correct?? If we believe God’s Word literally, he says that he saves/forgives sins when sinners believe/call AND when they are baptized? Why not believe that God can give the free gift of salvation in both situations: when a sinner hears the Gospel and believes and when a sinner is baptized?

    Should we re-interpret God’s plain, simple words just because they don’t seem to make sense to us?

    God bless you and keep you!
    Luther, Baptists, and evangelicals

    1. Gary…in regard to your 3rd point, I would first point out to you the quote from the Church Father John Chrysostom, ” heretics have baptism, not illumination; they are baptized in body, not enlightened in soul.” Then in your last comment on point #3, are you referring to the Calvinism/Armianism? Unfortunately, many Christians do not know where John Calvin got his theological ideas.
      Or…are you referring to Sacramental Salvation Theology?

  15. Okay, I admit it: I’m still hung up on the historicity of the KJV. I can’t help but wonder how many of the KJVer’s only actually know anything about King James–you know, the one who supposedly authorized it. Do you think most of them know that he actually had a fascination with witchcraft and that Shakespeare wrote (and took literary license in several instances) Macbeth in part to please his acting company’s (The Kings Men, as in King James’ men) patron, King James himself? I kind of doubt it. How many of the KJV onlyist crowd have read the original preface (it’s L-O-N-G) to the 1611 version? How many of them have actually read the REAL deal that they are always referencing, the King James 1611 version AS IT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN 1611? And then, how many of those folks who have read it actually understand the ORIGINAL 1611 spellings and overall diction? Seriously now, you know that most of them carry “modernized” 1611 versions that include numerous footnotes (many indicating inaccuracies and definitions for archaic words and phrases). Now, before you KJVer-onlies jump all over me for just using the word “inaccuracies,” allow me to add something a died-in-the wool (and an extremely well educated one at that) IFB minister actually told me: he said that the ORIGINAL, ANCIENT manuscripts were inerrant; it’s the translations that contain the errors. That made sense to me–that the original Holy scripture, some two thousand and more years old, was absolutely inerrant. Thank God He’s given the believer His Holy Spirit for discernment. God is so much beyond what we can ever imagine here on earth. Here we are–little finite beings trying to comprehend the Infinite. I believe God works in mysterious ways but always in ways that are consistent with His nature. I certainly don’t have all the answers; Christ does, however. I firmly believe in Him as my Lord and Savior, but I do have a lot of questions. My mother used the KJV primarily but also used other versions. There were some versions that she wouldn’t touch; she could tell you why and knew key verses to compare. I’m thankful for having a mother who was a true Berean. She’s with the Lord now. She and God know I still have lots of questions, and somehow I think they understand. I also understand that there’s a lot I won’t know no matter what on this side of eternity and that it will undoubtedly take more than an eternity to know and understand the Holy Trinity in all His love, grace, mercy, beauty, wonder, and power. P.S. My earliest scripture memorization (even before I could read) was from the KJV. I still read it, but it’s not the only version I read. Sorry for the longwindness. 🙂

  16. I saw a fellow had commented about a youtube video, he said he felt that if Jesus were here, that he would support the KJV translation over the others, and that the KJV has the power. I responded by telling him that I’m glad he enjoyed his translation, but that it was only his opinion as to what translation Jesus would support, and also that it was only his opinion about the KJV having some kind of magical power that the other translations didn’t.

    This KJV issue is really critical. You see if a MOG demands use of the KJV in (HIS) church/should be God’s church, then I find that most of those churches are graceless and legalistic. They are almost bound to be.

    The KJVonly position is mostly a very uneducated position. There are very few KJVonly’s that can converse intelligently about textual criticism and manuscript evidence etc., we have had men visit Baptist Deception that have written books supportive of KJVonlyism and they can’t speak intelligently about the issues! Sam Gipp has several new videos out supporting KJVonlyism, and you can’t listen to a minute of any them that he doesn’t speak falsely or misrepresent the issue.

    If you like your KJV, pls enjoy it, but don’t force others to read YOUR favorite translation.

  17. I find it funny that up to this time, the onlyists still try to defend their stand with the same argument and when they get properly refuted they result to character assasination. It has always been that way. They never changed their strategy.

  18. LUCIFER

    I love this next one, becasause it so easy to explain, a 4-yr old can understand it.

    First Steve, Lucifer is a Latin word, so stop for just a moment and ask yourself why it is that an Anglican 17th century, English translation of an ancient Hebrew text has a Latin word in it! Hmmm…I hope little light bulbs are going off in your KJV-only dominated brain!!

    Lucifer came to us from Jerome’s “Latin Vulgate” which KJV only’s claim to hate, but apparently they like at least one word of it! “Lucifer” The Vulgate had been in use for over a thousand years when the KJV translators had started the KJV, it had become accepted that Lucifer was Satan, in this story. The KJV translators basically caved to popularity and put it in, but they did know better, and put in the margin of the 1611, which I have a copy of, and checked before starting this comment, which says, “or, O day-starre” so they clearly knew the meaning of “heylel” btw the passage isn’t about Satan at all, it’s about a wicked king!

    Your acting as though Jesus being described as the “The bright and Morning Star” and the NIV saying “morning star” at Is 14:12 (which is not about the devil but a man anyway) is just more KJVonly foolishnes! Jesus is described as the Lion of Judah, in Rev 5:5, and the devil is described as “a lion going to and fro, seeking whom he may devour” at 1 Peter 5:8 So should I be alarmed Steve!

    You are sewing discord among the brethern Steve! As a christian brother I call on you to stop!

  19. Steve – I will start by saying that I believe the KJV is a fine 17th Century English translation, several came before it and several have came after it.

    All of this KJVonly material that you posted is old news and has been completely refuted!

    I’ll start with the KJVonly foolisness about Colossains 1:14. The NIV doesn’t have the phrase “through the blood” where the KJV translators “added” this phrase. What has happened here, and is fairly common in the KJV, is that scribes dutifully copying the scriptures, come across a passage such as Col 1:14 and realize it’s nearly like another passage, in this instance Eph 1:17, where the NIV reads “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,..” So in order to “harmonize” the accounts, the scribe “added” the phrase to the Colossians account. The gospels have many of these “additions” where there will be little to no manuscript evidence, but there it wil be in your KJV! This is called “Parallel Influence.”

    But being the KJVonly man that I think you are, you are probably saying that is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. So let’s examine the manuscripts FACTS about Col 1:14! First in the manuscripts that the KJVonly’s love to hate, (Alexandrian) this phrase is completely missing, it is also missing from the Majority text, INCLUDING the majority of the Byzantine tradition!!In fact one cannot find the phrase “through His blood” in any Greek manuscript at Col 1:14 until the ninth century! Any honest person examing these FACTS would have to admit that the most “accurate” translation would not have the phrase “through His blood.”

    You are spreadind discord among the brethern with this KJVonly foolishness, as a christain brother I call on you to stop!

    1. Greg, you really know your history re: Col. 1:14 and Eph. 1:17 parallelism. I found your comments interesting, so I looked up some commentary concerning them. Clarke’s Bible Commentary states:
      “In whom we have redemption – Who has paid down the redemption price, even his own blood, that our sins might be cancelled, and we made fit to be partakers of the inheritance among the saints in light.
      The clause, ??? ??? ???????? ?????, Through his blood, is omitted by ABCDEFG, and by most others of weight and importance; by the Syriac, Arabic of Erpen, Coptic, Ethiopic, Sahidic, some copies of the Vulgate and by the Itala; and by most of the Greek fathers. Griesbach has left it out of the text. It is likely that the reading here is not genuine; yet that we have redemption any other way than through the sacrifice of Christ, the Scriptures declare not. The same phrase is used Ephesians 1:7, where there is no various reading in any of the MSS., versions, or fathers.
      The forgiveness of sins – ?????? ??? ?????????? The taking away of sins; all the power, guilt, and infection of sin. All sin of every kind, with all its influence and consequences.”

      Cf., Ephesians 1:7 I found “through the blood” in 19 different Bible versions.
      ‘Still trying to wrap my little brain around all this. 🙂

      1. Hi Suz. Thank you for your kind words. KJVonlyism is one of the primary reasons I finally ended up leaving my old IFB! Btw, I’m still in an IFB, but it’s tiny, we had 10 last Sunday, and that included the pastor and his wife, and in fact the pastor uses, and is a huge fan of the KJV, but he recognizes obvious mistakes the KJV makes like Easter instead of Passover, etc. and never drones on about the KJV being the best or any of that. I have had several conversations with him about it and have written him a couple of letters on some of the small gaffes he has made! If he were to start getting crazy over the issue, I would leave immediately!

        I would hear things that just didn’t add up about the KJV and I started checking on them which grew into somewhat of a hobby. I’m glad I gained the knowledge, but many folks don’t have the time to research this issue, and personally I don’t think they should have to! And they wouldn’t have to if simple men behind pulpits stuck to topics they knew something about, instead of propping up their favorite translation!

        The Samuel Gipp’s and Gail Riplinger’s of the world have much to answer for, for spreading this discord among good, Christian folks!

  20. there is a bigger point and i will show examples of why the KJV is the inspired inerrant word of God preserved for the english language whereas all other “versions are PERVERSIONS…..
    let me first give you this example…..
    if i was to go around the world and tell all mankind 2 + 2 = 5 would i be correct in answer to the mathematical equation of 2 + 2? even though it is what I truly believed?
    the answer is no the truth in this equation is absolute…. no matter how you change it the numbers or variables 2 + 2 will always be 4
    this is an example of absolute truth. so how does this equate to the KJV issue?
    within the Bible we see the Bereans search the “scripture” to verify Pauls preaching.. and he commended them for it.. so they had a measurement of truth so where does the christians measurement of truth come from?
    let find out… in galatians 3:8 we see this verse stated
    Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
    lets walk through this…….. here it states the scripture forsaw.. what did it forsee? the plan of salvation (justify the heathen(sinner) through faith) the scripture then Preached.. the word preached in this text is proeuaggelizomai
    pro-yoo-ang-ghel-id’-zom-ahee which means to announce in advance…. does the text agree with this>? the scripture preached before the Gospel…. before the Gospel thats the Good news of jesuss death burial and resurection… so we see the scripture foresaw, preached before the gospel unto abraham.,… well wait a minute.. the scripture wasnt written yet when abraham was alive moses penned the first 5 books of the Bible known and the books of the law.. so the scripture forsaw preached before the gopsel unto abram and then what Spoke.. saying in the shall all nations be blessed… well wait a minuted didnt God say that to abraham? why does the bible state scripture said that? heres why…….. as rev 1 shows the sword comes out of His mouth what is the sword? the word of god.. Does god change? no he does not as titus 1:2 states God cannot lie… if he can then as Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

    states he must god to the Lake of fire………. But wait what about these versions… what does god state about that?
    2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
    2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
    so let me recap…..

    here in 2 peter it states there will be false prophets and false teachers those who deny the Lord that has bought them… who did the Lord Buy? Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
    Here he bought the church………. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
    Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
    here it is the one who trusted in Christ………. so how did they trust>? by hearing the word of truth… well wait a minute which word is truth?
    now we need to comapre which measurement of truth is correct.
    the bible shows us the blood is how we have remission of sins
    Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
    notice its through the blood…. is this the real doctrine of god? lets see
    Exo_30:10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD.
    with the blood of the sin offering……
    did you know in all the other pervsions that colossians 1:14 removed the Blood?
    did you know acts 8:37 is removed as well… which shows this….
    Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
    Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
    Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
    take note verse 37 is what galatians 3 :8 confirms as justifying the heathen through faith .. known as the plan of salvation… now if we remove that verse her is the eunuch stating what hinders me from being baptized… and then right to verse 38 he is baptized…. wow thats a different gospel known as works salvation …… baptism doesnt save us as 1 peter 3:21 states its a figure for a good conscience toward god…
    so again lets recap god stated Scripture forsaw preached and Spoke to abraham before scripture was written… he shows us the plan of salvtion is through the Blood
    heres a major point many never seem to realize… Psalm 10:5
    Psa 10:5 His ways are always grievous; thy judgments are far above out of his sight: as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them.
    Here is where the author of this “page is going to scramble because he stated easier translation is the point of the “versions” open up you non kjv to this verse and you will see it states the way of the wicked man is PROSPEROUS .. What? how can that be? Grievous and prosperous 2 complete opposittes….yet the KJV states his way is grievous… ever look at isiah 14:12? how art thou fallen O Lucifer… yet all the other perversions state Morning star… but wait rev 22 states
    Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
    revelation states jesus is the Morning star… Did jesus Fall from heaven? hmmmmm im smelling a rat here
    you see God forwarned us of those teachers who have denied the lord that has bought them and they bring damanble hersies deny the way of truth…….. did you know only the KJV has 31101 verses in total .. over 250 are altered and changed in the other perversions…. the very center verse in the KJV is Psalm 118:8
    Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
    there are 14 words in that verse so the very center of the center verse is 2 words
    know what they are? the LORD….. think its a coincidence that the lord is the very center of the KJV and the verse in the center reflects the issue of Gods word vs mans,, remeber there is no coincidence in Gods will…. thats why even job cried out oh that my words be .
    Job_19:23 Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!
    so if god cannot lie and all the other perversions deny Christ
    why would God state Psa 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
    Psa_18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.
    Psa_12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
    so to sum this all up whom will you believe>? the bereans searched the scripture to verify pauls teaching,.,,, dont search a perverted book that denys the Blood… and denys Christ, God is not a man that he should lie

    1. Steve,
      This sounds a lot like Sam Gipp,and Peter Ruckman logic and arugments.The problem with this type of thinking is this.It Sets the KJV as the standard without holding the KJV to the same standard it holds mordern versions to.
      The simple fact is there are many different editions of the KJV,and the kjv only camp never states which addition is the correct addition.My Question is this.
      If the KJV Is the perfect translation Why were updated Additions of The KJV nessacery?
      The text of the KJV has many problems.There are places in the kjv were it reads different from the text.A great example Is Revelation 16;5 Not one greek text reads that way,and we currently have over 5000 different greek texts.
      Then KJV compare translations with the KJV in an attempt to try to say marderen versions, are pervisions,but when we hold the KJV to the same standard we see More KJV errors.Example Matthew 1;25
      The KJV Useses the worrds ”FIRST BORN.”
      One can be the first born WITHOUT BEING BORN OF A VIRGIN!!!!
      The NASB uses the word Virgin!!!!
      No Kjv only person has ever answered my questions.I wish you luck.
      jim

    2. Ok Steve, after all you have posted in this forum, let me ask you this: English is my second language, I am not an American, Australian or British. I have never been to these countries. I only first English by watching Sesame Street. Although we learned English in school, all we know is 20th Century American English.

      You believe any other English translation aside from the KJV is a perversion. I received Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord through a friend of mine who used my bible then – A Catholic Bible!

      I cannot understand 17th Century English. I never studied Shakespeare in school.

      If that is the case, since all English bibles are PERVERSIONS, does this mean I am not saved? Because if we will take it really literaly, it means even the Identity of God is also perverted in that Catholic Bible. If I cannot understand 17th Century English, does this mean I am eternally damned while I am still alive because I can only understant 20th Century American English? That is what one of the people said to me here, NOW I WANT TO SEE YOUR VIEW ON THIS.

  21. @Bryan
    Bryan,
    When you write “Those guys took that bible verse out of context” Which bible verse are you refering to ?
    Jim

    1. I was referring to Psalm 12: 6-7 Jim.

  22. Thanks a lot for your story Zach. And it’s really simple: in any translation undertaking, it is a fact that there will be errors. There is ALWAYS something lost in translation.

    Besides, the English people of the 1600s are not totally familiar with the Hebrew Language and the Greek as well. They are not totally familiar with its idiosyncracies. Still – as long as any translation is undertaken with all the good intentions, it is STILL a preserved God’s word.

    Those guys took that bible verse out of Context (that verse that says that God’s word will be preserved).

    The Messianics – Jews who received Jesus Christ as personal saviour, has no problems with modern translations as NIV, NASB, ESV. And they know the Tanakh better than most of us!

  23. I do apologize for the misspellings, i wrote that quickly on my phone at work. should have proof read it lol

  24. This has been a tough issue with me for years. I have heard all of my life “the King james bible is the inspired, infallible, preserved Word of God for the english speaking people of course. and it should be the standard for all other languages to be translated from. All new versions are watered down, demonically influence, and serve as the catalyst for the end of the great revivals”. I have believed this for 22 years! i still agree with one part…… It IS Gods inspired, preserved Word and is PROFITABLE for doctrine. no issues there. but after much study, ive now come to the conclusion that so is teh ESV, NASB, HCSB, and all other (serious) modern translations of the manuscripts we have available. Im not a fan of paraphrases (the message, Living bible, etc…) but they can serve a purpose. There are bad and good translations no question, but if the modern translations are “demonic”, they sure did a BAD job of taking out the GOSPEL!

    I sympathize with you all that are KJV only. i believed that all the way up till about 2 years ago. I have been one of those who looked down at those that use “perversions”, and have been guilty of debating those people, saying things such as “well if theres ONE Lord, ONE faith, and ONE baptism, then there is no way theres more than ONE BIBLE!”, or “God is not the author of confusion, and if everyone uses something different then it causes confusion! Thats satan attempt to hinder the truth!”, and the quite humorous “The King James SOUNDS like God speaking! Its authoritative, and you cant memorize verses out of modern versions, what does that tell you!?”. Its all the same tired arguments, and the ogic behind them is unfounded. (i know i could get into the manuscripts such as the textus receptus, vaticanus, masoretic text, and all of that. But most lay peopel have no clue about that stuff, and i beleieve God DID preserve His word, and we dont have to go back to the greek and hebrew to prove how its illogical)

    You may ask, why the change? Well 4 years ago i was a student at BJU (ob Jones university), and i met people there who did not use the King james. I went in guns blazing to let them know their errors and ignorance, but what i found were genuine Christians who Loved Christ as much as I (and many that knew much more than me!). one man named mark particularly got me looking at myself and wondering if i was wrong. All he did was talk about Jesus, couldnt wait to go pray and give the gospel to anyone he met, and just lived a life i envied (I am not claiming he was perfect by any means, but you could see he was different, and truly BELIEVED). He used an ESV. I just could not grasp how in the world that man could love Jesus so much and know so much about the bible, yet being using something false?

    well I ended up leaving that school (my goodness if you wanna see extra-biblical standards go there lol), and got set right back in my ways. I was happy again in the IFB, but marks testimony never left me. And about two years ago i was sitting in church listening to the preacher preach on “why we use the King James Bible”, and i just felt red flags go up. My mind said “HOW do we know it Gods new standard other than the fact we are told it is???” There is NO evidence that God “re-inspired” anything.

    The thing that struck me wrong in the Logic was this. So our perfect Creator allowed the english speking people before us to use “imperfect” bibles (such as the geneva, tynsdale bible, bishops bible) all the way until 1611. Then (while english spelling was not standardized) He RE-inspired His word. All while God knew that thousands of small changes (in spelling and wording) would be made all the way until 1769, And even then The cambridge edition and the oxford edition had differences! Plus God inspired it at a time knowing words then would not be used today. and now all versions are demonic?

    WHAT??????? Does that make ANY sense why God would do such a thing? NO! it does not. What makes sense is that God preserved His word and uses imperfect men to try and translate it to the best they can. ITS STILL GODS WORD! I promise you will feel free when you come to this knowledge. its hard yes, But God is so much bigger than the box that the IFB puts Him in.

    God bless and keep you all,
    zach

  25. @Suz
    HI Suz,
    I thoght you expressed yourself very well.I was also raised IFB in my teenage years God convicited me about KJV only and other theological positions held by IFB.One of the most eye opening mistakes by the KJV translstors is Revelation 13;5 They translated Thodore
    Beza s Theological Conjectual inadation,and not what the Greek text said.
    There is not one Greek text that reads the way the KJV translates revelation 16;5.A Good book to read is One Bible Only ? ROY E BEACHEM

  26. Check out the original table of contents of the KJV:

    http://www.thelostbooks.com/kjvtoc1615.jpg

  27. Oops, excuse me…… It should have read “an updated spelling version.”

  28. I was raised in Conservative Baptist Churches which taught and encouraged Scripture memorization from the KJV. Later as an adult, I attended IFB churches and was under the direct tutelage of an IFB minister, Wheaton grad. HE didn’t even know that the original KJV 1611 version that so many churches (in addition to the ones I’ve mentioned) included the apocryphal books. What irony. Countless KJV Bibles included the Apocrypha up through the 1800’s. Additionally, it was the same King James that also issued a proclamation in the UK for his subjects to read the apocryphal books. As an undergrad and a grad student, I was aware of the reasons why most Protestant churches eschewed them, e.g., the Alexandrian vs. the Palestinian Jews, to mention just one. It seems to be a well-kept secret amongst Protestants, especially Baptists, that the Aprocrypha was included in the very same Bible they’re so fond of touting. They also think that the KJV’s that they carry with them to church and study at home are actually written in King James English. They are not. Believe me, what’s sold in most Bible book stores are a sanitized as well as updated selling version of the KJV. The same in true for Shakespeare’s plays (that were, of course, originally published in the same time period–remember King James was Shakespeare’s patron for his acting company, the Kings’ Men. The original spelling would drive the average modern reader nuts. Those of you who have actually studied Renaissance English know it’s pablum compared to Middle English. I was a dyed-in-the-wool Baptist, but I was raised in Conservative Baptist Churches which taught and encouraged Scripture memorization from the KJV. Later as an adult, I attended IFB churches and was under the direct tutelage of an IFB minister, Wheaton grad. HE didn’t even know that the original KJV 1611 version that so many churches (in addition to the ones I’ve mentioned) included the apocryphal books. What irony. Countless KJV Bibles included the Apocrypha up through the 1800’s. Additionally, it was the same King James that also issued a proclamation in the UK for his subjects to read the Apocrypha. The original preface/introduction has been left out of most KJV Bibles. It’s lengthy and extremely verbose, not to mention some parts are truly sympathetic towards the Catholic and Anglican faiths. It would shock most Baptist KJVer’s to do primary-source research (don’t just take my word or your pastor’s word for it, but research the original documents in facsimile form). It’s actually quite a challenge to find and a truly original KJV *complete* Bible.

  29. @Holly
    Hi Holly
    Did you know that in the kjv Matthew 1;25 uses the words First Born.One can be first Born without being born from a virgin,
    In the NASB it uses the word virgin
    jim

  30. @Ukulelemike
    Could I please have the source of your info?
    Ephesians 4;15
    Jim

  31. @Will Kinney
    HI Will,
    How do you explian Revelation 16;5? No greek text reads that way.

  32. @John
    Hi John,
    I was raised on the KJV.One qestionuon Matthew 1;25 uses the term first born.One can be a first born son.and not be born of a virgin.
    The Nasb uses the word virgin
    You cant implie or say the T.R. or the kjv is better than a morden translations.When the kjv omits the virgin birth in matthew 1;25.KJV onyist acuse moderen translations of this all the time.and yet here they are guilty of it.
    ephesians 4;15
    Jim.

  33. @greg
    Hi Greg ,
    My mistake One Bible only was written by Roy E Beacham.He is chairman at central Baptist seminary.I believe that it is a independent Baptist school.and he defends modereen translations.He also shows the many errors in the kjv.In my town there are 3 indenpent baptist churches 2 of them are kjv only one is not.This maybe the start of something good.
    As for James White I have read his book,and enjoyed it very much.I also saw some of his viedos on youtube in realtion to the kjv onlyism.I also enjoyed them as well.
    Jim

  34. Jim – Thanks, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of that book.

    I usually give the ol KJV alot of “slack” It, in fact has been the translation that millions in the U.S. came to know the Lord through, but that being said, it is a translation nonetheless and has its problems like all works of men do.

    Another very good book on bible translations is James White’s “The King James Only Controversey” I like this book, frankly because it is a fairly easy book to read, and is good for most anyone first starting to look into the “translation” controversey.

  35. @greg
    Hi Greg,
    Thank you for the kind words.Its always a privilage to become friends with a believer.A book you would enjoy reading is ONE BIBLE ONLY? written by Roy E Beach published by Kregel publications.
    I also left a comment for pastor Martinez,He has not responded so far.
    I was rasaied Indpendent Baptist which was KJV only I am no longer indpendent Baptist.The KJV has a number of textual problems Here are two of them.
    1)Revelation 16;5 The translators translated Theodore Beza s theological conjectioal indation,In simple terms they translated the text the why Beza thought it should read NOT what the bibical manuscripts read.Eveen today with over 5000 bibical manuscripts Not one of them reads the way the KJV translates it.
    2)Matthew 1;25 the kjv reads first born,The nasb reads Virgin.One can be a first born son and not be Virgin born.I find it funny how KJV only Claim mordern bibles omit the virgin birth and yet they do it themselfs
    I hope and trust this my be of some help.
    jim

  36. @Jim Brown
    Hi Jim – Thanks for stopping by, and for your informed comment. I just got my 1611 KJV last year and love to find and be shown stuff like this, I immediately got mine down from the shelf and found you are precisely correct!! Love it!!

    I constantly quote “The Translators to the Readers” to the KJVonly’s, how can they (KJVonly’s) believe/claim things about their favorite translation that the creators of the translation themselves don’t believe!

    God bless and thanks again for the comment!

  37. @Pastor A. Martinez
    Dear pastoor,
    Before you go demonizing B.F, Westcott go to google books Life and letters of B.F,Westcott volume 2 page 84.B.F. Westcott writes the following;I shall be the last to rate highly textual criticism.
    Yes Hort had views i would never hold to,and it ulitmately killed the deal for Hort,Westcott,and Lightfoot to write a joint commentary on the new testament.
    I never meet a KJV only who critices Lightfoot for his work on the 1881 Revised Version.If they did they woulld be laughed off the earth.
    This is not about Westcott it is about how reliale is the T.R is.In matthew 1;25 The KJV omitts the word virgin,and uses the pharse first born.One can be a first born son without being born of a virgin.The NASB uses the word Virgin.
    ephesians 4;15
    Jim

  38. @greg
    Hi Greg,
    I liked what you wrote.It should be pointed out that psalms 12;6-7 In the 1611 KJV verse 7 has a small cross in front of the word them,and a marginal note to go with it it reads as follows;
    Hebrew him,i,everyone of them.
    It is refering to perserving the teaching to people from generations not a sepecific text.In the orginal 1611 kjv there is a section in the beging titled from the translator to the reader it reads as follows;
    Therefore as Saint Augustine sairh,that variety of translations is profitable for findind out of the sence of the scriptures.
    If the KJV translators were not KJV only Why should we be?
    I hope and trust that this helps
    jim

  39. No wonder Replacement Theology has a stronghold to many churches precisely because of these kinds of teachings.

  40. Hi Wayne – I was looking at Psalms 12:6-7 and my question to you is, “Where does Psalms 12 say that the ‘word of the Lord’ refers to the King James version of the Bible?” Of course it doesn’t!!

    Secondly, nowhere does this passage tell us “how” God will preserve His words. Does this mean that He will do so by ensuring that no one can ever change the substance of those words, or does it mean that He will always make sure that there is one infallible version in one or more languages or translations? This passage does not even begin to address such things.

    But let me quickly agree that there is no doubt that God is able to preserve His Word, and has!!

  41. I go to a IFD church and have for some time.Our churce uses the KJV only…The bible says in Psalm 12:6 -7 that God will preserve his word.I believe that God who created the heavens and the earth sent his son Jesus to die for us sinners (we could go on all day with the great things the Lord has done) is MMMOOOORRRREEEE than able to preserve his word in which I believe is the KJV.But I as well as my church do not look down on people reading other versions and I certainly believe a person who has accepted Jesus as there Lord and Saviour are just as saved reading the niv or other versions as people reading the KJV.

    1. Psalm 12:6-7 is about God’s promises not the Bible. We are being told that God keeps his promises (i.e., he will keep his word). This isn’t a passage about the preservation of the Bible (i.e., God’s Holy Word).

      This passage is misunderstood because, in typical IFB fashion, it’s pulled out of context and twisted to form a meaning different from what it was intended.

      This is David and the Lord having a conversation. David is crying out for help because the righteous people of his day were fleeting (see verses 1-4).

      Then the Lord replies and reassures David telling him not to worry that he has seen the trouble and promises to rise up to rescue them (see verse 5).

      Then in verse 6 he tells David that his promises are pure and perfect like refined silver.

      Then in verses 7 & 8 the Lord summarizes and reminds David what he promised, to protect and preserve “them” (the oppressed believers) (verse 7) even though wickedness is pervasive throughout the earth (verse 8).

      Again, to reiterate, the “them” that verse 7 mentions isn’t God’s words, but the object of the chapter, the oppressed, victimized Christians of that era.

      This is a HUGE mistake in the KJV and might I add a sloppy and irresponsible one. And I can’t believe that preachers continue to perpetuate this obviously false teaching.

      Let’s pretend for a moment that the “them” in verse 7 were about god’s word. From the context we can clearly see that it’s about the promises NOT the Bible. Plus, on top of all that, God said that HE would preserve “them”. As a result, logic would dictate that it’s not mankind’s responsibility to preserve “them”. “They” WILL be preserved whether they’re written in Hebrew, Greek, English, Spanish, Pig Latin, braille or Martianese. Nowhere in the bible is it written or even suggested that humans are supposed to be concerned with whether “they” (his promises or the Word of God) are being preserved or not.

      Hmmmmm, I feel another article coming on…

  42. Hi Thomas – Your story is very interesting. I completely agree with you that anyone undertaking a study of God’s word, regardless of translation, should ask the Lord for wisdom!

    As a christian brother I must warn you strongly about any and all of G.A. Riplinger’s materials (not J.R.) I wouldn’t point out such a simple mistake but Riplinger says that God basically “delivered” the message of this book to her, so she says (G) stands for God as author and Riplinger as secretary. That friend, borders on blashpemy!

    You may not have known Riplinger was a woman, that is also why many think she didn’t use her first name (Gayle.) She thought she may sell more books if folks thought she was a man. Her degrees are in “Home Economics” and she has no theological or language qualifications at all!

    She tells blatant lies on Wescott and Hort, two fine Anglican churchmen, who worked on a new Greek new testament. But most new versions don’t slavishly follow their NT, so the whole idea of jumping these guys is ludicrous. Most modern versions follow the Nestle/Aland Greek NT.

    Have a look at pg 149 of NABV, what do you think of that “Acrostic Algebra?”

    Huge KJVonly defenders have come against this book, men like Dr Kirk DiVietro, he actually wrote a small book documenting the lies and mistakes in NABV, David Cloud, D.A. Waite, these men are good men who fully support the KJV but cannot sit still and allow the lies of Riplinger to stand unchallenged!

    I have NABV sitting on my desk as I type this. I too thought that I had to spread the word about the “wickedness” of the new translations, how foolish, then I began to study and find that she had out and out lied on good men like Edwin Palmer and W&H.

    She is so deceptive that she has an apparent hard time staying married, she is on husband #3, with both ex’s still alive, I’m sure you know what the IFB’s teach about that.

    The KJV is a fine 17th century English translation, several came before it and several came after it, but many folks like myself just have a difficult time understanding it.

    God bless you friend and if I have shocked you with these truths about Ms Riplinger, please avail yourselves of the internet and confirm these things up for yourself.

  43. I would first like to say, that I am 14 yrs removed from IFB Churches. I have had some very deep scares that are as a result of these people. So, I don’t want you to think I am just taking my poistion from there understanding anymore. I can and would certainly understand your sceptisiam of someone coming out of such teaching. Please be patient as I give you a little back ground that will help you understand where I am coming from.

    I graduated in 1976 with a 2.92 grade point. I was taught to read in the sight reading era. To be frank I never got it. I had never develope a desire to read and did everything in my power to avoid it. As a result I graduated with very little understand of reading or comprehention of what I read.

    I say that to say, in my child little faith at first, I just excepted what they said and used the KJV. I run into the same problem you did in regard to understanding the KJV. This was the second time I had experienced this. When I was a teenager I had when to a Evangelical Free Church. They gave me a NRSV, I tryed reading it and I couldn’t understand it and got bored with it and gave up.

    That said, this time at an IFB Church I had actually got saved. I really wanted to know what this book had to say, so I got in there and was really digging. The fact was, I was just getting more frustrated every day. Now, I really don’t know where I got this, but I had a verse come to my mind “if any lack wisdom let him ask…..” I was sitting on my couch reading when this happened and I turned around got on my knees and started praying “God I want to live for you. I have tried on two occations to read and understand your word. If, I am going to live for you I need to understand your word”. After I prayed that prayer I sat back on the couch and started reading and as God as my witness God started openning my eyes to the scripture.

    With that, you need to understand I am not the kind of guy that excepts things hook line and sinker. I have to prove things for myself to. So, after I would hear things I would search the scriptures for myself. Even with that I really didn’t understand somethings so, as you shared I took their word for it. As time went on, I start verse by verse, word by word study of the KJV of the BIble. I got out a 1828 Websters dictionary and I taught myself comprehention of words and to read.

    As time went on, I started getting some serious understanding of the scripture. And all that was being taught, I didn’t agree with. So you can imagine what was starting to happen with my relationship with the Church and it pastor. So, I started wondering if they could wrong about what the Bible says, could they be wrong about the KJV of the Bible. At this point I picked up a book called NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS by J.R. Riplinger I happened to notice in your references that was not a book you used for your research, but I would recommend you read it; at lest to say you have.

    Anyway, as I read this book I come to understand some very serious accusation where being layed against Wescott and Horts Greek translations. So, I started looking into their references to find that in fact they where true. In their own writings, back and fore, these to men discussed their worship of satan. As well their efforts to pervert the greek manuscripts, that they were sending down to the translaters for the new translation of the time. I believe, If I recall, it was the RSV.

    Look, I know that you have alot of time into this subject and I am very sure that you are very serious about getting things right. As I have read alot of your material and it has confirmed for me alot of things ,that just didn’t seem to add up, that I was taught in the IFB Churches.

    But the fact is, you are wrong about this one. I would like to challenge you to read J.R. Riplingers book check out the references if you still feel the way you do then ok. But this is coming from someone that has nothing to gain; other then to help an believer to understand our Almighty God is able inspite of all the efforts to cloud this issue; to provide His people with His perfectly preserved word, to english speaking people, as David said He would in Ps. 12:6,7. I just find it hard to believe God word leave us depented on scolars to interpet Greek; anymore then He would leave us dependent on the pastors; of any type of Church, to understand His Word.

    Please, understand that if a guy like me can learn to read the KJV anybody can, if they want it bad enough and does what, only the KJV sayes in, 2 Tim. 2:15 “Study”.

  44. @Meatus
    I wonder who made that comment. So few being saved? China is the biggest underground Christian church today. Millions are being saved yearly in that country. Problem with the IFBs is that they live in this little world they have and do not invite others unless you are willing to submit to their own terms. And if you don’t submit not only do they reject you, they also brand you as an apostate or worse a devil worshipper.

  45. “Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved”.—

    a classic example of the scriptures being elevated to a fourth component of the trinity

    I’m really glad you have created this blog and are trying to clarify for others. I have been witnessing many family members fall prey to this church and type of mind control.

    Thank you for providing a place where someone may find help.

  46. Yo Bob, I want to be honest with you. When I was replying Kristen, there is a lot of anger in my heart. NOT with Kristen because she is entitled to what she believes in – but in how all these times, the IFB and a lot of Ultra conservative Baptists in general (but NOT ALL), have been throwing the same defence of their beliefs and in return retaliate with condescending side remarks as if all of them read the same script! If you will analyze all the IFB guys who exchange views in this forum, they all say the same thing – and I bet you – will still be singing the same song as long as this forum is active.

    I am so hurt by these. These guys are our brothers in Christ because they have the same saviour as us and yet they can say with a lot of heart that we – non IFBs – are excluded from it because we don’t read the KJV. They keep telling us that they do not doubt our salvation but their arguments say otherwise. What is implied is stronger than what they express.

    I have been praying to God that there will come a time where we will finally be able to respect each other’s differences. Jesus Christ should be our uniting entity – not trying-to-shove-your-doctrines-to-others-so-that-we-can-unite-or-burn-in-hell.

    That being said, I do not want to fuel my hurt and anger towards baptists who keep telling me I am not saved because of who I am and what I do (a professional musician with long hair that plays soul music for a living and is a big fan of Black Sabbath). They are identifying people based on their set of doctrines and not by their fruits.

    Actually Bob, there was a post year some time back that almost explicitly said that I am not saved because I came to know Christ through a Catholic Bible. And he said that God is misrepresented in all Bibles except in KJV! The nerve!

  47. Bryan, I thought you gave a great answer to the KJ-only position. I sense it was given in the spirit of 2 Timothy 2:25, “with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition”. We may never know on this side of heaven what God will do with a message of truth given in love.

  48. Glad you could join us Kristen. Welcome!

    My answer to Kristen has been oddly deleted. So I will type it again! Oh dear……
    Kristen, I will answer your questions:

    1. Why would God, being perfect, give us a Bible that is not perfect? – If somebody told you that God did not give a perfect Bible, then that guy is lost or a loon! Simply put, God gave us a perfect Bible! He will never give anything less. What is not perfect is the TRANSLATION from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. In everything, something gets lost in translation. To truly understand the dynamics of the language of the original manuscript, you must know the mind of a Hebrew who lived and breathed that time. Even the translators of the KJV do not understand fully this. That is not to say they are insincere, it’s just that their knowledge is not sufficient to render a perfect translation. Whatever the language translation, there will be errors.

    2.Doesn’t that misrepresent God? And in so doing, make him a liar to present the words as His own? – Of course not! Except for the NWT, no English translation ever misrepresented God. Failure to give a perfect translation does not equate with misrepresenting God.

    3. Why would God inspire more than one version of the Bible at all, considering the fact that He’s not the “author of confusion”? He’s a God of order and even 2 versions of the Bible tells non-Christians that we can’t agree. That we are in “confusion”. – If you want to imply that there should only be one version of the Bible, then WE SHOULD ONLY READ THE ORIGINAL TEXTS WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS THEMSELVES! In case you don’t know Kristen, the translators of the KJV used COPIES of the texts and basically used the Received Text as the main source. The received text was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus – a Roman Catholic Monk. Although Erasmus have access to ancient texts, THEY ARE DEFINITELY NOT THE ORIGINAL HAND WRITTEN DOCUMENTS BY THE AUTHORS. To add insult to injury in the eyes of the IFB, Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate to fill up the blanks. What is the Latin Vulgate? Well it is the first Roman Catholic Latin Translation of the Bible by St. Jerome – a – you guessed it right – A ROMAN CATHOLIC MONK. You might ask why don’t Erasmus simply use the sources of St. Jerome for the received text? Well, Erasmus cannot find Jerome’s sources – simple as that – that’s why he has to use Jerome’s translation to fill in the blanks. So now I guess you know where the KJV got its sources? You have to agree with me Kristen that English as a language was already existing even before 1611 right? So I throw you a question – What is the Bible for the English speaking people before 1611?

    4. And on top of all that, what about the fact that your precious NIV, along with every other version, takes out so much of the important parts of the Bible? – Are you sure that the NIV translators deleted them? Or the KJV translators ADDED THEM? You got to prove this with historical research. The reason you think the NIV translators deleted them is because some older, much much older versions of the texts simply does not have those verses. And just in case you accuse the NIV translators of a crime, those missing verses you are referring to are in the footnotes. I don’t think God will send those translators to hell just because they are not in the MAIN texts of the NIV. Now about those much much older manuscripts I mentioned above, these texts were sadly criticized by a lot of IFBs at the time to be tools of Satan to start confusion and therefore compel scholars to write a modern translation of the Bible. It is a subliminal message – saying “our KJV will now be threatened because of these scrolls found in the dead sea” In fact a lot of Ultra conservative Protestants diss the dead sea scrolls altogether! Another thing to think about Kristen: if the KJV is perfect, can you say with boldness that your KJV was NEVER REVISED AT ALL? Meaning whatever is written and finished in 1611 stays the same until today?

    I have met a lot of people who are Messianic Jews and some of them studied in the synagogue to be a Jewish Rabbi. Which means that they are SO WELL VERSED in the Tanakh (the Old Testament in Jewish in case you did not know – so many Christians say the Hebrew Old Testament is called Torah which is dead wrong!) you cannot argue with them if you have a different claim than them with regards to the interpretation of the Tanakh. As they received Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord, since them being Jewish, they were able to bridge the OT with the NT. As they study the scripture in English, guess what, their main version is not the KJV but NIV and NASB! They too found it difficult to understand. No different from the translators of 1611. Those guys still have no complete grasp of the Hebrew Language, the Koine Greek as used by Jews and the Aramaic Language. Most developments in the understanding of those language came to the Western World much much later. Looking through history, do you think Europe – having just recently been in the dark ages – will already be experts in a language they did not use for more than 500 years (Greek) or never spoke at all (Hebrew and Aramaic)?
    Then therefore Kristen, will you accuse those Messianic Jews not saved in the eyes of God because they do not use KJV? But used the Tanakh in Hebrew plus the NIV and NASB instead?

    All of us here who have the same sentiments as I have will NOT IN A LONG SHOT say that the KJV is a bad version. I will be stepping up with whole assertion to tell you that the KJV is a masterpiece of English literature. One of the best if not the best. BUT the problem is we cannot understand it! There are many words that are not in usage anymore. And the sentence and grammatical structures are obsolete! But that is in no way a point against the KJV, it is just that it is dated. Try wearing the clothes of those guys living in 1611 the next time you go to a mall or go to work. You definitely might get bizarre reactions from the people.

    Finally Kristen, I am a Filipino. I have never been in the US, Australia, UK and other countries where English is the mother tongue. English is only my second language. I learned English primarily through Sesame Street. Our schools NEVER studied Shakespeare and Elizabethan English – NEVER! Reading the KJV is extremely difficult for the average Filipino. Even the Filipino IFB in our country will have to admit they do not understand the KJV but were being forced to because they will be accused of apostate if they ever hold another version. Will you now say with whole honesty to your self that I am not saved because all these time, my point of reference is the NIV. In fact when I received Christ as my Saviour and Lord, I was using the Catholic Bible!

    God bless you Kristen and Happy New Year!

  49. Hi Kristen, glad you could join us. Let me answer your questions:

    1. Most definitely God is Perfect and He gave us the Perfect Bible – without the shadow of a doubt. But there was never any perfect translation of the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts. Even the KJV has its own errors. Just one practical argument and I would not go to other lengths – if you think the KJV is perfect right of the 1611 original publishing, why would they need revisions? In fact, I doubt it if you have the original 1611 version. MAJORITY of the KJVs in circulation are not from 1611 but from the 1760s!

    2. God does not misrepresent Himself, and never will He! But as I reiterate you can never perfectly translate a language to another especially if it is unrelated (I mean translating French to Spanish may be easy but Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to English?). You must understand that there will always be shortcomings with ALL bible translations.

    3. God will never inspire ANY version of the Bible. The original is the ONLY inspired Bible AFAIK. The others – though carefully translated which much prayers and study – are still subject to errors.

    4. This is an old old old old old argument by the onlyist that says the NIV removed portions of the Bible in the Gospels. NOT TRUE. Read your history Kristen. Due to the still developing study in understanding Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic at that time, the translators who made the KJV ADDED verses not in the ancient sources they have. In fact the KJV translators have insufficient ancient texts. Even the Received texts (compiled by Desiderius Erasmus – a ROMAN CATHOLIC monk – not meant to diss our Catholic cousins) have insufficient ancient manuscripts and needed the Latin Vulgate also compiled by a Catholic Monk St. Jerome to fill in the blanks. The translators who made the NIV have more ancient sources and one of them is access to the Dead Sea Scrolls (who some baptists say that this was the manuscripts of Satan in order to bring about modern translations to confused believers! – a shame in Christian history as they imply!).

    Everyone in this forum who have said something against the onlyists NEVER DID ONCE dissed the KJV. We truly respect one of the greatest English literary work of ALL TIME. What we just don’t like is that these IFBs tells us that we are lost because we are using another Bible (NIV in particular – the IFBs hated this version like it was Satan himself), or worse we are going to hell because we cannot understand 1611 English.

    Kristen, I am a Filipino, never went to the US and Europe and was trained by Sesame Street to speak and read and write English. We never studied Shakespeare that is why we are not exposed to that kind of English. If we cannot understand 1611 English at all, does this mean we are all apostates in your eyes?

  50. It’s amazing to me that you seem to have every single IFB KJV only believer pegged. Wow. Amazing. That’s not stereotypical at all…And it’s even more amazing, considering that one of the main characteristics of IFB believers is that they are independent of one another.

    Just because you received unsatisfactory answers from the church you grew up in for your questions, doesn’t mean there aren’t real answers. Although it might take a little research on your part, and clearly, since you can’t be bothered to research that so-very-hard-to-understand KJV, you can’t be bothered to research that either.

    I’ve grown up using the KJV and I understand it fine. Why? Because I was taught to understand it. And when I didn’t, I asked people who have studied it more than I have. That’s why we have pastors and church leaders and fellow believers. To help us.

    I was never taught, as you apparently were, to believe something simply because someone told me so. I was taught to see for myself.

    The answer to understanding God’s word isn’t to dumb it down, but to study it. You know, like it says “Study to shew thyself approved”, or is that just too difficult and time consuming?

    You compared having a pastor explain the KJV as being the same thing as accepting another version as correct. Really?

    Explaining what the words mean and presenting that explanation as being ‘the Bible’, are totally and completely different. Pastors, in my experience never consider their explanations to be inspired of God as they do of the book they are explaining. When men do that, that’s called heresy and indicates a cult. Or the ‘believe it because I said so’ mentality.

    I’m not going to address all the rest of the nonsense you wrote about, but ask yourself this, Why would God, being perfect, give us a Bible that is not perfect?

    Doesn’t that misrepresent God? And in so doing, make him a liar to present the words as His own?

    Why would God inspire more than one version of the Bible at all, considering the fact that He’s not the “author of confusion”? He’s a God of order and even 2 versions of the Bible tells non-Christians that we can’t agree. That we are in “confusion”.

    And on top of all that, what about the fact that your precious NIV, along with every other version, takes out so much of the important parts of the Bible?

    They don’t just ‘make it easier to read’, they leave things out. You know, like, the Gospel.

    http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html

  51. Hi Bryan – Happy New Year to you and yours as well.

    I must admit I was surprised at my brother’s response, he attends a very large Church of Christ, which is not KJVonly, and the few times I’ve attended there, it doesn’t appear to be very legalistic. He does use the KJV and has for years, but he himself is not legalistic, so I’m still scratching my head over his response. He may have felt attacked when I said I was going to administer a KJV test, I was just having fun, he may have just taken it the wrong way. Anyway he’s a great guy and I’m sure we’ll get over this too.

  52. @greg

    Well I ain’t no hillbilly, I ain’t no American either. I am a 100% who only was taught 20th Century American English. Although I have heard and know of the word succour (it means help – as far as my knowledge can get), we never used it in our writings and conversation in English. Although in our language – Filipino or Tagalog – the translation is “saklolo” which is also from the root word succour.

    Still, there are so many words in KJV that unless I have a dictionary that is thrice bigger than an average bible (I don’t think words like that appear in a pocket dictionary – but I could be wrong), I can never fully understand KJV. Even the usage of thee, thy, thine, thou already throws me off. The mere fact that it is of very extreme usage takes enormous amount of energy to process it in my brain before coming up with a comprehended sentence. I guess you guys in which English is the mother language, it is loads easier compared to us.

    Happy New Year Greg!

  53. I jokingly told my brother the other night that I was going to give him a KJV test, and flipped over to Hebrews 2:18 “For in that he himself suffered being tempted, he is able to ‘succour’ them that are tempted.” So I asked him if he knew what the verse meant, particularly the word “succour” It just so happened he did. He is a nationally ranked Scrabble player and a very smart cookie to boot, only college grad in our immediate family, he told me someone had recently used it in a match. I thought no more of it, but apparently he did. He wanted to know what I was getting at, or what was my point. I told him that “succour” was just one of those words that had fallen into disuse as many words do, but that if he knew what it meant, then fine, I really had no dog in the fight. But he wouldn’t drop it, you should have seen the handstands he was doing to make “succour” a wonderful, viable word for 2012. I eventually told him that to the best of my recollection, other than the KJV, I had never seen the word in print or heard anyone ever use the word! He essentially said that I don’t get out much.

    So folks, do you guys use “succour” on a regular basis, or are you a bunch of uneducated hillibillies like me?

    Please succour me in understanding this issue more clearly!………….smiles!

  54. Fred – You bring up a good point. These KJVonly’s who denigrate God’s Word in other translations make such fools of themselves, I don’t think they realize that they are blaspheming the Word of God when they call God’s Word in other translations “perversions.” (btw, yes they will one day answer for it)

    Bob is also correct in stating that the KJV translation has very good manuscript evidence, and is a fine translation, even a great translation, but it is simply a fact that most of can’t understand this venerable old translation anymore. I was raised with it, and I have problems understanding it, when I read my NIV it’s as though the scales have been lifted from my eyes.

    I pray that this silliness of KJVonlyism would pass from the scene and that christians would join together and win this world for Christ.

  55. Fred,
    To my knowledge, there is good manuscript evidence for the KJV. The problem with its manuscript support is that many if not all the manuscripts are late, some of them around the 10th century.
    The NASB and NIV draw more heavily from manuscripts from the 3rd and 4th centuries. These manuscripts like many others were not available to the KJ translators. The KJV was translated from about ten manuscript copies, and most of these were copied much later.
    I don’t know were some people get the idea that manuscripts from Alexandria are from Satan. My theory is that some start with the presupposition that the KJV is inerrant or ” the preserved Word of God”. Then they work backwards to find support for their theory and vilify everything that seems to contradict their belief. KJv-only advocates have actually become quite obnoxious. They insist that the facts are on their side even when the majority of evidence is against them.
    Sometimes it feels like you are arguing with a blind man about the colors the autumn trees.
    Alexandrian manuscripts are considered more reliable because there were good scribal traditions in place in ancient Alexandria. The teachers and students in Alexandrian schools were believed to have had great respect for the Word of God and the manuscripts they copied. The methods and practices they used shows they took great care in copying the Word of God.

  56. I’m surprised no one has mentioned this: Is it just me, or does the following assertion by Melton border on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (namely, the “Devil’s line” statement)?

    8. The KJV is supported by far more evidence. Of over 5,300 pieces of manuscript evidence, ninety-five percent supports the King James Bible! The changes in the new versions are based on the remaining five percent of manuscripts, most of which are from Alexandria, Egypt. (There are only two lines of Bibles: the Devil’s line from Alexandria, and the Lord’s line from Antioch. We’ll deal with this later.)

    If I’m right in my hunch, then boy does Melton have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do…

  57. Kenny :
    I don’t see any of you qouting the Word of God’s only your thoughts.

    I was actually going to go over some verses with you but seeing as you just want to preach at us and then run away before we can have an actual discussion I won’t waste my time.

  58. Kenny – Tks for stopping by, I’m surprised you lasted this long. I clearly told you that indeed the KJV is God’s Word, albeit in a language that is unfamiliar to english-speaking people of today. There are hundreds of archaic words (horseleach, sheepcote, nergal, neesings, pygarg, ossifrage, succothbenoth) that folks simply have no idea what they mean, I’ll bet one hundred dollars that you don’t know what any of the listed words mean. Friend that is why translators do their work, the above were clearly understood by most folks when this translation became available, but not now, that is where the translators come in. The KJV translators themselves said that “A variety of translations is nececssary in finding out the sense of the scriptures”

    I wish you well friend, it is obvious that you are familiar with the word of God, which is great, but please don’t worship the ink and paper, we serve a living God.

  59. I don’t see any of you qouting the Word of God’s only your thoughts. I do have an KJV 1611 and no I can’t hardly read it, but this make no differnce. Don’t try to twist what I say. Oh, and I’m not mad, just disapointed that fokls don’t think we have a trustworthy Bible. I do not think that only english speaking people have God’s Word. !!! This is only to make a strong point, not outrage. I know who saves us and I also know what brings us to the saving knowledge of Christ. I do not belieave that only baptist are going to Heaven, just those who have trusted in the precious blood of Jesus. Why is every one so angry with those who belieave the King James is the Word of God anyway? If you can’t trust all the book then you can’t trust any of the book. This will be my last post. Love in Christ, Kenny

  60. I can certainly relate to the dogmatic stance that many in IFB churches hold. Schooled in their colleges for 7 years and having served in one capacity or another for over 30 years, I once held the IFB belief’s with a white knuckled grip. If you didn’t see it my (our) way you were of the devil because we stood for the pure, unadulterated truth. But even amid my firm held beliefs was desire to know this God. So over time, He turned my belief system upside down and invited me to know Him for whom He is. Not to say that I’ve arrived, because I haven’t but I’ve learned to hold the truth with an open hand. Once you’ve been so wrong about some things about Father, you hesitate to force your interpretations because they are just that – your interpretations and beliefs. I’m now more able to listen and learn from other who reflect Him as they might just have a different insight into who this multifaceted God is. No one man can behold Him in His totality.

    I’ve enjoyed the movie the Matrix. Neal the main character comes to realize that there is something more out there. The shock of what reality really looked like is mind boggling. Yet, those caught in the Matrix of religion (as I once was) are only capable of seeing and experiencing within its context (an illusion). The reality of what they are seeing and doing has trapped them and they will die fighting for what they believe. I became disillusioned and that has made all the difference in my ability to embrace Him fuller.
    I recently came across the following book “Evolving in Monkey Town: How a Girl Who Knew All the Answers Learned to Ask the Questions.” Great story of a girl who grew up in a conservative evangelical home. She became a proficient in apologetics but one day was compelled to turn her skeptical eye towards her own religious beliefs. Well you’ll have to take the adventure if you choose.

    http://www.amazon.com/Evolving-Monkey-Town-Answers-Questions/dp/0310293995

    We have a Father that love us like no one on the planet ever has or ever will.

    Paul

  61. @Paul

    Looks like our ole’ Kenny boy needs to read his Bible. How could he have missed this!?!?

  62. @Lynne

    Lynne, just to prove to you that this statement is already all too common, redundant and nothing new to us, I will copy my rebuttal for this statement of yours from another website that has the same argument as yours:

    First here is the statement of the person who obviously just copied it from someone else and not his idea – proving that he is simply blindly following his church:

    Quote : “According to Wikipedia.org, the New International Bible (NIV) is the most popular Bible version today. What Zondervan Publishers won’t DARE tell you is that they are OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes The Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex. Doesn’t it seem odd to anyone with a brain and a love for Christ that the world’s largest Bible publisher (Zondervan) is owned by the same company, HarperCollins, that publishes The Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex.” Every pastor and Christian using the NIV are supporting these demonic publications. Furthermore, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation comes from same Greek manuscripts as does the NIV! The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Interlinear Greek New Testament is based upon the corrupt Greek of Westcott and Hort, openly admitted in front of the publication. By the way, the owner of the exclusive printing rights to the NIV, Rupert Murdoch, was just made a Knight by the Pope. Murdoch had put the NIV under the same umbrella as the TV Guide, which he also owned.
    This is unbelievable folks! Destroy your NIV. Why in the world would you want an NIV bible that removes the word “begotten” from John 3:16, says that Jesus couldn’t grasp equality with God in Philippians 2:6, removes the name “Jesus” in 38 places, completely removes the word “Godhead” from the Bible, completely removes the word “sodomite” from the Bible, removes the word “hell” 40 times, and changes every mention of people “worshipping” Jesus to a mere “knelt”? Thank God for the King James Bible!
    Why would anyone use the NIV? If you sincerely love the Lord Jesus Christ, who is God Almighty (John 1:1-3,14; 10:33; Colossians 1:16; 1st Timothy 3:16; Revelation 1:8), then you WON’T use the damnable NIV. I beg you not to simply throw your NIV away, lest someone else be cursed by finding it–rip it to shreds, and then throw it away!”

    Here is my rebuttal:

    Quote: “Last time I checked, The NIV was released by Zondervan in 1978. It was bought by Harper Collins in 1988. One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to conclude that the NIV is not closely connected with the Satanic Bible and the joys of gay sex. I don’t think Harper Collins influence Zondervan in the release of the NIV. It is another case of guilty of association. So does this mean that Zondervan is now a demonic publication? If that is the case, then we should also stop reading the devotional Our Daily Bread. Why? Because like Zondervan, RBC Ministries – the publisher of Our Daily Bread – is located in Grand Rapids, Michigan same as Zondervan! What’s more, Our Daily Bread quotes a lot of books published by Zondervan. Therefore, Our Daily Bread is a publication masterminded by Satan to take us away from the true Apostolate doctrines!

    Also, I should not buy records by Mahalia Jackson because her records are released by Columbia Records, same label that has Coheed and Cambria, Korn, Blue Oyster Cult and new age superstars Earth, Wind and Fire!

    Oh while you mentioned it, I should not buy records by gospel singer George Beverly Shea – Billy Graham’s worship leader. Because he was with RCA, same label that gave us Eartha Kitt – known for singing about lust and women empowerment – something the fundamentalist are militant about, and Duke Ellington – whose classic Satin Doll was inspired by a woman he saw in a whore house! Oh all those Satanic artists! (Incidentally, they also declare Billy Graham a false prophet because he reaches out to Roman Catholics)

    This is another one of the cunning tactics of the fundamentalists – guilty by association. During the 80s, no fundamentalist would believe that Philip Bailey is a born-again Christian because he still works with Earth, Wind and Fire (though the band took a 4 year hiatus 1983-1987) – a band known for explicit new age beliefs. They say if Bailey is really a born again Christian, he should leave EWF or even better leave show business!

    Some fundamentalists are convinced that Amy Grant and Sandi Patti are not Christians because these two have divorce cases while being famous CCM artist. Again where do they base their findings?

    Now the latest issue to them is that Hillsong, Darlene Zschech, Ron Kennoly, Francis Frangipane, John Bevere, and Sadhu Sundar Selvaraj are all apostates and cites proof to prove their accusations that are absolutely out of context.

    Have you ever also observed they always refute you in a condescending manner when they cannot obectively answer the points you raised raised? Almost a “cultic” attitude can be seen.

    All doctrines – no Christ!

    The greatest enemy of Christians are not false religions and false prophets but Christians themselves!”

  63. Funny how a pastor answers with three exclamation points. Isn’t it pastors are to be gentle and objective when it comes to apologetics? Gosh, three exclamation points sure do mean he is offended needlessly.

    Kenny, I am a Filipino and have never been in the US or UK. I was taught American Modern English and it is only my second language. Does this mean my walk with God was misguided all this time because my point of reference has been NIV and NASB? Someone here even claimed God is far from me because I don’t speak Queen’s English. Oh have the KJV onlyists ever proven the existence of the Unicorn? Because the KJV sure does says so. And why insist on KJB? Are we in the wrong if we say it is a VERSION? Even the translators of that particular bible also say it IS a Version not THE BIBLE.

    You talked about fruits of the Holy Spirit in one of your posts. Praise God that Paul clearly wrote those fruits in one of his epistles. Because at that we can able to know if Christians are really walk with God. One of those fruits were long suffering. Boy, on your first few posts you already posted a remark with three exclamation points – that’s long suffering for you I guess?

    By the way I have heard testimonies upon testimonies and saw on the internet testimonies upon testimonies that IFB and majority of the Fundamentalists have these to show to ordinary folks : Judgmental, Condescending remarks, High-brow Queen’s English insults, HOLIER THAN THOU attitude, easily offended if their initial put downs are easily answered by the party they want to offend, same rhetorics for the last century or so….these are the fruits I have seen from the IFBs and not the ones mentioned by Paul.

    Why am I posting this? Because so many times I was accused of going to hell because of:
    1. I don’t know Queen’s English
    2. I am not a Baptist – my Church (the Christian Missionary Alliance) is accused by the IFB of being a cult
    3. I am a professional musician that plays everything from Sinatra to Metallica
    4. My choice version of the Bible is NIV
    5. I don’t believe in the once saved always saved doctrine
    6. I got long hair

    By their fruits you shall know them….seems like they know me from my appearance!

    Kenny, your posts are already all too familiar with us. I will not stop you from posting more defence of the KJV but let me assure you that I am very certain we will have rebuttals to your posts. Because the IFB has not given anything new in the defence of the KJV.

    And lastly Kenny, if you think that the KJV IS the Bible, can you say that to a Messianic Jew with a straight face and with all assertiveness? The Messianic Jew has a very different view of English bibles compared to IFB pastors.

  64. Kenny Ward :@Charles
    If the KJB isn’t the pure water then please step forward and tell me were I can get the pure water.

    Stepping forward. Jesus is the pure water. You have replaced a God with a book.

    John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

    John 4:13-14 Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

    Paul

  65. Kenny Ward :I am a pastor and yes I have studied this subject independently for over 15 years. Keep your stinking feet out of my drinking water!!!

    At er boy ol’ Jacky boy!

    You have taught me something –
    You state: “The KJB has produced these much fruit revivals among the english speaking world, converting millions of souls.” I guess we don’t need that Jesus guy as long as we have the KJB to do all the converting.

    And why all the hype amongst the IFB about revival? They are always striving for revival… revival… Doesn’t revival signify something needs to be brought back to life?

    Paul

  66. @Charles

    If the KJB isn’t the pure water then please step forward and tell me were I can get the pure water.

  67. @Katie

    Revival is simply God with us (his manifested presence). John15:1-8 vs4,5 “abide” speaks of an constent intimate relationship with you and you with him.This is true revival and the only way we will ever bear much fruit.vs5 Notice throughout passage beareth fruit(saved), bring forth more fruit(after purging, which only God can do in order to empty us out “self” in order to fill us up. Eph.5:18-20 and Acts1:8 and not in a carismtic way.), and bringeth forth much fruit and bear much fruit.(when we abide) The KJB has produced these much fruit revivals among the english speaking world, converting millions of souls. No other version in any language has had this kind of impact on the world. Here are the other passages I refered to. Eph.5:8-9,Gal.5:22-23(9 fruits of the Spirit) Psalm12:6-7(purifed 7 times, he Word of God is undifiled by man.(KJB) “keep and preserve” not in orignal form, but pure.) 7 is the Lord’s favorite number throughout the bible, check out the book of Rev. Also read Psalm 119, the longest chapter in God’s Word dedicated to God’s Word, just to name a few. By the way if the new versions are so much better why have they not produced great revivals like the KJB or why aren’t they producing more dedicted and Holy living christians? Ever since American Christians have stopped reading the KJB this country has went down hill. 200 + versions now when are they going to get it right? Why so many versions? I Tim. 6:10 Satan is the author of confussion, not God. I Cor.14:33,II Cor.11:13-15 I incourage you to try the spirits concerning this mater.(What kind of fruit have these new versions produced? The Spirit does produce fruit and so do the spirits.)I John 4:1 The other refrence I refered to is Gen.3:1-10. In this passage we find the Word of God questioned by Satan as to weather or not it was perfect and thereafter added to by man. Gen.2:17,3:3″neither shall ye touch it,” Deut.4:2,12:32,Pro.30:5-6,Rev22:18,Jer.23:36 These new versions take away and add to God’s Word. Just to name one they take out the word blood over and over agian and yet this is the very thing that cleans us of sin. I John 1:7

  68. Kenny – Ditto what Katie said. I don’t expect you to respond, in fact I was surprised you even came back with the above (snarky/christian?) response. I’ll give you just a couple questions to think about, and you can respond to if you would like.

    1) Where was God’s word in english prior to 1611? Did those folks have (prior to 1611) the Word of God?

    2) What translation did the pilgrims bring with them to this great country of ours that God has so richly blessed?

    3) Guess what? I’ll bet you don’t have and have never seen a 1611 KJV, open your bible and check yours, I’ll bet, once again, that you are carrying and reading a 1769 edition, this edition of the KJV had been revised several times. Btw I do own a 1611 KJV. (not an original of course)

    In closing let me say, the KJV is a fine translation, it has served english speaking well, it is certainly God’s word in shakesperean english, the problem? Most folks can’t understand it. Thank God for translators!!

  69. @Kenny Ward

    Hi Kenny.

    Two things…

    1. Can you please provide the source for how you interpret “fruit” as “revival”? You said you’ve studied this subject so I’d be curious to know how you came up with that interpretation.

    2. I noticed that you didn’t include any scripture reference in your comment. One of the signs of a cult is blindly repeating dogma with no idea of where that belief came from. If you can, would you kindly share your references so that we also may study them independently, separated from your teachings? You come across as preaching with an air of superiority when you write in such a way.

    Thanks

  70. @Kenny Ward

    If you don’t want people’s stinking feet in your drinking water, Kenny, then you should drink from pure water and not water that’s been tainted by dirty feet!!!

  71. I am a pastor and yes I have studied this subject independently for over 15 years. Keep your stinking feet out of my drinking water!!!

  72. Good Morning Kenny – Thanks for the laugh!! This silly stuff you are spouting has been around for along time, reminds me of the liar that wrote “New Age Bible Versions” and her acrostic algebra.

    Kenny please examine yourself today and ask yourself if you know anything at all about bible translations. Have you ever studied anything independent of what your IFB pastor has spouted?

    Let me finish by saying that I appreciate your enthusiasm for the Word of God, even if it is misguided.

    Love to dialogue with you if you have anything to say that’s not parrotted from your obviously wrong pastor.

  73. “Ye shall know them by there fruits.” What true revival ever came out of a modern vesion? the KJB is tried and proven. there are 9 fruits of the Spirit. The bible is inspired by the Spirit. The number 9 is the number of fruitfulness. Holy BIble 9 letters. King James 9 letters. 1611 1+6+1+1=9 “The words of te Lord (not word) are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, tou shalt preseve them from this generation fo ever. The number 7 is the number of perfection and completion. The KJB is the seventh english translation. And english is what Greek was when the New testament was written and even more so. It is the most known languge of the day. “from this geneation for ever.” That includes our generation. Thank you Lord!!! By the way who made you God to able to correct God’s Word? Isn’t that the lie that Satan told in the garden that was so attractive. “ye shall be as gods” He also questioned God’s Word by the way. “Yea hath God said,” I rest my case.

  74. As I have mentioned before here, one of the things that I have enjoyed doing since my retirement 2 years ago is looking into the tranlation issues/controversey, since I had frankly, been fed so much disinformation during my time in fundyland. At any rate, earlier this week I looked into the phrase “God forbid” as it is contained in the KJV translation, and found some surprising stuff.

    The phrase “God forbid” is found 24 times in the KJV translation. Nine times in the OT and 15 times in the NT. Dig out your Strong’s concordance and look up the phrase in the OT, ok, can’t find a Strong’s # for God can you? The reason is because the Hebrew word for God was not in the manuscripts that the KJV translators were using. Now do the same for the NT, now you find 2 Strong’s #’s, neither of which is the Greek word for God, once again the KJV translators chose not to follow their own manuscripts, most newer versions have the correct translation here. Talk about dynamic equivalence! The KJV translators do the same thing with the OT phrase “God save the King”

    It’s a fairly simple reason why the translators did this. “God forbid” and “God save the King” were very common phrases during the time of the translation work and they were persuaded to use this common language, unfortunately. Btw, usually the KJV translators put non-manuscript, uninspired words in italics, but note they didn’t do that here.

    Most of the KJV controversey revolves around manuscripts used, but in this unique case, we have the translators not following their own manuscripts.

  75. Messianic Jews scholars themselves say that all translations in English will have problems so any version as long as it is translated in honesty unlike the NWT is ok. The important thing is you have to read the scripture in the mindset of a Hebrew or Jew to better understand it better. Being a KJV onlyists just doesn’t compute at all.

  76. @Lynne
    Now the IFB people are lying? Tsk, tsk…..

  77. Leslie Rodriguez

    I was the same way! As soon as I left the IFB I bought an NIV and devoured it! It changed my life, because I found out who God really is, and what He really thinks/feels about me…among other things.

  78. Steve,

    By the way, I don’t agree with everything that Graham Pockett guy sais. He does not believe in Eternal Security. He does make some good points though.

  79. Steve,

    By the way the “Steve” in the link led people to Christ using the NIV. I know you like using the NLT. If you are the “Steve” in that article I am now assuming that you lead people to Christ using the NLT.

  80. Steve,

    I checked out the link Charles gave. There was “A Letter From Steve” in there. I’m just curious are you the “Steve” in the “A Letter From Steve”? There are lots of Steve in this world but I’m just curious to know if you might be that “Steve”.

  81. Lynne – The “facts” you presented are very “old” and untrue (urban legends in the IFB), you must be way back in the woods. Your Pastor is not going to like you exposing yourself to the type of truth you may find on sites like this.

    Charles has already pointed out your first mistake, but I would like to point out another, you mentioned gays several times in your post, what is so funny is that the NIV is 10x clearer about this sin than the KJV (my opinion) btw, I have no problem with the KJV translation, its just that most folks can’t understand this venerable old translation.

    Hey Lynne, glad you stopped by, and please, by all means continue to “investigate” the false claims you have heard in your church, it’s abit scary at first, but the liberty that can be yours through Christ Jesus is wonderful and amazing, come on out the water’s fine.

    God Bless You.

  82. @Lynne

    Uh, Lynne, “The Joy of Gay Sex” is published by Crown, a subsidiary of Random House Publishers. The NIV is published by Zondervan. So much for your “facts” I guess eh?

    This pretty much discredits the rest of your comment so I see no use responding to it. Perhaps someone else wants to waste their time on you.

    It would seem to me that Satan is using your knowledge of the “facts” to discredit the NIV and other reliable translations.

    The article above answers all of your objections very well if you would only read it. Here is another link about the NIV which you may find helpful, although I highly doubt you will read it either: http://www.anointedlinks.com/why_niv.html

  83. I share this in love…regardless of any truths regarding your site (some things only God knows) I know for a fact that the NIV is published by same publishers who publish “Joy of Gay Sex’ & satanic Bible. The KJV is one of the best translations & others like NIV leave passages missing. I have heard testimony also of this fom many saints whom have nothing to do with IFB or any denomnation preferance at all, like where I am now. Beware…satan will try to even use what starts as good to harm (see for example feminist movement now as justification for Abortion or someone abused in Church becoming antiChrist vs Christ loving person just shedding light on evil, or Civil Rights being twisted to perecute those who believe God in regards to sin of Sodomy & publicaaly sat Gay marriage is abonmination). Satan trys to I think undermne Bible & I suspect is behind NIV push & downplay of or discredit KJV as a reliable translatione…my point in sharing all this…saints be careful & take all to God in prayer! May Godbless!

  84. I read the New King James,The Message The New Living Translation and the NIV. You’re right the KJV is too hard to study with!

  85. Javier, if you are not a KJV only as you said, why go the long route to post its veracity and describe how accurate and what have you’s the KJV is? We non KJV onlyist probably love the KJV more than the onlyist because we that version credit where credit is due.

    The KJV is a literary masterpiece. A great English translation of the Bible for that time. Probably the most important piece of work pre-20th century. But we end there. The onlyist WORSHIP the KJV. The IFB use the KJV as a scapegoat to their wrong actions.

    We know all the things you posted. Probably more than the onlyists because the onlyists are not allowed to think for themselves. They are just fed information by the pastors who themselves are also misguided.

    You should probably preach these to the onlyists. They are the ones who need it.

  86. Javier – The reason I called you a KJVonly is because you are essentially espousing most of the things that KJVonly’s do.

    I had a look at some of your references (thanks for providing them) some red flags went up immediately, mostly in reference to Wilbur Pickering. While Pickering’s whole body of work provides us with some good information, he is probably known most for being an advocate of the Majority Text. Pickering’s doctorate is in linguistics, but he has no formal training in textual criticism, that doesn’t mean he isn’t self-taught, however Pickering’s lack of academic credentials should make us cautious.

    Gordon Fee, who is an expert in Textual Criticism and has the requisite academic credentials has done a serious examination of Pickering’s work and he has written a series of articles on them. (Gordon Fee, “A Critique of W.N. Pickering’s/The Identity of the New Testament Text” in Wesminster Theological Journal” 1979) Dr. Fee found Pickering’s work to be seriously flawed.

    Now on to Maurice Robinson, a great scholar, whose work I seriously appreciate, though I don’t always agree with. Robinson is not a KJV only in the Ruckman/Gipp mode, in fact those KJVnuts would probably call Robinson a heretic. I place Robinson right up there with serious scholars like Dean Burgon. Many KJVonly’s want to claim Burgon’s work when he agrees with them, but he was far away from being KJVonly in the Ruckman/Gipp mode, he went as far as to suggest that just in the Gospel of Matthew alone there should be more than a hundred changes.

    So Javier I’ll close with Phillipians 4:6 NIV “Do not be anxious about anything” The KJV says “Be careful for nothing” Which translation do you want your children to follow?

  87. Greg, you dont have to answer the comment of why you called me KJV only. Peace!

  88. Greg, I have already stated I was not KJV only. Why then have you called me one in your last comment?

  89. javier :

    Its something how you Critical Text guys use the “Erasmus and his 6 munuscripts” to tear down the traditional text,…

    I’d chose textual criticism over tradition any day. Tradition means nothing.

  90. Didn’t you just “spout” all of this same information above, I have seen it all before in various KJV only materials. (btw, when you use others materials like you have done here you should credit them) You just can’t seem to grasp that the TR is based on 6 very late manuscripts (wake up, smell that? It’s coffee) I thought at first that you seemed reasonable, now you are starting to act somewhat fanatical. Please tell me who cares that a certain amt of manuscripts somewhat agree with the TR reading? What an odd way to talk about manuscript evidence, I pointed you to a source (the net Bible) that often times will tell you the names of the manuscripts that support or don’t support a given verse. Note: To anyone reading this pls don’t believe any of Javier’s quotes about how many manuscripts support this or that verse, if you are interested in any of them simply look up that verse and avail yourselves of some reference materials and you can see for yourself the exact manuscripts that have that verse, its not hard, and that is what scares KJVonly’s like Javier. Also the net bible folks have done alot of this work already, so that whacked-out information like the above can be easily refuted.

    Hey folks say you are doing a study on the history of your family, you find out that your great grandfather left you two storage bins of historical information, deeds, death certificates, birth certificates, old newspaper stories, etc. You open up the first bin, and way in the back you spot six boxes of information, its good info, but its only six boxes. You then open the next bin and the entire bin is filled from top to bottom with boxes upon boxes of materials, 5,000 in all, again all good information. From which bin do you think you can find out more information about your family? Which bin is going to help you piece your family’s history together more accurately? That in a nut shell is what we have when it comes to manuscript evidence relating to bible manuscripts.

    I have said many times and will close with this, if all KJVonly’s would read the “The Translator’s to the Reader’s” It would stop 99% of KJVonly foolishness, the last 1% are Ruckmanite types who wouldn’t believe Jesus if He told them to their faces. The KJV translators themselves said in The Translators to the readers that “A variety of translations is profitable… yea necessary for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures.”

  91. Greg, you stated:

    “Erasmus – 6 manuscripts

    Modern translators – More than 5,000 manuscripts”

    The you asked “do you deny these numbers?”

    The 5000 manuscripts support the TR not the Alexandrian.

    Greg, do you deny these numbers? –

    Matt 5:22 – Less than 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “without cause” The shorter text has the effect of forbidding anger, which would contradict other Scriptures (Ephesians 4:26, Psalm 4:4) and the Lord’s own example (Mark 3:5).

    Matt 5:44 – Less than 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, offer a truncated form of this verse

    Matt 6:4 – “openly” is omitted by 6%.)

    Matt 6:6 – About 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “openly”.

    Matt 6:13 – About 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit the last clause

    Matt 11:19 – Instead of “her children”, just 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, have “her works”

    Matt 15:39 – Magdala was Mary Magdalene’s hometown; perhaps this was when Jesus delivered her from the demons (Mark 16:9). Less than 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, read “Magadan” instead of Magdala

    Matt 17:4 – Instead of “let us”, perhaps 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, have “I will”

    Matt 17:21 – Less than 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit this whole verse

    Matt 18:11 – Just 1.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit verse 11

    Matt 19:16&17 – Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “Good” before “teacher” in verse 16 and have Jesus saying, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is One who is good” here in verse 17. The minority reading makes Matthew contradict Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:9.

    Matt 20:7 – Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit the last clause

    Matt 22:30 – Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “of God”

    Matt 23:14 – Perhaps 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit this verse

    Matt 25:13 – About 11% of the Greek manuscripts omit “in which the Son of the Man is coming”

    Matt 26:28 – Here, and in Mark 14:24, perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit ‘new’

    Matt 27:24 – Perhaps 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “righteous”

    Mark 1:2 – Around 3.3% of the Greek manuscripts have ‘Isaiah the prophet’ instead of ‘the prophets’

    Mark 1:14 – Some 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit ‘of the Kingdom’

    Mark 2:17 – Perhaps 10% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘to repentance’

    Mark 3:15 – Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit ‘to heal diseases and’

    Mark 6:11 – Perhaps 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit the last sentence of verse 11

    Mark 7:16 – Just over 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit verse 16 entirely

    Mark 9:23 – Perhaps 3% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit ‘believe’

    Mark 9:29 – Four Greek manuscripts (all inferior), omit ‘and fasting’

    Mark 9:44 – Perhaps 4% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘into the unquenchable fire’ at the end of verses 43 and 45, and also omit verses 44 and 46 entire.

    Mark 9:49 – Some 7% of the Greek manuscripts omit the second clause of this verse

    Mark 10:24 – Five Greek manuscripts (all inferior), omit ‘for those who trust in riches’, producing an obviously inferior text.

    Mark 11:10 – Perhaps 5% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘in the name of the Lord’

    Mark 11:26 – Perhaps 4% of the Greek manuscripts omit verse 26 entire

    Mark 13:14 – Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘the one spoken of by Daniel the prophet’

    Mark 14:22 – Perhaps 5% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘eat’

    Mark 14:24 – A small handful (0.6%) of the Greek manuscripts, omit ‘new’

    Mark 15:28 – Around 11% of the Greek manuscripts omit verse 28 entire

    Mark 16:9-20 – For well over a hundred years, there has been an ongoing campaign to discredit the last twelve verses of Mark. Only three known Greek manuscripts omit the verses, and one of them is a falsification at this point .UBS3 encloses these verses in double brackets, which means they are “regarded as later additions to the text,” and they give their decision an {A} grade, “virtually certain”. So, the UBS editors assure us that the genuine text of Mark ends with 16:8. But why do critics insist on rejecting this passage? It is contained in every extant Greek MS (about 1,800) except three (really only two, B and 304—Aleph is not properly “extant” because it is a forgery at this point). Every extant Greek Lectionary (about 2,000?) contains them (one of them, 185, doing so only in the Menologion). Every extant Syriac MS (about 1,000?) except one (Sinaitic) contains them. Every extant Latin MS (8,000?) except one (k) contains them. Every extant Coptic MS except one contains them. We have hard evidence for the “inclusion” from the II century (Irenaeus and the Diatessaron), and presumably the first half of that century. We have no such hard evidence for the “exclusion”.

    John 1:18 – Instead of “the only begotten son” (as in over 99.5% of the Greek manuscripts), some five manuscripts (of inferior quality, objectively so) have “an only begotten god,” while another two (also inferior) have “the only begotten god”. Since the absence of the definite article (in Greek) can have the effect of emphasizing the inherent quality of the noun, the second reading could be rendered “only begotten god”—this alternative has appealed to many evangelicals who see in it a strong affirmation of the
    deity of Christ. Discussion: The human body and nature of Jesus Christ was indeed literally begotten in the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit; God the Son has existed eternally. “An only begotten god” is so deliciously gnostic that the apparent Egyptian provenance of this reading makes it doubly suspicious. It would also be possible to render the second reading as “only begotten god!”, emphasizing the quality, and this has appealed to some who see in it a strong affirmation of Christ’s deity. However, if Christ received His “Godhood” through the begetting process then He cannot be the eternally pre-existing Second Person of the Godhead. Nor is “only begotten” analogous to “firstborn”, referring to priority of position—that would place the Son above the Father. No matter how one looks at it, the UBS reading introduces a serious anomaly.

    John 1:42 – Perhaps 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts read “John” for “Jonah”

    John 3:13 – About 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “who is in Heaven”

    John 4:42 – About 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “the Messiah”

    John 5:2 – Fully 99% of the Greek manuscripts read the familiar ‘Bethesda’, and this name is attested by the 1st century Copper Scroll from Qumran. The so-called ‘critical text’ (UBS and N-A) serves up the pitiful ‘Bethzatha’, following two Greek manuscripts, The UBS editors have introduced an historical error into their text on the flimsiest of evidence.

    John 5:3&4 – About 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit the last clause of verse 3 and all of verse 4. Verse 7 makes clear that it had to do with the stirring of the water. The UBS editions do us a considerable disservice by following a very small minority of manuscripts.

    John 6:11 – Perhaps 3% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit the reference to the disciples here and have Jesus distributing directly to the crowd, making John contradict the other three Gospels.

    John 6:47 – About 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “into me”

    John 6:69 – Perhaps 0.5% of the Greek MSS, of inferior quality, read “the Holy One of God”

    John 7:8 – Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “yet”

    John 7:53-8:11 – Some 15% of the Greek manuscripts omit 7:53-8:11

    John 8:59 – About half a percent of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit “going through the middle of them;

    John 9:4 – Perhaps half a percent of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, read “we” for “I”. Virtually the same handful of manuscripts also has “Him who sent us” (in this verse)

    John 9:35 – Less than 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, read “Man” instead of “God”

    John 11:50 – For “us” perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, read “you” Since this is a prophecy, the difference is significant.

    John 12:47 – Less than 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, read ‘during’ supper (as in NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.), which confuses the account. There was an ordinary meal, and then the Passover ritual itself. The meal was basically over, but they
    couldn’t proceed with the ritual because they were ceremonially unclean—their feet hadn’t been washed (they were dirty from the dust of the road).

    Acts 1:15 – A small minority of Greek manuscripts [3%], of inferior quality, read ‘brothers’ for ‘disciples’

    Acts 2:30 – Two percent of Greek manuscripts, omit “according to flesh, He would raise up the Messiah”

    Acts 2:47 – Three percent of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “the Church”

    Acts 7:30 – Perhaps 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit ‘of the Lord’

    Acts 8:37 – 88% of the Greek manuscripts do not have this verse. It is in the Latin tradition and quoted in the second & third centuries by Iranaeus and Cyprian and has “endured” the centuries.

    Acts 10:30 – Some 3.5% of the Greek manuscripts omit the ‘fasting’

    Acts 17:26 – Some 4.5% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘blood’

    Acts 18:21 – Perhaps 3% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit ‘I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem’

    Acts 22:20 – Some 2.3% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit ‘to his murder’

    Acts 23:9 – Some 4.5% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘let us not fight against God’

    Acts 24:15 – Some 6.6% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘of the dead’

    Acts 25:16 – Some 7.5% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘to destruction’

    Acts 28:29 – Perhaps 5% of the Greek manuscripts omit verse 29 entire

    Romans 1:16 – Perhaps 3% of Greek manuscripts omit “of Christ”

    Romans 3:22 – Perhaps 7% of Greek MSS omit “and upon all”,an inferior proceeding.

    Romans 8:1 – “Who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” is omitted by 2.3% of the Greek manuscripts

    Romans 14:9 – Perhaps 2% of the Greek manuscripts omit “and rose”

    Romans 14:10 – 2.4% of the Greek manuscripts read “God” instead of “Christ”

    Romans 16:5 – 4% of the Greek manuscripts read “Asia” instead of “Achaia” (these are very different places).—an inferior proceeding.

    Romans 16:24 – 3.2% of the Greek manuscripts omit verse 24

    1 Cor. 6:20 – The eclectic Greek text omits, “and in your spirit, which are God’s”, following 3.7% of the Greek manuscripts

    1 Cor. 11:24 – The eclectic Greek text currently in vogue omits ‘take, eat’ (following 8.3% of the Greek manuscripts) and ‘broken’ (following some 2% of the manuscripts)

    1 Cor. 11:29 – The eclectic Greek text currently in vogue omits ‘Lord’s’ (following just 2% of the Greek manuscripts

    1 Cor. 15:47 – The eclectic Greek text currently in vogue omits ‘the Lord’ (following 2.4% of the Greek manuscripts)

    Galatians 3:17 – Less than 3% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “in Christ”

    Galatians 4:7 – Evidently 1½ percent of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, read “through God” instead of “of God through Christ”

    Galatians 5:19 – Perhaps 5% of the Greek manuscripts omit “adultery” This statement holds also for “murders” in verse 21.

    Colossians 1:14 – “Through His blood” is omitted in some 40% of the Greek manuscripts, but the 60% include the best line of transmission.

    Colossians 4:15 – Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of dubious quality, have ‘her’

    2 Thess. 2:2 – Some 15% of the Greek manuscripts have ‘Lord’ – the 85% that have ‘Christ’ (including the best line of transmission) are doubtless correct.

    2 Thess. 2:3 – Some 5% of the Greek manuscripts read ‘lawlessness’, but the 95% (including the best line of transmission) are doubtless correct.

    1 Tim 3:16 – Instead of ‘God’, 1% of the Greek manuscripts read ‘who’

    1 Peter 1:22 – Problem: A doctrinal anomaly is introduced. Peter is writing to the “elect” (1:2), to the “redeemed” (1:18), to the “born again” (1:23), to “a holy priesthood” (2:5), to “believers” (2:7), to “slaves of God” (2:16)—they do indeed need to grow, but not “into salvation” Discussion: Metzger explains: “The TR . . . omits [“into salvation”] either through an oversight in copying . . . or because the idea of ‘growing into salvation’ was theologically unacceptable” (p. 689). Notice that the UBS editors understand their text to mean “growing into salvation.” TEV, NRSV and Jerusalem render UBS literally, putting the salvation in the future. NIV renders “grow up in your salvation,” something the text doesn’t say, while LB has a looser variation on that theme (NEB is looser still).

    2 Peter 3:10 – Discussion: Metzger actually states that their text “seems to be devoid of meaning in the context” (p. 706)! So why did they choose it? Metzger explains that there is “a wide variety of readings, none of which seems to be original”—presumably if “shall be burned up” were the only reading, with unanimous attestation (it has 94% of the MSS), he would still reject it, but he can scarcely argue that it is meaningless. The UBS editors deliberately chose a variant that they believed to be “devoid of meaning in the context.” NASB abandons UBS here, giving the Byzantine reading; NEB and NIV render “will be laid bare”; TEV has “will vanish”.

    1 John 5:7 – Is week in Greek manuscript evidence with the earliest being the fourteenth century. It is strong in Latin manuscript evidence the earliest being the sixth century. It was quoted by Cyprian (250AD) and Priscillian (350AD)

    Jude v.1 – Rather than “sanctified”, perhaps 5% of the Greek manuscripts read “beloved”

    Jude v.4 – About 13% of the Greek manuscripts omit “God”

    Do you deny these facts? –

    “The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament.

    “Since the 1880s most contemporary translations of the New Testament have relied upon a relatively few manuscripts discovered chiefly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Such translations depend primarily on two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, because of their greater age. The Greek text obtained by using these sources and the related papyri (our most ancient manuscripts) is known as the Alexandrian Text. However, some scholars have grounds for doubting the faithfulness of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, since they often disagree with one another, and Sinaiticus exhibits excessive omission.

  92. Greg, you said “I would love to see a modern English version based on the TR.”
    Check out Jay P. Green’s Interlinear Bible and the New King James Version. The major source for most modern translations use the Sinaticas and Vaticanus. There are others, but these are the source text.

  93. Erasmus – 6 manuscripts

    Modern translators – More than 5,000 manuscripts

    If you were piecing together any kind of history which of the above resources would you prefer? For me it is as simple as that, do you deny these numbers?

    You get no argument from me that the few manuscripts the KJV translators worked from were good ones (Erasmus’ greek text/TR) I would love to see a modern English version based on the TR.

    Btw, You seem abit sarcastic, stating “You critical Text guys are tearing down the traditional text” I’m not “tearing down” anything, you got the wrong guy, I have given the TR plenty of respect as well as the KJV translators, what I haven’t given respect is the uneducated, myopic view of foolish KJVonly’s.

    I’m still not sure what ax you are trying to grind, as you state you don’t use the KJV for study, then what’s the problem?

    Also I’m assuming the “two manuscripts” comment is in ref to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, if that’s the case, wrong again, at least as it relates to me, so tell me, what are we arguing about?

  94. Javier,
    What makes you think the NIV and NASB are based on two manuscripts?

  95. I previously stated that “Luke 23:34 is backed up by 92% of Greek manuscripts.”
    This was a typo, Luke 23:34 is backed up by 99.2% of Greek manuscripts.

  96. Luke 23:34 is backed up by 92% of Greek manuscripts.

    Erasmus, using only 6 manuscripts, though this may be true, “they were representative of many more which existed at the time but became known later.”

    Its something how you Critical Text guys use the “Erasmus and his 6 munuscripts” to tear down the traditional text, and you at the same time use basically 2 manuscripts that do not agree with each other for your text. Then you criticize the Protestant reformers for using the Latin text when in turn, so does the NIV.

    For the record, I am not KJV only. I do not even use the KJV for Bible study, meditation or any other form of devotion or reading.

  97. Javier – He may or He may not have prayed this. I know you love your KJV but the fact is many good, older manuscripts don’t have this phrase. But again facts are facts, the theme of Jesus’ universal love for us is crystal clear w/out this phrase being spoken from the cross. I could do the same thing all day long with the KJV, there are many phrases that the KJV translators included that are much better and clearer in the NIV for instance.

    If you are interested in a great resource, let me recommend the net bible to you, its online and its free, every time I use it I feel I should be paying for it. Many times you can go to a verse like this one and it will tell you which manuscripts contain the verse and which ones don’t, I checked this verse before writing this. Javier the job of translating is a difficult one, the KJV translators had to make these exact same type of decisions. They, in fact, didn’t even have the entire NT and had to go to the Latin Vulgate to fill in some missing holes.

    This passage in Luke is one that has relatively (late) manuscript evidence, many believe the more ancient manuscripts, being closer to the time of the recorded events are thus more accurate, at any rate if you will check the manuscript evidence you will see that there is ample evidence from those manuscripts to question whether or not this should be included, and again, it changes nothing in the overall message of the bible and affects no major doctrine.

    My NIV contains the verse with a note.

    No matter what KJVonly’s believe, they can’t make their favorite translation have more manuscript support (Erasmus worked from about 6 manuscripts) and no matter what, they can’t make those manuscripts get any older, and they must admit that Erasmus did not have the complete NT and had to go to other resources like the Latin Vulgate. Even with all these issues I consider the KJV to be a masterpiece, happy 400th birthday KJV.

  98. Does anybody here believe Jesus prayed “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”

  99. @John 10:10
    Well which is what is all about! If the KJV ministers to you, then by all means read it. God assigned that version for you.

  100. “The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament.”

    – Comment taken from the preface of the New King James Version

  101. Javier,

    Thanks for your response.

    you said:
    “I did not say “some of the bible versions remove John 7:53-8:11?, I stated that “Some 15% of the Greek manuscripts omit 7:53-8:11?”

    Sorry about that. I was trying to paraphrase what you said. its kind of similar to what you said but not exactly the same.

    You also said:
    “What makes you think this passage is not real? It is 85% of the Greek manuscripts. I believe that gives it weight for authenticity.”

    I never said I thought this. You came to that conclusion by yourself from my post. I am thinking this right now because of myth#10 listed in this article. Also Greg listed some good information about this as well.

    I currently use the KJV right now but I am not a KJV-only person who thinks it is flawless or error free. I simply use it because I like the unique language it has. it appeals to me for some reason.

    The Lord loves us all,

    A brother in Christ

  102. Greg,

    Thanks for the polite and considerate response. You provided some good information and cleared up some confusion. I like this story but its also good to know the truth as well and know whether or not it should be in scripture. You made some really good points.

    The Lord love us all,

    A brother in Christ

  103. Hi John – Very good question. Like I alluded to earlier when I tackled the Mark passage, all of the rest of those passages are easily refuted, as is this passage in John.

    First I want to point something out, guess which are the two largest variants in the New Testament? Yep that’s right Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11.

    Before I dive in, I want you to remember that the Textus Receptus (TR) which the KJV New testament is based on follows a very tiny number of very late (not old) manuscripts, and even goes so far as to import passages from other sources such as the Latin Vulgate.

    John 7:53 -8:11 is referred to as the “Pericope de Adultera” The evidence against the originality of the pericope, unlike for the Mark passage, is very extensive and wide-ranging. We note that a truly diverse group of ancient manuscripts omit this passage, as well as the majority of lectionaries, Latin versions, and Syriac versions. Many other manuscripts that “do” contain the passage mark it off with asterisks or obeli. This amount of evidence by itself wound be sufficient but there is alot more. In the manuscripts that contain the passage, it is normally found after John 7:52. However, in ms. 225 it is found after 7:36, in others after 7:44, in a group of others after John 21:38. When translators find a passage like this that is moving all around it is clear evidence of its later origin and the attempt on the part of scribes to find a place where it “fits.” This sort of thing indicates that this passage is not original.

    Many feel that this was an early oral tradition that became popular in the West and that it came to have a part in the Gospel of John over time. Now unlike some parts of the Mark passage, this story is in complete harmony with the ministry and the teachings of Jesus, and I personally love the story. The primary reason for not including this passage is because of its lack of manuscript evidence. Btw, my NIV does contain the passage with a note.

    I want to reiterate here that I have just examined the two largest textual variants in the entire new testament, I think that is incredible! These beautiful wonderful words of life, given to us by a mighty God, kept for us down through the ages, and these are the largest variants. You could completely throw them out or keep them and it wouldn’t change God’s precious message to us at all. The manuscript evidence for our bible is massive, its been described as an embarrassment of riches, that is why I will never sit still and allow for foolish KJVonly’s to put forth their foolishness w/out combatting it at every turn. If you are reading this and love your KJV, who am I to tell you to change, love it, preach from it, enjoy it, it is God’s word in 17th century English. But if you are like me and have a difficult time understanding Shakesperean English and enjoy some of the good new translations (not all are good btw) you can be sure that you are reading God’s word in modern English, which I can understand much better, and I must say I personally believe to be more accurate.

    Hope this was helpful John.

  104. Some 15% of the Greek manuscripts omit 7:53-8:11, including most of the early ones; but that means that 85% contain it,
    including the Latin tradition that dates from the 2nd century. Assuming (for the sake of the argument) that the passage is
    spurious, how could it ever have intruded here, and to such effect that it is attested by some 85% of the MSS? Let’s try to read
    the larger passage without these verses—we must go from 7:52 to 8:12 directly. Reviewing the context, the chief priests and
    Pharisees had sent officers to arrest Jesus, to no avail; a “discussion” ensues; Nicodemus makes a point, to which the
    Pharisees answer:
    (7:52) “Are you also from Galilee? Search and look, for no prophet has arisen out of Galilee.”
    (8:12) Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world . . . .”
    What is the antecedent of “them”, and what is the meaning of “again”? By the normal rules of grammar, if 7:53-8:11 is missing
    then “them” must refer to the “Pharisees” and “again” means that there has already been at least one prior exchange. But,
    7:45 makes clear that Jesus was not there with the Pharisees. Thus, UBS [the ‘critical’ text] introduces an aberration. And
    yet, Metzger claims that the passage “interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12 ff.” (p. 220)! To look for the antecedents of
    8:12 in 7:37-39 not only does despite to the syntax but also runs afoul of 8:13—”the Pharisees” respond to Jesus’ claim in
    verse 12, but “the Pharisees” are somewhere else, 7:45-52 (if the Pericope is absent).
    Metzger also claims that “the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth
    Gospel”—but, wouldn’t the native speakers of Greek at that time have been in a better position than modern critics to notice
    something like that? So how could they allow such an “extraneous” passage to be forced into the text? I submit that the
    evident answer is that they did not; it was there all the time. I also protest their use of brackets here. Since the editors clearly
    regard the passage to be spurious they should be consistent and delete it, as do NEB and Williams. That way the full extent of
    their error would be open for all to see. Unfortunately, NIV, NASB, NRSV, Berkeley and TEV also use brackets to question the
    legitimacy of this passage.
    But why was the story omitted? Leading church father and theologian, Augustine (about A.D. 430), answers: “Certain
    persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in
    sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s acts of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who said ‘sin no more’
    had granted permission to sin.” (See Augustine, “Adulterous Marriages” [2.7] trans. by Charles T. Huegelmeyer, in Saint
    Augustine: Treatises on Marriage and Other Subjects [New York: Fathers of the Church, 1955], p. 107.) [I took this material on
    Augustine from Living Water: The Gospel of John—Logos 21 Version, Absolutely Free Incorporated, p. 74.]

  105. @John 10:10
    I did not say “some of the bible versions remove John 7:53-8:11”, I stated that “Some 15% of the Greek manuscripts omit 7:53-8:11”

    What makes you think this passage is not real? It is 85% of the Greek manuscripts. I believe that gives it weight for authenticity.

  106. Greg,

    Interesting points in your post. I have a question that you might know that I’m kind of curious about. In one of Javier’s posts above he said that some of the bible versions remove John 7:53-8:11. This is the story about the Woman getting caught with Adultery. Do you know why the KJV translators added this to scripture when its not supposed to be there anyway? Why would they make up a story that never part of scripture and add it in there? I’m kind of confused about this. Also I have not been a Christian for that long but it seems to me like this story seems to be one of the most popular amongst Christians to tell. That’s how it is for me anyway. I’ve listened to sermons, read articles, and heard lots of Christians tell this story before. I hear the tagline a lot that goes something like this “Well since your perfect and sinless, throw your stones” or something like that. Why do so many Christians use this story if its really not supposed to be part of scripture? I’m kind of confused about this. I’m hoping you can clear up my confusion with this and might know the answere. you might or might not know the answer.

    The Lord loves us all,

    A brother in Christ

  107. Regarding Mark 16:9-20,
    -Verse 12-13 refers to Luke 24:13-43.
    -Verse 14 does in no way contradict John 20:19-29. Verse 14 says, “Later He appeared to the eleven as the sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart”. There is no way to determine if this refers to Jn 20:19-22 or 20:24-29.
    -In verse 16 when Jesus says, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved”, goes right along with Matt 10:32. By baptism we confess Jesus before men.
    -Verse 17-18 testify to the Acts of the Apostles.

    Without verses 9-20 of Mark 16, Mark would be the only writer of the Gospel to not have written words of Christ after His resurection.

    Vaticanus and Sianaticus have showed face since the 1880’s. They date back to the forth century. So do the witnesses of the Received Text. Even more, the disputed passages of the Received Text are quoted by church fathers as early as the early first century, far before the witness of Vaticanus and Sianaticus.

    Furthermore, Vaticanus and Sianaticus do not even agree with each other enough to determine……… forget it, this is a complete waste of time.

    The most important thing is that Jesus says, “If you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” – John 8:24

  108. I would like to address these comments to the “shorter” ending of Mark 16:9-20 that Javier pointed out above.

    My NIV has a note that says “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20” Many folks don’t realize this, particularly KJVonly’s, that the vast majority of the new translations are based on vastly older manuscripts (closer to the time that the recorded incidents occurred) hence usually more accurate, and less time for scribal errors and such. Now my NIV does in fact have all the verses, just with the above footnote attached.

    B.B. Warfield in his “An introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament” Says “It is the multiplicity of readings that causes so many experts to reject the originality of the longer ending, not merely the fact that it is not to be found in two uncials and a cursive. One must explain the existence of the shorter ending and the use of asterisks and obeli in some manuscripts to set verses 9-20 off and the inclusion of the long paragraph in W and the manuscripts that put both the long and short endings together. There simply would be no need for all these different endings if verses 9-20 were a part of the gospel when it was originally written.”

    Many scholars have studied the matter and the writing style of these few verses don’t seem to be in the same style as Mark, nor does it appear that that the person who wrote them was completely familiar with the entire Gospel of Mark, and may have utilized apocryphal and unorthodox sources.

    One of the first anomolies we see is that in v-12 Jesus is said to have appeared in a “different form” It seems somewhat unusual that this phrase would be used, by looking at the extreme care taken by the other Gospel writers to make sure that all would know that Jesus rose physically from the grave, kinda seems out of place and inconsistent.

    The second problem comes at v-14, where we have the eleven reclining at the table. Aside from the numerical problem (wasn’t Thomas absent?) It records “Jesus reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart.” This is nothing at all like, and even out of character , given the other accounts of Jesus’ dealings with the disciples after the resurrectiion. This account was so strong and different that at least one scribe felt it needed toning down and introduced the ninety-word interpolation preserved today by codex W.

    The next problem we find is in v-16, the conjunction of baptism and belief is unusual to say the least. In no other passage does Jesus tie these things together so intricately. Now it is true that Jesus goes on to say that the basis for condemnation is unbelief, not lack of baptism, and hence baptism does not, even on the basis of this passage, have saving power. But is still presents a phrase that is out of character with what we know of Jesus’ teaching from Mark’s gospel as well as the other accounts.

    Now last but not least, v-17-18 present yet another problem. The signs given here are said to accompany those who have believed, seemingly a promise to “all” who have believed. This again has no real counterpart in any other passage. Certainly Paul was bitten by a serpent and yet felt no ill effects. But even this story does not remove Christians from the natural consequences of life. Today a person can be bitten by a poisionous snake and suffer no harm due to the snake not releasing any venom, which is not an uncommon occurrence. Possibly Paul’s experience shows God’s sovereignty over creation and His control of even animal life more thatn it shows Paul’s ability to be poisoned and yet survive. these verses are very reminiscent of many of the apocryphal writings that were circulating shortly after the close of the New Testament period.

    Again B.B. Warfield says in ref to the shorter ending of Mark 16 “What can we say, then, about Mark 16:9-20? We can speculate about how the longer ending arose. Did Mark issue two versions of his gospel, adding the longer ending later? No one can say, but that would certainly account for the various endings now in existence. More likely, early scribes felt the abrupt ending of Mark lacked the necessary proclamation of the resurrection, and hence some “parallel corruption” took place, drawing from oral stories and the other gospels to create the longer ending. whatever the case may be regarding the genesis of the various endings of Mark, we can say that given the external evidence, we believe every translation should provide the passage. However, we also believe that every translation should note the fact that there is good reason to doubt the authenticity of the passage as well. Allow the readers of Scripture to “be diligent” (2 Timothy 2:15) in their own studies and come to their own conclusions.

    I fully concur with Warfield’s conclusions. The reason I chose this passage to discuss from all of those that Javier brought up is that this is the only one that has very good manuscript evidence to back it up, the others (above) are easily refuted, also I want folks to get a glimpse into just what a difficult job translating really is, the KJV translators were right to include this in their translation, but as I have pointed out above there are several things which appear to be very inconsistent with other scripture, particularly Jesus putting salvation and baptism together.

  109. One more thing….and this I really cannot compute – the IFB says usually on media that they do not deny that we non-onlyists are saved and are assured of heaven if salvation is worked out. If that is the case, then why are they so disturbed when they found out we are using another Bible? And they are more alarmed when we use NIV! What is it in NIV they are so mad about?

    What are they so concerned about the version we are using. If we are the same brothers and sisters in the Lord, then what’s the fuss about it? There is only one thing I see – they really are indirectly ostracizing us with this elitist mentality that only the IFB are the saved people.

  110. Is the Alexandrian Critical Text faulty and gnostic? Absolutely.

  111. Is the KJV perfect and the final preservation? Jesus said, “My words will by no means pass away”. Jesus said “?????? (gehenna)” in Luke 12:5 and “???? (hades)” in Luke 16:23.

    Both are indeed “hell”, but “things that are different are not the same”

    The KJV is not the perfect final preservation.

  112. Matt 5:22 – Less than 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “without cause” The shorter text has the effect of forbidding anger, which would contradict other Scriptures (Ephesians 4:26, Psalm 4:4) and the Lord’s own example (Mark 3:5).

    Matt 5:44 – Less than 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, offer a truncated form of this verse

    Matt 6:4 – “openly” is omitted by 6%.)

    Matt 6:6 – About 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “openly”.

    Matt 6:13 – About 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit the last clause

    Matt 11:19 – Instead of “her children”, just 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, have “her works”

    Matt 15:39 – Magdala was Mary Magdalene’s hometown; perhaps this was when Jesus delivered her from the demons (Mark 16:9). Less than 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, read “Magadan” instead of Magdala

    Matt 17:4 – Instead of “let us”, perhaps 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, have “I will”

    Matt 17:21 – Less than 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit this whole verse

    Matt 18:11 – Just 1.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit verse 11

    Matt 19:16&17 – Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “Good” before “teacher” in verse 16 and have Jesus saying, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is One who is good” here in verse 17. The minority reading makes Matthew contradict Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:9.

    Matt 20:7 – Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit the last clause

    Matt 22:30 – Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “of God”

    Matt 23:14 – Perhaps 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit this verse

    Matt 25:13 – About 11% of the Greek manuscripts omit “in which the Son of the Man is coming”

    Matt 26:28 – Here, and in Mark 14:24, perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit ‘new’

    Matt 27:24 – Perhaps 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “righteous”

    Mark 1:2 – Around 3.3% of the Greek manuscripts have ‘Isaiah the prophet’ instead of ‘the prophets’

    Mark 1:14 – Some 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit ‘of the Kingdom’

    Mark 2:17 – Perhaps 10% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘to repentance’

    Mark 3:15 – Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit ‘to heal diseases and’

    Mark 6:11 – Perhaps 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit the last sentence of verse 11

    Mark 7:16 – Just over 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit verse 16 entirely

    Mark 9:23 – Perhaps 3% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit ‘believe’

    Mark 9:29 – Four Greek manuscripts (all inferior), omit ‘and fasting’

    Mark 9:44 – Perhaps 4% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘into the unquenchable fire’ at the end of verses 43 and 45, and also omit verses 44 and 46 entire.

    Mark 9:49 – Some 7% of the Greek manuscripts omit the second clause of this verse

    Mark 10:24 – Five Greek manuscripts (all inferior), omit ‘for those who trust in riches’, producing an obviously inferior text.

    Mark 11:10 – Perhaps 5% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘in the name of the Lord’

    Mark 11:26 – Perhaps 4% of the Greek manuscripts omit verse 26 entire

    Mark 13:14 – Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘the one spoken of by Daniel the prophet’

    Mark 14:22 – Perhaps 5% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘eat’

    Mark 14:24 – A small handful (0.6%) of the Greek manuscripts, omit ‘new’

    Mark 15:28 – Around 11% of the Greek manuscripts omit verse 28 entire

    Mark 16:9-20 – For well over a hundred years, there has been an ongoing campaign to discredit the last twelve verses of Mark. Only three known Greek manuscripts omit the verses, and one of them is a falsification at this point .UBS3 encloses these verses in double brackets, which means they are “regarded as later additions to the text,” and they give their decision an {A} grade, “virtually certain”. So, the UBS editors assure us that the genuine text of Mark ends with 16:8. But why do critics insist on rejecting this passage? It is contained in every extant Greek MS (about 1,800) except three (really only two, B and 304—Aleph is not properly “extant” because it is a forgery at this point). Every extant Greek Lectionary (about 2,000?) contains them (one of them, 185, doing so only in the Menologion). Every extant Syriac MS (about 1,000?) except one (Sinaitic) contains them. Every extant Latin MS (8,000?) except one (k) contains them. Every extant Coptic MS except one contains them. We have hard evidence for the “inclusion” from the II century (Irenaeus and the Diatessaron), and presumably the first half of that century. We have no such hard evidence for the “exclusion”.

    John 1:18 – Instead of “the only begotten son” (as in over 99.5% of the Greek manuscripts), some five manuscripts (of inferior quality, objectively so) have “an only begotten god,” while another two (also inferior) have “the only begotten god”. Since the absence of the definite article (in Greek) can have the effect of emphasizing the inherent quality of the noun, the second reading could be rendered “only begotten god”—this alternative has appealed to many evangelicals who see in it a strong affirmation of the
    deity of Christ. Discussion: The human body and nature of Jesus Christ was indeed literally begotten in the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit; God the Son has existed eternally. “An only begotten god” is so deliciously gnostic that the apparent Egyptian provenance of this reading makes it doubly suspicious. It would also be possible to render the second reading as “only begotten god!”, emphasizing the quality, and this has appealed to some who see in it a strong affirmation of Christ’s deity. However, if Christ received His “Godhood” through the begetting process then He cannot be the eternally pre-existing Second Person of the Godhead. Nor is “only begotten” analogous to “firstborn”, referring to priority of position—that would place the Son above the Father. No matter how one looks at it, the UBS reading introduces a serious anomaly.

    John 1:42 – Perhaps 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts read “John” for “Jonah”

    John 3:13 – About 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “who is in Heaven”

    John 4:42 – About 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “the Messiah”

    John 5:2 – Fully 99% of the Greek manuscripts read the familiar ‘Bethesda’, and this name is attested by the 1st century Copper Scroll from Qumran. The so-called ‘critical text’ (UBS and N-A) serves up the pitiful ‘Bethzatha’, following two Greek manuscripts, The UBS editors have introduced an historical error into their text on the flimsiest of evidence.

    John 5:3&4 – About 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit the last clause of verse 3 and all of verse 4. Verse 7 makes clear that it had to do with the stirring of the water. The UBS editions do us a considerable disservice by following a very small minority of manuscripts.

    John 6:11 – Perhaps 3% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit the reference to the disciples here and have Jesus distributing directly to the crowd, making John contradict the other three Gospels.

    John 6:47 – About 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “into me”

    John 6:69 – Perhaps 0.5% of the Greek MSS, of inferior quality, read “the Holy One of God”

    John 7:8 – Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “yet”

    John 7:53-8:11 – Some 15% of the Greek manuscripts omit 7:53-8:11

    John 8:59 – About half a percent of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit “going through the middle of them;

    John 9:4 – Perhaps half a percent of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, read “we” for “I”. Virtually the same handful of manuscripts also has “Him who sent us” (in this verse)

    John 9:35 – Less than 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, read “Man” instead of “God”

    John 11:50 – For “us” perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, read “you” Since this is a prophecy, the difference is significant.

    John 12:47 – Less than 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, read ‘during’ supper (as in NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.), which confuses the account. There was an ordinary meal, and then the Passover ritual itself. The meal was basically over, but they
    couldn’t proceed with the ritual because they were ceremonially unclean—their feet hadn’t been washed (they were dirty from the dust of the road).

    Acts 1:15 – A small minority of Greek manuscripts [3%], of inferior quality, read ‘brothers’ for ‘disciples’

    Acts 2:30 – Two percent of Greek manuscripts, omit “according to flesh, He would raise up the Messiah”

    Acts 2:47 – Three percent of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “the Church”

    Acts 7:30 – Perhaps 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit ‘of the Lord’

    Acts 8:37 – 88% of the Greek manuscripts do not have this verse. It is in the Latin tradition and quoted in the second & third centuries by Iranaeus and Cyprian and has “endured” the centuries.

    Acts 10:30 – Some 3.5% of the Greek manuscripts omit the ‘fasting’

    Acts 17:26 – Some 4.5% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘blood’

    Acts 18:21 – Perhaps 3% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit ‘I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem’

    Acts 22:20 – Some 2.3% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit ‘to his murder’

    Acts 23:9 – Some 4.5% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘let us not fight against God’

    Acts 24:15 – Some 6.6% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘of the dead’

    Acts 25:16 – Some 7.5% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘to destruction’

    Acts 28:29 – Perhaps 5% of the Greek manuscripts omit verse 29 entire

    Romans 1:16 – Perhaps 3% of Greek manuscripts omit “of Christ”

    Romans 3:22 – Perhaps 7% of Greek MSS omit “and upon all”,an inferior proceeding.

    Romans 8:1 – “Who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” is omitted by 2.3% of the Greek manuscripts

    Romans 14:9 – Perhaps 2% of the Greek manuscripts omit “and rose”

    Romans 14:10 – 2.4% of the Greek manuscripts read “God” instead of “Christ”

    Romans 16:5 – 4% of the Greek manuscripts read “Asia” instead of “Achaia” (these are very different places).—an inferior proceeding.

    Romans 16:24 – 3.2% of the Greek manuscripts omit verse 24

    1 Cor. 6:20 – The eclectic Greek text omits, “and in your spirit, which are God’s”, following 3.7% of the Greek manuscripts

    1 Cor. 11:24 – The eclectic Greek text currently in vogue omits ‘take, eat’ (following 8.3% of the Greek manuscripts) and ‘broken’ (following some 2% of the manuscripts)

    1 Cor. 11:29 – The eclectic Greek text currently in vogue omits ‘Lord’s’ (following just 2% of the Greek manuscripts

    1 Cor. 15:47 – The eclectic Greek text currently in vogue omits ‘the Lord’ (following 2.4% of the Greek manuscripts)

    Galatians 3:17 – Less than 3% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “in Christ”

    Galatians 4:7 – Evidently 1½ percent of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, read “through God” instead of “of God through Christ”

    Galatians 5:19 – Perhaps 5% of the Greek manuscripts omit “adultery” This statement holds also for “murders” in verse 21.

    Colossians 1:14 – “Through His blood” is omitted in some 40% of the Greek manuscripts, but the 60% include the best line of transmission.

    Colossians 4:15 – Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of dubious quality, have ‘her’

    2 Thess. 2:2 – Some 15% of the Greek manuscripts have ‘Lord’ – the 85% that have ‘Christ’ (including the best line of transmission) are doubtless correct.

    2 Thess. 2:3 – Some 5% of the Greek manuscripts read ‘lawlessness’, but the 95% (including the best line of transmission) are doubtless correct.

    1 Tim 3:16 – Instead of ‘God’, 1% of the Greek manuscripts read ‘who’

    1 Peter 1:22 – Problem: A doctrinal anomaly is introduced. Peter is writing to the “elect” (1:2), to the “redeemed” (1:18), to the “born again” (1:23), to “a holy priesthood” (2:5), to “believers” (2:7), to “slaves of God” (2:16)—they do indeed need to grow, but not “into salvation” Discussion: Metzger explains: “The TR . . . omits [“into salvation”] either through an oversight in copying . . . or because the idea of ‘growing into salvation’ was theologically unacceptable” (p. 689). Notice that the UBS editors understand their text to mean “growing into salvation.” TEV, NRSV and Jerusalem render UBS literally, putting the salvation in the future. NIV renders “grow up in your salvation,” something the text doesn’t say, while LB has a looser variation on that theme (NEB is looser still).

    2 Peter 3:10 – Discussion: Metzger actually states that their text “seems to be devoid of meaning in the context” (p. 706)! So why did they choose it? Metzger explains that there is “a wide variety of readings, none of which seems to be original”—presumably if “shall be burned up” were the only reading, with unanimous attestation (it has 94% of the MSS), he would still reject it, but he can scarcely argue that it is meaningless. The UBS editors deliberately chose a variant that they believed to be “devoid of meaning in the context.” NASB abandons UBS here, giving the Byzantine reading; NEB and NIV render “will be laid bare”; TEV has “will vanish”.

    1 John 5:7 – Is week in Greek manuscript evidence with the earliest being the fourteenth century. It is strong in Latin manuscript evidence the earliest being the sixth century. It was quoted by Cyprian (250AD) and Priscillian (350AD)

    Jude v.1 – Rather than “sanctified”, perhaps 5% of the Greek manuscripts read “beloved”

    Jude v.4 – About 13% of the Greek manuscripts omit “God”

    “The word of God grew and multiplied” – Acts 12:24

  113. Thanks Bob, It is good to laugh and I’m learning to laugh at the stupidity of the KJV only arguments and not take them so seriously. They are just so silly. I can’t believe I was once that blind.

  114. Katie,
    Your response was too funny. I think it is good to be able to laugh at these things once in a while.

  115. @Holly
    Holly, the same thing happened in 1611 with the KJV, words were changed, verses were added… that happens in ALL translations. It would be impossible to have a translation if things weren’t changed. We’d just have to read the original manuscripts if you didn’t want things changed. Duh.

  116. My probem with other versions of the Bible have to do with the translations. The wording is changed, verses missing, others after this changing the word Men to people and Mary was not a virgin but a young woman.

  117. Hi Amy – It never ceases to amaze to me the hoops the KJVonly’s will jump through to make their translation the one, and of course that “one” has been revised how many times?

  118. The awesome thing about the IFB and the doctrine of preservation, is they really don’t believe it! God simply says he will preserve his word. period. In spite of the errors of man in revisions and translations, God’s message is always there.

    I used to sit and listen to a pastor preach on the whole KJV only thing, pass his propaganda table and simple common sense and an average knowledge of scripture demands rejection of such a proposal that God would eventually, hundreds of years later choose a version commissioned by a most heathen King, who actually had a say in revisions, as his perfectly preserved word forever and ever amen then end. uggh.

  119. My bad,
    repeat:

    7. If the KJV is perfect – Point to me EXACTLY where in the bible that says that God will preserve the original intent of the Scripture in the KJV?

  120. Will Kinney :
    Hi to all Christians who do not believe that any Bible in any language is or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God. I do not consider you to be my enemy. I do not believe that a person has to be KJB only in order to be a born again Christian and thus my brother or sister in the faith. However you clearly do not believe that The Bible (any bible) is the infallible words of God and this is what I oppose. I, along with thousands of other Christians, do believe the promises of God to preserve His words and to give us “the book of the LORD”. I firmly believe that this book is the King James Holy Bible. You are free of course to disagree with me. You are free to be a bible agnostic who denies that any Bible is the 100% true words of God. You are free to make your own mind and understanding your final authority and pretend you believe “the Bible” while all the while no having such an infallible Bible to give to or recommend to anyone. But your basic unbelief will severely weaken your faith and hinder your spiritual growth. May God have mercy on more of His people and open their eyes and give them the faith to believe that He has been faithful and true to give us His “book of the LORD” and this book is the one that has stood the test of time and its critics for 400 years now and is still going strong.
    “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Matthew 11:15
    For much more information about the Bible version issue, please see my site where you may find some answers to the questions you might have.
    Return to Articles – (Link spam removed by moderator)
    All of grace, believing The Book,
    Will Kinney

    Yo Will, ok granted you do believe that the KJV is perfect and no errors. But to tell you, all your arguments have been rehashed by so may defenders in this site time and time again we have already disputed your claims. So ok if you really believe the KJV is the only English Bible translation:

    1. If the KJV is perfect – why is it that all the KJV I can find in a bookstore is the 1769 REVISION of the KJV. KJV is God-inspired right? So why do the translators need any revisions?

    2. If the KJV is perfect – then do you believe in the existence of the Unicornb? Well, the KJV thinks so….are you willing to go to all biology scholars and prove them wrong about the unicorn?

    3. If the KJV is perfect – according to the original 1611 verson, it says that Judas and not Jesus told the three apostles to watch and be alert while he prays (Matthew 26:36)

    4. If the KJV is perfect – how come in the 1634 edition of the KJV it clearly states “Thou shalt commit adultery!”????

    5. If the KJV is perfect – how come the 1794 edition of KJV states that Phillip denied Jesus thrice?

    6. If the KJV is perfect – you have to thank the Roman Catholic Church because the Received Text was compiled by a Catholic Monk named Desiderius Erasmus. Plus in some references that the Received Text is not sufficient, the tranlsators used the Latin Vulgate to cover up the missing spots.

    7. If the KJV is perfect – Point to me EXACTLY where in the bible that says that God will preserve the original intent of the Scripture in the Bible?

  121. @John 10:10
    I have no idea, John. All I know is that the IFB is notorious for calling the KJV the KJB in an effort to manipulate and brainwash people into thinking that the KJV is “the one and only perfect preserved true Bible” which is delusional. To my knowledge the KJV has NEVER been called the King James Bible and KJV Onliers are the only ones to call it the King James Bible rather than a version of the Bible. It’s pure nonsense. The KJV is just a version of the Bible just like all other versions – just like the Spanish KJV, French KJV, German KJV, etc. The English KJV is a VERSION of the original manuscripts. I don’t know how to say it more clearly than that. It’s really not that difficult to figure out. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist.

  122. Will said “….I firmly believe that this book is the King James Holy Bible.”

    The key words there are “I firmly believe”. If I firmly believe that 2+2=3, does that make it right? Steve alreeady issued the challenge, but just to re-iterate, rather than saying “I firmly believe”, I would liek to see, from the Bible, where it specifically says the KJV is the only Bible to use.

    I will not hold my breath.

  123. Uh-oh he found us!

    Don’t know if you are familiar with him Steve, but he drinks the Hi-test!

  124. Steve,

    you said”There is no such thing as the King James BIBLE. Its the King James VERSION of the Bible (hence the initials KJV). The KJV is a translation just like all other translations.”
    I agree with you.
    I have a question I’m kind of curious about. Why do they call the NASB the NASB? why not the NASV?
    Why do they call the HCSB the HCSB? why not the HCSV?
    The NASB and HCSB make it seem like they are the only true Bibles. Anyways I’m just curious. you may or may not know the answer.

    The Lord loves us all,

    A brother in Christ

  125. Hi to all Christians who do not believe that any Bible in any language is or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God. I do not consider you to be my enemy. I do not believe that a person has to be KJB only in order to be a born again Christian and thus my brother or sister in the faith. However you clearly do not believe that The Bible (any bible) is the infallible words of God and this is what I oppose. I, along with thousands of other Christians, do believe the promises of God to preserve His words and to give us “the book of the LORD”. I firmly believe that this book is the King James Holy Bible. You are free of course to disagree with me. You are free to be a bible agnostic who denies that any Bible is the 100% true words of God. You are free to make your own mind and understanding your final authority and pretend you believe “the Bible” while all the while no having such an infallible Bible to give to or recommend to anyone. But your basic unbelief will severely weaken your faith and hinder your spiritual growth. May God have mercy on more of His people and open their eyes and give them the faith to believe that He has been faithful and true to give us His “book of the LORD” and this book is the one that has stood the test of time and its critics for 400 years now and is still going strong.

    “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Matthew 11:15

    For much more information about the Bible version issue, please see my site where you may find some answers to the questions you might have.

    Return to Articles – (Link spam removed by moderator)

    All of grace, believing The Book,

    Will Kinney

    1. Two things Will:

      1. There is no such thing as the King James BIBLE. Its the King James VERSION of the Bible (hence the initials KJV). The KJV is a translation just like all other translations. To think otherwise is nothing short of delusional. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Matthew 11:15

      2. If you can show me, using the Bible, that God promised “to preserve His words” by way of the KJV I will take down this entire site and put up an apology in it’s place with a link to your site boldly placed in the center so that my millions of visitors will be redirected to your site. That’s a promise.

      I hope you’re up for the challenge, because I’ve offered this challenge to countless other KJV onlyers and they have all failed.

  126. Steve :

    (post edited for content… basically it said: “blah, blah, blah, you are wrong, blah, blah, blah” then ended with…)

    God’s word in the Authorized King James Bible has no proveable errors, in spite of all the attacks made upon it by both infidels and “Christian” apologists.

    Will Kinney

    Return to Articles – (Link spam removed by moderator)

  127. This is a good website too Armored:

    (Link spam removed by site moderator)

  128. Hey folks Armored is apparently a Will Kenney disciple, and if that is the case nothing any of you have to say will matter at all, he won’t be interested in learning anything, he just stopped by to shed the good news of KJVonlyism, those pitiful poor folks didn’t have any final authority prior to 1611, God’s words were lost somewhere. I am very familiar with Mr Kenney he is a rabid KJVonlyite, and gets thrown off of sites all over the internet because of his Ruckmanite type of vitriol, those KJV only fruits of the Spirit seem to get lost when it comes to Mr Kenney.

    I don’t even want to debate the KJV issue with you, I just hope and pray you will study that KJV and let it guide you into some peace and love, its in there, just look.

    If you haven’t completely drained the cup of Kool-Aid as has Mr Kenney, I apologize but from your comments it sounds like your eyes have probably glazed over already, go look in the mirror and see if you can determine if you are completely gone.

    I promise you, folks that read other versions are not your enemy.

  129. Armored :
    Steve :

    Some Bible agnostics make their own minds the final authority. Are you one of them?

    Nope.

  130. Armored :
    …what Bible do you trust? What is your final authority?

    What do you mean “what Bible”? There is only ONE bible. There are many VERSIONS of the Bible but there is only ONE Bible.

    I trust the Bible and I’d say that the Bible is my final authority regardless of translation.

    Sorry, Matt, for answering a questions directed at you, but I couldn’t resist.

  131. Armored :
    Also some of you don’t seem to understand that the new versions of the Bible leave thousands of words and verses out.

    That’s actually not true. See Myth #10 in the article above.

  132. Armored,
    Welcome, actually, the new translations have more accurately translated the Bible. It is the KJV that has so many words and verses added to it. Don’t worry though, the additional words and verses in the KJ have not affected the doctrinal content.
    I use the NASB, and there is not one disagreement about doctrine based on a difference between the two versions.

  133. Steve :Matt,
    I have listed my research in the Bibliography section at the end of the article. Where did you get YOUR information? Why are you asking me to provide “more research” when you haven’t even provided any evidence for your argument?
    It took me all of about 30 seconds to find contradictions in the KJV:

    YEARS OF FAMINE(KJV) Contradiction 1: Choose thee either three years’ famine… I Chronicles 21:11(KJV) Contradiction 2: Shall seven years of famine come unto thee… II Samuel 24:13(NIV) Accurate: Take your choice: three years of famine… I Chronicles 21:11(NIV) Accurate: Shall there come upon you three years of famine… II Samuel 24:13
    Though the Masoretic text shows conflicting amounts between three and seven years, the Greek Septuagint reveals the possible accurate length of three years in both verses.

    HOW OLD WAS JEHOIACHIN WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN?(KJV) Contradiction 1: Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign… II Chronicles 36:9(KJV) Contradiction 2: Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign… II Kings 24:8
    (NIV) Accurate: Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king… II Chronicles 36:9
    Pre-Masoretic manuscripts record the presumably correct age as being 18 in both verses.

    THE AMOUNT OF KING SOLOMON’S HORSES & STALLS(KJV) Contradiction 1: Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots… I Kings 4:26(KJV) Contradiction 2: Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots… II Chronicles 9:25
    (NIV) Correct: Solomon had four thousand stalls for chariot horses… I Kings 4:26(NIV) Correct: Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots… II Chronicles 9:25
    The Septuagint states the possible correct amount as being 4,000 in both verses.

    KING BAASHA BATTLED ASA IN THE 36TH YEAR OF HIS REIGN BUT DIED DURING THE 26TH YEAR(KJV) Contradiction 1: So Baasha slept with his fathers…in the twenty sixth year of Asa… I Kings 16:6,8(KJV) Contradiction 2: In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa… II Chronicles 16:1

    THE AMOUNT OF GOLD TALENTS SOLOMON RECEIVED(KJV) Contradiction 1: [They] fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it toking Solomon… I Kings 9:28(KJV) Contradiction 2: [They] took thence four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to kingSolomon… II Chronicles 8:18

    THE AGE OF KING AHAZI’AH WHEN HE BEGAN HIS REIGN(KJV) Contradiction 1: Two and twenty years old was Ahazi’ah when he began to reign… II Kings 8:26(KJV) Contradiction 2: Forty and two years old was Ahazi’ah when he began to reign… II Chronicles 22:2

    THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORS FOR SOLOMON’S TEMPLE PROJECT(KJV) Contradiction 1: Solomon’s officers were… three thousand and three hundred… I Kings 5:16(KJV) Contradiction 2: Solomon told…three thousand and six hundred to oversee them… II Chronicles 2:2

    THE AMOUNT OF ARAMEAN CHARIOTEERS KILLED BY DAVID(KJV) Contradiction 1: David slew the men of seven hundred chariots… II Samuel 10:18(KJV) Contradiction 2: David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men in chariots. I Chronicles 19:18

    Just to name a few.

    Your so called list of contradictions have been refuted and torn up here: (Link spam removed by moderator)

    Some Bible agnostics make their own minds the final authority. Are you one of them?

  134. Matt :Greg I know there isn’t a “perfect” Bible out there anywhere. No bible is Gods perfect word. I have spooken to IFB as well as SB pastors that say the KJV is the perfect word of God. All versions of the bible have discrepancies in them to make the close ot perfect but not perfect.

    I guess that makes you a ‘Bible agnostic’. So tell me, what Bible do you trust? What is your final authority?

  135. Let me clarify that I meant thousands of words are left out and quite a bit of verses are left out.

  136. Javier, are you talking about the scrivener Textus receptus? Also some of you don’t seem to understand that the new versions of the Bible leave thousands of words and verses out.

  137. Once while travelling across the county (and still attending only IFB churches), we stopped at an IFB church in Texas. After the service, members came up to my family. One of the members actually took my husbands bible and inspected it to see if it was a King James Version. We laughed about it, but what if it hadn’t been. Would we not have been welcomed in their church.

  138. Regarding Alexandrian over Byzantine. The NKJV Preface reads:

    “The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament.

    “Since the 1880s most contemporary translations of the New Testament have relied upon a relatively few manuscripts discovered chiefly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Such translations depend primarily on two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, because of their greater age. The Greek text obtained by using these sources and the related papyri (our most ancient manuscripts) is known as the Alexandrian Text. However, some scholars have grounds for doubting the faithfulness of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, since they often disagree with one another, and Sinaiticus exhibits excessive omission.

    “A third viewpoint of New Testament scholarship holds that the best text is based on the consensus of the majority of existing Greek manuscripts. This text is called the Majority Text. Most of these manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none is earlier than the fifth century, usually their readings are verified by papyri, ancient versions, quotations from the early church fathers, or a combination of these. The Majority Text is similar to the Textus Receptus, but it corrects those readings which have little or no support in the Greek manuscript tradition.”

    Notice that the editors of the NKJV write “little or no support in the Greek manuscript tradition” of the last paragraph I pasted. Where there is little or no support in the Greek, there is Latin manuscript support. The Received Text is a “Majority” of Latin and Greek. Though, the Greek manuscripts support the Textus Receptus 98% percent. See http://www.scripture4all.org/ISA2_help/DatabaseInfo/ScrTR/ScrTR.html for this estimation.

    I am not a KJV only person. KJV only is fallible, so is the Alexandrian(NA27/UBS3, Wescott & Hort) Critical Text. I am a TR guy, who doesnt sit well with either side.

  139. In looking over my post I don’t see where I indicated German.
    Wycliffe translated into English. Perhaps you are referencing another post.

  140. I love the NIV, and I’m a Greek student. I wholeheartedly agree with what you are trying to say. But there are a lot of historical inaccuracies to what you are saying. Did Wycliffe really translate in German? Truth destroys error, not more error. Make sure your facts are straight.

  141. I heartily agree. One of my mentors was involved in Wycliffe as a linguistics teacher. I told him about my encounter with KJV-only Christians. One of the things he told me was that when the Greek NT first appeared, it was written in Koine or common Greek, in other words, everyday language that most ordinary people of that time spoke. For this reason people deserve to have the Bible available to them in a language they can understand.

  142. Interesting post. I’ve met some KJV-only Christians who even go as far as saying that the KJV is the only Bible any Christian should read, even non-English speakers. This to me is very offensive. Organisations like Wycliffe Bible Translators believe that a people group cannot be considered to have been reached with the gospel until they have the Bible in their own language.

    1. I can honestly say that I have never met a KJV only person to the extent that you refer to. There is another post that indicates that there are people that believe only the KJV should be used in leading a person to Christ. I do not question your post only that I have not seen it first hand. I do no adhere to any of these positions. Lets look at the translators of the KVV notes: “how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me.†”

      You indicate Wycliffe Translators, I have done maintenance for Wycliffe Associates for 5 years having attended some seminars , and understand the importance of people having the Bible in their native tongue.

      The question would be how do we relate to people involved in such a movement and show them the true love of God, and that there has been further study and more documentation available.

      One of the Goals of Wycliffe is to have Bible translation started in every known language by 2025.

      The Bible is revelation for God, and should be understood by all mankind.

  143. KJV. Let me first start by saying that I am not a KJV only, however it is important to note that millions have come to Christ through this Bible.

    When the document was translated the translators did the best they could at the time, there is now better resources to go to.

    For 30 years my wife used the NAS Bible and I used the KJV and the Greek text
    (by United Bible Societies). Almost with out exception when the Pastor would say this word really means “this”, it would be the word used in the NAS Bible or a word close to it. I have just purchased an ESV Bible.

    I don’t see it as an either or, the KJV is an accurate translation of the Word of God, in my opinion it has a few problems, how ever it will with the Holy Spirit lead a person to Christ. I love my KJV Bible, but I also love the NKJ Bible, the Greek Text, and the ESV

    Many problems with the KJV can be resolved with a good dictionary, or resorting to the Greek Text. I have taught the Bible for almost 50 years and still believe it to be the Word of God, in fact the Bible becomes more wonderful with the passing of each year

    1. Charles,

      I don’t think that anyone is actually against the KJV. I think Steve is speaking out against KJV Onlyism.

      There is one thing though that concerns me about your post… How many people, other than yourself, do you know that have a Greek Text let alone know how to use or understand it? You admit to teaching for 50 years. What about the new Christian that has been saved for 1 year or even 5 years? Do you really think that they would have the spiritual maturity and knowledge to be able to use a Greek Text when trying to understand the KJV?

      With that in mind, doesn’t it make sense that more people could be reached with the Gospel with a version that’s easier to understand?

      You say that millions have come to Christ through the KJV… well God can use anything to bring souls to Him. He doesn’t necessarily need the KJV. Unfortunately that’s the message that is found among the IFB, that God needs the KJV in order for people to come to Christ. That’s a lie.

  144. I really have enjoyed reading the information on your website. It has been a while since I attended what I believed to have been an IFB church. My mother never really cared for it and wanted to attend another IFB church instead. However, my father was very much physically and emotionally abusive to us and would not change churches. She left him after being painfully married for 17 years. Her brother is an IFB pastor and she did not want to humiliate him at his church (some 700 miles away). That being said, she still prefers the KJV. I thought it was almost as difficult to understand as Catholics who were not allowed to read anything but the Latin version. It doesn’t matter if you’re Catholic or IFB. Either way, you must rely on a man’s interpretation of Scripture. I see many similarities between the two denominations although they would say that they opposed each other. If you have to do, say, think and everything else like all IFBers, what makes you really different from someone who believes his works will save him? At the same time, I do believe that someone without fruit in their life should question their salvation. It really builds me up to do so. Usually when I am not growing in faith, I am retreating (or backsliding) in my walk with God sadly.
    More to my original train of thought, my mother separated from my father and we started attending my Christian school’s Bible church (which my father enjoyed visiting) in another state. I am thankful I never heard of the tithing issues which you describe. The church separated from the Presbyterian church and became a BJU church back in 1943. The Ohio BJU churches are loosely tied together in the Ohio Bible Fellowship (OBF) which was founded by the church I attended. They used the NASV in expositing the sermon. Of course, they had to still read the KJV or the old-timers would have had a fit. Sadly, many KJVers worship that version as a cult: Scripture commands us to not change one jot or tittle, however, within the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which has been, for the most part, remarkably well-preserved to this day. When I was a voice major at a public university in Dayton, I was instructed to literally translate my foreign texts (in operatic songs) word by word. If it is so important for a singer to understand every syllable he sings, is it not more important for a child of God to understand every word of Scripture? The KJV does not do so. Although there are differences of opinion over what manuscripts one should use, the Young’s Literal interpretation is the best I have been able to find to date. My apartment manager thinks that I should translate the Hebrew myself phrase by phrase instead of word by word, but he is a combination of a Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness (because I told him he was and he basically agreed). After he said he believed Satan was Jesus’ brother, he told me that Mormons believe some really WEIRD stuff too – as if it wasn’t weird to think Satan was related to Jesus. Please pray for his salvation. His name is Tim as well.

  145. Hi Chad – I don’t think anyone is going to confuse you with the other Chad anytime soon.

    I have not read Kutilek’s book on Norris, but that is one I’m going to want for my library.

    I discovered Doug Kutilek years ago, a wonderful christian brother and scholar, I even emailed him some time ago about a question I had and he was very gracious in responding.

    A very good resource that I refer to often is the “KJV only Resource Center” and it has some of Kutilek’s articles there.

  146. Let me put an analogy. Let’s say a very popular song that was recorded in the 60s. The master tape of that original recording is already lost. What only remains are the mint condition early pressings of that record and those records were used to make a new “master tape” to make copies of that song that we can buy at record stores. We might never see the original master tape of that session any longer but that doesn’t mean we canot believe that song we are hearing is not real.

    Much so like the Bible, we may never see the original manuscript – “master tape” in our lifetime but that does not mean the intent is lost in the copies that we have now.

    I know it is not an extremely accurate analofy but I guess you get the idea.

  147. Matt,
    There is plenty of evidence available to support the Bible. There are between 5,000 and 6,000 copies that stem from the originals. When all the copies are studied and compared, it is fairly easy to see that the original text was not lost. Just because we don’t have the original physical manuscripts, that doesn’t mean we don’t know what they actually said. And that is only the external evidence. The internal evidence is even greater.

    1. I agree with you, bob. There is more evidence than you think that supports the bible. I firm believer in the Bible and God.

  148. Greg, Is that a good thing that I’m making you earn your keep? Smiles. Without the originals there is no way to know how accurate any version of the bible is.

    1. Hi Matt – Bob answered exactly correct. It is very clear to modern translators, using and comparing the thousands of manuscripts available to them, what the original text was saying. Now please just think for a moment, Erasmus was working from only 6 manuscripts for the new testament, and he still didn’t have the entire NT, he had to go to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate to fill in the missing holes. On top of that the manuscripts he used were of a relatively late date (young manuscripts) the newer versions are based off of much older manuscripts, than the KJV.

      We haven’t dialogued enough for me to know much about what you believe about the KJV, except that I know you like it best and it is your translation of choice, which is fine by me. But one of the arguments “some” KJV advocates put forth is that when they ask me about “perfection” of the bible, I tell them the “perfect” word was contained in the “original” autographs. In other words the actual manuscripts that the Apostles penned themselves, which long ago turned to dust. So they come back with “so God promised in His word that He would preserve His word and that His word was perfect” of course they are trying to confer this “perfectness” on the KJV translation, which would be fine, if at the end of the book of Acts, Luke would have said, hey God’s perfect word is gonna be put together by Anglicans and come out perfect in 1611, in english btw. God’s word never promises a perfectly, preserved english translation called the KJV. So anyway, now KJVonly’s find themselves in the same position that those of who claim “perfection” for the original autographs do, since “their” perfect “original” burnt up in the great London fire of 1666, no one having seen this “perfect” translation for some nearly 350 years.

      1. Greg I know there isn’t a “perfect” Bible out there anywhere. No bible is Gods perfect word. I have spooken to IFB as well as SB pastors that say the KJV is the perfect word of God. All versions of the bible have discrepancies in them to make the close ot perfect but not perfect.

  149. Hi Matt – I did alittle checking and the following translations don’t contain Lucifer, some of these I would consider very good translations, and some not so much. The NIV, NLT, ESV, NAS, ASV, ERV.

    The reason I believe that some translations leave Lucifer in, is the same reason that the KJV translators left it in, it had become “popular” for folks to believe that this passage was speaking of Satan’s fall from heaven and seemed to match up with some passages that are actually about Satan in Revelation.

    Through the years up until about 10 years ago I had gone back and forth on the KJV issue, I had been involved in a very fundy church that said if you weren’t carrying a KJV you simply didn’t have the Word of God, all “other” translations were perversions and we had the tracts in the tract rack to prove it, from what I gather, it seems you weren’t exposed to this type of translation myopia. Anyway I well remember this “Lucifer” issue had me, I was scared to death to even investigate it, for fear God might strike me down! How foolish I was. I had been brainwashed/indoctrinated so heavily by the IFB, that I was nearly afraid to challenge any dogma they put out.

    It is so good to be free from that stifling legalism. You had indicated that you preferred the KJV, and that is fine by me, its a great old translation, and btw the KJV turns 400 years old this year, so Happy Birthday KJV!

  150. Matt – Forgive me if I am wrong, but the further we go, the more I am doubting your credentials. You said “recall the Hebrew OT was translated into Latin then into Greek then into English” While on its face, that statement may be true, but it has nothing to do with the KJV translators inserting a Latin word (Lucifer) into an english translation of a Hebrew text, nothing! As it relates to the KJV translators, Greek did not enter the picture regarding the OT. The KJV translators worked straight from ancient Hebrew manuscripts translating the hebrew into english. Greek and Latin had nothing to do with their translation of the OT. If you dispute the above, there is no need to go any further, because you are obviously a fraud.

    Ok ladies and gentleman, want to know where “Lucifer” came from? Here is where it first appeared in Jerome’s ancient Latin Vulgate.

    Isaiah 14:12 in Latin “quomodo cecidisti decaelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terrum qui vulnerabas gentes”

    The Hebrew word that the KJV translated as “lucifer” was (heylel) it means “morning star” or “day star” As I mentioned in an earlier post, in the ancient world, and on up to the 1600’s, it was a very popular belief that “lucifer” was Satan (still is), therefore the KJV translators were reluctant to change it, even though they clearly knew it was not the proper translation of the word “heylel.” I was even able to hunt the verse down in the 1611 KJV and guess what? Right there in the margin for Is.14:12 “or daye starre” So the KJV translators clearly knew what the word “heylel” meant, even putting it in the margin, and yet bowed to popularity and left “lucifer” in.

    I think the KJV is a fine old translation, but there is no doubt in this world that the newer translations that put in the proper translation for the Hebrew word “heylel” are more accurate here than the venerable old KJV, and the translators themselves admit by their margin note in the original 1611 KJV. (or daye starre)

    1. Greg, I will give credit where credit is due. I have looked up teh latin vulgate and you are correct in what it says. Also you are correct about the translators of the KJV. But the question still arises why did the modern translators leave Lucifer in as a Name? Of course that might be a whole different discussion right there.

  151. Steve I read through those verses you gave from the KJV that contain so called contradictions. I did not see any contradictions in them. I guess it’s all in how you read them and translate the meaning of them.

    Greg to answer your question about the name Lucifer in the OT, if you recall the Hebrew OT was translated into Latin then into Greek then English. Lucifer is just that a Name. A name given to Satan.

    Also out of curiosity which wicked king were they refering to in Isaiah 14? Just curious is all.

    1. Steve I read through those verses you gave from the KJV that contain so called contradictions. I did not see any contradictions in them.

      Backtracking and hand waving… you seem to be good at those two.

      Lets see if I can break it down for you on that 5th grade level that you seem to need.

      1: KJV:

      Genesis 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

      James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man

      As a result, the KJV contradicts itself. How could God “tempt” Abraham but later claim to “not tempt any man”? Because the KJV incorrectly interprets Genesis 22:1 – It should read God “tested” Abraham not “tempts”. That’s the wrong translation of that word thus the KJV contradicts itself.

      2: KJV:

      2 Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

      John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

      Here again we see that the KJV contradicts itself for how could Elijah ascend up to Heaven and the John report that no man hath ascended up to heaven? Because the KJV erroneously leaves out the “and returned” in John 3:13. John 3:13 should read no man hath ascended up to heaven and returned… So in the KJV John 3:13 contradicts 2 Kings 2:11 because of that missed phrase.

      It’s really not that difficult to figure out. But I guess you are more interested in turning a blind eye to the errors in the KJV then you are in finding the truth.

      Matt wrote:

      I guess it’s all in how you read them and translate the meaning of them.

      That’s the point. If the KJV were the “perfect” Bible that KJV advocates claim it to be, we wouldn’t need to worry about “how you read them and translate the meaning of them.” This a huge problem I have with the KJV. It’s confusing wording and archaic phraseology make for many mistakes in translation. This is but one example.

  152. Hi Matt – I read “carefully” what Stringer wrote on that site and I found nothing at all earth-shattering as regards to Dr Hort’s beliefs, frankly I don’t care if he believes in evolution or not, that may be shockiing to a KJVonly. First off a belief in evolution doesn’t mean one isn’t saved and secondly a belief in evolution doesn’t mean you aren’t a completely brilliant translator. So my point is, what’s the point?

    As I looked over some of the material on that site, nothing jumped out at me that seemed out and out crazy like with some of Samuel “Bullgipp” Gipp’s messes, or like KJVonly Queen, Gail Anne Ludwig, Latessa, Kaleda, Riplinger, who has lies on every page of “New Age Bible Versions” but neither here nor there, Stringer is obviously biased, just look at the books he has written, do you think it it wise to “accept” someone like Stringer on a topic like this, when he has spent an entire lifetime trying to prove a point? What you must also realize, which many KJVonly’s don’t, is just because you find some trivial piece of information on a person that has something to do with bible translations doesn’t mean that you can dismiss their entire body of work. W&H were prolific writers, both of their sons wrote extensive biographies on their fathers, everything to know about these two fine churchmen can easily be found out w/out going to a biased, trying to prove/manipulate a point source like Stringer. Isn’t that fair?

    Hort also believe in the theory of putting hot sauce on his scrambled eggs, that also is a theory that is not found in any bible translation anywhere. Kidding!

    You seem like you have a much better attitude than alot of the KJVonlys that swing by this site, pls don’t go crazy as Kenneth recently did because we pointed out a few soft spots in his arguments and start calling every one demons and such.

    1. greg
      As I said before I’m easy to get along with and I enjoy a friendly spirited debate.

      Samuel Gipp is a good man but I do not agree with everything he says. I agree with you on Stringer being biased.

      I am not a KJV only but I do believe the KJV to be the closest to the correct translation from the original scrolls.

      1. Matt – Perhaps you didn’t mean it as it sounded, but no one on this planet has seen the original scrolls, nor did the KJV translators, the “originals” having turned to dust centuries ago.

        Stick around, you may learn something. (Greg smiles)

        1. Greg I know the originals were never seen by the translators of the KJV. From what I hear teh originals were burned in a raid a few hundred yrs before Prince James authorized the KJV. That’s just what I’ve heard. I haven’t been able to find any evidence to support or dispute that.

          I don’t plan on going anywhere. I find this stuff fascinating.
          Matt

          1. Hi Matt – You’re making me earn my keep around here. I vaguely remembered something about the original KJV getting burned up as well. I had to do some real searching but I finally found it. The original manuscript of the KJV itself was lost in the great London fire of 1666, that is the “original” that the translators gave to the printers. So even if you have a KJV printed in 1611, that can’t be compared to the actual “original” to verify that is precisely the same.

            The above doesn’t matter at all to me, but it presents some unique problems for KJVonly’s

  153. Steve – I just checked back to see if Matt was going to respond. I re-read his comments and realized he was actually addressing you, I’m sorry I stole your thunder, I was just so amazed at his complete lack of understanding regarding the topic, that I dove write into a quick response, sorry.

    Man them Wescott and Hort boys hung out with a right wild crowd!

    I’ve said it a million times W&H are going to have one long line of folks waiting to apologize to them in heaven.

    1. You can reply whenever you like Greg. No problem.

    2. greg you might want to read this through carefully about W&H:

      http://www.graceway.com/articles/article_025.html

      if you have anyting to prove otherwise I would greatly interested in it.

      1860 Apr. 3rd – Hort: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.” (Life, Vol.I, p.416).

      These are Hort’s word’s. it sounds like he believes in the theory of evolution. A theory that isn’t in any of the bible translations anywhere.

      1. Another lame strategy of a KJV onlyist. If he cannot answer an issue at hand, he will deviate from it and resort to character assasination.

        If he has sympathies with evolution, that is his problem, stick to the topic about bible translation and textual criticism.

  154. Hi Matt – Warning! I’m not going to be delicate. You apparently haven’t read much on this site or anywhere else about the KJV. Actually it is very apparent you haven’t even read any pro-KJV literature either, because your knowledge about the KJV and its history is non-existent. What you have done is to sit under teaching by some un-educated IFB MOG (man of God) and listened to a whole bunch of bullgipp, I’m sure you don’t understand that reference so I will explain. Samuel (bullgipp) Gipp is a vile IFB/KJV onlyist who spreads lies about the KJV, so when I spot foolishness, particularly about bible translations, I just call it what is is “Bullgipp”

    I doubt seriously if you have ever even seen a 1611 KJV, and I’m sure from your comments that you have no idea what I’m talking about.

    Read a couple of books and come back, I don’t even care if they are pro-KJV books, right now you have no information other than sitting in a pew and listening to “bullgipp” from the MOG.

    I’m really a pleasant fellow most of the time.

    1. greg I own a reprint of the 1611 KJV. I have done extensive studies and comparison’s of various versions of the Bible. Still doing the studies. I also have copies of the Greek texts and Hebrew texts of the OT and NT.

      1. I’d be curious to know your background. What qualifications do you have to make such comparisons and studies? It’s one thing to have the KJV 1611 and the Greek and Hebrew texts. It’s a whole other thing to be able to actually understand them.

        I would venture a guess that 99.9% of people in today’s society can’t even understand the KJV 1611 let alone do inductive studies and comparisons for textual criticism.

        So what qualifications do you have to be able to understand what you are studying?

        1. Katie, I’m willing to bet my background is far more extensive than yours is when it comes to the Bible. I am here for a fun and spirited debate on the bible versions.

          As far as my qualifications go, Katie, I have 4 yrs Greek language studies in ancient Greek and 3 yrs in Hebrew language. Tell me Katie what are your qualifications?

          Also the percentage of people in todays society that can’t understand the KJV is around 52%. As far as understanding the KJV, a dictionary would be very handy to have when reading it, although study’s have proven the KJV to be written at a 5th grade reading level http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjv_easy.html here is the url for the site proving the ease of understanding the KJV.

          Greg as a mater of fact I have heard of Samuel Gipp and his wife Kathy. He is a very good man and speaker.

          1. “I’m willing to bet my background is far more extensive than yours is when it comes to the Bible.”

            I was just curious. I’m not interested in a pissing contest. I never made any claims to knowledge so my background is irrelevant. You made a claim to knowledge so I was just curious about how you came to know those things.

            “Also the percentage of people in todays society that can’t understand the KJV is around 52%.”

            Where did you get that statistic? I thought you were talking about the KJV 1611? Why are you giving statistics on the KJV? Which version are you talking about the KJV 1611 or the KJV?

            “…although study’s have proven the KJV to be written at a 5th grade reading level http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjv_easy.html here is the url for the site proving the ease of understanding the KJV.”

            So your source of information supporting the KJV is a site that advocates KJV onlyism? Can you say biased? Perhaps you should try to rely more on common sense than your education. It may serve you better.

      2. Hi Matt – Perhaps you know abit more than I originally gave you credit for. One of the clear warning signs that folks are closed-minded about translation issues is when they do as you did and start attacking Wescott and Hort. I’m not saying that you have to like them, in fact you can disagree vigorously with their work, but whenever you start saying the silly, false things that you did, immediately I know that I am dealing with somebody that either has a closed mind, or is so deep into the Kool-Aid they are hopeless.

        Onto Isaiah 14, first off KJVonlys try to make “Lucifer” into Satan here, that can very quickly be shown not to be true if you will simply read the passage in your KJV – v-16 “is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;” So, Matt, your KJV calls Lucifer a man, what is it, is this Lucifer/Satan fallen from heaven? Or is he just a man as v-16 says he is?

        I’ll finish with a question for you. Lucifer (the word) is Latin, Isaiah was originally written in Hebrew, that Hebrew eventually translated into English. So my question to you, why do we find a Latin word in an English text that was translated from an ancient Hebrew manuscript. When you can answer this question correctly you will be well on your way to understanding the hard work of translationg.

        1. Greg, I have read and reread that passage several times. Lucifer DOES refer to teh devil or Satan if you will.

          Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! KJV

          If you recall from studies done a long time ago Satan (Lucifer as this verse calles him) was the first angel to be thrown out of Heaven.

          Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: KJV

          This verse says that Satan claim’s he is higher than God which I’m sure we can all agree he isn’t, for noone is higher than God.

          Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. KJV

          This verse also is Lucifer (Satan) talking saying he will be like the most high, implicating that he will be as powerful as God.

          Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. KJV

          God speaking to Lucifer (Satan) here.

          Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; KJV

          This verse says that only some will actually see Lucifer (Satan) and will see him as a man instead of seeing him as the fallen angel he is.

          Lucifer is not latin, it is the name given to the angel of darkness, it is derived from latin lucem ferre (light bearer). But in this passage you see Lucifer is capitalized which means it is a proper name.

          As I have have said in a different post, I am here for a friendly spirited debate. I too am an easy going person who enjoys a friendly debate.

          1. Hi Matt – You can obviously believe anything you want about Isaiah 14, I believe it is speaking about a wicked Babylonian king.

            I am, however starting to doubt your education credentials, you say that you have years of study in Greek and Hebrew, and yet you have stated that Lucifer is not Latin, clearly you are not familiar with these languages as you have indicated, at least not Hebrew. Lucifer came to us via Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate was very popular, and it became a commom belief to “belive” that Lucifer in this Latin translation was referring to “Satan” It was entrenched in the common vernacular and the KJV translators were reluctant to change it. The KJV translators go against the textus receptus here, the TR says “O day star”

            “Lucifer” does not come from the original authors of Scripture. Why should I believe Jerome was inspired to insert this term at this point?

            I’m somewhat confused, you said Lucifer is not Latin and then go on to tell us that it is “derived from” lucem ferre, which is almost right.

            Another good reason to properly translate this as “O star of the morning” or “O morning Star” is because in the 4th century Lucifer was a name for Venus, which could lead to confusion and we know that God is not the author of confusion.

            Any readers that may be following this thread, the above is very easily verified by a quick search on the internet. No longer do we have to sit by and “swallow” KJV only foolishness.

  155. hello, The KJV was written over a span of 20 yrs from the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

    to the owner of this site: You need to do more research on Wescott and Hort. the leader of that groups was a self proclaimed luciferian, ther was also a lesbian, 2 gays, the 80% of the rest were self taught “scholar’s”. Also all newer versions of the bible have contradictions between the OT and the NT. The KJV is the only one that does not hace contradiction’s in it

    1. Matt,

      I have listed my research in the Bibliography section at the end of the article. Where did you get YOUR information? Why are you asking me to provide “more research” when you haven’t even provided any evidence for your argument?

      It took me all of about 30 seconds to find contradictions in the KJV:

      YEARS OF FAMINE
      (KJV) Contradiction 1: Choose thee either three years’ famine… I Chronicles 21:11
      (KJV) Contradiction 2: Shall seven years of famine come unto thee… II Samuel 24:13
      (NIV) Accurate: Take your choice: three years of famine… I Chronicles 21:11
      (NIV) Accurate: Shall there come upon you three years of famine… II Samuel 24:13

      Though the Masoretic text shows conflicting amounts between three and seven years, the Greek Septuagint reveals the possible accurate length of three years in both verses.

      HOW OLD WAS JEHOIACHIN WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN?
      (KJV) Contradiction 1: Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign… II Chronicles 36:9
      (KJV) Contradiction 2: Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign… II Kings 24:8

      (NIV) Accurate: Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king… II Chronicles 36:9

      Pre-Masoretic manuscripts record the presumably correct age as being 18 in both verses.


      THE AMOUNT OF KING SOLOMON’S HORSES & STALLS

      (KJV) Contradiction 1: Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots… I Kings 4:26
      (KJV) Contradiction 2: Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots… II Chronicles 9:25

      (NIV) Correct: Solomon had four thousand stalls for chariot horses… I Kings 4:26
      (NIV) Correct: Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots… II Chronicles 9:25

      The Septuagint states the possible correct amount as being 4,000 in both verses.

      KING BAASHA BATTLED ASA IN THE 36TH YEAR OF HIS REIGN BUT DIED DURING THE 26TH YEAR
      (KJV) Contradiction 1: So Baasha slept with his fathers…in the twenty sixth year of Asa… I Kings 16:6,8
      (KJV) Contradiction 2: In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa… II Chronicles 16:1

      THE AMOUNT OF GOLD TALENTS SOLOMON RECEIVED
      (KJV) Contradiction 1: [They] fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to
      king Solomon… I Kings 9:28
      (KJV) Contradiction 2: [They] took thence four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to king
      Solomon… II Chronicles 8:18

      THE AGE OF KING AHAZI’AH WHEN HE BEGAN HIS REIGN
      (KJV) Contradiction 1: Two and twenty years old was Ahazi’ah when he began to reign… II Kings 8:26
      (KJV) Contradiction 2: Forty and two years old was Ahazi’ah when he began to reign… II Chronicles 22:2

      THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORS FOR SOLOMON’S TEMPLE PROJECT
      (KJV) Contradiction 1: Solomon’s officers were… three thousand and three hundred… I Kings 5:16
      (KJV) Contradiction 2: Solomon told…three thousand and six hundred to oversee them… II Chronicles 2:2

      THE AMOUNT OF ARAMEAN CHARIOTEERS KILLED BY DAVID
      (KJV) Contradiction 1: David slew the men of seven hundred chariots… II Samuel 10:18
      (KJV) Contradiction 2: David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men in chariots. I Chronicles 19:18

      Just to name a few.

      1. sorry those are not contradictions but simple miscalculations. The contradictions I’m refering to are similiar scriptures in both OT and NT

        contradiction: Isaiah 14:12 Have you fallen from heaven O morning star,” refering to lucifer NIV et al. Rev 22:16 I am the Root and the offspring of David, and teh bright and morning Star” NIV et al. Jesus talking there

        Correct and accurate: Isaiah 14:12 “How art thou fallen from Heave, O lucifer son of the morning. KJV Rev 22:16 “I am the Root and the offspring of David, and the bright and Morning Star.” Jesus talking there.

        You also have to realise that each book of the Bible was written by a different person that was inspired by God.

        1. OK, lets look at this logically for a moment. You originally said: “The KJV is the only one that does not hace (sic) contradiction’s in it”. Then when I find some and report them to you, you back track and say that you only consider contradictions that are found across similar scriptures in both OT and NT.

          Then you begin to argue semantics claiming that the KJV contradictions are merely “miscalculations”. Then you give the age old IFB excuse for contradictions by claiming that we “have to realise (sic) that each book of the Bible was written by a different person that was inspired by God.”

          I think you are confusing yourself, Matt. This is laughable. You can’t ignore the KJV errors simply because you are vested in defending the KJV and it’s convenient for your argument. This is the fallacy of “One Sided Assessment” where you ignore arguments of evidence that refute the topic you are interested in defending. Classic KJV Onlyism manipulation.

          1. Steve what you have reported are errors not contradictions. Contradictions are what occure between the old and new testaments not in one testament. What I said was miscalculations was wrong also, they are in fact due to lack of miscomunications and the different areas of studies between teh scholar’s that Prince James had translate the KJV.

          2. OK, more back tracking. No problem. All I’m asking is that you are consistent. If you hand wave contradictions in the KJV as “miscommunications” or “miscalculations” or whatever then you must also be willing to do the same for the NIV, NLT, ESB, etc. since newer translations also had translators who were proficient in “different areas of studies between teh (sic) scholar’s…” that were involved in the translations. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

            The last time I checked a contradiction was simply an inconsistency. It doesn’t necessarily have to be between the OT and NT. I think you made up your own definition there. I don’t find that in the dictionary or anywhere else. There are many contradictions in the KJV some of which I’ve already pointed out. But you are interested only in inconsistency between the OT and NT. Here are a couple in the KJV that fall into that category:

            Genesis 22:1 and James 1:13 (The KJV incorrectly interprets Genesis 22:1 – should read “tests” not “tempts” so in the KJV James 1:13 contradicts Genesis 22:1).

            2 Kings 2:11 and John 3:13 (the KJV leaves out the phrase “and returned” so in the KJV John 3:13 contradicts 2 Kings 2:11).

            Contradictions are to be expected in the Bible and shouldn’t dissuade a person from believing the Bible. I just think it’s funny that your precious KJV isn’t as perfect as you claim (or wish) is to be. You are delusional if you think that the KJV is perfect or somehow superior.

  156. Hello all,

    The KJV was written over a span of 21 yrs by over 50 Greek and Hebrew scholars.

    FYI to th esite owner: do your reasearc more on the groups that wrote the newer versions. Wescott and Hort board consisted of a self proclaimed luciferian, a lesbian, 2 gays and the rest self taught scholars. you will also find contradictions in ALL of the recent versions of the bible except for the 1611 KJV.

    1. What’s YOUR source? Where did you get that information? My bibliography (research) is listed below the article.

  157. This “Pastor” Martinez is a pretty good example of someone who is more interested in defending their ignorance and false doctrine than in knowing the truth. These types are likely to argue until their blue in the face and then walk away on bad terms. It is hard for me to understand how they can rail against the Catholics, yet they do the same things. It seems like the most treasured teaching of IFB types is their man made KJ-only doctrine.
    Unfortunately, there are probably a thousand more Pastor Martinez’ out there who hold to this kind of false belief.

  158. Pastor Martinez – I almost forgot. I am a Jesus Christ of Nazareth only believer.

  159. Hi Pastor Martinez – I’m not real sure how to respond, apparently you like the KJV. You do realize that “The Words of the Lord” in Psalms 12:6-7 were not originally written in English, don’t you? So with all due respect, what’s your point? Those words of Psalms came down through centuries of time
    since they were originally written, copied over and over and over, from one language to another, and finally a faithful Roman Catholic Priest (Erasmus)made a greek new testament, well several in fact, (Erasmus only had 6 manuscripts of the NT, and did not have the whole NT, and had to use the Latin Vulgate to fill in the missing holes) and then good and faithful Anglican, baby baptizing churchmen trasnslated that greek new testament into elizabeathean english which was then revised multiple times to its present 1769 configuration, which is what most folks use today. Have I missed anything?

    Oh Btw all those caps are a sure sign that you are very fundy, its like you are shouting at us.

    And now abide Faith, Hope and Love but the greatest of these is Love

    Greg

  160. Well here is my response to Pastor Meltons question #1 you said If by the king james version if anyone can show the preservation of the bible or word of God you will take down the site and put up one defending the KJV. Well here it is Psalm 12:6-7 ” the words of the Lord” now in REVELATION 1:3 The Lord Himself said that someone is blessed in reading and obeying the written words in this phrophecy ,now in REVELATION 22:10 the phrophecy’s are his words written in the book , and REVELATION 22:18,19 again the prophecy are wriiten words in this book and If you add or take some of the words which are called prophecy from the book you are cursed. The preservation of the WORDS in Psalm 12:6-7 are in referance to all of what the lord said which is CALLED PROPHECY, AND PROPHECY BY OUR VERSES ARE WRITTEN IN A BOOK THAT ARE IN YOUR HAND IF YOU HAVE A KJV. The term “WORDS” IS USED FOR SOMETHING SPECIFIC THE lORD SAIS , AND The term “WORD” IS USED FOR A PASSAGE OR THE WHOLE THING COLLECTIVELY. WELL IF THIS DOESNT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THAN MAYBE YOUR NOT LOOKING FOR AN ANSWER. PLEASE RESPOND ANYONE PASTOR aMARTINEZ

    1. Pastor Martinez wrote:

      you said If by the king james version if anyone can show the preservation of the bible or word of God you will take down the site and put up one defending the KJV.

      Actually what I said was: “If you can prove by using the Bible that God promised to preserve either the “Word of God”/the Bible or even God’s words/promises, by way of the KJV I will take this site offline and put up a site promoting KJV onlyism in it’s place.”

      Pastor Melton claims that God promised to preserve His Word using the KJV. I disagreed with that and asked him – or anyone else to prove me wrong (or Pastor Melton correct whichever you want)… I’m still waiting. So can you please repeat your argument and show me how any of the passages you referenced prove that God will preserve His Word (or Words) via the KJV?

  161. Hello, Its my first time visiting your website and would like to say that It might just be my last.As a Pastor I seek with the Lords help to edify the Body of Christ with the Truth of Gods word, It appears that you are trying to Impart some wisdom or truth to people by your site but you do greatly err from factual history about the KJV.First let It be Known this Pastor is not affiliated with IFB,BBF or anyone else for that matter, I am a KJV only believer and what the owner of this site said of Wescott and Hort haveing anything to do with the KJV is a flat out lie.Just google Wescott and Hort and find out for youselves, when I first read It In the preceding article I was taken back at the Lie.Dont gang up on groups for decieving ,when the owner of the site does the same. Please check it out for yourselves Pastor A Martinez

    1. It’s interesting to me that all you can do is call Steve a liar. Why don’t you provide sources and information to refute Steve’s information rather than just call him a liar?

      Pastor Martinez wrote:

      Just google Wescott and Hort and find out for youselves

      Perhaps that’s why you’re confused. You should use reliable textual criticism and other professional sources of information rather than random internet sites. When you do you will find out that Steve is actually correct.

  162. Hi David – You said “I believe that most people in the pews and sadly too many in the pulpits have inadequate understanding of translational issues.” Exactly!

    I would like to think that understanding translational issues wouldn’t have to be that important, but unfortunately because of so many uneducated IFB pastors and their “yes” men spreading outright lies and disinformation on this issue, it now behooves everyone to get alittle “real” education on these matters.

    I was neck-deep in the Kool-Aid for many years, but I was one who studied the bible as opposed to just a pew-sitter who swallowed everything that came out of the pulpit. One of the first problems that I found was about tithing, I simply could not see how christians should be required to tithe as did Jews under the law, we were under the new covenant, how could this be. That may have been the first crack in the armor, if the MOG (man of God) is wrong about this, what else is he wrong about. I started noticing more and more the outright legalism that flowed from the pulpit, and I would try to justify that with my Lord’s teaching about loving others and his examples of helping and healing folks of all kinds. I noticed that where the bible said I had liberty, the pastor said no, I better not, silly things like all wine in scripture was juice, except when people got drunk, all of a sudden the perfect, infallible KJV needed some help from other sources when Jesus turned the water into wine. So I began to earnestly look into the subject of translation and I began to spot huge errors on the part of the MOG as it related to this KJVonly issue. Finally one Sunday morning the MOG was expounding about how a “secret” code could be found w/in the pages of the KJV, if you added up a certain amt of consonants and vowells, of course he didn’t say which edition of the many revisions of the KJV this applied to. I walked out the door of this church that morning, a church that I had worked in and attended for about 20 years, and knew I would never go back, that was about 3 years ago, and have only been back for funerals.

    That’s part of my tale, now where in the scriptures are pews and pulpits?

  163. Hi all,

    I am new to this forum. I used to prefer the KJV to such an extent that I was nearly KJVO, though I was careful to avoid the wacked out beliefs that characterize the likes of Ruckman. Maybe on another occasion I will go into the background of my former KJV preference, but for right now I want to offer a short and sweet account of what finally turned me as well as an opinion of why the KJVO position is attractive to some.
    For years I was resistant to all of the reasoning and evidence that was mustered against the KJVO position. I simply would not be dissuaded. Thankfully, our new pastor whom I respect, admire, and count a close friend was open to the benefits of the modern translations. He showed great wisdom in his dealings with me in that he never denigrated the KJV (indeed there is no good reason to do so- it is a remarkably accurate and beautiful translation of the Scriptures into 17th century English). That was the first major influence in turning my opinion.
    The second was through my study of a book that was recommended by a friend, “How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth” by Stuart and Fee. As I came to value their instruction in reading and interpreting the Bible I also came to value and respect their opinions on the modern English versions as well as their views on translational theory.
    Finally, the turning point came when I, preaching as a lay minister came to realize that I just couldn’t – no wouldnt- preach from the KJV. I tried. I found myself translating 17th century English into modern English for the congregation. I said to myself “This is just plain stupid”. Why should native English speakers need to have English words interpreted for them in order to understand the meaning of a Bible text? How much sense does that make? Using the KJV does nothing more than add another layer of interpretive challenges for the reader, preacher, listener. Furthermore I have since recognized numerous instances of reader misunderstanding od the vocabulary and phrasing of the KJV leading to inaccurate exegesis and aberrent doctrine. And that is why I no longer regularly use the KJV in private study or public exposition.
    So why are so many attracted to a KJVO position. I will offer a few opinionated insights. First, I believe that many have a good and sincere desire to ground their faith in the very word of God. This is commendable. However they mistakenly think that in order to do this it is necessary to have pristine and perfect manuscripts mirrored by pristine and perfect translations.
    Second, I believe that most people in the pews and sadly too many in the pulpits have inadequate understanding of translational issues. They seem to assume that there exists a one to one correspondence among languages. Therefore translation should be a simple matter of subbing out words and translating a word the. Same way every time it appears. And forget about trying to make them understand the idiomatic nature of languages. Many (certainly not all!) KJVO’s have just enough “knowledge” about textual issues to be wise fools. I know. I was one for a long time. Not that I now consider myself to be any kind of enlightened guide. I now merely know enough to begin to realize how much I really don’t know.
    Third, I believe that there is more “flesh” in the whole matter than most if any KJVO’s would be willing to admit. ” To have the pure and preserved words… to be a smarter Christian… to be better than those despised NIV readers (the poor saps!)”{note: entirely tongue in cheek}. No KJVO will own up to any of this (I know I certainly would never have!), but looking back I can recognize that at least in me there was lurking about within some measure of hubris and some secret desire for special knowledge that fueled my embrace of the KJV and my rejection of the rest.
    It’s good to be past all that now. I hope others can find their way as well. If you really like the KJV, then you should read it.. but don’t denigrate the modern English translations and write them off as “perversions”. Many of them are really quite excellent. None are perfect. But almost all can be trusted as the very word of God that is sufficient for faith and practice and the knowledge of salvation through our mutual Lord.

    1. Finally, after a while another guy to clear us up.

      Dave, thanks so much for your post. It really cheered me up big time. I hope the KJVO will read this and open their minds.

      God bless you Dave – BIG TIME MAN!

  164. Hey Bryan, sorry for the delay. About your question. Im sorry for what has happened to you but I can in no way answer for what someone else did to you. I am in no way associated with those people and personally do not take the same stand as they do. They will have to answer for their wrong doing themselves. Im sorry that you are not very familiar with the King James Version style of English nor are the rest of us, but just like I encourage everyone else who has the same problem I suggest you get a good webster 1828 dictionary or a new strongs complete dictionary of Bible words to educate yourself in this just as I had to do. Until we (people whos first language is english) or you or any other tounge get a good reliable version in our modern language that is the best advice I can offer you. Sorry I couldn’t be more help.

  165. Hey Bryan, sorry about the delay but I think you will find the answer you are looking for
    from me in my last post to Steve. You can find it in the discussions with kenneth thread

    1. I read your Steve/Kenneth thread but I cannot see the particular answers I am looking for. Care to copy it here?

      1. The thread isn’t complete, we are having a discussion. What answers are you looking for?

    2. Just so you know Kenneth, I am a Filipino and English only my second language. We never studied Elizabethan English and we almost never studied any Shakespeare material so our knowledge of that English is almost nil.

      Also, I don’t think there is a Tagalog or any Filipino dialect Bible that wasy taken from the Received Text. Most of them were translated from an already existing English version.

  166. Kenneth, how do you answer for those people who said I am not saved and going to hell because I received Christ as my Lord and Savior using a Catholic Bible?

    How do you answer one who posted here several months ago that I am not a child of God because I cannot understand 1611 English? Do I blame the American G.I.s who came to our country in 1898 who taught my forefathers 19th and 20th century English?

    These guys are not spiritually sound. They are more like bigots. Is that what the fruit of the KJVonlyist priduce?

  167. Wow! I was just doing some research for a paper and I stumbled across this site. I was so very surprised. I wasn’t able (for time’s sake) to read all of the comments posted her, but the ones I did read were definitely heated! But I guess a matter of this importance has many different viewpoints. I don’t know if this is really a matter that I really want to discuss in length, but I just wanted to add something. If we do not have a perfectly preserved Word of God, than we as a human race have absolutely no hope of Heaven or Eternal Life. If only part is true, which part do you believe? Just something to ponder. If we do not have the Bible to believe in, a perfect Bible, than why are we here? How do we actually know anything about God?
    Good Night

    1. Hi Rebekah – I can tell you have listened to some very uneducated folks to arrive at this silly conculsion, you would not have come up with this by yourself. I hope I haven’t already made you mad, but simply answer this. Where was this perfect Word of God prior to 1611? Or how about this one, Does your 1611 revised 8 times 1769 version of the KJV anywhere mention that it is to be solely followed, and that the translation of God’s word stopped with that version?(that is an extra-biblical doctrine added by uneducated men) How about the billions of Chinese? Must they learn english to get saved? Go back and ask your uneducated KJV guru these questions, hey bring him to school with you, and he can get “schooled” right along with you. It disturbs me very much to have God’s people mislead like you have been mislead.

      1. Hey Greg, Don’t worry, you are a stranger and haven’t had the privilege to be where I’ve been, but I’m not going to go on the defensive. I do have a thought. If we all were actually as concerned about this as we appear to be, than God must be pretty sad watching all of us bicker and fuss about something that all of us are convinced in our minds about. The goal of the Christian life is to spread the Good News that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, was buried and rose again on the third day, and has the free gift of Heaven offered to ANYONE who will simply receive it. If this is what God’s goal is, than instead of arguing about it, why don’t we go start doing that ourselves? Satan is never so happy as when he has God’s children so enraged at one another that nothing gets done for God. I know, I replied to this post-and maybe I shouldn’t have-but the fact is I did. Since none of us will change the stand we have taken, why don’t we start reaching the world for Christ and pray for our brethren instead of drag them-and their beliefs-through the mud? I probably will not respond to any more of these posts, but I know that when we get to Heaven and God tests our works to see of what they are made, He will have to wipe the tears from our eyes when we look at what we could have done for Him but didn’t because we were too “busy” ripping our Brethren to shreds. Just one more thought that will more than likely get ignored, but I had to try. Hope you all have a great day. It’s time for me to get to work trying to turn the world upside down for Christ-again!

        1. Hi Rebekah – Sometimes its hard to detect tone with these comments, I certainly used sarcasm in my response, but I am in no way enraged. Your comment sent fundy bumps down my spine, and the truth is, I really do get upset when uneducated pastors spread these type of silly arguments around. Hey if you read through my comments on this site, you will see that I think the KJV is a fine translation, in fact I would go so far as to say it is a literary masterpiece. The manuscripts behind the KJV are good, so, believe me I am no enemy to the KJV, in fact I can actually defend it better than most of the KJVonly’s out there spouting their foolishness. The problem with this ancient translation is the fact that most folks can no longer understand it, myself included. The KJV has hundreds if not thousands of archaic words, and what’s worse, words that are still in use, but have changed in meaning over the last 400 years. No I am no enemy of the KJV, but I am against the extra-biblical, devilish belief of KJVonlyism.

  168. Yeah Greg, I understand how people can say that the KJV is to hard for them to understand, like I said, I used to be one of them. At the same time though I can also say that once a person puts a little effort into it it starts explaining itself. Yes Greg I am what you would call a KJVonlyist but that does not mean that I am unlearned about the modern translations. You suggest that I am a better IFB defender than KJV defender but I like to think of myself as equally and well balanced. I was wondering if you have had time to check out the reference of the 1828 Websters dictionary I suggested to you earlier? I didn’t know if anyone had ever mentioned this to you before but if you havnt checked it out you ought to I think you will be surprised as to how much of a helpful tool it is to the KJV. By the way Greg, I was wondering what questions you wanted me to answer you about that you mentioned in your last post. Maybe I’m just getting tired and missed them.

    1. Kenneth – I was an IFB for more than 40 years, believe me I know all about the 1828 Websters, but the problems for me and millions of others go even beyond definitions. Have a look at Acts 5:30, the KJV have the Romans hanging a dead Jesus on the cross, or how about Phillipians 4:6 the KJV tells folks “Be careful for nothing” are you kidding me!, the NIV corrects this wrong by saying “be anxious for nothing” Steve just had a very good one he discussed on this site about God not being the author of confusion, as opposed to the better “God is not the author of disorder”

      Anyway the post I was asking you to respond to was at “about this site” look at the top of the screen on the left hand side and you’ll see it just click on it and scroll down to where both of our comments are, and if you don’t get around to it, that’s ok.

  169. Hi Kenneth – I appreciate you responding, it appears that Steve will be engaging with you on your own thread, so I can follow the action over there and jump in from time to time. If you get a chance and can answer my comments on “about this site” I would appreciate it.

    Just from your few comments I would guess that you can defend IFBism, much better than KJVonlyism, which is what I am more familiar with. You don’t seem to understand that good, new translations don’t update the KJV, they use entirely different, older, and what I consider, better manuscripts. I may have been mistaken about that, and if I am, my apologies.

    The main reason I am not KJVonly is because the Apostles and Jesus weren’t, using the Greek Septuagint most of the time, when they quoted the Old Testament.

    Anyway, you don’t have to answer this if you don’t want to, I realize, all of this posting takes time, and I lose about half of mine, but if you get around to answering my questions over at “about this site” I would appreciate it.

    The KJV is a wonderful translation, I just have a hard time understanding it, as do most Americans.

  170. Hey Greg it’s me again. I would like to make another statement on the infallibility of the KJV issue. Greg I want you to understand something about me. Yes I do believe the KJV Bible to be the infallibe inerrant preserved word of God to the English speaking people but what version you choose to use doesn’t matter to me. Do I wish that there were no modern translations? Of course I do. But. would I like to see a modern translation of the KJV that’s speaks in modern English without ANY changes or removal of doctrinal teachings of course I would and I think that we will see one some day.

    Greg I know you didn’t in so many words say this exactly but in your last post it sounded like you were kind of insinuating that I am new to the study of the history of the KJV and modern translations. Well Greg that’s not the case. I have done my homework and I can hold my own in any Bible debate but that’s not what I am trying to have on this site. I’m simply visiting this site and providing postings so that those who are not up to date on all the topics here might see that “ya’lls” (yeah I’m a Texan) allegations and information is not across the board nor is found in the majority of IFB Churches. This is really all that I have pleaded with Steve about this site to change about it. I don’t think that it is very fair to claim that this “spiritual abuse” happens in all or even the majority of IFB Churches because that simply isn’t true and it really doesn’t do your cause any good to make these claims. I can say for a fact that none of these claims can be found in my IFB Church nor many others that I have association with. Anyways back to my discussion about the KJV.

    Greg I am a firm believer that Almighty God is a God who says what he means and means what he says. I don’t think he leaves any thing important to question. Now if my God promises to preserve himself a remnant of people through all generations of people then I believe that. When God makes that promise he is talking about a people who will hold fast his doctrine, his statutes and his gospel and I believe after digging for my own evidence and truth that God has led me to the Baptist Church.

    I also believe that the Almighty God that I know who is smart enough to create everything in existence by a spoken word and claims that he is the same yesterday today and forever and says that he cannot lie is perfectly capable of making sure that his word in its entirety would be preserved for all people through all generations no matter what method he chooses to pass it along either by mouth or by written text either by fallible man or by a chicken scratching in the dirt. The point is that I believe God when he said that he would preserve his word in it entirety to all mankind. How he does it, I don’t know or care, that’s none of my business but the Lord has led me to believe that his written word for the language I speak can be found in the King James Bible and I find no reason to question that. It doesn’t contrdict itself and I can truly feel the Holy Spirit leading me through it as I read it. On the other hand though Greg, I do see numerous numerous discrepencies in these modern translations. I’m not taught this by anyone so therefore am not being brainwashed as you and others on this site would like to claim. I have found these discrepancies on my own and through my own research.

    Believe it or not Greg, yes even I used to use several different modern translations but none of them for me measured up to the KJV. Am I condeming anyone else who chooses to use these newer versions? Of course not! but would I like to share what I have found out about them to those who are interested absolutely. In all fairness Greg, I am simply asking that before you or anyone else visiting this makes a very harsh accusation that you make perfectly clear that you cannot makes these claims across the board nor are you one hundred percent certain that these claims are true because the truth is that only God can do that. Greg I hope that I have made it clear that I am not here to fight with you or anyone else, but that I think that all arguments need to have both sides told fairly in order for people to come to their own conclusion.

    thanks for reading I look foward to hearing again from you soon.

    1. Hi Kenneth – I see our posts are getting all mixed up, before I left for church this am I responded to your last post, when I got home from church I see the one above which I am now responding to, but anyway.

      I can tell you friend, you are vastly different than many of your fellow IFBer’s, because they would never settle for an updated KJV. Let me join my voice to yours, while I feel there are better manuscripts that newer translations are based on, the manuscript evidence that supports the KJV is very good and I would love to see the KJV put into modern english, btw, the NKJV isn’t it.

      I’ll close like Paul did to the Corinthians. 2 Corinthians 6:11-13, It’s ok if you don’t understand it in the KJV, no one else does either, go ahead and look it up in the NIV, Ahhhh, isn’t it nice to read God’s word with understanding? That’s what God wishes for all of his followers.

  171. Hey Greg first of all I want to politely ask you to address me by my name. it’s Kenneth not kenney, I done call you Greggy so I would appreciate the courtesy as I give you and besides if I did go by my nickname It is spelled Kenny I’ve never seen it spelled the way you spell it not to say some people don’t spell it that way though. Anyways I know that yourself Steve and I kind of started out on the wrong step and I have made an apology to the both of you and would like nothing moremthan to continue our discussion about this subject. I simply ask that we take the time to look into the things we are telling each other before any of us jump right back with a response of rebuttal. That is the only way this discussion will ever get anywhere other that disgust and arrogant behavior.
    To respond to your last post I do want to appogize for not doing what I intended to do and offer a very good resource to the KJV Bible and that is the Websters 1828 dictionary. In that year people were still using the Elizibethian English and the reader of the KJV Bible will find that all the words used in the KJV will be found in that dictionary and with the same meaning as the translators used. This will clear up the matter that you brought with the words not meaning today as they did when the translating took place.
    Greg I also want to add that it seems to me that it upsets you that anyone would use a KJV. Yes it’s true that I am a KJVonlyist but that doesn’t mean that I require everyone else to be. Now on the other hand if I am teaching a class and I’m using the KJV then yes I would require my class to use the same version as I am teaching from to avoid confusion. Now I also encourage home personal Bible study and if my student want to cross reference another translation at home the I completely support that. Like I said though, as far as my class goes it wouldn’t work it would be like bringing your history book to math class, you simply wouldn’t be able to follow along. For people to say that the KJV is a faulty or inaccurate translation is simply not true if the reader uses the proper tools to approach his or her personal study. when using the proper tools it actually makes the scripture come alive more than you would have ever thought possible. I do realize that for a newcomer to the KJV it might seem a little overwhelming but like I said in a previous post it is not against the law for someone to further educate themselves about the word of God it should be considered a privelege and a blessing to do so. I agree with everyone that says that the thees and thous are not necessary in or language anymore and originally the translators of the NKJV said that their only intention was to modernize the English a little bit but that didn’t turn out to be the case, they ended up changing the meaning of scripture from what it originally meant. If they hadn’t done this I would be using the NKJV today myself. so as you can see Greg I’m not against retranslating the Bible to modernize it but I do expect the doctrine and meaning of words to stay the same. I can provide solid proof to anyone who ask for it that absolutely none of the modern translations can honestly make this claim.
    That’s all for now
    Kenneth

  172. Hi Kenney – You provided a fairly good history of “one” good english translation (KJV). I don’t see, in any of the remarks made, that they claimed the work of translation was to stop with that translation, I see no one claimed infallibility for that work, and please bear in mind they were making a translation for the english speaking people of 1611.

    Words have changed meaning over the last 400 years, no dictionary would help. In the KJV the word “advertise” means “tell”, allege means “prove”, and “conversation” means “behaviour”, communicate means “share”, “take-through” means “precede”, “meat” is a general term for “food” and “anon” and “by and by” translate Greek words which mean “immediately” Just to name a few.

    You did quote the KJV translators once, that’s a good start, I have often said if all KJVonly’s would read the “The Translator’s to the Reader’s”, which for many years was printed with the KJV, it would clear up 99% of KJVonly foolishness.

    I responded to your post over at “about this site” are you going to respond?

  173. The following chapter is taken from Isaac H. Hall, ed., The Revised New Testament and History of Revision, giving a literal reprint of the Authorized English Edition of the Revised New Testament, with a brief history of the origin and transmission of the New Testament Scriptures, and of its many versions and revisions that have been made, also a complete history of this last great combined movement of the best scholarship of the world; with reasons for the effort; advantages gained; sketches of the eminent men engaged upon it, etc., etc. prepared under the direction of Professor Isaac H. Hall, LL.B.; Ph. D. Philadelphia: Hubbard Brothers; Atlanta: C.R. Blackall & Co.; New York: A.L. Bancroft & Co., 1881.
    History of the King James Version

    THE DEMAND.

    When James I. came to the throne of England he found the Established Church in a sadly divided state. There were Conformists, who were satisfied with things as then found, and were willing to conform to existing usages; and there were Puritans, who longed for a better state of things, and were determined to have it. These parties appealed to the king, and the Puritans had great hopes that he would favor their side. In October, 1603, James therefore called a conference, to meet in Hampton Court Palace, in the coming January, “for hearing and for the determining things pretended to be amiss in the Church.” So far as the objects chiefly sought were concerned, this Conference was a failure, but there began the movement for the version of the English Bible, now so widely accepted.

    There were present on that occasion the leading divines, lawyers and laymen of the Church of England. Among them was Dr. John Reynolds, President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. On the second day of the conference, this gentleman, in the course of discussion, suggested to the king, that a new version was exceedingly desirable, because of the many errors in the version then in use. That suggestion led to the action which, after some little delay, inaugurated measures for King James’ version.

    The Churchly party resisted the movement for a time, because they suspected some Puritan mischief to be behind it. On the other hand, the Puritan party pressed immediate action; and the king so managed affairs as to please both sides, and finally to secure their hearty cooperation. He very decidedly favored the proposition of the Puritans, but at the same time he pronounced the Genevan version to be the worst of all in the English language, and thereby pleased the Conformist party.

    Arrangements for this version were completed by the appointment of fifty-four learned men, who were also to secure the suggestions of all competent persons, that, as the king put it, “our said translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom.” This attitude of the king, the removal of their first suspicions, and the undoubted merits of the case, brought about a hearty acquiescence on the part of those who had at first opposed the movement. His Majesty’s instructions to the translators were these:

    INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS.

    The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
    The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.
    The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.
    When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.
    The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
    No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.
    Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.
    Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.
    As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his Majesty is very careful on this point.
    If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.
    When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.
    Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king’s letter to the archbishop.
    The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king’s professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.
    These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible: Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s [Rogers’], Whitchurch’s [Cranmer’s], Geneva.”
    By a later rule, “three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule.”
    Only forty-seven of the men appointed for this work are known to have engaged in it. These were divided into six companies, two of which met at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at Westminster. They were presided over severally by the Dean of Westminster and by the two Hebrew Professors of the Universities.

    To the first company, at Westminster (ten in number), was assigned the Old Testament as far as 2 Kings; the second company (seven in number) had the Epistles. The first company at Cambridge (numbering eight) had 2 Chronicles to Ecclesiastes; the second company (numbering seven) had the Apocryphal books. To the first Oxford company (seven in number) were assigned the prophetical books, from Isaiah to Malachi; to the second (eight in number) were given the four Gospels, the Acts and the Apocalypse, or Revelation.

    A few of the principal men among those learned translators were these:

    Dr. Launcelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster, presided over the Westminster company. Fuller says of him: “The world wanted learning to know how learned this man was, so skilled in all (especially Oriental) languages, that some conceive he might, if then living, almost have served as an interpreter-general at the confusion of tongues.” He became successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely and Winchester. Born 1555, died 1626.
    Dr. Edward Lively, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, and thus at the head of the Cambridge company, was eminent for his knowledge of Oriental languages, especially of Hebrew. He died in 1605, having been Professor of Hebrew for twenty-five years. His death was a great loss to the work which he had helped to begin, but not to complete.
    Dr. John Overall was made Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1596, and in 1604 was Dean of St. Paul’s, London. He was considered by some the most scholarly divine in England. In 1614 he was made Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry. He was transferred to the See of Norwich in 1618. Born 1559, died 1619.
    Dr. Adrian de Saravia is said to have been the only foreigner employed on the work. He was born in Artois, France; his Father was a Spaniard, and his mother a Belgian. In 1582 he was Professor of Divinity at Leyden; in 1587 he came to England. He became Prebend of Canterbury, and afterward Canon of Westminster. He was noted for his knowledge of Hebrew. Born 1531, died 1612.
    William Bedwell, or Beadwell, was one of the greatest Arabic scholars of his day. At his death he left unfinished MSS. of an Arabic Lexicon, and also of a Persian Dictionary.
    Dr. Laurence Chadderton was for thirty-eight years Master of Emanuel College, Cambridge, and well versed in Rabbinical learning. He was one of the few Puritan divines among the translators. Born 1537; died 1640, at the advanced age of one hundred and three.
    Dr. John Reynolds, who first suggested the work, was a man of great attainments in Hebrew and Greek. He died before the revision was completed, but worked at it during his last sickness as long as his strength permitted. Born 1549, died 1607.
    Dr. Richard Kilbye, Oxford Professor of Hebrew, was reckoned among the first Hebraists of his day. Died 1620.
    Dr. Miles Smith was a student of classic authors from his youth, was well acquainted with the Rabbinical learning, and well versed in Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic. He was often called a “walking library.” Born about 1568, died 1624.
    John Boyse, or Bois, at six years of age could write Hebrew elegantly. He was for twelve years chief lecturer in Greek at St. John’s College, Cambridge. Bishop Andrewes, of Ely, made him a prebend in his church in 1615. He was one of the most laborious of all the revisers. Born 1560, died 1643.
    Sir Henry Saville was warden of Merton College, Oxford, for thirty-six years. He devoted his fortune to the encouragement of learning, and was himself a fine Greek scholar. Born 1549, died 1622.
    Dr. Thomas Holland was Regius Professor of Divinity in Exeter College, Oxford, and also Master of his college. He was considered a prodigy in all branches of literature. Born 1539, died 1612.
    COMPLETION OF THE REVISION.

    Some work upon the revision was, in all probability, begun soon after the appointment of the committees. Vigorous effort was, however, delayed till about 1607, for what reason is unknown.

    When the translators had finished their work, a copy each was sent from Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster to London, where two from each place, six in all, gave it a final revision, and Dr. Miles Smith and Bishop Wilson superintended the work as it passed through the press. The former wrote the Preface, which is entitled, “The Translators to the Reader.”

    The expenses of the work were not borne by the king, who pleaded poverty, but by voluntary contributions from bishops and others who had fat livings. The king, however, rewarded the translators by bestowing good livings on them as vacancies occurred, and by ecclesiastical promotion.

    The work was given to the public in 1611, in a folio volume printed in black letter, the full title as follows:

    “The | HOLY | BIBLE, | Conteyning the Old Testament, | AND THE NEW, | Newly Translated out of the Original | tongues: & with the former Translations | diligently compared and revised by his | Maiesties special Comandement. | Appointed to be read in Churches | Imprinted at London by Robert | Barker, Printer to the Kings | most excellent Maiestie | Anno Dom. 1611.”

    The same year, the New Testament, in 12mo, was issued, and in 1612, the entire Bible in 8vo, and in Roman type. The Genevan Bible, however, had a firm hold on the popular heart, and it required the lifetime of a generation to displace it.

    This “Authorized Version” never was authorized by royal proclamation, by order of Council, by act of Parliament or by vote of Convocation. Whether the words “appointed to be read in churches” were used by order of the editors, or by the will of the printer, is unknown. The original manuscripts of this work are wholly lost, no trace of them having been discovered since about 1655.

    The title-page speaks of this version as being “with the former translations diligently compared and revised.” In their address to the readers, the translators themselves say: “Truly, we never thought, from the beginning … that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one.” Speaking of this acknowledgment, Dr. Krauth, of the present version committee, says: “Without this confession, the Authorized Version would tell its own story. It is only necessary to compare it with the older versions, to see that with much that is original, with many characteristic beauties, in some of which no other translation approaches it, it is yet in the main a revision. Even its original beauties are often the mosaic of an exquisite combination of the fragments of the older. Comparing it with the English exemplars it follows, we must say it is not the fruit of their bloom, but the ripeness of their fruit.”

    The singular fact has been brought to light within a few years that in the year 1611 there were two distinct folio editions of this Bible published. There are some copies extant where the sheets from the two are combined; and some, where the title-page of 1611 is prefixed to the later editions. The two editions of 1611 had distinctive titles, though it is said that in some cases these were interchanged; one being a wood-cut which had been used before in the earlier Bishops’ Bible, and the other an elegant copperplate. Each of them has also errors and readings peculiar to itself. One edition has, for instance, “Judas” instead of “Jesus” in Matt. xxvi., 36; the other has a part of the verse repeated in Exod. xiv., 10, making what printers call “a doublet.” In Gen. x., 16, one copy reads the “Emorite,” and the other the “Amorite.” One has in Ruth iii., 15, “He went into the city;” the other has, “She went into the city.” This led to their being designated, the great He Bible, and the great She Bible.

    WINNING ITS WAY.

    King James made great promises concerning his new version. He said at the outset that it “should be ratified by royal authority, and adopted for exclusive use in all the churches.” The title-page set forth that the work was by “His Maiesties special Commandement;” also that it is “appointed to be read in churches;” and finally, that it comes from the press of “Robert Barker, printer to the King’s most excellent Maiestie.” All this parade seems to guarantee some civil force to urge the new version into general use, but so far as can be learned from history, the book was left to win its way upon its merits alone. Indeed it was not until 1661, that the Epistles and the Gospels in the Prayer Book, were changed, the authorized text superseding that of the Bishops’ Bible. The Psalms in the Prayer Book, from the “Bible of largest volume in English,” have not been superseded to this day.

    EXCELLENCE OF KING JAMES’ VERSION.

    The Rev. Dr. Talbot W. Chambers, himself one of the revisers of the Old Testament Company, has very beautifully and truly said of the King James’ Version as follows: “The merits of the Authorized Version, in point of fidelity to the original, are universally acknowledged. No other version, ancient or modern, surpasses it, save, perhaps, the Dutch, which was made subsequently, and profited by the labors of the English translators. But a version may be faithful without being elegant. It may be accurate without adequately representing the riches of the language in which it is made. The glory of the English Bible is that while it conveys the mind of the Spirit with great exactness, it does this in such a way that the book has become the highest existing standard of our noble tongue. Lord Macaulay calls it a stupendous work, which, if everything else in our language should perish, would alone suffice to show the whole extent of its beauty and power.”

    Mr. Huxley, whose tendency to superstitious reverence will not be suspected, has said of this version: “It is written in the noblest and purest English, and abounds in exquisite beauties of mere literary form.” The style used in this version was unique. It was not the English of that day, either spoken or written. Indeed, Mr. Marsh, in his “Lectures on the English Language” asserts, that the dialect used was not at any period “the actual current book language, nor the colloquial speech of the English people.”

    The fact concerning the style of this version is, that from the earliest effort at English version each succeeding translator improved upon his predecessors, taking his best points continually, so that in the end the chief excellence of each appeared. King James’ version, therefore, combines the beautiful and felicitous expression of all who went before it.

    As a final testimony to the excellence of the King James’ version we may quote from Dr. F. W. Faber, who says: “Who will say that the uncommon beauty and marvelous English of the Protestant Bible is not one of the great strongholds against heresy in this country? It lives on the ear, like music that can never be forgotten, like the sound of church bells, which the convert hardly knows how he can forego. Its felicities often seem to be almost things rather than words. It is part of the national mind, and the anchor of national seriousness. Nay, it is worshiped with a positive idolatry, in extenuation of whose grotesque fanaticism its intrinsic beauty pleads availingly with the man of letters and the scholar. The memory of the dead passes into it. The potent traditions of childhood are stereotyped in its verses. The power of all the griefs and trials of a man are hid beneath its words. It is the representative of his best moments, and all that there has been about him of soft and gentle, and pure and penitent and good, speaks to him forever out of his Protestant Bible. It is a sacred thing which doubt has never dimmed and controversy never soiled.”

    The KJV is not a thrown together compilation of unlearned men. It is a beautifully written translation by godly men who held the highest respects for the word of God. I reLly hate hearing the excuse that it is to hard to read . If it is to you then it’s because we have perverted the English language so bad that we hardly recognize our own language. The way I see it though, if you don’t understand a word pick up a dictionary and learn it. Since when did it become a crime for someone to educate themselves a little bit? I the the real problem is people are simply to lazy to do so. For a serious Bible student (deciple) this should not be a problem, hassle our troublesome effort it should be considered a privilege.
    God bless all of you
    Kenneth

  174. Do I hear “arguing from a conclusion?”

  175. Hi regular Readers/Contributors (grinning and turning red) I know I told you all that I would try to slow down on the sarcasm, oh but it’s so hard! Just read Chad’s arrogant, bloviating, narscisstic, bordering on meglomanic comments, it’s almost impossible for me to not respond sarcastically.

    Make no mistake, I will not tolerate his slander and lies and misleading of God’s people (or any people for that matter) with this extra-biblical, legalistic doctrine of KJVonlyism, on this site or any other site I catch him on.

    Btw, rabbibts don’t have paws, but it seemed to fit at the time.

    Ain’t God Good!

  176. Chad – You are the Energizer Bunny of KJVonly’s, you keep going and going and going….

    I am tired of your meaningless repetition, do you suppose you are going to be heard because of your much speaking? Matthew 6:7

    Your foolish claims have been examined, refuted and forgotten, move on somewhere else, you have provided nothing new, allow Steve’s ministry to do what it does and help us hurting and abused and recovering IFB’s. You are simply sowing discord. We have examined your claims and they have been found wanting! In fact they are a major part of the reason why folks have been hurt. This ridiculous uneducated allegiance to one revision of one edition of one 17th century anglican translation of the bible into elizabethan english, is hurting people.

    Because you and your pal Riplinger believe in a “pure” line of Greek manuscripts doesn’t make it so, it simply demonstrates the arrogance of two mis-guided people.

    You say “I give no space to those who cannot acknowledge their carnal reactions” This, I think was your funniest line. You come on here proposing the extra-biblical doctrine of KJVonlyism, have your hat handed to you, and then want to talk about “carnal reactions” This statement of yours makes me so glad I got out of fundyism when I did.

    My Lord and Savior and His Apostles quoted scripture all the time, most of those times they quoted from the Greek Septuagint, the KJV translators confirmed this in the preface to the KJV. I am going to break this down so even the energizer bunny can understand. Compare the following few scriptures, I could fill pages but I wouldn’t want your paws to get sore. Luke 4:18-19 with Isaiah 61:1-2 / Luke 10:25-28 with Deuteronomy 6:5 / Matthew 26:31 with Zechariah 13:7 / Mark 7: 6-7 with Isaiah 29:13 / Luke 7:27 with Malachi 3:1.

    I don’t even think the above, which clearly demonstrates that Jesus and the Apostles used manuscripts, that the KJV translators did not, will convince you of anything. Not only did they use them, they accepted them as scripture.

    “There is no deception except self deception” Well there is at least one thing we agree on.

    If you come back, I will be ready, I have several bags of rabbit food.

  177. Chad,
    The problem with your teaching of an inspired KJ-version is that it is totally without Scriptural support. There is no evidence in Scripture for inspiration except in the original manuscripts.
    The obvious fallacy with the KJ-onlyists, is that they start with the presupposition that the KJV is inspired, and then they “back-track” looking for proof to support their position. It should be obvious to everyone that the KJV is not inspired, I mean its not even close. This type of unwillingness to accept obvious facts is symptomatic of people who think with their heart and not with their head. So now we are expected to go on this long circular journey through the wilderness, looking for evidence to support someones fanciful beliefs.
    The real problem Chad, is that you and some others have made this aberrant teaching the capstone of your beliefs. This false doctrine, often times, is more cherished and proudly held by its promoters than the actual truth. The apostle John told us to “remain in the teaching of Christ”. The apostles knew nothing of a KJV, and they certainly did not prescribe a translation that must be accepted above all others.
    Just one other thing, did you know that Peter Ruckman claims there were no schools before 1980 that took a kJ-only position. He sucks up the credit for “enlightening” fundamental baptists. I guess you owe him a huge debt of gratitude for his labor of love. Oh, then there is Jack Hyles, who had an “overnight” transformation. I wonder who caused him to change his mind.

  178. Chad – I also define my faith by the scriptures alone, and I don’t have any illusiions about “perfect” translations confusing my mind.

    I have admitted my sarcasm. I am a mere man who serves an awesome and powerful and wonderful Lord. Please, don’t even try to act as though you haven’t been at least as sarcastic as me. I have said nothing about your “doctorate”

    “When you take an appropriate position” Sir I reject your position completely. You are not the arbiter of truth on this planet, but I know who is, and it is He that I listen to and respond to. Let’s keep this thing honest, we are both supposed to be christians. I have never said that believing the KJV is a superior English version was idolatrous, don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t recall ever saying that I don’t have “knowledge” of the greek manuscripts. It appears, from my perspective that I have a better understanding of the greek manuscripts than you do. Regarding the copies of Greek New Testaments, can you stand just alittle more sarcasm? I slept out in the garage last night, that does not make me a car.

    You stated that you only had “alittle issue with Riplinger” Unlike you calling Dr White a liar, I provided ample evidence of her lying, blasphemous ways. The proof is in the pudding, she has lies all over the “New Age Bible Versions” yes, she can be forgiven, but as of yet I see no proof that she has repented. When KJV man David Cloud pointed out many of her lies in her book of lies “NABV” did she repent? No she slandered him in her follow-up book “Blind Guides” Has she apologized to the Waite’s, of the Dean Burgon Society? No she is threatening to sue them. Your good friend and fellow KJV apologists have a fairly nasty reputation. Yes God can absolutely forgive her, I have done as bad and worse, but I have repented and it doesn’t appear that she has or is going to. You are clearly not one to have anything to say about anyone’s attitude or spiritual maturity level. That is really funny!

    I don’t know what kind of research you have done, but it seems you would do well to study your KJV and try to follow its precepts, I would reccomend studying the fruits of the Spirit to start with.

    1. Dr. Chad Bush, D.B.S.

      Greg,

      I answered nothing you have not stated. So, I am certain all of what was said was directed properly. I do allow people who are not KJVO to follow their faith. I am not a dictator. As I stated multiple times, I have friends who are not of the KJVO persuasion. I do not call them Alexandrian Cult members. I do not name call and bash them. I do point out facts. No, it is clear you do not have an understanding of the Greek Manuscripts. Even people such as Metzger have backed up the findings I present in my research.

      About Riplinger, I know very little about her. So, whatever your issue with her is then so be it. However, I do not know if she and I would be friends. Probably for the same reason I would not know if Ruckman and I could be friends. So, lumping all of us KJVO people together does not work. We only have one thing in common, and that is the belief that there is an appropriate and pure line of Greek Manuscripts that provide the truth and that there is one superior English translation made from that Greek lineage. Westcott acknowledges as much in his Textual History.

      You keep trying to point out my need for studying things such as the fruit of the Spirit, living my life according to the Scriptures that I revere or some other such charge. I just thought I should point out that the only thing I ever pointed out prior to your carnal reaction was your need to actually study the issue more in depth. I never insinuated your walk with the Lord was lacking. Yet, a carnal reaction is a carnal reaction and thus merits pointing out according to the Scriptures. I separate from Baptist brethren for the same reason. I give no space to those who cannot acknowledge their carnal reactions.

      Yes, we are all men. Those who have accepted the sacrifice of Christ are brethren. None of us are perfect. That is why I would not say certain things people like Ruckman or Riplinger would. And for the record, I never said White was a liar. I said he lies in his book. I have the evidence at the mouth of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, Tragelles, Erasmus, Burgon and many others. Some of those lies were where he stated Riplinger was lying. When I ran the references myself in the men’s own books I saw he was out and out lying. If not, then he severely misunderstood and did not look at the quotes closely.

      Brother, if you are saved, then good and well. Use your translation and answer to God for it. However, do not think that I will change where I stand for I have done the research whether you care to acknowledge it or not. I can get into the manuscript evidence more in depth if that is what you desire. However, I do really have more important things to do and I see where this is going. It is a circular position and neither shall give. I can at least part amicably and state that in spite of my disagreeing with you I shall pray for you. I have no need for this continuous banter when I doubt you could truly get into the issue on the level it requires. After all, I have provided facts on certain issues and you decided to focus on something else. A scholar does not jump from point to point. They answer thoroughly the one point before moving on. As I also stated, I have seen the sum total of all the evidence. My position will not change. There is no deception except self-deception in this case, and it is not on my behalf. We shall both answer to God for our every word. God Bless.

  179. Greg and Chad,

    Having waded though the name calling and mud-slinging of recent posts, I’m left with a feeling of disappointment. The disciple of Jesus certainly quarreled among themselves and so often do those who name His name today. But what if to some degree you are both right and you are both wrong? Maybe there is a completely different answer, an answer that would not seek to polarize brethren into positions of combat but would rather unite them in a common quest to know who this God really is. He can best be seen by knowing His Son. The “Word of God” made flesh. Those who knew the Scriptures BEST in Jesus day – missed knowing Him.

  180. I do not need a fight. I know where I stand. As for the charge of idolatry or heresy you and all the other detractors have not proven once Scripturally that such a position is indeed heresy or idolatrous. I define my faith by the Scriptures alone. All else is fodder.

    As for your sarcasm, it is nothing new. It is the same issue I have with Ruckman and Riplinger. It is not godly at all. Actually, sarcasm is a work of the flesh according to the Scriptures. And the “doctor” comment, I had to laugh. I worked on my doctorate just as hard as any other man did. I at least have the common decency to acknowledge the hard work men ave done for such a degree. Either way, it does not nether me. I just find it funny that it is the opposition who always charges those on my side of the fence with being crass, rude or childish.

    So, as I said, that is fine. I do believe many translations are perversions. However, I also believe other translations are just very bad ones. When you take an appropriate position you do not have to stand exactly where Ruckman or Riplinger stand. It is the same reason why I have no issue with studying the Greek and the Hebrew. It is why I have no issue with acknowledging that there are other translations into other tongues that are on par with the KJV. However, believing the KJV is the superior translation in the English tongue is not ignorant, idolatrous or heretical. As a matter of fact, you claim to be taking a stand for the precious Word of God, but you actually acknowledge you have no knowledge of the Greek manuscripts in depth. I own four copies of the Greek NT. One is the Erasmus 3rd Edition. One is The Elzevir Brothers “TR” edition. One is the Westcott-Hort edition. And one is the Beza Second Edition. I study the texts. I do not have to just state something I know nothing about.

    So, use sarcasm all you want. It does not bother me. It is to the Lord we both must answer to for every word which we speak. The question I have though is why even bring Riplinger or Ruckman into it? Did you suppose I agree with their position? Why point out Mrs. Riplinger’s past? If she repented then who are you to judge? After all, Christ forgave the woman taken in the very act of adultery. Every thing you have done has shown me your spiritual attitude and maturity level.

    Remember, I told you in the beginning, I have friends who are not KJV Only. I told you I have friends who insist on using the NIV. I am civil with them and they with me. It seems the real issue is you acknowledging plain facts and data which are confirmed by even those who were not KJV Only authors and scholars. As I stated as well, most of my research was based in the writings of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, Kenyon, Metzger, White and so forth. They prove the case against their own position without any help from anyone.

    So, God bless and and I part ways here. The Bible says to not make friends with an angry man. I separate from “fightin fundamentalists” who behave the same. I do not have to fight. My responsibility lies in keeping my walk in line with the Lord and His Word. So, say what you will, but I stand by my earliest comments in that you know not what you speak of. Look into the manuscript evidence, the Greek readings and the doctrines yourself. I did and found men on both sides hiding facts, twisting facts and lying. At least I did my research though. No one who knows me would deny that.

  181. To all regulars and visitors to Baptist Deception that have followed “Chad’s” and my discussion, I wish to apologize for my sarcastic comments. I don’t want to, but it seems that I am unable to help myself.

    Alot of these “types” come here “itchin” for a fight, you know those fightin fundamentalists. The arrogance that comes off these guys simply drive me crazy.

    Once upon a time (before the internet) they, for the most part, ruled supreme, but now anyone with a modicum of sense, and a computer can fairly easily shut down most of their foolish arguments regarding the KJV as being the only “perfect” word of God. Actually all one has to do is read the KJV translators preface to the KJV and that will refute 90% of their foolishness.

    As usual, let me say that I feel the KJV is a fine translation, for its time, it was excellent, it is God’s word in 17th century, elizabethean English. I am not trying to make anyone read something else, if you are happy with that translation, stay with it. The problem is, and folks like Chad don’t understand this, is that most of us can’t understand this old translation. Regarding this translation issue, I do believe that some of the newer versions are “better” than the KJV translation, this is my opinion. Several of the newer translations come from better, much older, manuscripts and thus are closer in meaning to what the authors were attempting to convey (my opinion)

    Now what I have just said above is quite abit different than what Chad and others of his kind put forth, they would tell you that if you are not reading a KJV that you are reading a perversion, or some other such drivel. You see then, I find myself, not only in a position to defend truth, but now they have come against the Precious Word of God, and I start to get really steamed. There is apparently no way to have a common sense, decent and fair discussion with these folks, its “you’re wrong, I’m right” and that’s all there is to it.

    At any rate I will try to stem my sarcasm, but I won’t make any promises.

    God bless you all.
    Greg

    1. Greg,
      I thought your reply to the “doctor” was hilarious. I think he was trying to intimidate you with his degree, if he actually has one.
      I think it is funny to see these kj-only types get upset when they are not respected as an authority on Bible translations. The only thing I can say for our “doctor” friend is ” better to admit your wrong and swallow your pride, than continue on and prove your stupidity”.

      1. Bob, I never intimidate with my degree. I have great friends who know the Scriptures just as well as I do who have no degree. Your comment is just plain ignorant. All men are my teachers. I do my best to respect all men and to follow the Scriptures. As such, I do not need to be respected for my position. What do I care if you or any other man respects it? That would be like caring if an atheist respected me being a Christian and living by the faith, or like caring if an evolutionist respected my position as a creationist. I have no need to swallow any pride. I have no need to admit I am wrong. The stupidity comment was a nice intimidation tactic though. Equating all the research I have done and all the hours I committed to the issue at hand examining everything on the subject personally with stupidity is an old tactic. Nothing new there. So, be careful who you call stupid. Else ignorance proves itself.

        1. Chad,
          I don’t want you to take the comment about proving your stupidity to personally. I am sure you are a very smart guy. It’s just that being smart doesn’t necessarily mean that you are wise. You are not the first KJ-only person that has tried to pass off the KJ-only teaching as a Bible doctrine. The crystal clear and undeniable fact that the Bible doesn’t teach a KJ-only doctrine is 2,000 yrs. old. Am I to believe that Chad Bush has found some new teaching that Christians are to accept? Well then, tell me which doctrines I have to accept that are not clearly taught in the Bible. If your teaching is to be accepted as Christian doctrine, your preferred version of Holy Scripture is going to have to be revised to include your new teaching. Also, we are going to have to hold world-wide meetings so you can teach us and get us up to speed on the most current Christian teachings.
          Maybe you should pay attention to what godly Christian men have believed for two centuries. With the authority of Scripture, we believe that the Scriptures are inspired by God and are without error in the original manuscripts.

          1. Dr. Chad Bush, D.B.S.

            Bob,

            If I were to suppose that I alone held the answers to all things I would be of all men the most ignorant. No, I do not know all things. However, the issue before you is the belief in a perfect Bible. God did not abandon the people of God with the words He spoke being inspired in only one translation. That is no new doctrine. The apostles and their disciples helped translate the Scriptures into many languages. I have proof that there are those who have held the same position I have for over 2,000 years. One example is the Lutherans in the time after his translation was printed. They affirmed that a translation was as perfect as the originals if they were faithful in their translation. The Waldenses adhered to the same belief. The Genevan Reformers believed the same. So, no, believing that a translation of the originals is perfect and inspired is nothing new. The issue of inspiration is people do not understand it.

            I close with my example. God inspired Adam. That very breath He inspired nearly 6 Millennia ago is still the breath that EVERY copy of Adam today contains. Without that breath we are dead. Even those born with some defect or other such issue is a “mean” copy of the original. Some of us are flawed in one way or another, but we can figure out Adam had certain features based on all of the evidence he has left behind for us. The Scriptures are no different. The Lord breathed into them. If that breath stopped in the originals and does not at the very least carry over in the translations then we have dead Scriptures, not living ones. The Lord Himself said His words are spirit and life. Either we have a perfect translation available or we do not, and if we do not, then we need one fast.Else, we all should learn the Greek and the Hebrew so we can have the Word of God.

  182. I think it is very sad that this issue is causing so much division among Christians.The only good thing is if all these people read their Bible as much as they seem to be upset, then this is a good thing. I received the Lord as my Savior when I was 9. I am now 61. The KJV has always been my guide and faithful companion. It contains every answer to every question of life I have. When I received the Lord, I also had the Comforter come and dwell within. He has many tasks to fulfill in my life. One of them is to enlighten me when I read the Scriptures. The problem with Christians today is they are lazy. It is too much trouble to “study” to show thyself approved. No one wants to look up a word they don’t understand. Or pray and ask for understanding. And yet Christ commands that we do this. In our world today, it’s “I want it now!” Whether it is our food,entertainment,or someone’s else’s spiritual thoughts. We don’t dress to please God. We don’t even want to attend services. Just customize everything to our wants and desires. When all of these translations began appearing, it opened the floodgates for every kook to translate the Bible for his own special interest. We now have the homosexual bible, the satan bible,and bibles that read more like fairy tales. Men and women that have had years and years of college and seminary can’t figure out how to replace thee and thou with you. God says when He returns will He find faith? I think it is going to be so watered down that He will be very disappointed.But I really pray that I am wrong. If one of my loved ones picked up a translation and was able to glean enough from it to receive Christ, then so be it. In Christ,Carol

    1. Carol, you hit a good point here. It’s not the translation, it is the faith and heart of the person who is reading it. I was raised a Catholic, been in that faith for 13years. I received Christ as my Lord and Saviour (I always insist it should be in his order – that’s just me)by my childhood friend and classmate in a Catholic school. In our country there are very very few born again Christian schools so the best place to get top notch education is in Catholic schools. That friend of mine the whole time he is sharing me the Gospel we used the Catholic version of Today’s English Version. I am glad you found the version that truly blesses and ministers to you in KJV. Sadly, a lot of ultra conservative baptists over hear are questioning my salvation because I used the Catholic Bible upon receiving Christ. They told me that there is no salvation in any other bible except the KJV. They also tell me to leave my church because the bible we most prefer using is the NIV.
      So many baptists want to divide the church this way. They are not only militant there in the US, they are also more militant here in the Philippines.
      I keep on insisting that I cannot possibly understand archaic English because that is not our official language. The Filipinos where taught American English when they conquered us in 1898. Up to now that is the English we know. Then comes these “enlightened” baptists (mind you NOT ALL) who say that I am not saved because I cannot understand the KJV, trying to insinuate that they are given a very special gift from God to understand a language no one uses anymore in regular conversation.
      Once a church or a group of people claims exclusivity to a gift of God only they claim to get, that is no different from a cult!
      I hope God finds me faithful despite me being sinful. Because I could have been dead if not for His Grace!

    2. Hi Carol – The issue of bible translation is something that I have personally studied for several years now, even more intensely the last 2 years since I have retired.

      I agree with much of your comment, but do have a couple of questions. You said “We don’t want to dress to please God” I have been a christian for about 45 years now and I have no idea where you can find scripture that tell us how to dress, could you provide a scriptural reference.

      You spoke about “When all these translations began appearing” You do realize that there were at least (5) very good english translations prior to the KJV, don’t you? Are they ok to use?

      As I alluded to earlier, I have been a christian for many years, and yet I have a very difficult time understanding the KJV, you spoke about folks with great educations and sort of implying that they are being disingenious about their inability to understand this type of elizabeathan, 17th century english is very hard to understand. I’ll just give one example and I could provide hundreds, please tell us what 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 means, I gotta tell ya, a dictionary is not gonna help awhole lot on this verse.

      Anyway just some things to consider.

      God Bless
      Greg

  183. There is one important point I would like to mention in regard to the Scriptures. I think most Christians recognize the importance of having God’s revelation in the Scripture. What concerns me is that people equate having their Bible or even having passages memorized to knowing the Bible. Reading the Bible and even memorizing passages doesn’t mean that you “know” the Word.
    Knowing Scripture requires that you actually know what verses and passages MEAN. One really knows the Bible only to the degree that they understand the MEANING of verses and passages, especially as they relate to the whole. What good does it do to simply read and recite verses if the meaning is unknown or even worse, it is misinterpreted and misapplied? No wonder the Apostle Paul said, “study to show yourself approved to God, a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

    1. Bob,

      You bring up a very good point. Not everyone will always read the ‘exact’ same thing in regards to scripture. I was once part of a daily proverbs group. Every morning we would meet together and read the proverbs chapter of the day. We would then go around the group and each discuss which verses actually stuck out to us that morning and explain why they caught our attention. Oftentimes several of us would find the same verse, but for completely different meaning and content in our daily lives. It’s truly fascinating how the scripture can take so many meanings.

      1. Yes, there are certainly a variety of applications that a verse or passage of Scripture may give us.

        The application can only be made though, once the meaning or interpretation of a passage is clear. I cannot apply truth that I don’t know.

        How many times have you heard someone ask “what does this verse mean to you”? Also, someone will say “I just think it means such and such”. But what does it REALLY MEAN? God’s word is not subject to our whims of application. 2 Peter says that no Scripture is a matter of one’s own private interpretation. God really meant something by what He said in every word of Scripture. There is only one right interpretation of every Scripture passage. The right interpretation is the one that agrees with what God meant by what He said.

        I have to admit that I do not know nearly as much of God’s word as I would like to. The Bible is a pretty big book, written by the infinite mind of God. No wonder it says “study to show yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth”.

  184. Alexander – I think that using your logic you should really just go to the original languages, then you would really have to study!

  185. I have read many different translations of the bible over the last 30 yrs of my christian life. I do not agree with the KJV “doctrine” as being the “only” translation to use – not using it to be sin. However, the KJV is the translation of preference for me because of the difficulty of the words and meanings – which cause me to study the text more intently.

    One day I decided to read the preface to the 1611 KJV, and found that it exhalts the king, and has almost a sense of scarcasim by the translators in their “homely” to the king. What’s more is, as I read certain areas of scripture, it became clear to me that, it really spoke to the reader to be “submissive” without question to the “governing” authorities – whether it be the “king supreme” or the “church” leaders.

    There is a fimilar scripture used by many churches, “Obey them that rule over you…” – this is often used to keep people in line like “lords” over a “territory”. The word “rule” means “to lead” – and that by example. I have used this scripture to free myself from the clutches of the modern church, “Come out from among them, and touch not the unclean thing” – which is a more correct use of that scripture.

    I do not have any problem using the KJV, and I have gained a deeper understanding because of it! Hey, if God could use an “ass” to deal with a madman (Balaam), then He can use any translation to deal with those who really want to know God! To the pure all things are pure – to those who are evil… well!

  186. The main concern I have with the KJ-only doctrine is that it is not part of ” the faith once for all delivered to the saints”. See Jude 3. I don’t mean to discredit the KJ translation of the Bible. I think the KJV is an excellent translation, and one that I would use if not for the NASB.
    The problem that is a real concern to me is that beliefs, even in good things, although not Biblical, can present real problems. In 1 Timothy 5, Paul says that some would pay attention to doctrines of demons. Then you notice that these doctrines consist of things like abstaining from certain foods and marriage. These things, by the way, are not bad things by themselves. It is not a sin to give up certain foods or choose not to marry. The problem addressed here has to do with gaining a level of spirituality by doing some special act or sacrifice. These people would become spiritual by doing something God never intended. You know that the consequences of trying to attain spirituality this way are always bad. Holding to some special belief or practice that sets you apart from the common run of men, typically leads to pride.
    Paul also pointed out, in 1 Timothy 1, “instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrine”. The word ” strange” here comes from a word that means “different”. The idea here being that Paul himself had been thoroughly taught Christian doctrine. The body of Christian truth that Paul had received, he in turn passed it on to Timothy. Then Paul recognized that there were some problems with the teaching that was going on in Ephesus. That is apparently why he sent Timothy to Ephesus and told him to ” instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrine”. This strange or different doctrine is ANYTHING that does not exist in Scripture. I mean it doesn’t matter how nice or lovely it sounds, if it isn’t in the Bible, don’t believe it!
    I am amazed how those who hold to the KJ-only doctrine are more zealous about protecting this special teaching, even above other prominent Bible doctrines. I mean, KJ-only people will hardly bat an eye if you are Calvinist or Arminian, pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib, but just mention another Bible translation that you use and watch the fireworks! By the way, there are friends of mine who use the KJV, and I esteem some of them as real students of Scripture, yet there is not one difference in our beliefs based on our Bible translations. I use the KJV myself, mostly as a reference tool, and I have never found a difference in the renderings that changed my understanding of Scripture.
    I like the KJV. I hope you like it too. Just be careful that you don’t go too far.

  187. The basic problem with the KJV-only doctrine is that there is no basis for it in Scripture. There is nothing in the Bible that lends to the idea of a particular translation that must be accepted. The KJV-only doctrine is completely unacceptable as orthodox, because the Scripture itself is a completed revelation.

    That is to say, since nothing can be added to God’s final and complete revelation to man in Scripture, nothing but Bible doctrine is necessary for Christian orthodoxy. The apostles and prophets were the foundation of the New Testament church and were responsible for laying down correct Christian doctrine. All New Testament Christian doctrine had been passed on to the apostles by Christ directly, and by the ministry of the Holy Spirit as well.

    The New testament of Scriptures was completed within the lifetime of the apostles. My point is, if the apostles knew nothing of a KJ version, and they never held a belief that there would be a particular translation that would be necessary to Christian orthodoxy, then you can be sure that you don’t need to accept it either. I mean, don’t you think the Scripture would clearly indicate the translation we should use, if in fact there was one that was necessary, above all others, to hold and believe in. Why don’t we pay attention to what Bible believing Christians have held to for two millennium. With the support of Scripture, godly men have held to the basic Christian belief that ” the Scriptures are inspired by God, and without error in the original manuscripts.” 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 Make sure that you don’t go ” too far” as it says in 2 John 9, but that ” you remain in the teaching of Christ”. Despite the fact that the KJ translation is an old one, the KJ-only teaching is ” new”, especially in light of the fact that God’s completed revelation in Scripture has been completed now for about two thousand years. Think about it.

  188. In a conversation between me and my Maker, I was told that “books were made for man, not man for the books”. The Bible, being a collection of books, is made for man. That to me means that go ahead and fit it into something that makes sense. King James is dead. I think everybody should write their own version, see how hard or easy it is — that way people might actually read it. The original would be preserved, of course. So painful that this has held stiffly for so long. Where is the growth?

    1. The IFBs are exactly what you are trying to say – they do not want growth or change especially when it comes to beliefs they hold dear. To them any change is from the devil.

      Read some of the replies. Someone says here that you do not have Jesus in you if you cannot understand the KJV!

  189. Steve, thanks for writing this about the King James
    Version. I have to side with you on this. I am a born again
    believer, who loves the Lord Jesus and the Word of God. It is sad
    when people claim that the King James Version is the only English
    translation that one must accept… That All other English
    translations of the Bible are of Satanic origin. Or when they
    emphasize that the King James Version is the only “Authorized
    Version” – as if God Himself authorized it. It which I must remind
    people, King James authorized it, not King Jesus. I believe people
    make that claim, out of ignorance without really doing some
    historical studying for themselves. Also may I state that in no way
    am I trying to attack the King James Version. I believe that the
    King James Version is just that – it is a version of the Bible –
    Specifically an Old English version. Here is a fact that very few
    KJV users know. “The Great Bible” back in 1539- was the first
    authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King
    Henry VIII of England to be read aloud in the church services of
    the Church of England. The Great Bible was a revision of the
    Tynedale Bible which was published in 1533. In 1568 Queen Elizabeth
    I authorized “The Bishops’ Bible” which was a revision of the Great
    Bible. In 1611 King James, due to a split in the Church of England
    and out of despise for the Geneva Bible during the The Hampton
    Court Conference it was resolved to translate the Bible. The King
    James Version was originally written with a group of 54 Biblical
    scholars from only Great Britain. They were dived into six groups
    with three groups working on a rendering the Old Testament and the
    other three working on the New Testament. One of the rules in
    translating the KJV was the committees were to follow an older
    translation known as the Bishops’ Bible (written in 1568) “and as
    little altered as the Truth of the Original will permit.” All in
    all, the KJV has only 39% of its language which is unique to
    itself, and over 90% of the New Testament can be found word for
    word in the Tyndale NT which was published in 1525. This means that
    much of the 1611 version was nearly a hundred years old when it was
    first published! Now here is what you end up with- The King James
    Version is really a revision of a revision of an Authorized version
    of the Bishops Bible which is a revision of the Tynedale
    Bible.

  190. Joseph – I don’t know how many of the comments you have
    read above, but many of your questions are answered there. I do
    very much appreciate your interest in bible translation and would
    encourage you to continue to look into these questions you have,
    and as I have encouraged others here, seek out the answers for your
    self, you learn it “better” that way. Bible translation is,
    unfortunately, rather complex and seldom can you find one book or
    resource that will answer all of your questions, so if you want to
    debate about the subject, and there is much to debate, you will
    have to use many resources. Let me suggest that you have nearly all
    you need right at your fingertips, your computer. By the resources
    you mentioned I realize that you have selected at least (2) that
    the authors have virtually no idea of what they speak about and no
    idea about bible translatiion and its transmission down through
    history. Riplinger and Chick, not familiar with Grady. First
    Riplinger used only her initials on her book of lies NABV, because
    she knew that many of the fundamental Baptists she targeted
    wouldn’t take her book seriously because she was a woman, at least
    that is what has been thrown around, and it does seem to have some
    credence, because for some time after the publication of her book
    she kept the fact that she was a woman obscured. She is also on
    husband #3 or 4, all previous husbands living, she also kept this
    fact obscured and even lied about it to anyone dumb enough to stand
    around and listen to her. She and Dr Waite and his wife (head of
    Dean Burgon Society/kjv defender ogranization) are threatening
    suits against each other because Riplinger lied to their faces
    about her multiple divorces and the Waites were some of the first
    to “out” her. She contends God “spoke” to her during the writing of
    NABV and she merely wrote down what He told her “Blashpemy” She has
    lies on every page of this book. Jack Chick publishes either a book
    or article (not sure which) that espouses that there is a secret
    “code” contained w/in the KJV that reveals “secret” messages.” He
    doesn’t specify if it was the 1611 or the 15 revisions of the KJV
    up to 1769. I heard this taught in my IFB church, by my fundamental
    pastor in Sunday School, I walked out of church that day and knew I
    would never go back. I had some other things I wanted to cover but
    have to go off to church. I have 2 questions for you. 1) Where was
    God’s inspired, inerrant, perfect Word in english prior to 1611? 2)
    Did they hang a dead Jesus on the cross of calvary like your KJV
    translation states at Acts 5:30? (if you’re interested this passage
    is properly translated in most new translations) Let me finish by
    saying the KJV translation is a fine 17th century, shakesperean
    english translation, many of us can’t understand it. The
    manuscripts behind the KJV translation are fine (but few,
    especially for the NT) Erasmus worked from about 6 manuscripts,
    modern translators now have thousands of manuscripts to work from.
    If you can understand the KJV translation, read it, love it, preach
    it (don’t worship it though)it is a fine translation and has stood
    the test of time. I am not opposed to the KJV translation, I am
    opposed to KJVonlyism.

  191. This is a misrepresentation of what we believe. We do not
    believe the KJV is the original. We believe that it was preserved
    from the originals, and God promised to preserve his word in Psalm
    12:6-7. That passage in other versions talk about preserving
    people, but in the KJV it talks about preserving words. There are
    just blatant mistakes in the so called better Alexandrian
    manuscripts. If you like the Alexandrian manuscripts what are going
    to do about Mark 1:2 where it says it was “written in the prophet
    Isaiah”, and only half of what is being quoted is from there; the
    other half being from Malachi. The KJV gets it right when it says
    “prophets”, because the two quotes come from two different books of
    the Old Testament. Let me give some other SOURCES for information:
    1. New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger 2. Final Authority by
    Bill Grady 3. Let’s weigh the evidence at chick publications.
    http://www.chick.com

  192. Just for the record. The bethlwimbledon.com link posted on October 30th listed above – is not my post. Another Paul has entered the picture. The link does work for me and looks like it did for Greg also.

    Paul

  193. Katie,

    What’s pathetic about it? You state that you ignore writings that start off with “Bible Perversions” then you claim it’s pathetic. Sounds like you made your conclusion before you even read it. Can you give me a few items on the site that you disagree with and why? What’s biased about the research? Can you break it down without just giving us your opinion?
    Why do you guys think that only your side is unbiased and objective and looks at all the evidence, etc.?

    John

    My comments weren’t based on opinion but on logic and reasoning. Like I said, it’s biased. The author starts with the fallacy of confirmation bias (also known as observational selection) as evidenced by the author’s selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what he already believes while ignoring evidence that refutes his beliefs. It’s a bias that based on prejudice as evidenced by his use of the term “perversions” rather than versions. There are also straw man fallacies scattered throughout the article.

    Well, it appears that you aren’t really interested in discussing it anymore so I’m not gonna waste my time writing more.

  194. John,

    I have to say for the most part I have enjoyed our conversation.

    I have purposely refrained from reccomending books or websites to you in hopes that you would research and find your own resources. You have at your fingertips (your computer) one of the very best tools at your disposal to investigate all of these claims we have discussed. Of course you have biased sites like the one you reccomended above and that I dismantled, but then you do have good sites that calmly, w/out crazy, nasty comments state their position and provide evidence to support it. John there are KJV supporters out there that are not crazy and wild-eyed like Riplinger, Ruckman and Gipp. There are also folks that support the Textus Receptus or the Majority Text (they aren’t the same, thousands of differences between them) and they put forth why they think these texts are better, and they calmly discuss the reasons why they believe what they believe. No offense John but you have gone with the radicals, there are scholarly folks out there that believe similar to you.

    Now that it appears that you are leaving us for awhile, I will lift my self-imposed ban on reccomending sources. First off, I think the best book for you to start on that explains bible translation and textual criticism and variants in manuscripts is James White’s “The King James Only Controversey” He won’t insult your sensibilities and its a very down to earth and enlightening read. The last part of this book is for folks that know some Greek and is way beyond my pay scale. I would also reccomend a website that I just recently came across, the “KJV Only Debate Blog” these guys are very bright and allow for kjvers to join in and share their opinions and several of these folks fully support the Textus Receptus and Majority Text. But if you follow along with these guys you will gain a great education, real nice christian exchange on this site, these folks are alot smarter than me. I don’t mix it up with these folks very much, I just lurk and learn. Last but not least would be the “The KJV Only Resource Center” these are articles by various preachers and scholars, I particularly like and would reccomend Doug Kutilek’s articles.

    It’s odd that I find myself in a position to point out “problems” with the KJV. I feel the KJV is a fine translation. I wouldn’t want anyone to have doubts about their bibles if they are KJV because of something I wrote, that is why I am constantly explaining that you can trust your KJV and that in fact it is the Word of God and can be trusted explicitly. The simple problem being that I, and millions of others have trouble understanding it. While I am not opposed whatsoever to the KJV, I am adamantly opposed to kjvonlyism.

    I want to also come “clean” about something else. I have been back and forth several times on this issue since about 1981. I wanted a quick simple answer and I just could not find it. I finally, about 6 years ago really started to study the matter and arrived at my present understanding about the subject, and I am at a very good place. But the coming clean part is this, the manuscript evidence behind the KJV translation is even better than I originally thought. If someone could put into my hand an up to date english translation based on the Majority Text that would be sweet, btw the NKJV ain’t it!

    So there I’m all fessed up.

    John I wish you nothing but the best and Godspeed.

    In Christ,
    Greg

  195. http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_why_psalm.htm

    ….Psalm 12:6, 7 has nothing at all to do with the preservation of God’s Word. It says nothing for or against it. It does not speak to the issue at all. It is, therefore, wholly irrelevant to the discussion and must not be appealed to as a proof text regarding Bible preservation…

    As for Westcott and Holt:

    http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes.html

    Freqently Assaulted Quotations
    (or “…things have been calumniated”)
    vs.
    Fully Accurate Quotations

  196. Greg, Katie, Bryan and Paul,

    Sorry, I’m once again going to attempt to stay off of here and not reply. Not trying to be rude, I’m spending entirely too much on here and getting too wrapped around the axle. Besides, you guys aren’t going to change my mind and I seriously doubt I’m going to change yours. We’re going to have to agree to disagree. So, if I don’t talk to you guys again, we’ll see each other here, there or in the air.

    God Bless you guys,

    John

  197. Greg,

    Just because I used an article does not mean that I agree with 100% that’s written in it. For example, if you were to write an article on the deity of Christ and make some statements about something else that I might disagree with in the same article (maybe Calvinism, for example), am I to throw out everything you say and not use what I agree with? Can I not use your article for the general statements regarding the deity of Christ?

    Dr. White has given us his opinion, not fact. Maybe a good opinion and even common sensical (not a word, I know) to a degree, but opinion just the same.

    You keep talking about the preface as if that is the final authority on this whole issue. Why can’t you get over the fact that despite some of the things stated in the preface by the translators that could indicate an imperfect translation, their other statements reveal that their attitude toward the Bible is much different than men like W&H’s?

    Now that you’ve attempted to discredit everything in those links (when in reality you’ve only tried to discredit the KJV and it’s, er, followers), would you please comment on the things that it said about W&H, the newer translations, Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, etc? And could you also please try to answer some of the many questions I’ve asked, specifically what I stated in my post from today at 3:56 am? This is not meant to be an insult, Greg, but many times you ignore points I make or questions I have and just go on to new arguments or back to old ones.

    You’ve asked me many times to cite sources and provide evidence. What about you? Can you break these articles down a little better and give me some evidence that backs up your opinion? (Of course, I’m not asking you to break down the entire articles, just a few points would suffice.)

    John

  198. Katie,

    What’s pathetic about it? You state that you ignore writings that start off with “Bible Perversions” then you claim it’s pathetic. Sounds like you made your conclusion before you even read it. Can you give me a few items on the site that you disagree with and why? What’s biased about the research? Can you break it down without just giving us your opinion?
    Why do you guys think that only your side is unbiased and objective and looks at all the evidence, etc.?

    John

  199. John wrote:

    Here’s another site with good info on it.

    http://watch.pair.com/another.html

    John

    John, I don’t see any “good info” on that site at all. Just biased research and opinion. I pretty much ignore the writings of anyone that starts off with “Bible Perversions”. That’s nothing more than a play on words and shows the author’s bias. It’s a pretty pathetic attempt at “info”.

  200. John,

    I think I’ll start with a quote from a “real” scholar. Dr James White from his book “The King James Only Controversy” pg-125 “Yet it is important to point out that asking someone to cite bible verses about an issue of translation is tremendously silly. The issue is one of language and time. English did not exist when the Bible was written. The time difference between the first parts of the Old Testament and the KJV translation is a good 3000 years; between the end of the New Testament and the KJV is about 1,500 years. It is simply irrational to believe that a translation into a language that did not even exist in the days of Moses or Isaiah or the Lord Jesus should define the original readings and meanings of documents written half a world away in a completely different language. It would be like someone translating the Declaration of Independence into a strange dialect found amongst tribes in the South Pacific and then asserting that the form and meaning of the Declaration should be determined on the basis of that language rather than English.”

    This kjvonly material is much like all the rest that I have seen (speaking about the site you reccommended) To start off the preface is nothing but opinion, thats ok hopefully the article itself will show us something. Then going into the bible preservation portion he cites the preface to the KJV and admits that the KJV translators “admits” to the impossibility of a perfect translation. Wait, what’s this, he’s admitting to an imperfect translation? That is about as close to the truth as this article comes.

    He then starts to go into the “work” of David Otis Fuller, who as has been discussed earlier, was very deceptive in using much of a cult leader’s (Benjamin Wilkinson) work “Our Authorized Version Vindicated” in his own deceptive work “Which Bible” half of Fuller’s book is taken nearly word for word from the cult leaders book.

    Boy it would be so nice if the “3 streams” delusion presented here really represented the way the manuscripts came to us.

    Now I’m confused John your article here says that your boy Ruckman is a heretic, so tell me is he or not?
    That is also what I find with kjvonly’s they will attempt to use anything that will support their argument, regardless if the new information collides with the old information. “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” You can’t have it both ways John. Just like you quoting Dean Burgon when it suited you, didn’t know that he had stated that the Gospel of Matthew alone needs to be changed in hundreds of places.

    The article acts as though Erasmus had mountains of manuscripts, when in reality he had only 6-8, and had to use Jerome’s Latin Vulgate to fill in the holes.

    This next one is a big one and easy to find the truth about if you don’t want to take my word for it. This article acts as though the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text are the same, and they aren’t, they differ from one another in thousands of places. A very common kjv only mistake, that once again demonstrates their lack of knowledge of bible translation, or worse their deceptive tactics. Acually I don’t believe most kjvers are trying to be deceptive about this one, they really don’t know and just repeat what they have read.

    I want to finish again by reiterating that I am not opposed to the KJV translation, as a matter of fact it is a good translation. What I won’t stand for is for folks to act as though it is “perfectly preserved” against all other translations, and that all other translations are perversions. For folks that are following this conversation, if your preferred translation is the KJV and you can understand it, keep on keeping on with it, many of us however have trouble understanding this translation and look to other versions to help us understand God’s will for our lives, please don’t deny us this.

    In Christ,
    Greg

  201. Greg and Paul,

    Here’s another site with some good info on it.

    http://watch.pair.com/another.html

    John

  202. Greg,

    Nice red herrings. What do Peter Ruckman’s ‘strange’ private beliefs have to do with the subject at hadn? Nothing. Anyone can take a look at any other person’s personal beliefs and find strange things or things that they disagree with to point out. Do you know why he believes those thigns that you’ve stated above? What about you? Do you have any pet beliefs that you wouldn’t want to share in an open forum? Have you ever made a prediction that didn’t come true? If so, that would make you a false prophet as well.
    Even if he has many things that he believes that are pretty far out, that doesn’t take away from the fact that he knows more about the Bible than you, me, Paul and the site admin combined. Did you read the “Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence” or are you just quoting someone else? (You should read that book.) Can you tell me what pages his quotes about advanced revelation or on? Can you give me the entire quotes that he made on this subject? How many books of his have you read?
    How about W&H? Did you go online and do a diligent search about their beliefs? Ruckman doesn’t have anything on them. At least he attempts to back his beliefs up with the Bible. But I know where you’re coming from. Ruckman’s over-the-top statements and bravado turn people off so much that they won’t take the time to look at the substance of much of his writing and teaching.

    John

  203. Yo Greg, what it T.U.L.I.P.? That could not be the opposite of D.A.I.S.Y.? Hehehehe…Joke!

  204. Paul,

    I didn’t get over to the (bethelwimbledon) site until today, some very good info on this site regarding bible translation, however I would caution all that it is very much a site that promotes calvinism and reformed theology. I have noticed that many that flee radical fundamentalism end up going in that direction, and I’m not sure why. Site Admin even has on this site a John Piper (a calvinist) video, which surprised me, it only has a few comments, so apparently it hasn’t had a great impact.

    What surprises me so much is that this site ministers to folks that have been beaten up by the IFB, which at its core supports near hero-worship of its leaders. So I don’t know why there would be a video with John Piper, a calvinist, on this site. These folks lift up a system of belief started by a man (Calvin)which I believe is far away from what scripture teaches. And talk about worshipping men! Calvin is elevated to the stratosphere! I have grown very tired of what men have to say over the last several years. Men are fallible, including myself. If at the core of a belief system is a man’s name, I immediately become suspicious.

    I have debated calvinsts down through the years and find it quite easy to defeat the T.U.L.I.P. with scriptures. Many of the folks bogged down in this belief system, are just like those bogged down in any man-made belief system, something sounded good, and the people involved seemed nice and “knowing” and they were preaching from the bible, so its gotta be the truth, right?

    If we will spend time in the Word of God we will not fall for the silly teachings of men. The Lord has set me free and I am free indeed. I’ll not be shut up, I’ll not be put in a corner. I will proclaim the goodness and mercy of Jesus to anyone, unlike the teaching of calvinism, Jesus died for every single person on this planet 1 John 2:2 “He is the atoning sacrifice for sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” Hey that will preach.

    I’m thankful that I know Him today and the power of His resurrection. I’m thankful that many years ago he heard alittle boy cry out for salvation, and he wonderously saved me just as the entire new testament teaches. Friend if you are reading this and don’t know Him as your Saviour, He will do the same for you.

    According To His Mercy,
    Greg

  205. Let’s examine this great bible scholar Peter Ruckman today by his own statements.

    1) In his “gulp” book “Christian Handbook of Manuscript Evidence” Ruckman claims that “mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are *advanced* Revelation.” Is Ruckman a great scholar and to be trusted?

    2) Ruckman says that he doesn’t believe a baby becomes a living soul until she is born and breathes her first breath. God’s precious Word says “before you were formed in the womb I knew you.” Do you want this man counselling your 16 yr-old daughter, if God forbid, she has found herself in the unfortunate position of being pregnant? Do you trust this man as a great, or any kind of scholar?

    3) Ruckman believes in UFO’s and blue aliens with blue blood, black aliens with green blood and gray aliens with clear blood. Christian do you want to trust this man to teach anything, much less the complicated area of bible translation history?

    4) Ruckman believes that the CIA has implanted brain transmitters in children, old people and african americans and that the agency operates underground alien breeding facilities. Would you trust this man to teach a Sunday School class of 1st graders?

    5) In 1997 he stated that Janet Reno had a hit list and that he was on it. He predicted that he would be “knocked off” by a government “hit squad” in the next 2-3 years. Well its 13 years and he is still out and about spilling hatred and lies wherever he goes, so the only kind of prophet he is, is a lying prophet! Do you want this man living next to you?

    After seeing what this man believes and says do you consider him a great scholar and respect his teaching and knowledge? Would you seek out a man that has the ideas and beliefs of this man and then set at his feet and listen and take to heart “anything” he says much less about the complicated study of bible translation and it transmission down through history?

    Greg

  206. John,

    In 90% of the new testament readings are identical word for word regardless of manuscript family. Of the remaining 10%, most of the differences between texts is fairly irrelevant, such as callng “The Lord Jesus Christ” instead of “Jesus Christ” or putting the word “the” before a noun. Less than 2% would significantly alter the meaning of a passage , and none would contradict or alter any of the basic points of christian doctrine. What we have, then, is a dispute concerning less than one-half of 1% of the bible. The other 99.5% we all agree on!

    I found the above at (http//www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm)

    This is a pretty good site. I especially like that they show you the “actual” 1611 KJV bible. (most kjvers have never seen this “perfect” bible) They also show you where the translators use references to the apocrypha and also they show you where in the original printing of the 1611 the translators show “alternate” readings from other manuscript readings demonstrating once and forever that the translators were not “inspired” otherwise why show alternate readings?

    Greg

  207. Greg and Paul,

    Please see the attached link. Before you read it, know that the author is not a Ruckmanite or KJV Onlyist. He actually agrees with you Greg, on the KJV being in error in Acts 12:4. He gives some good history behind our translations.

    http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/does-it-matter-which-bible-is-used-for-bible-study.html

    Oh yeah, I tried to view that link that you posted above, Paul, but it was blocked as pornography on my work computer.

    John

  208. Greg,

    Don’t know why you keep bringing Acts 12:4 up, but as stated several times before, the use of the word Easter in Acts 12:4 is clearly not an error in the KJV. Using your own method to prove or disprove it (i.e. the concordance), I showed that Easter or Passover can be used.

    You really haven’t commented on my reference to almost all of the new versions agreeing far more than they disagree. (And for the sake of our discussion, I’m specifically referring to the NIV and NWT.)

    John

  209. Paul,

    I tried to go to the above link on my work computer, and it was labeled pornography and blocked. Strange.

    John

  210. Greg,

    I’m asking the questions for your sake, not mine. The manuscripts used to make the T.R. did not originate in the 10th century.

    I hate to agree with you, but I do on the subject of the attitude of many KJV onlyists. The fact is that I greatly respect Ruckman and his teaching and knowledge of the Bible, but I think his methods have created far too many copycats that don’t have 1/10 of his knowledge. I also think that he’s hurt his own cause and that he’s alienated too many Christians.

    W&H were just two men, but they are probably the two most prominent men that have contributed to all these new versions. And I have to disagree with you, their work can be directly linked to the new versions. And I have included links above with many of their quotes as evidence of their attitude toward doctrine and the Word itself. Origen is another one to look at.

    Paul, I’ll try to check out the link later. Gotta go.

    John

  211. Please read articles “Septuagintophobia” and “Dangers of KJV Onlyism or KJV Perfectionism” which are relevant to the discussion. They are found at http://bethelwimbledon.com and follow links of titles in right hand margin.

    I hope you find them helpful.

    God bless,

    Paul

  212. John,

    Good questions all in your first paragraph, I am suggesting that you seek the answers yourself, they are relatively easy to run down and it will be good for you.

    I don’t like them because they don’t demonsrate any love or fruits of the spirit. (Ruckman/Gipp) Both go out of their way to malign and slander good men of God. If you like and support their brand of christianity, then that’s your right.

    I am unsure what to make of this ongoing interest about Wescott and Hort. I don’t totally “accept” them. While I certainly appreciate their efforts in providing us a “good” greek new testament, I don’t see how that equates to a “total acceptance” of them.

    Please don’t just throw out that there is ample evidence to show that W&H didn’t “respect or reverence” the Word and then provide none. (evidence)

    I am going to say this for the last time, at least to you. W&H have nothing to do with the new translations.

    Already discussed the NWT, not sure about the CEV (easy to check though). BTW most bible translations have very in depth prefaces, that will explain how and where their translations come from. So back to the question at hand, and I will speak regarding the NIV since that is the version that I am most familiar with. The NIV does not agree with the KJV because it uses different, vastly older manuscripts. Many scholars think they are better because they had many more manuscripts (thousands) to check from and to verify the veracity of each passage, where Erasmus only had 6-8 manuscripts. Also serious scholars don’t like the fact that often Erasmus had to refer to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate for many passages, most scholars reject the latin for the preferred greek texts.

    Again the last question is the easiest, the KJV and the NKJV are essentially based off of the same family of manuscripts, however the NKJV fixes obvious mistakes from the KJV like changing Easter to Passover at Acts 12:4.

    God Bless,
    Greg

  213. Greg,

    Why didn’t Erasmus have them? Where were they from the 3rd century (or whenever) until they were ‘discovered’ by the more modern translators? You state that the manuscripts used to make the T.R. came from the 10th century, but they had to be based on something from an earlier time. They did not originate in the 10th century.

    No attempt to bait, Greg, just trying to get you to think about your virulent dislike for men like Ruckman and Gipp because you don’t agree with their methods or conclusions and your seeming total acceptance for men like Wescott and Hort, when there’s ample evidence that they never respected or reverenced the Word to begin with. Why would we trust men like them and Origen to give us an ‘accurate’ translation?

    Sorry, I thought my second paragraph was fairly direct. The NIV, NASV, NWT, CEV, etc. agree in the vast majority of places. (I am especially referring to the passages and verses that are in the KJV and not in these translations.) On the other side of the coin you have the KJV and NKJV, which agree in the vast majority of places. I think you’ll find that most newer translations come from basically one version of the Greek, even though they may not render every word or verse the exact same. Which version of the Greek was it? (Yes, I know, they used a whole bunch of manuscripts when doing their work, but if you do the research, you’ll find that it probably boils down to one Greek translation.)

    Thanks for keeping things, uh, not personal. Like I’ve told you before, just because I strongly disagree with you on this does not mean that I can’t respect you.

    John

  214. John,

    I’m not sure I know what you mean when you say that I give the benefit of the doubt to men like Wescott and Hort, I’m not giving them anything, I’m attempting to answer Paul’s question about “what my take is on Wescott and Hort.” I arrived at my conclusions based on how they conducted themselves in their personal lives and by their great body of work.

    In light of my “new” attempt to not get personal, I am striving not to take this Ruckman bait, so I will simply say that I have expressed my opinion about him clearly and don’t need to go any further.

    Not clear what you are saying in your 2nd paragraph.

    I am going to suggest that you research your own question regarding the manuscripts used by Erasmus.

    If you will look way back in our discussion, I stated that older does not mean necessarily better, however with that said, imagine a manuscript 700 years younger than those that Erasmus used, that’s 700 years of less chance of scribal errors. See what I’m saying. The manuscripts that were used by Erasmus had to be copied for hundreds of more years, thus more chances for mistakes in copying.

    I have said multiple times if you contend that the manuscripts used by W&H were corrupt please provide some evidence for this. Again new translations are not based on their work.

    Boy the last one is easy. Erasmus didn’t have them to use, thats why he didn’t use them.

    According to His Mercy
    Greg

  215. Greg,

    Why do you give the benefit of the doubt to men like Wescott and Hort and not to men that disagree with you? (I’m speaking specifically of your reference to them as “good men of God.”) Sure, Ruckman can be hateful, but what if he was that way because he feels that strongly about defending the Word of God as he sees it? (Mind you, I’m not defending his approach.)

    I’d say that the vast majority of new versions agree fairly closely, as opposed to the KJV and NKJV, especially in verses and parts of verses missing. So, Wescott and Hort’s work had influence on far more than just the NWT.

    What manuscripts did Erasmus use, and what were they based on?

    The logic that W&H had more, older manuscripts to work with, ergo, their translation would be closer to the original isn’t necessarily true. What if all those extra manuscripts they had to work with were corrupt? And why didn’t Erasmus use them?

    John

  216. Paul,

    Ahh, Wescott and Hort, the two favorite whipping boys of the kjvonly’s. I have stated in many posts that never have two good men of God been so maligned, misquoted and lied on as these two fine men.

    What they are famous for, of course is attempting to restore the original texts of the new testament and that effort appeared in 1881. The other famous attempt, of course many years before resulted in the Textus Receptus.

    Wescott and Hort knew as we still know today that Erasmus only had 6 manuscripts to work from, so you end up having “unique” readings like “Book of Life” at Revelation 22:19 instead of “tree of life” as most modern translations read. There are no greek manuscripts that read this way! Also Erasmus (1) manuscript of Revelation didn’t have the last six verses so he back translated from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate into greek for those last six verses.

    Wescott and Hort relied heavily on Vaticanus and Sinaticus, which were much older than anything that Erasumus had to work from, in later years it was found that both of these had their share of problems, as do all man-copied manuscripts.

    What is funny is kjvonlys are always attacking these good “fallible” men, as though they have something to do with the KJV. The only modern version that is based on their work is the Jehovah’s Witness (cult) “New World Translation” which to be completely fair was edited heavily to put in their foolish beliefs. Most new versions follow the Nestle/Aland 27th edition, 1993.

    Let me finish by saying this Samuel Gipp is a guy I have a hard time with, he continues to slander these two good men misquoting them in the same vein as a Riplinger or a Ruckman. In fact have a look at his website, he’s as nasty as they come. I have a difficult time finding any fruits of the Spirit when I look at his website or his books.

    In the end Wescott and Hort are two men trying to do some good work for the kingdom, they weren’t perfect and neither is their greek new testament, after the original autographs became dust, God allowed men, in all of our imperfections to copy and print his precious words, it is actually easy to take multiple hundreds of manuscripts and compare them and see the scribal errors and omissions and everyone, at least english speaking people can be sure of having God’s Word in reliable translations.

    Greg

  217. Paul,

    I say somewhat, because they were both professing Christians and I really didn’t know their hearts. But using some of their own statements, a person could infer that they differed greatly from your average evangelical, NT Christian in their beliefs.

    http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

    John

  218. I’m asking either of you or anybody.

    John how would you somewhat agree with the second statement.

  219. Paul,

    Are you asking me or Greg? I would agree somewhat with the second statement.

    John

  220. What’s your take on Wescott & Hort?

    From Samuel C. Gipp’s book, “An Understandable History of the Bible,” he states the following:

    “On one side, their supporters have heralded them as great men of God, having greatly advanced the search for the original Greek text.
    On the other side, their opponents have leveled charges of heresy, infidelity, apostasy, and many others, claiming that they are guilty of wreaking great damage on the true text of Scripture.”

  221. John,

    I could check my library (don’t think regal here, just a bunch of volumes I’ve collected through the years, stored in my basement) but I believe that is the only volume that I have and that I have read completely, however Ruckman (hate to even type his name) is all over the internet, so I have read bits and pieces and have seen real scholors like James White destroy his lunacy, so I am very familiar with his “work” – deception would be a better descripter.

    Do you defend all of the fowl things he says with a lighthearted “oh that’s tongue in cheek?” This man is actively harming the body of Christ! Just as you and I have disagreed over the translation issue, we have remained civil toward one another as christian brothers should, not PR. He rails against some of the finest men on this planet, wonderful christian men that have spent their lives serving our Lord! (most serious kjvers distance themselves from this renegade)

    I try to be as careful as I can about judging people, of course coming from the IFB I have always heard “bless God I’m not judging anyone, but I sure can inspect the fruit” So by that line of reasoning, I can’t see any fruit from him to hint that he even knows our Lord, much less knows anything about the bible! Remember what Jesus said, Matthew 7:23 “Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!”

    I want nothing to do with PR, I care nothing about what he has written, just as I wouldn’t give any credence to a book by Osama Bin Laden about about civil government. PR has disqualified himself, by his own actions, he has nothing to share of any validity with anyone regarding bible translations.

    I feel very concerned for you that this sower of discord has “wormed” his way into your mind!

    Greg

  222. Greg,

    Besiade the aforementioned commentary on Revelation, have you read any of Peter Ruckman’s books? His statement concerning throwing the Greek and Hebrew out is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The statement is a bit of a jab at people who are always saying, “This rendering in the KJV is wrong. The ‘original’ Greek reads……” The people that say this have no ‘original’ and never will. They’re trying to base their opinion (and your faith in God’s Word) on a complete misnomer. That is the ‘Greek’ and ‘Hebrew’ he’s referring to.

    Sorry if I was confusing with my question about the Catholic Church’s role in maintaining copies of manuscripts and versions. I wasn’t trying to imply that you’re sympathetic Catholicism.

    John

  223. John,

    Question #1 – I have never undertaken an independent study of the Catholic churchs’ role in scripture preservation, however I do know that catholic monks faithfully copied the scriptures for “centuries” prior to the time of the printing press, somewhere along the 1500’s.

    Question #2 – Asked and answered. Anyone who states that “if the greek and the hebrew don’t match the KJV throw out the greek and hebrew” has lost any right or ability to tell me anything about bible translations. Peter Ruckman sows discord among the brethern.

    Final thought. Just because I recognize the Roman Catholic Church’s role in preserving scripture, don’t think for a moment that I support their church and their practices. The bible translation that you hold so dear would have not come about without Roman Catholics.

    Greg

  224. Greg,

    Have you ever researched the Roman Catholic Church’s role in Scripture preservation?
    I beg to differ with you on Ruckman’s books being ‘junk’. I’ve read several of his books, and I’ve yet to find someone who understands the Bible itself better (I’m not talking about the different versions debate). How many of his books have you read?

    John

  225. There was some discussion earlier about just when did this kjvonly business start. That is what I would like to discuss today.

    Actually prior to 1970 you can find virtually no one that held strongly to a kjvonly view.

    Benjamin Wilkinson wrote a little noticed book in 1930 called “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated” Some years later you had J.J. Ray’s book “God Wrote Only One Bible” which heavily plagarized Wilkinson’s book, then you had Peter Ruckman’s “The Bible Babel” which relied heavily on Ray’s book. These all were little noticed and made little impact, until 1970 when David Otis Fuller’s “Which Bible” came out, then folks dug up Ray’s and Ruckman’s books and they began to have more of an impact.

    Fuller’s book was a compilation of various (11 other authors) writers, all supporting the KJV, of course several did not hold to the same radical views as did Fuller. Fuller’s main contributor was Benjamin Wilkinson, he used 146 pages of Wilkinson’s book, nearly 10 chapters of Wilkinson’s book, which comprised 46% of his (Fuller’s) own book!

    On page 174-175 of Fuller’s book he says of Wilkinson that he was a “scholor of the 1st rank and taught at an obscure eastern college.”

    Would you like to know what that small eastern college name was? Try “Washington Missionary College” which is a 7th Day Adventist (CULT) training school. Wilkinson served as president of that school for several years!

    In the “acknowledgements” section of Fuller’s book he say “Some of the writers are with the Lord now having faithfully served as earnest contenders for the faith once delivered to the saints”

    So we have this “great” baptist pastor (Fuller) write a book and use a 7th Day Adventist (CULT) leader for half of his book then purposely commit a fraud against christian people and obscure this fact. Then other nuts, think Ruckman and J.J. Ray with their junk books get picked up, and voila, you have the kjv only movement sprung to life in about 1970.

    Just as I think it is so hilarious (and sad) to have uneducated IFB pastors stand in their pulpits and rail against “them catholics” when they have Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest to thank for their new testaments, it is just as hilarious (and sad) that they have a high-ranking cult leader (Wilkinson) to thank for the modern kjv only movement!

    The fundy church I left actually had tracts by Fuller, based on his book “Which Bible” as well J.J. Ray’s disinformation, all stemming from the cult leader Wilkinson’s book “Our Authorized Version Vindicated”

    Sad but true.

    1. Here’s a great book about how KJV Only-ism got started. I’ve read it and highly recommend it:

      “J. Frank Norris and His Heirs: the Bible Translation Controversy”
      by Doug Kutilek

      it can be found here:
      (Link removed by Site Moderator – if you are interested in advertising your bookstore please contact us for more information. Thanks)

      1. chad-humblethinker

        hmmm…. I just read some of the posts below and wanted to make it clear that my previous post above is not the Dr. Chad making posts below…
        chad

  226. Ys know, I didn’t have these problems in my previous life.
    Sorry John,

    Greg,

    Can you shoot me the link?

    Paul

  227. Paul,

    An absolutely fantastic bible resource is the “Net Bible” just google and be amazed! There are so many notes, it is incredible! I don’t know a resource that’s any better. If a verse is “missing” or alittle differnt from the KJV they actually tell you which manuscripts had them and which didn’t and explain why the translators chose the wording that they did. You can look up the words in the greek and hebrew with just a click of the mouse. There are features too numerous to mention. Everytime I use it I feel like I should be paying for it, it is that amazing!

    Greg

  228. Paul,

    I don’t know much about computers. I clicked on the above and typed a message and I couldn’t figure out how to send it, anyway, I couldn’t find the site that I was speaking about. I think it was simply the NIV”s official site (www.biblica.com) The day that I saw it they had a big headline saying something like “An NIV translator answers your questions” I looked at it briefly today and it has some great stuff on it, (maybe they change it around daily) anyone seriously looking into translation issues could learn much if they look at this site.

    Greg

  229. Sorry, Paul, it was Greg that found the web site.

    John

  230. John,

    You stated – “I found a cool website….
    Can you shoot me the link? [email protected]

  231. John

    I understand your question, and you have asked simimlar questions before, and again let me express to you that I feel inadequate to answer some of these questions.

    The Roman Catholic priest, Erasmus, worked on a brand new greek text which ultimately the KJV translators used to give us the KJV.

    The Textus Receptus (TR) is a succession of of printed greek texts. It was first printed in 1516, the 2nd in 1519, there were several other “editions” as well. The TR is condsidered a late Byzntine text and it differs from the majority text in over 2000 places, oftentimes kjvonly’s will use TR and Majority text interchangably, as though they are the same, which they are not.

    Erasmus had only 6 manuscripts to work from, they all dated to around the 12th century or later. Erasmus did not include the “Comma Johanneum” (if you are not familiar, you need to look it up) until his 3rd edition of the TR in 1522. He was pressured into including it, however he remained convinced that it did not belong to the original text of 1 John.

    I looked back at your question and realized that my above “answer” is not adequate. There are mountains of litereature that will answer your questions. In trying to find answers today, I found a cool website that has one of the NIV translators answering questions about that particular version.

    Hope this has helped some.

    Greg

  232. Greg,

    Read the articles, and the information in them for the most part, was information that I know (in a general sense). I knew there were revisions (or versions, if you like) of the KJV, but I’m not so sure there are 26. Speaking of which, what were the corrections made in all of those revisions?

    While he’s somewhat right about many KJV onlyist’s knowledge of textual criticism, he’s not 100% right. Many of us do not take the time to flesh these arguments out thoroughly, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some very knowledgeable men that understand this subject well.

    What the author does not address in-depth are 1) Satan’s attack on the Word, and 2) translators’ motives.

    John

  233. Greg,

    Translation was probably the wrong word. Maybe interpretation or version or edition would be a better word. I’ll try to read those articles when I get a chance.

    I understand that B, and Aleph and A, etc. are considered to be much older than the manuscripts used to translate the KJV, but where did those manuscripts come from (from which the KJV was translated)? If they’re from the 10th century, they must be based on something earlier than that.

    John

  234. Is there any scientific/archeological/historical proof/documentation that the manuscripts used by the KJV are the most accurate? Same as the NIV?

    I am also curious: why is it a lot of IFBs have the hots for the NIV where in fact there is a far far far worse bible in English – the NWT!

    Is is because it is the most popular version?

  235. John,

    I just finished reading one of the articles on textual criticism that Paul recommended, its from his Oct 10th post, there are three listed, click on the first one, less than a 10 minute read, wish I would have had this little “primer” when I started into this complicated study of bible translations. I was pretty excited how this guy kinda takes the newbie by the hand and gently leads them into the water of this fairly complicated subject.

    I immediately thought about you so I came right back over here to leave this message. I’m headed back over now to read the other two. Let me know what you think.

    Greg

  236. John,

    Again, good questions all. I also realize my inadequacies in attempting to answer your questions about Codex Vaticanus. So by all means “study” it for yourself.

    First off, it is not a translation. It is a manuscript. Now as to its author(s) best I could find this morning using the internet and my reference material at my home is that (3) different scribes worked on it, however, again, its much older that any KJV manuscripts, going all the way back to the 4th century.

    The general consensus among “modern scholars” is that it is contains an excellent greek new testament.

    I must also tell you that Dean Burgon didn’t like it at all. He was actually allowed to examine it in 1860. He considered it to be a corrupt text.

    Answering these questions also helps me learn, for instance, I never realized that Burgon was actually allowed to view and handle the codex, also, you will often see it (codex vaticanus)referred to as “B”

    Another bit of trivia I found out today while briefly looking into this, was that in 1809 Napoleon brought the manuscript to Paris where it stayed for a few years and was then returned back to the Vatican Library in 1815.

    As far as being concerned over roman catholic influences on “our” bible translations and manuscripts, remember that catholic monks copied the vast majority of the “Byzantine” manuscripts in the centuries prior to the reformation.

    In Christ,
    Greg

  237. What great news to awake to this morning, on the front page of our local newspaper is an article about Google is going to put the Dead Sea Scrolls online for everyone to view! The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls about 60 years ago was one of the most important archaeological finds of the last century. The article goes on to say that scholors will include translation and interpretatiion as well.

    The Dead Sea Scrolls have over 30,000 seperate fragments and over 900 biblical texts, also included are relegious writings back to the time of Jesus. It contains nearly a complete copy of Isiah and many of the Psalms, also the earliest know copy of the ten commandments. This copy of the book of Isiah is 1000 years older than any other known copy.

    Manuscript reliability and textual criticism have taken a giant leap forward with this find, proving that our (bibles) are completely reliable. Kjvonly’s don’t be afraid, these ancient archaeological treasures follow closely with the masoretic texts.

    God’s Good,
    Greg

  238. Greg,

    Sorry, I wasn’t trying to sound too impatient with my comment regarding thinking critically.

    John

  239. Greg,

    Sorry, I wasn’t trying to sound too impatient with my comment regarding thinking critical.

    John

  240. Greg,

    I’ve tried to tell you many times over, but I’ve thought critically for a long time. Not sure that I’ve ever been one to believe everything I’ve been taught. I like to check things out for myself.

    If I continue to post on here regularly, I will also try to keep things from being personal.

    Named Vaticanus and kept in the Vatican, I wonder who created this translation. Who recognizes it as one of the best Greek N.T. texts? Which leads to another question: who determines which translation is a ‘good’ translations? And what criteria do they use?

    I see what you’re saying about studying the ‘science’ of textual criticism, but you’re still going to get one of two general opinions on the subject. Some believe one family is closer to the ‘original’ and some believe the other is closer.

    John

  241. Katie,

    I too believe a healthy debate and discussion can be used for learning. Had I saw that here I would have answered differently. I’ve been around this too long and have found that there are few if any healthy debates concerning KJVonlyism. This too often becomes an all out war. It’s the matrix.
    If I were holding an object in my hand and had a white-knuckled grip on it, and you came along and tried to pry my fingers apart to release my grip. What would I do. I’d grip tighter. There are several areas of my belief system that I seek to be “open handed.” I am continually looking for someone or something to prove me wrong in these belief. If someone is only passionately defending their position, they are holding tight and are not interested in looking outside their box. While I might be passionate about what I do believe (and I am), I cannot passionately try to change someone else’s beliefs. If they are seeking truth, truth will be found. It has to be wrestled from within the individual not from without. My past experiences with IFB preachers and their HARD preaching (and I loved getting around those who preached the hardest) has been that their delivery has been loud, manipulative, loud, intimidating, loud, and coercive in an effort to conform their hearers to their dogma. What ever happened to that still, small voice?

    I though the later part of your post was right on. I often use other versions just for the simple reason that it may expand my thought(s) on a certain passage. It lets me see it in a little different light. It really is about knowing Him. And that – I do desire.

    I hesitate to post this. I hope I haven’t gotten myself into too much trouble with you. I’ve got a kid named Katie.

    God Bless,

    Paul

  242. Greg,

    You may already be familiar with this guy. He is studied in Koine Greek. Sharp guy.
    Here are a few items he has on his web site. The first in on Textual Criticism, the second deals with Translations, and the third the KJV. They are short and therefore not exhaustive. The third article on the KJV he talks about the KJV1611 – which I believe is available in reprint as I do have a copy. It will be good reading for others also.

    http://www.freelygive-n.com/uploads/Textual_Critcism_-_Imbed_Link_-_Bold_etc.pdf

    http://www.freelygive-n.com/uploads/Translations_and_the_Bible_-_Imbed_Link.pdf

    http://www.freelygive-n.com/uploads/KJV_and_the_Bible_-_imbed_link.pdf

    Paul

  243. John,

    You are starting to ask some good questions, and whether you know it or not you are beginnng to think “critically.”

    I really don’t have time or space to give these last several questions the attention they need, but I actually believe it would do you good to seek out the answers for yourself. No serious kjvonly’s deny the dating of KJV manuscripts to around the 10th century, including David Cloud and the Dean Burgon Society. I remember well when I started to look into this and I found out how youthful (relatively speaking) the manuscripts were that supported the KJV, I was quite surprised.

    Codex Vaticanus is not a “catholic manuscript” it gets its name “Vaticanus” because it’s housed at the Vatican Library, that’s all. It is recognized as one of the best Greek texts of the new testament. So keep asking those good questions and then later when you encounter the ignorant kjvonly and he starts in about those wicked “catholic Vaticanus manuscripts” your eyes will glaze over just as mine do now.

    I am going to attempt to stop being quite as personal in my posts with you and try to get “above the fray” if you will, I really do not want to present a wrong christian example to anyone. I know I didn’t do that real well in this post, but I’m going to try.

    Just a final thought. Study the “science” of textual criticism.

    In Christ,
    Greg

  244. Katie,

    I very much agree with you that alot of people learn from debate, it really fleshes out both sides of an issue, then a perceptive person can go out and study the strengths and weaknesses of those positions. This is actually what I strive for.

    I must agree with Paul as well that there has been plenty of “light” on this site so unless folks have become kind of disillusioned with their current “beliefs” on this issue, they just mostly come to fight. I was just remembering about some of my face to face “confrontations” with kjvonly’s and I can distinctly remember them not even paying attention to my points, and for the most part not even attempting to answer, just getting ready to lob another intelligent bomb on me “Oh yea, well God has used the KJV for over 400 years now” And I’m thinking are you kidding me? Don’t they know or realize that God used Jerome’s Latin Vulgate for 1200 years prior to the KJV, and around and around it goes. Trying to defend the Word of God is like running out in front of a mature african lion and crying don’t hurt him, don’t hurt him. God will preserve His Word, He doesn’t need you or I to do that! It’s folks that venerate one translation over another that we must be careful about. The bible says (pick your version) We must worship God in Spirit and in Truth, I don’t worship ink and paper!

    Hey Katie, tks for your intelligent comments. Isn’t is wonderful to know Him and the Power of His resurrection?!!!! I love Him today!

    In Christ,
    Greg

  245. Paul,

    You bring wisdom and a slightly different view to the debate and I appreciate it.

    Your comment comparing some of the debate to a dog chasing his tail seems pretty appropriate. You apparently have followed along so you know that I am consistently trying to get folks to study and read and find things out for themselves.(The sense of the scriptures, as the KJV translators say) Your “clone” comment was also right on target, I have said several times that I don’t want anyone to think like I do, I want them to think for themselves. of course, the kjvonly leaders don’t want anyone actually “thinking” critically about the issues. Gail Riplinger in her latest trashy book “In Awe of Thy Word” is teaching the faithful not to even use Greek and Hebrew resources, she’s getting closer and closer to Peter Ruckman. I have even gone so far as to “not” reccomend some resources so as not to try and unduly influence others to my way of thinking, hoping that if they are truly searching, God will lead them into the truth.

    You brought up the “New World Translation” This is not actually a translation, this is the KJV with changes made to support the Jehovah’s Witness Cult. (basically)

    I would submit that use of a particular bible translation is not a “Doctrine” at all, or at least it shouldn’t be.

    Haven’t had a chance to look at the new Geneva bible site, I’ve been busy. Try to get to it today.

    In Christ,
    Greg

  246. Greg,

    As for the debate on this site, the non-KJVonly position is well stated. Unless someone has become disillusioned with their current setting, they only come to fight. There’s enough on this site for those who come questioning or searching for light – then the dialogue becomes beneficial. If someone is interested in sorting this out, – great. We’re not asking anyone to embrace this, only consider – then parse it out with God.

    Paul

  247. Greg,

    Loved what you said about Tyndale and others. The documentary sounds great.
    I enjoy looking back before the KJ 1611 to see what earlier men were saying. I came across this a couple of years back and have enjoyed the comparisons.

    Though I’d pass it on your way.

    6 version comparison – free .pdf download
    An interlinear comparison of the following in modern English:
    John Wycliffe, John Purvey, William Tyndale 1526, 1534, Geneva, and KJV
    http://www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html
    Scroll down to the following:
    Click Here For The Excellent 6 Version New Testament Comparison of the Bible Versions Before, During And After The Reformation By Clayton G Porter

    Paul

  248. Paul,

    I had recorded a documentary on William Tyndale some weeks ago and just recently set down to watch it. Tyndale’s heart for the people and his extreme desire to reach the masses with the precious word of God in English really touched and stirred my soul. Its sometimes difficult for me to have alot of patience with people who come along and essentially “trounce” on these great men of God who came before us and to dismiss their amazing contributions to the cause of Christ and to the development of the English bible.

    In the article above, which was great by the way. It stated that “Tyndale’s assessment of the problem was that the scriptures were hidden from the eyes of the people – clergy covered up their abominations by hiding the scripure from the people’s eyes and darkening the right sense of the scriptures by their fallacious arguments.” Hmm, Sounds awful familiar. I’m not quoting the whole statement but you can surely understand what he was getting at. Please read the entire article for yourself, as a matter of fact it should be required reading for anyone responding on this blog!

    Wonderful stuff there about being a servant. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords, born in a barn, rode into town on a donkey. My, My what a Saviour. How haughty and proud much of our worship has become, God forgive us, God forgive me!

    Fantastic info on how alot of that “high church” language made it into the KJV.

    I just want folks to open their eyes and brains and do some reading and studying. I’m not trying to take anyone’s KJV from them. I just want this foolish kjvonly business to stop, it does nothing but divide the body and sow discord.

    Even So Come Lord Jesus,
    Greg

  249. Paul wrote:

    So to try to argue or debate with someone to change their doctrinal position in this matter is just plain stupid. I am not going to try to convince anyone that they are right or wrong. This has to be argued / dialogued in the context of a relationship – not with me or other men – but with God Himself. If all I do is sway someone to think the way I do, I’ve gained nothing but a clone of myself. But, if God wins in this and frees someone to live in the reality of whom He is, than transformation and true freedom can come.

    I like what you wrote Paul, but I couldn’t disagree more with the section I quoted. Debate for a lot of people is about learning. I argue and debate so that I can learn. As I discuss the issues and keep an open mind I learn about what God wants for my life. Debate and healthy discussions, like the ones above, are exactly what I need.

    I think the bigger question is one of motivation. The question we should all ask is, what is my motivation for ____________ (fill in the blank). What is my motivation for debate and discussion? To learn and draw closer to the Lord. What is my motivation for using versions of the Bible other then the KJV? To learn and draw closer to the Lord.

    If someone answers the question what is my motivation for using the KJV only with because I want to learn and draw closer to the Lord then that’s fine, but if someone answers the same question with, because its the infallible Word of God and if I don’t use it I’m not as good of a Christian as I could be or because if I don’t use the KJV I’m sinning then I’m afraid that’s the wrong motivation. Legalistic righteousness IMHO is never a health motivation.

    Likewise, if someones motivation for debate and discussion is to boast about knowledge gained or try to convince someone then that’s the wrong motivation.

  250. Paul and Greg.

    You claim that the NIV and almost all new translations were translated from Greek manuscripts that were much older than those from which the KJV was translated from. Which manuscripts were each of these versions translated into English from? And if the manuscripts that the KJV was translated from are much more recent, where did those manuscripts come from? In other words, if they were 10th century manuscripts, they must’ve come from something older than the 10th century.

    I can’t speak for everyone, but in a nutschell, here is why I believe the KJV is inerrant and not to be corrected – God inspired the Word exactly how He wanted it. He preserved it in a family of manuscripts that has been used down through the ages, albeit sparingly. From that family of manuscripts – the Byzantine – we have the KJV. You do make some good points, Paul, about the various methods of translating and the problems associated with them, but that does not mean that our English translation (meaning the KJV) is necessarily wrong. In fact, I believe it is exactly how God wants it for us. Yes, the English used is old, but that doesn’t mean it is unable to be comprehended.

    And, Greg, you make a good point about there being many more manuscripts available today to choose from when making an English translation, but that does not mean that those manuscripts are better. It is my contention that those manuscripts used today are actually inferior and that unfortunately, they are preferred over the Byzantine manuscripts by the vast majority of today’s translators. Hence, my dislike and distrust of the newer translations. I believe that they come from purposefully corrupted manuscripts beginning way back in the early centuries of Christendom by men like Origen. If I am right (please note that I said ‘if’), why would we use any translation that uses those corrupted manuscripts? We wouldn’t want to. Can I prove that those manuscripts have been corrupted and the Byzantine family has not? No, I can’t. But neither can you guys prove that the Byzantine family is corrupt and conflated. And I don’t think that older equals better, or not necessarily. And regardless of the fact that Erasmus was Catholic, he didn’t use those ‘Catholic’ manuscripts. (e.g. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)

    I know that the whole debate has many more facets to it, but that is the general overview of what I believe and why I believe it. So, without any malice or haughtiness or nastiness (I’m not trying to be sarcastic at all), you can see that there is some logic to this line of reasoning, even if you disagree with the end belief.

    John

  251. Greg,

    I thought this was an intresting article. Knowing you are likeminded. Give it a read – see what you think.

    http://www.awildernessvoice.com/GEC.html

    Paul

  252. John, Greg, and others

    Michael J. Penfold’s article “Is the King James Version Perfect? begins as follows:
    “The King James Version of the Bible still excels as a translation. However, in recent years, thousands of Christians, mainly independent Baptists from the USA, have come to hold an extreme and illogical view: that the KJV represents not just a very good, or even the best translation in the English language, but that it is absolutely perfect and without blemish. They believe that the Lord infallibly guided its translators to always choose exactly the right wording, punctuation and italicisation in every single case.”
    http://www.webtruth.org/articles/bible-version-issues-22/is-the-king-james-version-perfect-30.html (article address the 1610 question)

    It is the later claims of perfection that has set me at odds with the KJVonly position.

    In approaching the multiple of Bible versions, I believe it is important to understand certain methods of translation. These are as follows:
    1) Literal translation – formal equivalence or word-for-word translations
    2) Dynamic equivalent – attempts to convey the thought expressed in a source text
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_and_formal_equivalence
    3) Paraphrase – is restatement of a text or passages, using other words – free dynamic

    While I enjoy Eugene Peterson’s “The Message,” and believe at times that he says it better than anyone out there, I also recognize that there are times when he doesn’t get it right. Do I elevate his paraphrase to the level of a literal translation? Certainly not.

    All three of the above methods of translation carry with it strengths and weaknesses. And one should live in light of this. Are there too many versions today? Probably so. But there’s money to be made. And here I risk judging motives.

    My overall concern is whether God can make Himself know through different Bible versions. While some versions are definitely better than others, and there are those that I would stay away from – (New World Translation), I do believe God is making Himself know in even ways I might not approve. But then again, He knows best. Since changing my KJVonly position, I’ve gone through the NIV. God’s all over in there!

    So to try to argue or debate with someone to change their doctrinal position in this matter is just plain stupid. I am not going to try to convince anyone that they are right or wrong. This has to be argued / dialogued in the context of a relationship – not with me or other men – but with God Himself. If all I do is sway someone to think the way I do, I’ve gained nothing but a clone of myself. But, if God wins in this and frees someone to live in the reality of whom He is, than transformation and true freedom can come.

    So no, I’m not going to debate this to the degree that I believe I could. It only degenerates into name calling, misunderstandings, and pointless arguments (as has already been displayed on this site). It looks like a dog chasing his tail. God has won me to what I believe is a good and right place.

    Living loved and enjoying the freedom of a relationship,

    Paul

  253. I am no expert on the transmission of bible translations down through the ages, it is however a fascinating subject that I have read about and studied. I also don’t read and have not studied biblical languages, when I want to know a definition of a word I go to a good ol fashioned dictionary. When I want to know about a Greek or Hebrew word I usually go to the Strong’s concordance.

    The KJV is a fine 17th century english translation, however kjvonly’s have an exclusive-allegiance-to-one-revision-of-one-edition-of-one-17 century-anglican-translation-of-the-bible-into-elizabethan-english. Those of us that have studied into this issue completely reject the idea that God began and stopped English translations with the 8th revision of the KJV translation.

    The bible is “God breathed’ the transliterated Greek word means (from above.) Most of us agree on that. Let’s not forget that in the beginning was the Word (wasn’t english by the way) the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Jesus) The actual words were started to be written down in the 1400″s bc, writers continued to be inspired and the final book (Revelation) was finished by the Apostle John on the island of Patmos by somewhere along 90 ad, give or take. Bear in mind that the scriptures that John, Jesus and the other Apostles read and quoted, those originals were already dust and they were reading copies of copies of copies. This process continued with the new testament, right into that 1st century church. When, for instance Paul’s letter to the Galatians was received, regular folks would beging to copy portions of the text as well as scribes. One of the first “other” language for scripture to get into was Latin. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate 400 ad, became an extremely well received and accepted translation into Latin. That’s how we ended up with the Latin word “Lucicfer” in an english translation (KJV) of a Hebrew text! Moving on, the first english manuscripts began to circulate with that great man of God (Tyndale) who was burned at the stake for his translation work into English and then distributing this precious word to the common folk. This 1st English translation was around 1380’s, approximately 250 years before the KJV. It irritates me greatly that english speaking men and women of God were being persecuted and dying for their faith, our father’s and mother’s of the faith, and to then have uneducated people come along and essentially deny their faith and their sacrifice, “Well they didn’t even have a real bible” I can hear the nasty Ruckman saying.

    Time went by and again, I’m not an expert but I know at least (5) good English translations came forth during that time, and then we come to 1611, working from Erasmus’ Greek new testament (Roman Catholic Priest) who himself only had (6) manuscripts to work from, the KJV translators using Erasmus text and following other english bibles as guides they set to work to produce the KJV translation, which is very different from the KJV that folks use today. Again I’m not an expert but I think the KJV has been revised somthing like (8) times.

    Since 1611 thousands of manuscripts have been found (think dead sea scrolls) New translations have been made. Two very good earlier translations that were very significant were “The English Version of 1881” and the “American Standard Version” and of course followed by the very good “modern” versions, such as the “New American Standard” and the “New International Version” and others. None of these were or are “perfect” these are all translations done by men. The Translators themselves will tell you their work is not perfect. Specifically the KJV translators who gave quite a lengthy preface to the KJV, telling the readers to use a variety of translations that it was necessary to find out the sense of the scripture. This preface was printed with the KJV translation for years, I wish it still was then it would be much easier to refute the kjvonly’s. This preface “The Translators to the Reader’s” is easily available online or in print form, I highly reccomend reding it.

    Now with all the above, we have people in the U.S. contending that the KJV translation is the only “perfect” translation. Men and women of God have died for the word of God in english prior to the printing of the KJV, you shame their sacrifice. The great and wonderful protestant reformation occurred without the KJV. The United States of America was founded by God-fearing men and women without the KJV. Please enlighten us as to why you deny God’s power to preserve His word? Why do you shame our early english speaking christian brethern that were praising God fighting devils and infidels and winning the lost without benefit of your KJV. Why do you think that God only chose to “inspire” some translators in 1611 and not before 1611 or after 1611. Can you show me in the bible where God promises to provide us a perfect “translation?”

    God help me, I grow tired some time in this battle for God’s word but by His Grace I will keep plugging on, I simply want to help and rescue people out of this man-made, extra biblical doctrine of kjvonlyism, and the ugly legalism that follows.

    And now these three remain fatih, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love.

    According to His Mercy,
    Greg

  254. John,

    Somewhat peculiar dialoguing with you. My very last post I answer another question and admit that I haven’t answered all of your questions, you post back extremely nasty complaining (still) that I haven’t answwered your question. I think we may be losing focus.

    You contend that you have “the” perfectly preserved word of God in a 17th century translation that has been been revised multiple times. You hold the KJV up as the standard. I have seen nothing that you have ever written to support this belief, nor have you provided any proof from scripture that alludes to God preserving any perfect translation.

    I have done nothing but praise the KJV and tell everyone that it is a good translation, but a translation nonetheless, worked on by men and therefore imperfect, now don’t say that I am implying that God’s Word is imperfect because its not, God’s Word is “Perfect” but translator’s words are not. And what really gets me is that the KJV translators themselves tell us this so that people don’t come along and venerate a translation over another. They reccomend we use alot of versions, they said that it is necessary, so that we can find out the “sense” of the scripture.

    I’ll answer another question. What is truth? God’s Word is truth.

    In Chritst,
    Greg

  255. Bryan,

    Many Baptists pride themselves so much on being doctrinally correct that they seem to get and idea that they’re better than others. So maybe it’s spiritual pride. Many of us look at the letter of the law and not the spirit, so to speak. You know, we get caught up in all the rules and structure (and maybe even some doctrine……maybe) and lose sight of love and mercy and grace and true works , i.e. helping those the Lord wants us to help. (James 1:27, I think) It’s a shame I know, but what can I say? I can’t defend it, that’s for sure.

    And Greg, apology accepted and I apologize as well. I guess I shouldn’t get so wrapped up in the argument.

    John

  256. Greg,

    No, you have not been directly disrespectful toward the Word or the KJV specifically.
    If I’ve said anything to you that has been insulting, it’s been in response to your insults directed at me. Stop implying (or saying directly) that I’m a foolish, brainwashed dummy who can’t think for himself or even do simple research and I’ll stop responding in kind. To repeat, the only animosity I have toward you is your tone and comments directed at me and other KJV only people.
    Yes, I said you’re being hypocritical. You keep making claims that I can’t or won’t your questions or am unable to answer your questions, even though I’ve attempted to answer many of them, yet you don’t even seem to give my questions posed to you a passing glance. Again, let me respectfully ask you to go back and answer some of my questions.
    As far as what Satan’s name was before he fell, I trust the KJV and think it was Lucifer. I honestly haven’t done as much research as you on it, but if his name was Lucifer, the entire argument was for nothing.
    No, Greg, I don’t think I’m close to being blasphemous. I believe that the devil has been inspiring men to take from the Word from the very beginning, and the result of that is the majority of newer versions. I actually think it’s fairly obvious. If you don’t agree, that’s fine. I can respect the fact that you disagree. You believe that verses/passages were added to the Word, which has given us the KJV (in a manner of speaking). If you do believe that, who inspired those men to add to God’s Word?

    John

  257. John,

    You are correct about having answered the question “what was the word of God in 1610” I apologize, I went way back and re-read much of our dialogue, but didn’t go back far enough.

    You are also correct that I have not answered all of your questions, so I will answer at least one more question today. I don’t know what Satan’s name was in heaven. I will look further into it this week, and if I find something I’ll let you know. I am kinda curious though what does this have to do with our ongoing debate.

    I want to look for a few minutes into this “who is being nastier” conversation that you are continually pummelling me with. It appears that when all else fails you just start attacking me personally. It’s fine that we don’t agree that’s what the debate is for. Any lurkers out there? If you have been following this debate, put aside for a moment your opinion about the issue and tell us who has been nastier in this debate, John or Greg. TKS!!

    Let me see, you have called me a hypocrite, liar, brainwashed, insulting, bitter, stupid, pitbull. Have I got’em all? Oh yea, using my arguments like an unbeliever.

    Probably the worst was when you come dangerously close to blasphemy, when you said that people that argue for the newer versions are following a devil-inspired doctrine. I warned Allen about how he speaks about God’s Word in newer versions, and now I warn you as well. I know you think I’m wrong about this issue, that’s fine, I use to feel exactly as you do, but stop for a moment and just think what if I’m right!!!And you have been down here on planet earth fighting against the precious Word of God. You certainly can debate about it, that’s fine, but please don’t blaspheme against God’s Holy and Precious Word. By the way the KJV translators don’t like it either, they thought that having a variety of translations was a very good thing to find out the sense of the scripture.

    Look back on our conversation, have I been disrespectful to the Word of God in the KJV? please answer.

    In Christ,
    Greg

  258. Yo John, again this has nothing to do with you. I will stand by what I said before that you have my respect. In fact your debate with Greg about NIV vs. KJV – I don’t give much attention to it. Because what I am after is the attitude a lot of the baptist manifest that really caused division in Church.

    It is like the pentecostals when they say that you are not a mature christian if you don’t speak in tongues – another extreme – isn’t it no different from the baptists?

    Try to dig where I’m trying to egg on here John, if this is not to be sneezed at, why does this happen often? Meaning to say, why is it a lot of baptists that I have talked to especially the ultra conservative ones question my salvation or think I am a member of a cult? I have questions against the pentecostals also but this is about the IFB so I will stick to that.

    I am glad you bluntly say that those guys are wrong but I still want to know where do all this attitude coming from? Why do the baptists have a lot of them?

    Again John, this not about you. Just those people who think that way and believe me man, they are A LOT of them.

    The real reason I am very hurt by this because I know it grieves the Holy Spirit. In fact try to discern, do you think this debate about KJV vs. NIV brings joy to the heart of the Father and HIS MAJESTY MY KING YESHUA BAR YUSEF?

    It’s the abuses that I’m concerned about. If you think I am bitter probably you are right, I will confess to that. But who will not be? Especially if you know it comes from a brother in the faith. I consider the IFB my brothers in the faith, but unfortunately, a lot of the IFBs think I and my type are black sheep of the family. Or worse, not members of the family.

  259. Bryan,

    What can I say? If someone questions your salvation because you don’t use the KJV, they’re wrong.
    It doesn’t really take away from or at to the real discussion here, but I can see where you would be hurt and bitter.

    John

  260. Greg,

    Not a afraid of the truth, Greg. But what is truth? (John 17:17)
    Have no answers???? When are you going to answer my questions? Can you? Are you even considering the questions and points that I pose? Or are you still stuck on what Satan’s name was before he fell? (You still haven’t answered that question I posed regarding what his name was.)
    I answered your question about 1610 on Sep. 27, item #2.
    On Oct 8 (and other occasions), I answered many of your questions. I’d guess that I’ve actually tried to answer about 75% of your questions. Some of them aren’t germane to my overall argument (red herrings), so I didn’t even bother. Only 1 has really given me a hard time, and that’s the issue of Ahaziah’s age when he began to reign.
    That being said, you are the one that is nasty (insulting). You are the one that is haughty. You are the one that believes he has the ability to correct God’s Word, not me.
    You are SOOOO condescending and seemingly arrogant, as well as mocking. How am I supposed to react? You’re offensive in your tone in almost every post addressed to me. You accuse me of not being able to think, of being stuck in a mindset, of not being able to do research, of knowing little on this subject, of not knowing the difference between a concordance and a dictionary or even knowing how to use a concordance. Sorry, brother, I’ve been insulted by you continuously on this thread because I don’t agree with you and it’s more than a little annoying. So we don’t agree on this. What, you can’t respect me or even try to show respect because I don’t agree with you? Believe it or not, Greg, if you and I were having this discussion in person I would try to be quite civil toward you. The only real animosity I feel toward you is from the seeming hypocrisy you’re displaying by continuing to insult my knowledge, etc., and then accusing me of being ‘negative and haughty’. (?)
    So, once again, will you (and Paul) please attempt to answer my questions above? And please, for the umpteenth time, try to refrain from insulting me as in the aforementioned examples.

    John

  261. Allen,

    I’m confused. Did you even read my devastating reply to your first feeble attempt to join in this debate? You actually may not have because of the problem the site has been having.I obliterated any legitimacy that your KJV queen has, and you have nothing to say about it. Its as though you kjvers don’t want to be confused with the facts, oh well that didn’t work, let me get out the KJV only script and go to the next bit of foolishness. If you saw my response to you, will you let me know?

    Ok, I’m calming myself down now, take a deep breath Greg. Yes I was sarcastic there, forgive me.

    If you have read my ongoing dialog with John, you have no argument with me regarding your choice of translation. I am delighted that you are happy with your KJV, I am not happy with all of the rest of your silliness regarding things you obviously know very little about. I can say that with complete and full assurance because I know you drink from the Riplinger/Chick Kool-Aid fountain.

    I would warn you to be careful how you speak about God’s Word in other translations. I covered the Is. 14 topic in fairly good depth earlier and won’t go into all right here, but suffice it to say the KJV translators knew that the word “lucifer” was wrong and they put the correct reading in the margin “day star” Lucifer came straight out of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate about 400 a.d.

    Please study and don’t be afraid of the truth!

    In Christ,
    Greg

  262. WOW!! Look at all this debate over the KJV, NIV, etc.

    What happened to all the baptist abuse? I personally prefer the King James
    and think its the best translation…I don’t know about ‘advanced revelation’ like
    Ruckman says but the NIV has serious problems like turning Christ into the Devil in Isaiah 14, systematically taking out words like, holy, blood, fasting, christ, etc…not dumb typos but big doctrinal issues…like taking out the Trinity 1 Corinthians 5:7, etc. My problem with independent baptists is not so much the KJV…it’s the 123 repeat after me, it’s the ‘mighty man of god knows everything’ syndrome, it’s the hipocrisy and systematic abuse…but I do think the KJV is by far the best translation by far…that’s probably the only thing the fundys have going on that’s good!

  263. John,

    Very strange things are going on with this site. I read back through your posts and nowhere do I see where you said that you don’t know what the Word of God was in 1610. (you should have an answer for that one by the way)

    You say that “the KJV is non-correctible by you and your friends, with no errors, for us, in our language today” You go against the KJV translators themselves when you say that!

    You say “You seem to believe in your ability and knowledge more than you believe in God’s power and desire to preserve His Word” That’s you friend, not me, I knooooooow that God is powerful and preserving His Word, you are the one boxing God into one 17th century translation! And to top it off the KJV translators are standing with me in opposition to you!!

    John I am willing to continue to dialogue with you as long as site admin permits us to, but your tone is taking on a decidedly nastier spirit with the last several postings. I know its aggravating and perplexing when you have no answers, not even to Paul’s softball question, but please try not to come across so negative and haughty. Maybe count to 100 before you start typing.

    In Christ,
    Greg

  264. Greg,

    Man, you are insulting. I am not in any kind of KJV only ‘movement’. What happened to you at your KJV only church? Were you spiritually abused? Were you bullied and kicked out? Was your pastor or other leader(s) in the church complete hypocrites? Where does your bitterness come from?

    John

  265. Greg,

    Yes, I did answer your question about what the Word was in 1610. I said I DIDN’T KNOW! I also said that it didn’t matter, because I believe that the KJV is non-correctible by you and your friends, with no errors, for us, in our language, today. How hard was that to understand? But you my friend, are being a bit hypocritical. I’ve asked you some questions that you have not answered (as Paul has not answered mine above).

    I’d say that someone who thinks that the NIV or NASV are superior to the KJV are believing a “man-made” (and devil inspired) doctrine.
    Man, you’re mocking is insulting. Did I not tell you before that while I’ll respect many teachers and preachers opinions that I’ll almost always check things out for myself. Obviously you can’t seem to grasp that or refuse to believe it. Why do you continue to accuse KJV onlyists with being nasty and mean and fools, yet all you do is flower your insults with sanctimonious and ‘spiritual’ talk? It reminds me of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. You seem to believe in your ability and knowledge more than you believe in God’s power and desire to preserve His Word.

    So, I’ve answered your question about the Word in 1610 to the best of my ability, you tell me, what was it? (And if you can, please try to answer my questions posed to Paul above.)

    Also, I looked in your precious NIV today, and it contradicts itself in a couple of places of interest. In 2 Chron. 21:2 the NIV says that Jehoshaphat was the king of Israel, yet 2 Chron. 20:35 says that Jehoshaphat was the king of Judah and Azariah was the king of Israel. (2 Chron. 20:31 also mentions Ahab as king of Israel before Azariah) Please explain this contradiction (which, incidently, is in the KJV also).
    In 2 Kings 8:25, the NIV says that Ahaziah began to reign in the 12th year of Joram son of Ahab, but 2 Kings 9:29 says Ahaziah began to reign in the 11th year of Joram (also in KJV). Please explain.

    John

  266. This particular post was deleted shortly it was on this forum. But I simply respect the onlyist if only they keep it to themselves. But what offends me is that there are a lot of them who questions the salvation of people who don’t use the KJV. Here’s one of them:

    Donskey says:
    August 18, 2009 at 10:59 pm

    You people are right when you say you cannot understand the KJV. The sheep of Jesus hear his voice and can understand it, no problem. You hate and cannot understand the KJV because you are not of his sheep.

    John
    [25] Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
    [26] But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
    [27] My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

    You will probably not even post this, but maybe you will have the guts to do so, if so you will be one of the first, but I am pretty sure you will be offended and say how dare you say I am not saved etc.

    Anyway let’s see if I get a reply

    And here’s another one from a guy named GM:

    To Bryan:
    You don’t seem to understand the fallacy of using so many Bible versions. You obviously suck on the pill of “free love” mentality that the New Age movement is promoting. It’s not enough to need Jesus, the question is WHICH Jesus? WHICH salvation? Because the “new age bibles” portray a different Jesus than the Bible (KJV) and a different salvation (not faith but works). If, for example, the U.S. Constitution had 400 different versions of it, each 4% different than the others (in order to obtain a copyright for money purposes), how easy would it be for the Supreme Court (or any other U.S. court for that matter) to interpret the law/constitution? The same thing applies here: how can any man in the right mind say that the new bibles say the same thing as the King James Bible when they offer salvation by works and they make Jesus less then what he really is (not being God, not born of a virgin, having an origin, etc)????
    When Jesus was tempted by the devil in the wilderness, he said that “man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD that procedeth out of the mouth of God.” Why would I believe the lie that says “only the thought/main idea of the verse counts” when the Bible (KJV) clearly states in several places that EVERY WORD MATTERS?

    These New Age Bibles do nothing but promoting the Satanist religion of uniting all “faiths” under one umbrella, preparing the way for the Antichrist!

    No only is he doubting my salvation (It’s not enough to need Jesus, the question is WHICH Jesus? WHICH salvation? Because the “new age bibles” portray a different Jesus than the Bible (KJV) and a different salvation (not faith but works).) Isn’t this plain “HOLIER THAN THOU” accusation? How dare these people accuse me? Not only does he questions my salvation, he accuses me of being a New Age supporter!

    These people make me sick! I wish I would rather keep my mouth shut because it grieves the Holy Spirit when these people act like these. But sometimes it just seem too much.

    Greg is right that I should not listen to them. But sometimes you get hurt because you consider them a brother in the LORD yet they think of you as a bastard of the family or worse a poser.

    John, you asked me before who are those people that questions my salvation because I am not using a KJV, well here it is! You don’t have to look far.

  267. John,

    I know that some of our exchanges have been testy, but I have never for one second doubted your sincerity or called you a liar, like you have in this last post. Believe it, I can’t understand 17th century english! And I really don’t appreciate you calling me a liar!!!

    This reminds me of something that just happened a couple of months ago. My son and I were attending a Wed evening service when the pastor went to Phillipians 4:6 “Be careful for nothing but in everything by prayer and suppication with thanksgiving let your request be made known unto God.” Pastor made his point and moved on (extremely good Preacher, by the way) As we were going home that evening I just took my hands off of the steering wheel and said “I don’t even care about driving this car, the Word of God says to be careful for nothing!” Of course by now my son is well aware of the problems with the KJV translation and we both had our NIV’s with us, so we had a good laugh and headed on home. “Be careful for nothing” is that the way you live your life? I don’t, all of scripture, including the KJV teaches us to be careful about nearly everything!! Can you defend this? Already know the answer to that, but what I’m hoping and praying is that the precious Holy Spirit (not ghost) is starting to illuminate your mind right about now, because you and I both know that we are not to live haphazardly in this life as this verse in the KJV is teaching. Most new translation correct this problem, the NIV says “Be anxious for nothing” I can understand that.

    “Pascha” means Passover and the KJV translators got it right 28 other times. The context is completely crystal clear on this.

    Shalom,
    Greg

  268. Paul,

    John is a great guy. I believe that he would do anything to help anyone, but please understand he is deeeeeep into this “man-made” kjv extra-biblical doctrine. If he could just show you and I where God said that He would provide His Word in a 17th century english translation, and that that was the end of the translation process, the party’s over and we can get off this topic and go on to more profitable matters.

    Why do kjvonly’s think that the work of translation ceased at 1611, the Word itself says that it is “living and active,” sorry kjvonly’s its not “quick” that word now means “fast.”

    Oh, said all of that to say this. John will not answer your very simple question. I’ll give him credit he is consistent, he doesn’t answer many of mine either. You asked him a very simple question, an extremely simple question, it scared him to death, because he must “think” critically, kjvonly’s are not taught to think critically, just as I wasn’t when I was in the “movement” Its different from the KJV therefore its wrong. John, answer Paul’s question.

    What was the preserved Word of God called in 1610? We’re all waiting for something brilliant!!

    Because He Lives,
    Greg

  269. Paul,

    You tell me, what was the Word of God in 1610? What about in 1510? Or 1000? Or 550? Or 1000 B.C.? Until the canon of the New Testament (or O.T.) was consolidated, what was the Word of God? Is there a possibility that the men who consolidated the books of the Bible missed some, like the book of Enoch or the book of Jasher? After Daniel completed his book, how did it get added to the canon of Scripture? Who finished the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua and both books of Samuel? Why did the Lord stop inspiring men to write down his Words after 450 B.C. (give or take a few years) anyway?
    So, because we don’t know the answer to every argument you guys throw out there, that means we’re wrong and the KJV is not preserved and that there are errors in it?

    John

  270. Greg,

    You mean to tell me that you can find, on your own, all these ‘errors’ in the KJV and break everything down for everyone as to how the KJV translators got it all wrong when they translated these words/passages from Greek, yet you can’t understand the KJV when your pastor reads it?
    Of course I would want you to be able to understand our Lord’s message, but who, pray tell, understands everything in the Bible anyway? The passages that we’ve discussed that are hard to understand can be figured out with study, guidance and counsel.

    Easter is not an error in the KJV.

    I’m having a hard time getting everything posted as well.

    Katie,
    Please attempt to prove that the KJV has verses/passages added.

    John

  271. John,

    Sorry I meant to say adds not deletes (responding to Keith’s assertion that newer versions delete verses). KJV onlyists are notorious for claiming that the newer versions subtract or delete verses. But the opposite is true. The translators of the KJV actually added verses and the newer versions correct this flaw. See the article above for more information. Steve talks about this in his article.

  272. John,

    Some weird things are going on with this site, so I don’t know when you are actually seeing the posts that I put up. I’m looking at this latest one of yours and it shows a time of 11:44 am, my last post to Keith was at 9:14 am. So if you can read my post to Keith, I have no idea how you could wonder if I have really studied the matter. I obliterated Keith’s KJV disinformation on “begotten” and I did all of that this morning after my coffee and morning paper. Like I said above I had never even looked up begotten until this am. When I was a kjvonly I just dutifully followed along with my KJV mentors, not even knowing or having any idea of what I was talking about. You see I use to believe like most of you that I had this great message that Satan was trying to attack us by using these new versions. I just had to tell everybody!! Pasting and copying? I just started blogging a few months ago, I have no idea how to do that, but if it saves time typing I may have to look into it.

    My pastor is almost as kjv as you. I think I mentioned earlier that obvious things like easter for passover he knows is a mistake, but he really loves his kjv.

    Don’t forget who all are on my side. The KJV translators themselves! They reccomend that we use a variety of translations to find out the “sense of the scriptures,” even saying that they are persuaded that it is “necessary”

    I keep on telling you that I’m not against the KJV, I even go further and say that it is a fine translation. You didn’t comment on it, but I’m assuming you saw the post where I gave a verse that I felt the KJV was translated vastly better. I’m no enemy of the KJV, the manuscripts (though few in number) that were used in the translation of the KJV are good and have stood the test of time. I must say my main problem with the KJV stems mostly from the archaic, 17th century english. The whole purpose of translations is to take one language and put it into the other language for purposes of understanding the original’s language message. I can’t understand that message in the KJV, no matter how hard I try, when my pastor is even reading from his KJV it is confusing to me. I am sorry, but I can’t understand it. John in your heart of hearts don’t you want me to be able to understand our Lord’s message?

    In Christ,
    Greg

  273. Greg,

    What about watering down the Word of God? Would that not be harming the body of Christ?

    You are right, there are many, many proponents on the KJV only side of things that aren’t really studying this issue in depth and they’re just repeating what they’ve been taught. But what about your side? I mean, how many of your kind are just going by what someone they respect (pastorm teacher, etc.) says? How much of your information have you really studied and not just copied and pasted or paraphrased? To me, your kind of people sound just as brainwashed to me as you’ve been accusing me of being. Yeah, you guys definitely sound more educated and free thinking on this site (and probably others), I will give you that, but a lot of what you guys say sounds just like the same old, same old.

    Bryan, I know what you mena about the posts. It seems to be happening more and more.

    John

  274. HEY wait a minute. Where did some of my posts go?

  275. Keith,

    After reading your comment several things jumped out at me. The first one was about the “only begotten Son of God” You said it means “blood of Holy Spirit” I had never heard that before, and if in fact that’s what it meant then I was going to have to admit that the new versions really goofed on that one. Also let me tell you that I was in KJV land myself for many years, but certain nagging questions propelled me into going deeper into the translation issue. Anyway this was one that I would shout about to anyone stupid enough or should I say ignorant to stand around and listen to me. I really didn’t know anything about it but my KJV daddies (Wilkinson, Marrs, Gipp, my “uneducated” pastor) and mommy (hate to say this Riplinger) said it was “different” from the KJV so it was horribe and took something away from the deity of Jesus Christ.

    So let’s have a “real” look shall we? The Greek word for (begotten) is “monogenes” the first definition in Strong’s Concordance says it means (single of its kind, only) Now it is used in the KJV nine times, six of those times it’s translated (begotten) three of those times its translated (only) One of those times is at Hebrews 11:17. This is talking about Abraham sacrificing Issac, the KJV says “He was about to sacrifice his only begotten son” Now how about a dictionary definition “to procreate or generate”

    Let’s wind this down “begotten” does not mean “blood of Holy Spirit” So go back to your KJV spiritual guru and ask him or her why he just made a complete fool out of you on this website.

    Once again folks most of the new translations have a much clearer meaning, the NIV says “one and only” at John 3:16,I can understand that, and by the way I submit a very good and legitimate translation based on the Greek. “begotten” I didn’t even realize what that meant until I looked it up in the dictionary today!

    It was alluded to in an earlier post that I have some fancy education, and I don’t, I’m just a retired guy who loves the Lord Jesus and has studied some of these things. I will not be quiet and let kjvonly’s say the foolish things that they do and get away with it. This issue is harming the body of Christ.

    In Christ,
    Greg

  276. Katie,

    Which verses does the KJV delete and from where are they deleted? (i.e. the TR, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.)

    John

  277. I’ve been following this discussion and I just had to jump in to reply to Keith.

    Besides being a parrot and having horrible grammar and spelling, Keith, there are soooooo many things disturbing about what you wrote. I’ll try to address three of the problems that stand out to me the most.

    1.

    You wrote:

    Revelation 22:18 and 19 say about adding to or taking away…and the TEXTUS RECEPTUS OR REVISED TEXT IS the Closest to the KING JAMES than the other versions which change take out omit very Important verses or key words such as the Diety of Christ.

    The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus not the other way around. Also, the KJV deletes verses (as the author of this post above already states) so according to your own words the KJV shouldn’t be a bible we use.

    Also, the only version that twists the Deity and Blood of Christ is the one the Jehovah’s Witnesses use. Christians don’t even use that version of the Bible.

    2.

    2 Timothy 2:15 reads, Study to shew thyself approved unto GOD ,a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the WORD OF truth.

    You omitted some words there. Should you be condemned for subtracting from the Bible? Also, it says “Study to shew thyself approved unto GOD, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the Word of truth.” NOT “Study to shew thyself approved unto GOD, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the KJV.” 2 Timothy 2:15 has nothing to do with the KJV.

    3.

    I’m wondering if you are aware of your self contradictions? You use 2 Timothy to defend a head knowledge of the Bible but then state “GOD LOOKS AT THE HEART.Not the head.it is youre faith not feelings.”

    Did you forget about Luke 10:27 where Luke tells us “you should love the Lord your God with all you heart, soul, strength, and MIND.”

    You say that “God looks at the heart” then you say “it’s your faith not feelings”. Don’t feelings come from the heart? The heart is the seat of the emotions is it not? Faith comes from the head. We don’t necessarily feel faith, we have to make a decision to have faith. We are emotional human beings not robots. God wants us to love Him with all of who we are, that includes a head knowledge.

    I can’t believe how screwed up your way of thinking is, and I can’t believe that I ever believed those things. I used to think that way until I found freedom in Christ. I hope one day you will be free of that prison also.

  278. Revelation 22:18 and 19 say about adding to or taking away…and the TEXTUS RECEPTUS OR REVISED TEXT IS the Closest to the KING JAMES than the other versions which change take out omit very Important verses or key words such as the Diety of Christ.THE BLOOD THAT SAVES AND Begotten SON IN JOHN 3:16 The other verson say the only SON OF GOD Rather then Begotten.because when you get saved you become a Son of GOD A CHILD OF GOD.So Jesus is not the only Son of God ,but rather the BEGOTTEN Which means Blood of HOLY SPIRIT,Cause Jesus Blood is Holy from GOD Which does not mix with Mary who was a sinner like us all the Only one never to sin is JESUS CHRIST.HE WAS GOD AND MAN BOTH Tempted as we are and where but without sin.and as Far as if you don’t understand King James that is why 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto GOD ,a workman that needeth not to be ashamed RIGHTLY DIVIDING the truth.God will guide you the Holy Spirit will guide you because it also says in I beleive it is in either 1st or 2nd Corinthians about those who don’t understand are ignorant or basically it means if you don’t or can’t understand then you are not truly Baptized with the HOLY SPIRIT Which will help you understand Scripture and why 1st or 2 Peter say about it was not to be written for mans interpretation.NO PROPHECY IS Of the scripture is of any private interpretation..For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man ;but holy men of GOD spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost..in other words what I am saying if the King James Version is not the one God would have us to have ,than why has it stood for nearly 400 years while others have not and that all other Version attack the KING JAMES OR In other words don’t go up against each other for example they don’t say well the NIV SAYS THIS AND THE NASB SAYS THIS.They almost always want to go against KJV..And no I don’t beleive that is the only one to get saved by..the ONLY WAY TO GET SAVED In fact is not by a bible ,church membership;.being in the choir or being a good person.the only way to get saved is the PRECIOUS HOLY SINLESS BLOOD OF JESUS.BELEIVING IN HEART SOUL AND MIND.JESUS IS THE WAY THE TRUTH THE LIFE Not a Priest or Pastor or Good works we didn’t get our selves saved so we can’t keep ourselves saved.Once your saved your saved .Ones who disagree than maybe they where never saved to start with..GOD LOOKS AT THE HEART.Not the head.it is youre faith not feelings.

  279. Sorry,

    “onesided”

  280. Allen states:
    “If you haven’t read the evidence and studied the issue you really have no right to render an opinion…because it would be based on ignorance.”

    Having once been a thoroughly convinced KJVonlyist, I had studied and read – what the KJV only group was saying. All sounded good. But it was all onsided.

    As time went on, little statements began to challenge my thinking. Such as – “If you think you’re foolish – surround yourself with ten wise men. If you think you’re wise – surround yourself with 10 wise men that disagree with you.” and “An educated man not only knows his argument(s) but also the argument(s) of those who appose him.”
    There was a day where I found myself well seated in my KJV only beliefs. But I hadn’t given those whom I apposed an opportunity to speak. Once I did – so many of my KJV elevated, on-sided arguments began to wain.

    I live in such a different place than I once did.
    What I have found is that there are those who will hear only what they want to hear and see only what they want to see.

    Yep, I believe I’ve studied the issue and will continue to study the issue — both sides!

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/
    http://www.kjvonly.org/
    http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/
    http://www.kjv-only.com/
    http://samgipp.com/

    So, what was the “preserved word of God” called in 1610? And don’t tell me it doesn’t matter or you don’t know. The truth is that you can’t answer this without admitting that whatever it was – it was different that the KJV1611.

  281. Allen,

    I’m a King Jesus guy. I have read Riplinger’s disinformation. But why don’t we call her by her real name “Gail Anne Ludwig Latessa Kaleda Riplinger. That’s right this wonderful, God-fearing, devil fighting, kjv promoting (lady ?) has been married three times, and guess what she is still lying about her multiple divorces? By the way God can forgive her but she at least has to quit lying about them first.

    Ever heard of the Dean Burgon Society? They have been around along time and at first welcomed Riplinger with open arms. Then they began to look at her slanderous lies in her witch-hunt book “New Age Bible Versions” and had to stop promoting her. The head of the Society, D.A. Waite and his wife had been personal friends with Riplinger, and when they got wind of her divorces, asked her point blank if this were true and of course she did what liars do and lied about it. The Waites exposed her lies and are now being threatened with a lawsuit from the dear Ms Riplinger. Please look up D.A. Waite and as they say read all about it. (the Dean Burgon society is an organization dedicated to the defense of the KJV, what’s really funny is that it’s named after a guy that said the Gospel of Matthew alone should have 120 changes from its current reading)

    Hate to break it to you friend but Riplinger is just another impostor that snuck into the KJV only debate apparently just to make money. She lies on nearly page of this book. You have real KJV defenders like David Cloud and The Dean Burgon Society that have ousted her and pointed out her lies and mistakes in all of her books. She slanders David Cloud in her second trashy book “Blind Guides” I’ve got both books.

    Her biggest lies and slander (hard to choose from) are those that she spreads against Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, especially Wescott. Never have I seen two good men lied on this badly.

    Bishop Brooke Foss Wescott 1/12/1825 – 7/27/1901 Anglican Bishop, family man, preacher, and greek translator. He and Hort created a greek new testament which was used in translating the “English Revised Version of 1881” and the “American Standard Version of 1901” NOT THE KJV YOU ONLYISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

    William Wynn Wescott 12/17/1848 – 7/30/1925 This is the guy whose activities Riplinger attributes to the good Dr. Wescott. This is the Wescott that was involved in all of the occultic, satanic stuff and he was also the founder of the “London Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn”

    That acrostic algebra is really something else too! Look at page 149 “NABV” But I really got a laugh when she says she was merely acting as God’s secretary, simply writing down what God told her too. Blasphemous!

    As I looked up some of her references in her lying thesis, how to make money off of dopey christians….errr “NABV” I had to laugh at myself, man I’ve got that thing all marked up, I was gonna set everybody straight on them “perversions” as it turns out the only perfert was the one that wrote the book.

    Allen, methinks you need to do aheap more studying!

    In Christ,
    Greg

  282. I am really confused about how this site is working. I typed an extensive answer to Allen, which was accepted yesterday, after it refused the first one, which was even more extensive. I was checking some of the earlier posts yesterday and saw several repeats of my posts which were originally not accepted, but then apparently were accepted. Maybe its something I’m doing wrong. When I checked the site yesterday John was apoligizing to me for having called me a hypocrite. I never saw the post where he called me a hypocrite. By the way I forgave you, but that post is missing as well as the one where you are apologizing!

    Any suggestions site admin?

    Greg

  283. I’m a King James guy…read ‘new age bible versions’ by Gail Riplinger…that may shed some light into the whole bible issue…Jack Chick also has some books on the King James issue that are good…The NIV and other versions have huge changes and come from another line of text…

    When I first went to an IFB church the imbeciles told me to ‘accept it by faith’ that the KJV is the word of God…I thought that was the most ridiculous thing i’d ever heard…you
    re supposed to try all spirits to see whether they are from God.

    However, I did take alot of time to study the issue out and firmly believe the King James Bible is God’s word in English and all other bible versions come up short of KJV.

    If you haven’t read the evidence and studied the issue you really have no right to render an opinion…because it would be based on ignorance.

  284. For some reason I can’t get my posts to come up if they are very long, so I guess I’ll just have to break them up. Pretty aggravating after you have typed for an hour and lose it all!

    I have openly admitted that there are passages that I prefer in the KJV to some of the newer translations. 1 Cor 9:27 is one. The NIV says “I beat my body and make it my slave” the KJV says “But I keep under my Body and bring it into subjection” much better in the KJV, I believe. The KJV’s “keep under my body” is not real clear, but I prefer it to “beat my body” I also prefer the KJV’s “bring it into subjection”

    You might say I have gone over some of the new translations with a fine tooth comb. I have admitted that in the above example. I much prefer the KJV reading. All translations have issues, its very difficult to take an ancient text and put it into another language that folks can understand. I think the KJV translators overall did a fabulous job! I think many new translations do as well. But I must agree with the KJV translators that “A variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of scriptures” and then they go even further and say that they are persuaded that it is “necessary” So good friend, I’m in very good company thinking the way I do about translations.

    In Christ,
    Greg

  285. John,

    It is not my intention to talk down to you or hurt you. All I am attempting to do is to get you to think critically on these matters.

    I know that the KJV translators reverenced God, or at least believed that they did. But what is baffling to me is that kjvonlys make them out to be supermen, and they simply aren’t! John, they were Anglicans with the exception of one. They were “SPRINKLERS” doesn’t bother me much, but how many sermons have I sat through where the “Man Of God” railed on (pick your denomination) those wicked “baby sprinklers” This is just completely against their overall belief system, though you never hear a word about this from the “Man of God” I think its because most of them are uneducated and don’t even know it. But what is even more funny is the preaching against those wicked “Catholics” when they have a Roman Catholic Priest (Erasmus) to thank for providing the Greek New testament that the KJV translators used to provide them with their “perfect” translation. Kjvonlys should be thanking catholics instead of cursing them!

  286. Greg,

    Why don’t you go over the NASV or NIV with a fine-toothed comb like you do the KJV? Why? You guys will give the benefit of the doubt to these books but for the KJV, if it even looks like it could be something erroneous, you’re on it like a pitbull. What gives? Can you please give me your in-depth opinion on the passages that are very different or missing from the NASV/NIV that are in the KJV?

    John

  287. Greg,

    Please listen and let this sink in, I am not one that easily persuaded by “junk” information, regardless of the subject matter and regardless of my viewpoint on whatever the subject is. I’ll read Ruckam, Pink, Willingham, McGee, Rice, or whoever, and I will respect their opinion, but I will make up my own mind. So ONCE AGAIN, please stop insulting me by implying that I’m some kind of mindless knucklehead who can only regurgitate what he got from Ruckman. Please.
    I feel that the translators of the KJV had a certain humility and reverance toward the Word that is missing today (IMO), and that God respects that (James 4:6). So, like some of my favorite pastors/preachers, I think that God uses those that are willing to be His instruments in spite of their faults, failures and “biases”. That’s the case here.
    I have no problem with the KJV use of fornicate. I can use a concordance and dictionary.

    John

  288. John,

    This is just for fun.

    Mingled people (Jer 25:20) from the nethermost (1 Kings 6:6) ate snuffdishes (Ex 25:38) and palmerworm (Joel 1:4) every quarternion (Acts 12:4). Their sheepcote (2 Sam 7:8) were in shambles (1 Cor 10:25). Naught (Prov 20:14) to worry. We outwent (Mk 6:33)to bewray (Is 16:3) the breeches (Ex 28:42) with putrifying sores (Is 1:6) on the sackbut (Dan 3:5)

    Beeves (Lev 22:19) armholes (Jer 38:12) and emerods (Dt 28:27) canker (2 Tim 2:17) the bald locust (Lev 11:22) before horseleach (Prov 30:14) broilered (Ex 28:4) the calves of our lips (Hos 14:2) and cast the same in his teeth (Mt 27:44) burning ague (Lev 26:16) and chalkstones (Is 27:9)! Besom (Is 14:23) liers (Josh 8:14) girt (2Kings 1:8) the hasty fruit (Is 28:4) while lapwing (Lev 11:19) helve (Dt 19:5) the hindmost (Num 2:31) apothecary Ex 30:25). The ambushment (2 Chron 13:13) cauls (Is 3:18) chapiter (1 Kings 7:16) from ambassage (Lk 14:32) and his flesh pots (Ex 16:3) freckled spot (Lev 13:39) the mallows (Job 30:4). Then nergal (2 Kings 17:30) mufflers (Is 3:19) astonied (Ezra 9:4) the farthing (Mt 5:26) flagons (Is 22:24) mincing (Is 3:16) mete (Ex 16:18), maw (Dt 18:3) and assupim (1 Chron 26:15). Afterwards the college (2 Kings 22:14) oil tree (Is 41:19) was neesings (Job 41:18), plaiting (1 Pet 3:3) pleasant plants (Is 17:10) and rereward (Num 10:25) ribband (Num 15:38)

    Moreover, the portray (Ezk 4:1) bloody flux (Acts 28:8) botch (Dt 28:27) his ossifrage (Lev 11:13) while the pommels (2 Chron 4:12) pygarg (Dt 14:5) his victual (Ex 12:39). Waxed rich (Rev 18:3) caused a tender eyed (Gen 29:17) unicorn (Num 23:22) to spikenard (Mark 14:3) the sabaoth (Rom 9:29) the same time a cankerworm (Joel 1:4) cheek teeth (Joel 1:6) the exactors (Is 60:17). But that’s not all! the crising pins (Is 3:22) fell out of the chamois (Dt 14:5) fray (Jer 7:33) engines (Ezk 26:9) and succour (Heb 2:18) the malefactor (John 18:30) into the lily work (1 Kings 7:19)

    For those who think this is but succothbenoth (2 Kings 17:30), vain janglings (1 Tim 1:6) and superfluity of naughtiness (James 1:21), winefat (Is 63:2) and wist (Joshua 8:14) will unstopped (Is 35:5). Trow (Luke 17:9) the wreathen (Ex 28:14) and gay clothing (James 2:3) over the clift (Ex 33:32) and churl (Is 32:5) the checker work (1 Kings 7:17) down the firepans (2 Kings 25:15) and on hungerbitten (Job 18:12) hoar frost (Ex 16:14). The latchet (Mark 1:7) to the lowering (Mt 16:3) has occurrent (1 Kings 5:4) and even munition (Is 29:7). The mortar (Num 11:8) pavement (Ester 1:6) is below the almug (1 Kings 10:12) and pressfat (Hag 2:16) the sheaf (Gen 37:7). Understandeth what thou readeth?

    I got this from Evangelical Outreach, PO Box 265, Washington, PA 15301

    I realize that you and the rest of the kjvonlys can read this perfectly but most of us can’t. That is exactly what you are trying to force on us by making us read a 17th century anglican translation of a Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic text. Can I please have God’s Precious Words in a translation that I can understand?

    In Christ,
    Greg

  289. John,

    Do a survey of 10 non-christian friends and 10 christian friends. Ask them what does the word “fornication” mean to you? Hey while you’re at it, ask them what the term “gay clothing” means to them? I am trying to convey to you that language changes. Its a fact! As I said earlier, if the Lord tarries a couple more hundred years this whole KJV debate will just blow away as did the original autographs. Please try this survey and report back, I am curious.

    Now let me get this straight. The translators that gave us the KJV are only human (good of you to admit that) but you weren’t really trusting them anyway. Now they are able to provide us with the “perfect” word of God in the english language down to the last “jot and tittle” but they themselves weren’t aware that they were doing this! Boy that is amazing!

    John, good friend, God will use all of us if we will but conform our wills to His, that’s what He does. But to believe that the translators were working on a “perfect” translation and didn’t know it, I can’t buy that. A picture came to mind of that wonderful sweet Apostle John, exiled to the island of Patmos and writing the book of Revelation (which by the way Erasmus didn’t have a complete manuscript of) one question for you, do you believe that the Apostle John knew he was writing down the Precious Words of God? Oh and let me just stop here and thank God for allowing us to finally get that missing part of Revelation long after the KJV was finished.

    By the way and no offense (really) there is so much disinformation out there from “junk” KJV literature (not all of it is junk) you have already admitted your having studied after Ruckman, so I am assuming from our now lengthy dialogue you have consumed other KJV disinformation, as clearly evidenced by many of your responses. I wish to ask you another question. You do realize that your heroic KJV translators were all Anglicans with the exception of one? They clearly brought their biases with them, I’ll not go into that now because this is already getting long, but I’ll be glad to point some out if you are interested.

    God Bless,
    Greg

  290. Greg,

    No problem with fornication. I’ve heard it defined both ways, but the one that’s stuck with me is basically unlawful sex.

    I understand what you’re saying about the translators’ opinion regarding the inerrency of the King James, but my reply will be that they’re only human and I wasn’t really trusting them, per se, anyway. I do think God respected their reverance of His Word, but He used them in spite of their flaws. (IMO)

    Bryan, I understand what you’re saying. It hasn’t been my intention to be divisive or bring discredit to the Body, just state and defend my belief that the King James is not to be corrected at all and that we can trust it down to the last “jot and tittle.”
    But this whole web site is about discrediting Independent Baptists, so mine and Greg’s running debate would be the least of issues that would turn a non-Christian off. But again, I do see what you’re saying.

    John

  291. Bryan,

    I do appreciate your heart, and believe me its in the right spot. But I must remind you that we are on a site that ministers to folks who have been wounded and abused by extreme fundamenatlism. You have shared that you have been hurt by folks condemning your choice of translation and even questioning your salvation, I have shared as well of my 20 year journey out of this legalistic mess. I would say the main tenet of this movement is strict adherence to the KJV translation, notice I didn’t say the Word of God, but a strict adherence to a man-made translation. Its well meaning but misguided folks like John that try to keep folks like you and I under this man-made, extra-biblical doctrine. I just quoted to John in my last post that the translators themselves said that a variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the scriptures, they even go further stating that they are persuaded that its necessary. Then we have folks that say nope, you can only use the KJV, when the very folks that translated the KJV are saying the exact opposite! I do wonder about folks like John who continually show up on this site. Is the Holy Spirit ministering to him? I pray to God that’s so! Why else debate on “our” site.

    I do worry about someone getting the wrong message from these exchanges, however I doubt seriously anyone unsaved would have followed the thread this far, and remember I don’t want anyone to come under the legalistic doctrine of kjvonlyism. If they are wrong about the work of translation, what else are they wrong about. Just look through this site and see, horror stories all over the place!

    I have a fairly dramatic and to the point way about me and I think John does as well, I don’t think I would describe our exchange as heated. We agree way more than we disagree. I know exactly where John is coming from. I have read all the kjv “junk” literature that he has, by the way its not all junk, but most of it is. I was where he is, I’m hoping he is taking these tough questions to his spiritual kjv only “guru” and seeing that neither he nor his guru can answer these common sense questions, and then start on his own journey out of this mess. And let me be clear I am not against the KJV it is a good 17th century translation in elizabeathan english. Let me add I am very opposed to KJV onlyism.

    Bryan, God calls folks to different ministries and gives all christians wonderful and unique gifts. I can see several gifts that the Lord has given to you just in these short posts. I on the other hand feel compelled and gifted to shed light on this KJV only foolishness. I have said before on this site that I will not set still and let this foolishness go forward without vigorously defending the truth. To try and force folks to read an antiquated translation and then tell them, like they told you that you might not be saved from reading such a translation, no I won’t be having any of that.

    God Bless,
    Greg

  292. John,

    In Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 the KJV gives “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce under the law. Today this word means premarital sex. These verses in the KJV say the only grounds for divorce is something you did before you were married. this translation grossly confuses the Bible teaching about divorce. The Greek word used here is “proneia.” Both Strong’s concordance and Vine’s Word Studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between the unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idoratry. the NIV translates the word as “marital unfaithfulness.” The NASB say “unchasity” or “immorality.” Certainly this makes more sense.

    I don’t suppose you are ever going to take me up on my suggestion to read “The Translators To The Readers” so I think I will close with a quote from them. Now I don’t want to belabor the point, but bear in mind John that these are the guys that translated your “perfect” KJV. Here goes. “A variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

    In Christ,
    Greg

  293. John,

    I had one more to share with you (there are hundreds) as I have said before, kjvers can figure most of these out if they keep their concordance and Vine’s dictionary handy. I take no pleasure in this.

    In Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 the KJV gives “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce under the law. Today this word means premarital sex. These verses in the KJV say the only grounds for divorce is something you did before you got married. This translation grossly confuses the bible teaching about divorce. The Greek word used here is “porneia.” Both Stongs’s Concordance and Vine’s Word Studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between the unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idolatry. The NIV translates the word as “marital unfaithfulness.” the NASB says “unchasity” or “immorality”. Certainly anyone could recognize that this makes more sense.

    I don’t suppose you are ever going to take me up on my suggestion to read “The Translators To The Readers” so how about I close with a quote from them. Now remember John this quote comes from the translators of your “perfect” KJV. Here goes “A variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

    Don’t fear the truth John, it will set you free!

    In Christ,
    Greg

  294. John,

    I had at least one more I wanted to share with you (there are hundreds) again most of you kjvers can figure most of these out with a Strong’s concordance and Vine’s expository dictionary. And again I take no pleasure in this.

    In Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 the KJV gives “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce under the law. Today this word means premarital sex. These verses in the KJV say the only grounds for divorce is something that you did before you got married!! The Greek word used here is “porneia.” Both Strong’s concordance and Vine’s Word Studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between the unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idolatry. The NIV translates the word as “marital unfaithfulness.” The NASB says “unchasity” or “immorality.” Certainly this makes more sense.

    I don’t suppose you are ever gonna take me up on my suggestion that you actually read “The Translators To The Readers” So how about we close with a quote from them. Now John these are the guys that translated your “perfect” version, so their words should carry some weight. Here goes. “A variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” Peter Ruckman doesn’t like it but that’s just too bad.

    Don’t fear the truth brother John, it will set you free!

    In Christ,
    Greg

  295. Greg and John,

    Before you proceed any further with explaining your views, I want to ask you 2 questions:

    1. There are other people reading this website and there is a big possibility a lot of them are non believers searching for answers or are in the state of looking for the real salvation. When that person stumbles upon this page, will he/she be willing to accept Christ as his/her personal Saviour and Lord especially when he/she reads your exchange of words?

    2. Is God pleased by all of your exchanges?

    If you answer YES to both of them, probably you are doing the right thing.

    But if you answer NO to at least one of them, then you are to think twice.

    This is precisely what I am afraid will happen.

    A fundamentalist and a liberal will NEVER come to an agreement because of where does his foundations of doctrines lie. We come from two different point of views and never our train shall meet. We can only agree to disagree. The only for these two opposing views to get along is to accept each one as a brother and learn to love the other.

    I got news for you – you don’t need much theology to lead people to Jesus, you only have to lift Him up. Sadly, this heated exchange of debate is not lifting Him up.

  296. Greg,

    1) Please re-read 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chron. 9:25. They do not necessarily contradict each other if you read EVERY word in each vers.

    2) This certainly does look a contradiction. I’ll have to do a little more research on this one. In the meantime, let me ask you this, what do the Hebrew and Greek texts say? I’m asking this because I want to know if the translators of the KJV translated what they had without changing anything and if the translators of the new versions say this ‘error’ and took it upon themselves to “help God out” and change it.

    3)Another matter of doctrine or taking Scripture with Scripture. Kind of like Paul in Hebrews saying that we’re not justified by works and James saying the exact opposite in his epistle. Rightly divide the Word of truth.

    John

    John

  297. 4) In Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 the KJV gives “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce under the law. Today this word means premarital sex. These verses in the KJV say the only grounds for divorce is something you did before you were married!! This translation grossly confuses the bible teaching about divorce. The Greek word used here is “porneia.” Both Strong’s Concordance and Vine’s word studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between the unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idolatry. The NIV translates the word as “marital unfaithfulness.” The NASB says “unchasity” or “immorality.” Certainly this makes more sense.

    Apparently I am still unable to get you to read “The Translators to the Readers” so how about we close with a quote from them! Now remember John these are the men that translated your “perfect” translation. Here we go. “A variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” My, my, my don’t sound much like Peter Ruckman do they. Not only do they say that a variety of translations is profitable for finding the sense of the scriptures but they go further and say that it is “necessary”

    Truth,
    Greg

  298. continuing,

    4) In Mathew 19:9 and 5:32 the KJV gives “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce under the law. today this word means premarital sex. These verses in the KJV say the only grounds for divorce is something you did before you were even married!! This translation grossly confuses the bible teaching about divorce. The Greek word used here is “porneia.” Both Strong’s concordance and Vine’s word studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between the unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idolatry. The NIV translates the word as “marital unfaithfulness.” The NASB says “unchasity” or “immorality.” Certainly this makes more sense.

    I apparently can’t get you to read “The Translators to the Readers” so thought I would close with a quote from them. Now John these are the guys that translated your “perfect” version, so what they say should carry some weight, at least as much as your good friend Ruckman. Here goes “A variety of tanslations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” Wow, they sure don’t think like you!

    Because He Lives,
    Greg

  299. 4) In Mathew 19:9 and 5:32 the KJV gives “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce under the law. today this word means premarital sex. These verses in the KJV say the only grounds for divorce is something you did before you were even married!! This translation grossly confuses the bible teaching about divorce. The Greek word used here is “porneia.” Both Strong’s concordance and Vine’s word studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between the unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idolatry. The NIV translates the word as “marital unfaithfulness.” The NASB says “unchasity” or “immorality.” Certainly this makes more sense.

    I apparently can’t get you to read “The Translators to the Readers” so thought I would close with a quote from them. Now John these are the guys that translated your “perfect” version, so what they say should carry some weight, at least as much as your good friend Ruckman. Here goes “A variety of tanslations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” Wow, they sure don’t think like you!

    Because He Lives,
    Greg

  300. 4) In Mathew 19:9 and 5:32 the KJV gives “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce under the law. today this word means premarital sex. These verses in the KJV say the only grounds for divorce is something you did before you were even married!! This translation grossly confuses the bible teaching about divorce. The Greek word use here is “porneia.” Both Strong’s concordance and Vine’s word studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between the unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idolatry. The NIV translates the word as “marital unfaithfulness.” The NASB says “unchasity” or “immorality.” Certainly this makes more sense.

    I apparently can’t get you to read “The Translators to the Readers” so thought I would close with a quote from them. Now John these are the guys that translated your “perfect” version, so what they say should carry some weight, at least as much as your good friend Ruckman. Here goes “A variety of tanslations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” Wow, they sure don’t think like you!

    Because He Lives,
    Greg

  301. 4) In Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 the KJV gives “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce under the law. Today this word means premarital sex. These verses in the KJV say the only grounds for divorce is something you did before you got married! This translation grossly confuses the Bible teaching about divorce. The Greek word used here is “porneia.” Both Strong’s concordance and Vine’s Word Studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between the unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idolatry. The NIV translates the word as “marital unfaithfulness.” The NASB says “unchasity” or “immorality.” Certainly this makes more sense.

    You apparently aren’t taking my advice to read “The Translators to the Reader” so I’ll close with a quote from them. Now John this quote is from the translators that translated your “perfect” KJV. Here goes “A variety of trarnslations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

    Because He Lives,
    Greg

  302. 4) In the KJV the word “quick” never means “fast.” It means living or alive. In Hebrews 4:12 it says the word of God is “quick and powerful.” The NASB says it is “living.” the KJV says Christ will judge the “quick and the dead.” (2 Timothy 4:1) The NASB says the “living and the dead.” It is easy to see which is more accurate.

    5) In Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 the KJV gives “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce under the law. Today this word means premarital sex. These verses in the KJV say the only grounds for divorce is something you did before you were married! This translation grossly confuses the bible teaching about divorce. the Greek word used here is “porneia.” Both Strong’s Concordance and Vine’s Word Studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between the unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idoratry. The NIV translates the word as “marital unfaithfulness.” The NASB says “unchasity” or “immorality.” Certainly this makes more sense.

    It doesn’t appear that you are ever going to read “The Translators to the readers” so I’ll close with a quote from them. Now John these are the guys that translated your “perfect” version. “A variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good yea, is necessary , as we are persuaded.”

    In His Grace,
    Greg

  303. It won’t allow me to post if I put in too much at one time, so here goes.

    4) In the KJV the word “quick” never means “fast.” It means living or alive. In Hebrews 4:12 it says the word of God is “quick and powerful.” The NASB says it is “living.” The KJV says Crhist will judge the “quick and the dead.” (2 Timothy 4:1) The NASB says the “living and the dead.” It is easy to see which is more accurate.

    5) In Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 the KJV gives “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce under the law. Today this word means prematital sex. These verses in the KJV say the only grounds for divorce is something you did before you were married! This translation grossly confuses the Bible teaching about divorce. The Greek word used here is “porneia.” Both Strong’s Concordance and Vine’s Word Studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between the unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idolatry. The NIV tanslates the word as “marital unfaithfulness.” The NASB says “unchasity” or “immorality.” Certainly this makes more sense.

    You apparently aren’t going to read “The Translators to the Readers” so I will close with a qoute from them “A variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

    In His Grace
    Greg

  304. John,

    I take no pleasure in this.

    1) The KJV says in 1 Kings 4:26 that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses and in 2 Chronicles 9:25 it says he had four thousand. Obvious contradiction. NIV says four thousand both places.

    2) The KJV says in 2 Kings 8:26 that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign. In 2 Chronicles 22:2 it says he was 42 years old when he began to reign. Obvious contradiction. The NIV says he was 22 years old in both places.

    3) In the KJV it says in 1 John 3;9 “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin.” This contradicts plain scriptures in many places. Ecclesiastes 7:20 says “There is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not.” The NASB says in 1 John 3:9 “No one who is born of God practices sin.” This translation is more in harmony with other scripture and with Christian experience. We sin John, but we don’t practice sin. Our lives are not characterized by sin.

  305. John,

    I take no joy in this.

    1) The KJV says in 1 Kings 4:26 that Solomon had forty thouand stalls of horses and in 2 Chronicles 9:25 it says he had four thousand. Obvious contradiction! NIV says 4,0000 both places.

    2) The KJV says in 2 Kings 8:26 that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign. In 2 Chronicles 22:2 it says he was 42 years old when he began to reign. Obvious contradiction! NIV says 22 in both places.

    3) The KJV says in 1 John 3:9 “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin” This contradicts plain scriptures in many places. Ecclesiastes 7:20 says “there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not.” The NASB says in 1 John 3:9 “no one who is born of God practices sin” This translation is much more in harmony with other scripture and with Christian experience. We all sin John, but we do not practice sin. Our lives aren’t characterized by sin.

    4) In the KJV the word “quick” never means “fast”. It means living or alive. In Hebrews 4:12 it says the word of God is “quick and powerful”. The NASB says it is “living”. The KJV says Christ will judge the “quick and the dead ” (2 Timothy 4:1) The NASB says the “living and the dead” It’s easy to see which is more accurate.

    5) In Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 the KJV gives “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce under the law. Today this word means premarital sex. These verses in the KJV say the only grounds for divorce is something you did before you got married! This translation grossly confuses the bible teaching about divorce. The Greek word used here is “porneia”. Boths Strong’s concordance and Vine’s word studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between the unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idolatry. the NiV translates the word as “marital unfaithfulness.” the NASB says “unchasity” or “immorality”. Certainly this makes more sense.

    I’m just wondering what you will come up with to get around these?

    Greg

  306. Greg,

    Thanks for implying I’m a fool and not a “serious student of the precious Word of God.” I guess that title is reserved for those that are smart enough to find “errors” in the KJV.

    Yes, Greg, I think I did prove you wrong. You tried to say that those instances were errors and I showed that they were not.

    Unsustainable argument? Easily refuted? I beg to differ. You’ve yet to prove an error in the KJV, and you’ve yet to talk, in detail, about all those verses missing or changed in the newer versions.

    Was his name Lucifer or not?

    Don’t know about the difference in your CONCORDANCE and mine. (Concordance, not dictonary.) But in more than one place that I’ve looked, it said pascha can be Passover or Easter. Don’t know why the KJV translators chose Easter in Acts 12:4. I just know that Easter is an acceptable translation of the word pascha, and it works in this instance. Maybe your concordance is newer and was written by men who never believed in the inerrancy of the Word to begin with. (I’m just sayin’.)

    Sow discord among the brethren? I would point at the devil and not Ruckman. Is Ruckman always right in his approach and methodolgy? Certainly not, but you guys are always confusing the message with the method. What he says is generally right. He’s just not as, ahem, nice as he could be.

    Some of the arguments you use are similar to those used by nonbelievers. What about before Moses? Why wasn’t there a “Word of God” then? And who finished the book of Deuteronomy? The epic of Gilgamesh was written several hundred years before Genesis, so obviously the Hebrews got their version of the Flood story from the Sumerians, right? And what about the Gospel of Thomas and the Epistle to Barnabas and the book of Enoch? Who’s to say they aren’t inspired? And who decided which books belong in the canon anyway? All of this work was done by men, right?

    John

  307. John,

    Misspelled “unsustainable”

    I will address one of my “errors” regarding “pascha”. I looked it up as well in the Strong’s Greek dictionary, as you mentioned, and found it rendered just as you stated. Now later you said you looked it up in the concordance and it said the same, not in mine it doesn’t, now maybe you meant to say dictionary again, I don’t know, nevertheless. I am going to venture a guess, which I don’t often do. Maybe the concordance is older and the Strong’s Greek dictionary wanted to “conform” with the kjv reading. This is very similar to how the latin word “Lucifer” got into the kjv. It had become very popular and folks were “used” to seeing this in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which came out in 400 A.D., so the kjv translators were reluctant to change it, however they included the proper translation in the margin “or Daystar”

    Really from the context “pascha” presents no problem to any serious student of the precious Word of God. Its completely clear what is being conveyed here, were it not for the Ruckman’s of the world, there would be no confusion over this at all.

    Shalom,
    Greg

  308. John,

    You have not shown me to have been wrong on “any” error that I have pointed out in your preferred translation. You have offered different solutions, but have not demonstrated that I have been wrong on any of them.

    God’s words are perfect. When God spoke to the writers of the scriptures, those words which were written down were perfect. Do you agree with that statement? I’m sure you know that those words which were spoken and written down and were perfect words of God, were not spoken in english? Now I’ll try a different strategy with you. John are you perfect in anything you do or attempt to do? I play music for the glory of God and play several instruments, how I wish I were perfect. I retired from a job that I was very good at, but perfect, don’t think so. Do you believe that the kjv translators were perfect in the work of translating? Bear in mind the original autographs were dust by 1611, so all they had were copies of copies of the originals. Now if you do believe they were perfect and God ordained it to be that way, why didn’t this perfection continue on to the printers? The translators themselves didn’t believe they were inspired, if you would simply set down and read their “The Translators to the Readers”. They also give, in the original 1611, other manuscript readings in the margins, clearly showing that they didn’t know which was the “inspired” one. They also reference the apocrypha! Shouldn’t God have an inspired translation in all languages? Why just english?

    I take no joy in pointing out “problems” with your preferred translation. Its a fine translation. I don’t even argue much with the manuscripts used to support the translation. I am not opposed to the kjv at all as a matter of fact, but let me be clear, I am diametrically opposed to un-educated folks who confuse the brethern, who sew discord among the brethern, who are harming the body of Christ with kjv-only foolishness. I will not set still and listen to it, it is an unstainable argument, which is quite easily refuted.

  309. Greg,

    What’s this? You were wrong on the other supposed errors so you’re just going to keep digging until you find SOMETHING? It’s amazing that you guys want to address every little thing that you don’t agree with in the KJV or that doesn’t seem to make sense in modern English, yet when someone asks you about the many verses missing fom your newer versions, you just say something like, “These verses were not in the ‘originals’ and the KJV comes from conflated manuscripts.” Amazing.

    Here’s another juicy one. You guys might say something like, “Why would God want us to have to read His Word in an outdated, arcahic version of English?” Yet many, many ‘scholars’ and proponents of the newer translations will claim that in order to really know what God said, one needs to be able to read ancient Hebrew and Greek!!! I mean, c’mon.

    So, here we go:
    1st Post – 1, 2 and 3 can all be taken care of by using your concordance or an old dictionary, as can 6, 7, 8 and 9. It’s no different than some old timer in Maine saying someone’s cunnin’. (If you want, I’ll give you the Maine definition.) Again, one’s lack of understanding does not an error make.
    In 4 & 5 you’re talking doctrine. If you disagree with what 1 Tim 6:10 says in the KJV, that’s your problem, that doesn’t make it incorrect (taken in context). Not so sure that Rev. 22:14 is talking specifically about salvation by works for us, in this age. It’s not that clear. But if you want to, you could look up John 6:29 and 1 John 3:23. Again, just because you or I can’t 100% undersand what it’s saying does not mean it should be changed (2 Tim 2:15 again).

    2nd Post – 1, 2 and 3 are all nitpicking questions. 1-don’t know, 2-accountability by the translators, 3-don’t know. The answer to question 4 is the same as the answer to question 2 – accountability. The translators were keeping themselves accountable. Question 5 – And where did those 10th century manuscripts come from? And #6 – Not really sure how to address this one. We point out that they have errors in the same passages to show that the devil has been making a calculated attack on the Word from the beginning. (Mark 9:44, 46; 1 John 5:7,8, etc.). But that brings up another question, if modern-day scholars can identify all these errors in ALL of the translations, why can’t they just make the perfect translation with no errors instead of saying, “Well, they all have errors.”?

    John

  310. John,

    I take no pleasure at all in pointing out difficulties in your preferred translation. Again the kjv is a good translation but it has a few problems as do all “works” of men, by the way, including the new versions, there are certain verses that I prefer the kjv translation to than that of the new translations.
    1) The kjv says in 1 Kings 4:26 that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses and in 2 Chronicles 9:25 it says he had four thousand. This is an obvious contradiction. The NIV says four thousand in both places.
    2) The kjv says in 2 Kings 8:26 that Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign. In 2 Chronicles 22:2 it says he was 42 years old when he began to reign. Another contradiction. The NIV says he was 22 years old in both places.
    3) The kjv at 1 John 3:9 says “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin” This contradicts plain scriptures in many places. Ecclesiastes 7:20 says “There is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not” The NASB says in 1 John 3:9 “No one who is born of God practices sin” Our lives as christians are not characterized by sin.
    4) In Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 the kjv gives “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce under the law. Today this word means premarital sex. These verses in the kjv say the only grounds for divorce is something you did before you were married! INCREDIBLE this translation grossly confuses the bible teaching about divorce. The greek word used here is “porneia” Both Strong’s concordance and Vine’s word studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between the unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idolatry. The NIV translates the word as “marital unfaithfulness.” Certainly this makes more sense.

    Please let folks choose the translation of their choice, if thats the kjv, fine, praise God. Please don’t try and tell folks that use the newer translations that they are not getting God’s true word. Most of us can’t understand the kjv, and we want to know God’s message and will for our lives too. I have by now pointed out mountains of “problems” with your preferred translation, I’m sure you could find things wrong with some of the newer translations, although come to think of it, I don’t believe you have, anyway the kjv is a fine translation, it is not inspired, the original autographs are. In other words God’s words are perfect, translator’s words are not.

    Shalom,
    Greg

  311. John,

    I take no pleasure at all in pointing out difficulties in your preferred translation. Again the kjv is a good translation but it has a few problems as do all “works” of men, by the way, including the new versions, there are certain verses that I prefer the kjv translation to than that of the new translations.
    1) The kjv says in 1 Kings 4:26 that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses and in 2 Chronicles 9:25 it says he had four thousand. This is an obvious contradiction. The NIV says four thousand in both places.

    2) The kjv says in 2 Kings 8:26 that Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign. In 2 Chronicles 22:2 it says he was 42 years old when he began to reign. Another contradiction. The NIV says he was 22 years old in both places.

    3) The kjv at 1 John 3:9 says “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin” This contradicts plain scriptures in many places. Ecclesiastes 7:20 says “There is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not” The NASB says in 1 John 3:9 “No one who is born of God practices sin” Our lives as christians are not characterized by sin.

    4) In Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 the kjv gives “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce under the law. Today this word means premarital sex. These verses in the kjv say the only grounds for divorce is something you did before you were married! INCREDIBLE this translation grossly confuses the bible teaching about divorce. The greek word used here is “porneia” Both Strong’s concordance and Vine’s word studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between the unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idolatry. The NIV translates the word as “marital unfaithfulness.” Certainly this makes more sense.

    Please let folks choose the translation of their choice, if thats the kjv, fine, praise God. Please don’t try and tell folks that use the newer translations that they are not getting God’s true word. Most of us can’t understand the kjv, and we want to know God’s message and will for our lives too. I have by now pointed out mountains of “problems” with your preferred translation, I’m sure you could find things wrong with some of the newer translations, although come to think of it, I don’t believe you have, anyway the kjv is a fine translation, it is not inspired, the original autographs are. In other words God’s words are perfect, translator’s words are not.

    Shalom,
    Greg

  312. John,

    I take no pleasure at all in pointing out difficulties in your preferred translation. Again the kjv is a good translation but it has a few problems as do all “works” of men, by the way, including the new versions, there are certain verses that I prefer the kjv translation to than that of the new translations.

    1) The kjv says in 1 Kings 4:26 that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses and in 2 Chronicles 9:25 it says he had four thousand. This is an obvious contradiction. The NIV says four thousand in both places.

    2) The kjv says in 2 Kings 8:26 that Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign. In 2 Chronicles 22:2 it says he was 42 years old when he began to reign. Another contradiction. The NIV says he was 22 years old in both places.

    3) The kjv at 1 John 3:9 says “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin” This contradicts plain scriptures in many places. Ecclesiastes 7:20 says “There is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not” The NASB says in 1 John 3:9 “No one who is born of God practices sin” Our lives as christians are not characterized by sin.

    4) In Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 the kjv gives “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce under the law. Today this word means premarital sex. These verses in the kjv say the only grounds for divorce is something you did before you were married! INCREDIBLE this translation grossly confuses the bible teaching about divorce. The greek word used here is “porneia” Both Strong’s concordance and Vine’s word studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between the unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idolatry. The NIV translates the word as “marital unfaithfulness.” Certainly this makes more sense.

    Please let folks choose the translation of their choice, if thats the kjv, fine, praise God. Please don’t try and tell folks that use the newer translations that they are not getting God’s true word. Most of us can’t understand the kjv, and we want to know God’s message and will for our lives too. I have by now pointed out mountains of “problems” with your preferred translation, I’m sure you could find things wrong with some of the newer translations, although come to think of it, I don’t believe you have, anyway the kjv is a fine translation, it is not inspired, the original autographs are. In other words God’s words are perfect, translator’s words are not.

    Shalom,
    Greg

  313. John,

    1) If God supervised the translation process so that the kjv is 100% w/out error,why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
    2) The fact that the kjv translators placed into the margin alternate manuscript readings prove beyond any doubt that they were not guided by the Holy Spirit as to which one of the two readings were correct.
    3) Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the kjv, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James l, and a lengthy introduction from “The Translators to the Reader”
    4) If kjv supporters believe in word-for word inspiration of the kjv, why would italics be necessary?
    5) Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the kjv was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?
    6) Do kjv only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the kjv, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?

    In Christ,
    Greg

  314. John,

    1) can a turtle sing? the kjv says so. Song of Solomon 2:1
    2) the word “corn” as used in the kjv 101 times never means corn as we know it, it is referring to grain. The white man knew nothing about corn until after the discovery of America, therefore the original bible writers could have known nothing of it either.
    3) “conversation” to me means to speak with someone, not in the kjv it means behaviour or manner of life.
    4) Rev 22:14 in the kjv teaches salvation by works. It says “blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life. This verse was taken from the Latin Vulgate and inserted by Erasmus because he did not have a complete Greek manuscript of the book of Revelation. No other Greek manuscript in existence has the kjv reading.
    5) The kjv says “the love of money is the root of all evil” This is false, Adam and Eve certainly didn’t sin for the love of money. Most newer translations correct this.
    6) prevent to me means to stop someone from doing something, not in the kjv it means to precede.
    7) the kjv at James 5:11 says our Lord is very “pitiful” this term is old english meaning God is full of pity. This is slander against my God. Many new translations say “The Lord is full of compassion”
    8) Philipians 4:6 Says be careful for nothing. to me that means just be careless about everything! It should read “Be anxious for nothing”
    9) In modern english meat means the flesh of animals, in the kjv it means anything to eat. In Lev 2 a meat offering is described w/out any meat, think this could confuse a new convert?

    Because He Lives,
    Greg

  315. Greg,

    You and I cannot seem to get on the same sheet of music.

    1) I looked in my Strong’s Concordance here at home and this is what it says (minus the Greek version of pascha): “3957. (Greek version of pascha) pascha, pas-khah; of Chald. or. [comp. 6453]; the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it):- Easter, Passover.” So, ONCE AGAIN, pascha can mean Passover OR Easter.

    2) Greg, it’s very simple. Let’s say that certain events happened to you and they are recorded in a book exactly how they happened. And then let’s say that in a later chapter of the book there is a dialogue in which you’re telling someone what happened, but you change one or more of the details. That seems to be what has happened here. For some reason or other, in Acts 22:9, maybe Paul has changed the details of the event. In 2 Sam. 1, it seems the Amalekite changed the details of Saul’s death. In Acts 5:30 – which I still do not believe is trying to say “whom ye slew and THEN hanged upon a tree” – maybe it’s just a case of Peter getting the order of events wrong. Does that make it an error in the KJV? No, it would make it an error by the person that changed the details. The Bible is recording what was said by Peter and Paul, that doesn’t make the Bible wrong. So, yes, you are supposed to believe what Luke wrote. He wasn’t repeating what happened to our Lord, he was writing down what Peter said happened to oour Lord.
    Once again, who was the Gentile to the Apostles? Both Peter and Paul claim to be the messenger to the Gentiles, but it can’t be both, or can it? Can you follow what I’m trying to say? You see, I believe “rightly dividing the Word” means taking a deeper look at ostensible errors and seeing if there’s another explanation.

    3) No, I do not know that modern day translators are not trying to help God out. (That is a bit of a tongue-in-cheek statement of course.) I think that sometimes man’s pride and belief in his own knowledge leads him to think that he can do a better job than those that have come before him. In this case, the KJV translators.

    Thank you for being honest when you stated that you believe the Alexandrian manuscripts are more accurate. In the end, no matter how much evidence you and I bring forth, it’s going to boil down to how and what we believe.

    John

  316. John,

    Merriam Webster dictionary? Strong’s greek dictionary? I didn’t ask you to go to either of these two references, I’ve got a very funny feeling that you may have went to them after you saw what the Strong’s concordance had to say! Strong’s concordance lists 4 definitions, none of which mentions “easter” Your kjv translators got it right 28 other times John!

    Now I want to get this right. “Someone’s quotes about past events” well correct if I’m wrong, also scrathing my head, but isn’t that most of the bible? I’m not supposed to believe the Apostle Luke’s account of what Peter and the other apostles said to this rowdy crowd at Acts 5:30? Are you kidding me?

    John, you know very well that modern translators aren’t trying to help out God on these passages, they are translating from older, better (I believe) manuscripts, that is why it reads so much clearer and better.

    You know if the Lord tarries another couple hundred years, this argument will just blow away, just as the original autographs did, language will move on and only scholars will even be able to read this ancient-1769 revision-of-one-17th century-anglican-translation-of-the-bible-into-elizabeathan-english.

    In His Grace,
    Greg

  317. Greg,

    Sorry, again, how a person views Acts 9:7 and 22:9 may be helped out by reading John 12:29. That is Ruckman’s point of view. I don’t necessarily agree with him, but it can help shed a little light on the subject. (Scripture with Scripture.)

    John

  318. Greg,

    1) The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines trhe word Pascha as 1) Easter or 2) Passover.
    And this is what I got from Strong’s online Greek dictionary – Passover. Of Chaldee origin (compare pecach); the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it) — Easter, Passover.
    So, once again, Pascha can be defined as either Easter or Passover.

    2) Not to be sarcastic, but what I wrote above was fairly self-explanatory. Acts 5:30 and 22:9 are verses that are basically someone’s quotes about past events. Again, just like the Amalekite’s version of Saul’s death (1 Samuel 31:3-6 vs. 2 Samuel 1:2-10). Is this a matter of the translation being wrong or is it a matter of someone changing the story after the fact? Please read the passages and you’ll see what I mean. The Bible is not contradicting itself in any of these examples.

    3) As far as your last comments, KJV only types are not helping God out AT ALL. Our conversation regarding Acts 5:30 and Acts 9:7 vs. 22:9 is a perfect example of how modern day translators ARE trying to “help God out.” Can’t you see that? Someone reads the versions of events in Acts 9:7 and 22:9 and says, “Hmmm, these accounts of what happened don’t jive, we need to change the verse so they match.” When in reality, maybe God allowed the verses to be exactly the way they are. You see, people who find ostensible “errors” in the Bible and change it to make things “jive” aren’t really reverential toward the Word at all. They think that it needs to fit their perception of how it should read or something. I don’t know.

    John

  319. The following ramblings are not just for John but for anyone that may be following this thread.

    When people embrace the idea of inspired bible translations, that embracing indicates a foundational rejection of the “original words” God preserved. please follow along. The original words are preserved in aggregate. Psalms 12:6 Refer to “God’s Words”, not a translation! (please) Since God is perfect, so are His own words, they don’t need further “refining” by a translator or anyone else! So this business about perfect translations is near-blasphemous! God got it right the 1st time, so we but need to learn (His) words, which are indeed perfectly preserved in aggregate, and because in aggregate, testable, not just in one manuscript, but in them all, the textus receptus included. As Christ Himself stated, “My Words shall not pass away” – these words were not spoken in english. So the words that are His words, are not in english. It’s ok to translate , so long as you compare the translation to the words God preserved, since only those words will never pass away.

    I found the above on the “Kjv only debate blog” it is exactly how I think on the subject, the author is a much better writer than myself but he does an excellent job conveying the problems that the “inspired translation” folks have to deal with. How dare anyone to act as though they can “help” God say what He wants to say. John, talk about having a “Reverential” attitude when handling God’s Holy and precious Word, I caution all of us be very careful how you promote translations.

    Greg

  320. John,

    I’m lost, not sure what you are talking about on either of your responses.

    What I was requesting you to do was to take a Strong’s concordance and look up the the word “pascha” at Acts 12:4, and to see the meaning of the word. Googling pascha would be like googling Jesus, every nut in the tree comments.

    Now as I said before “pascha” cannot be translated easter, there is no biblical evidence for this at all, I even gave you the Strong’s # for “pascha” (3957) fear not, this knowledge will help you in the long run!

    Greg

  321. Greg,

    Correction – I got the John 12:29 reference from Ruckman. My bad.

    John

  322. Greg,

    My comment concerning Acts 5:30, once again, is that it is one man’s recitation of events, just like Acts 9:7 vs. 22:9 (John 12:29 might help with that one as well) and just like the Amalekites’ version of Saul’s death. Is it the Book being wrong or is it someone changing the ? What about Peter and Paul both claiming to be THE Apostle to the Gentiles? Which one was it? Is the Book wrong or were one of them wrong? Just seeing some perceived error in the text does not make it an error. Just because you or I can’t understand something does not mean that it shouldn’t be there or that it needs to be changed (2 Cor. 6:11-13). And I didn’t get this info from either Ruckman or Riplinger or Gipp, etc.
    I am currently a member of a KJV, IFB church. My current pastor takes a very moderate approach toward the whole KJV issue though. He has made a few comments during preaching, but nothing over the top. And he’s quite different from the Ruckman mindset as far as approach and such go. I had been a member of a Southern Baptist church for quite a few years, and I really liked that one. The 1st pastor was pretty strongly KJV only, but again, nothing like Ruckman. The 2nd pastor while I was a member there only used the KJV, but I’m not sure that he was what you would call KJV only. Of the 2, I preferred the 2nd.
    I use the Strong’s whenever I can. I taught in church for a while and I liked to bring it in to show the students how to use it. I was taught how to use it in the “Ruckmanite” church. (I use that word, but I don’t really like it so much.)
    I looked at some of the other passages in which pascha was used, and I still don’t think Easter is necessarily the wrong word to use in Acts 12:4.

    John

  323. Greg,

    Not afraid of the truth. (John 17:17)
    I googled the word pascha, and over and over and over again, the definition came out as either Passover or Easter. I didn’t complicate it, I didn’t go to anyone’s convluted logic, I just looked it up. So, it can either mean Passover or Easter. Why did the KJV translators use Easter? Dunno. It’s good to go as far as I’m concerned.

    John

  324. John,

    I was just thinking how you seemed to casually throw out that “pascha” could be translated either easter or passover, and it made me understand just how deeply you are into this kjv mindset of, the kjv, being perfect. I doubt that you will listen to anything contrary to what you perceive as truth and what you have been taught. I have demonstrated over and over “problems” with the kjv translation and you just casually brush them aside. No matter what you say or do for instance, you will never have the kjv translation at Acts 5:30 change the fact that your preferred translation has the Romans hanging a dead Jesus on a tree! You can’t change that no matter what you do or how many Ruckman or Samuel Gipp books you read!

    I just decided to go and re-visit this “easter” incident alittle more in depth. Let me ask you something, obviously you don’t have to answer, or could lie, but did you do any research at all about this topic “easter” before answering? The reason I ask is so that I may be able to understand your mindset abit better and to see just where you are coming from. Your answer also has me wondering about alot of things,for instance, I know you have admitted that you were in a Ruckmanite church for some time, but apparently aren’t at this time? Is that right? Now I have repeatedly told you that many problems with the kjv translation can be sorted through with the Strong’s Concordance, you have never once indicated that you use a Strong’s or need to. Now only completely insane people like Riplinger (who only recently God revealed to her that such tools were from Satan) tell folks to stay away from them. So I’m going to ask, don’t get mad, do you know what a Strong’s concordance is and do you know how to use one?

    I am going to assume for purposes of this post that you don’t, and there may be other kjvers who are following this thread that may benefit from the following explanation. I won’t go into alot of depth. Basically every word used in the kjv, Stong’s has taken either the greek or hebrew word. It shows how the word is spelled what type of word it is, verb, noun, gender etc. It shows every instance that word is used in the scripture. I realize I’m getting in over my head in explaining concordances’s, but the main thing it does, and what most people use them for is that it gives a definition of what the word means. So you can see how the translators come to the opinion that they had and why they use the english words that they use. And again let me say that after years and years of flipping through those pages of that large reference book I can personally attest to the fact that the kjv translators did a fabulous job in translating the kjv. Several years ago the Strong’s concordance got put on the computer and has saved me and millions of others massive amounts of time in searching the kjv scriptures. Again assuming that you don’t know how to access this information. Just google strong’s concordance. Just type in the word you want to look up or usually what I do is to type in my reference, in this instance, this am I typed in Acts 12:4 – Now please John before responding do this and see for yourself that whoever told you or whomever’s book you read that said “pascha could be translated either way” was simply misguided or worse lying to support their kjvonly doctrine, which is an added doctrine to the precious Word of God. The Strong’s # for “pascha” is 3957 just in case for any reason you can’t access it online and need to turn those pages. I read through Gipp’s tortured explanation today and he goes into extreme great lengths to make “easter” the proper reading but alas he never quoted the concordance, and I was reading fast, because I didn’t want to become sick, as I sometimes do when I read such pitiful drivel, I don’t believe that he quoted his kjv at Ezekiel 45:21 where it clearly states that the Passover is a feast “that last for seven days”

    So just some more info for you to to properly divide our Precious Saviour’s wonderful Word.

    Don’t be afraid of the truth, for the truth will set you free.

    In Christ,
    Greg

  325. John,

    It’s the Lord’s day and I have got to go to church shortly so I won’t get to answer all of your questions this am. I do want to take a stab at your comment on “pascha”, site admin has done much good work here on this topic and I can’t really add to what he says. Two different people have done a cut and paste job, I think using Samuel Gipp’s extremely long answer, to try and support their unbiblical view of this topic. Many of the problems I point out in the kjv are not really that big a deal, especially if one will keep their Strong’s concordance handy. Let me say that I don’t really want to point out anything “wrong” with the kjv translation in case a weaker brother would get ahold of this and it cause him to doubt his bible. Nonetheless I feel compelled to continue to shine light on this subject that vile men “think Ruckman” have hijacked. I like the kjv translation, again its a good translation, its been mightily used of God. But there is no proof that God ceased and halted all english translations with this work. John, The Passover is a very important part of our christian heritage, of course going back to the very first passover in Egypt where the death angel was sent among the people and those that had the blood on the door were left alone and were “passed over” while those that didn’t were killed. Now I have already told you that I think the biggest mistake by the kjv translators was calling the blessed Holy Spirit the 3rd part of the wonderful trinity an “IT” well here’s is the next one, confusing the Passover a very Holy time with the pagan holiday “easter” As I look into these I can almost see from the manuscripts used how the translators could maybe have translated “Holy Spirit” an it, it pains me to say this He deserves so much better, but translation “pascha” as Easter, I see no reason at all for this unfortunate mistake. John I love you brother but “pascha” can not be translated either way, that’s an easy one to look up. Pascha always means passover “always” it never means anything else. My current pastor who loves his kjv translation will even admit this mistake in the kjv. “pascha” was used 29 times in the kjv, the translators got it right 28 times, for the life of me I can’t tell you why they blew it here, but blow it they did!

    Greg

  326. Greg,

    1) I’ve got it here at home. Don’t know whether what they said matters to me or not, since I believe God preserved the Word and maybe used those men because they seemed to have a more reverential attitude than some. (Speculation on my part.) Yes, I claim the KJV is perfect, but you claim it has errors, so please prove them to me. (I know, we’re getting nowhere. Just trying to make a point.)
    3) You asked me to cite sources. I’m not citing sources, I’m just saying look it up for yourself online. There are probably a few sites that have their quotes on them.
    Easter isn’t really a problem at all. Pascha can mean Passover or Easter. You can look that one up quite easily. But you didn’t really answer my question: Was Satan’s name originally Lucifer or not?
    You might be right about calling the Alexandrian family “catholic” manuscripts. But I do believe they are the family that the Catholic Church uses and always has used. Am I wrong on that?
    Not sure which text the new, new translations use, but in the passages that are cut or removed, don’t the generally all agree from the RV right on up to the latest translations?
    Thanks for your lighter tone. As strongly as I feel about this subject, in the end we’re going to have to agree to disagree, which I can do. If I’m around someone that uses one of the newer versions, I’ll try to avoid the subject. If they ask me, I’ll let ’em know what I believe, but I try not to be contentious.

    John

  327. Hey John,

    There’s a mistake in the 3rd paragraph. What I was trying to say is that the greek text that was compiled by W&H is not the greek text that most new translations use. Most use the Nestle/aland 27th edition Greek New Testament, which is considered an ecletic text.

    Greg

  328. John,

    Your tone seems better, which is a good thing. I have debated a few people on this topic, and I have read others back and forth on the topic and it is really quite funny how the kjvonlyists continue to use circular reasoning on this topic. This last response of yours seems much more reasonable than some of the others so I will try to be very reasonable as well.

    #1) you are the one who contends that you have the perfect and inspired inerrant, w/out a mistake, God-breathed, preserved word, not me. I submit that, if you weren’t contending the above we wouldn’t be debating. So you are the one that it is incumbent upon to provide “evidence” to support your contention. Are you following me? You have admitted in our back and forth that there are different families of manuscripts.
    So to answer your question, which you have already asknowledged, I cite the older, more accurate readings of the manuscripts. Also I mentioned in an earlier post the “The Translators To The Readers” that used to be published with the kjv as another source, most all of your support for a “perfect” translation in the kjv is decimated by this preface to the kjv by the translators themselves. They certainly didn’t hold to, or believe that their translation was perfect. Again John, please read this, really, this alone will answer so many of your questions! I don’t want you to believe like me I want you to learn things for yourself.

    #3) For the life of me I don’t understand why you insist I look up statements by Wescott & Hort and Origen. I haven’t quoted them, they play no part in my understanding of translation history. I will tell you particuarly in ref to W&H that there will be an extremely long line in heaven waiting to apologize to these two decent men of God. Why the kjvonlyists have picked these two to lie about so badly is beyond me, particularly because the greek new testament they worked on is not what most new testatments follow. Its sorta like the straw man that kjvonlyists set up about “catholic manuscripts” being used by the new versions, there just simply isn’t any truth to that and W&H have next to nothing to do with the transmission of new bible translations.

    Not exactly sure about some of the rest of your comments. Lucifer is sorta like the Easter problem for kjvers. Lucifer is a latin word. Your kjv is an english translation. Your kjv was translated from an ancient hebrew text for the old testament, so you tell me, why is Lucifer still there? Its latin. Pascha, (may be misspelled) means passover, it means nothing else, your kjv got it right 28 other times.

    I’m not trying to insult you. I am direct and try to get to and make a point. I don’t feel I’m irate, I did sit through alot of foolishness in an ifb church for 20 years, been free of that for 2 years now , whom the Lord set free is free indeed! I’m loving life studying a bible I can understand, we had 5 souls saved this week at church, so things are good.

    Greg

  329. Greg,

    1) You’re coming from the position that words and phrases were added to the KJV and I’m coming from the position that words and phrases (key words and phrases) are taken from the other translations. Easy to understand, right? I understand where you’re coming from, I just strongly disagree with you. (I think my sources for believing in the inerrancy of the Word are the verse mentioned above.) Can you please cite some sources for your position? Are you trying to hold me up to a standard that you yourself aren’t going to follow? You have yet to “prove” that ANY of the new translations are closer to the originals than the KJV in any passage. Can you prove that nothing was removed from the NIV? Now’s your time to “shine”.
    2) ????
    3) Do you want evidence? Did you look up the quotes by Westcott, Hort and Origen? DID YOU? Of course you didn’t. You’ve been trying to get me to study and be opened minded, etc., and you can’t even take the time to google these guys’ quotes about the Word.
    Was his name Lucifer or was it not? Or is it just some made-up word? Yes, Isa. 14 is talking about a man AND the devil (just like in Ezek. 28). Kind of like Jesus is God and a man. Do you understand the mystery of iniquity and the mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16 vs. 2 Thess. 2:7)?
    When have I ever said I “feel it in my bones”? What kind of argument is that? “Is that all you got?” Did you go back and look again at Acts 5:30 and Acts 9:7 vs. 22:9? Do you see what I meant above?
    Once again, why do you continue to insult me? Have I offended you? Are you so ticked off because of some bad experience you had at a KJV-only, IFB church that you get irate every time someone brings this subject up? I mean, what’s up?

    John

  330. John,

    Your answer to #1 is no answer at all, let me repeat nothing has been removed from the NIV, it is my contention that scribes “added” to the manuscripts that the kjv translators used. So my opinion therefore is that words and verses have been added to the kjv. Once again you hold up the kjv as the standard, which it is not, and which you cite no references to support that. So your argument is simply. The NIV reads differently than the kjv thus I’m right you’re wrong! Did I mention you cited no sources?

    On to #2 Ok I guess you’re right. Hey everybody in the english speaking world, John says that you should know how to speak, read and comprehend in 17th Shakesperean english. I’m so sorry that I have been lying all along to you about my inability to understand this odd english!

    OK, let’s try #3- I simply asked you to show me any evidence “ANY” that demonstrates that modern translations were made by men who didn’t believe in the power of the Word. Now its time for John to shine and show us rabble-rousers how foolish we are to believe as we do, now its time for John to demonstrate that in fact he has studied the matter and point to some publication somewhere, CITE a source other than, this is John and I know this, I just feel it in my bones. Nope, sorry I’m directed to look up quotes from men whom I have never quoted to see that they aren’t reverential regarding the bible-hello, earth to John I never said they were! AGAIN YOU CITED NO SOURCES!!!!!!!!!

    Really, please John is this all you got? I’m serious.

    Lucifer. This is kinda like your Dean Burgon move. You have started something that you know nothing about. Lucifer is a Latin word. How in the world did a Latin word get into the middle of an english translation of a Hebrew text? Glad you asked. This word came from the good catholic Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, done about 400 AD, it became so popular that the kjv translators were reluctant to change it to what the textus receptus actually said “day star” So now I did cite my source for this, the textus recptus. (you do know what the textus receptus is?) By the way please read your kjv alittle more closely IS 14:16 clearly says that the person that it was speaking of here is a “man”, at least that’s the way my kjv reads.

    Greg

  331. Greg,

    I don’t have a “problem”. (Well, I have many problems, but belief in the KJV is not one of them.) Once again, your condescending manner is something else.

    John

  332. Greg,

    1) We’ve already discussed the passages that have been removed from translations like the NIV. Isa 14:12 might be one to add to that.
    2) I believe God has preserved His Word in a language people CAN understand. All we need to do is study (2 Tim 2:15, KJV please) and get a little guidance for those passages we can’t understand.
    3) Look up the many quotes by Origen, Westcott and Hort concerning the Bible. They did not seem to have a reverential attitude toward the Bible.
    I would chalk the difference in Acts 9:7 and 22:9 to the same thing as the Amalekites’ version of Saul’s death: it’s a man’s rehearsal of events. I don’t know their motives or why they would change their stories, but it would appear that they did. It also seems similar to Peter and Paul both claiming to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. Is the Bible wrong or were they wrong. Maybe Acts 5:30 falls into the same category and maybe the translators of the KJV decided to translate those passages as is without “helping God out.”
    Now about Ruckman, I must say that I agree with you to some degree. I think his approach has done damage to the Body. I don’t agree with his tone and nature, which aren’t necessarily called for. I also disagree with some of his beliefs and doctrine. That being said, I do consider him to be quite brilliant and I respect his stand for the Bible (even if I disagree with his methods). I went to a “Ruckmanite” church a while back and it was instilled in me at that church to love and trust and cherish and study God’s Word and use it alone for all matters of faith and practice. And that commentary on Revelation you mention is probably the best I’ve read on the book of Revelation. Again, you have to get past his tone and style of writing at times, but he breaks the book down better than just about anyone else that I’ve seen. So, in some points, maybe I have drank from the Ruckman kool-aid, but someone could also say that you’ve drank from Wescott’s or Hort’s or Custer’s or Hutson’s or whoevers kool-aid.
    I understand what you mean about studying, which I do, but I try to be careful when men try to shake my belief in something that I’m pretty much well established on.
    Again, if I’ve come across as too harsh, I apologize. I’ll stand before our Creator, too.
    John

  333. John,

    I forgot to address Ruckman, I even hate to write his name. I think, because you keep bringing him up that this is the crux of your problem, you have consumed too much Ruckman Kool-Aid. Yes I have at least one Ruckman book, a rather large volume on Revelation. (yea, I read it) I went downstairs to retrieve another book for an entirely differnt subject matter I’m looking into and saw Ruckman’s commentary on Revelation, I think I got it from my brother, but I have read much about him both pro (fellow Kool-Aid drinkers) and con and also he’s all over the internet with videos, I occasionally put one on for the comic relief he provides.

    Peter Ruckman has done much harm to the body of Christ and will answer to God for his actions, as will we all.

    Greg

  334. John,

    1) please show me any evidence that the NIV is a corrupted translation. please cite sources.
    2) You are the one the one that trusts man’s wisdom more than God’s desire/ability to preserve His Word, by clinging to an antiquated 17th century translation, apparently not believing that God can provide his preserved Word in a language that modern people can understand.
    3) please show me any evidence that decent modern translations were made by men who never really believed in the power of the Word. please cite sources.

    John, could you please explain from your kjv translation why the two Damascus Road accounts differ? At Acts 9:7 the men that were with Paul “hear a voice and see no man” the account a few chapters later at Act 22:9 says that the men “heard NOT the voice” When I was where you are this one kinda really got me, I had no answer for it, now unlike you with your non-explanation of Acts 5:30, I kept my mouth shut. The newer translations clear this little problem right up, I’m not going to explain how, I’m hoping that you will look into it for yourself and learn something.

    Notice John, how I keep telling you to study and to learn, I’m not telling you to listen to me because I’m right about everything, just follow me. I am attempting all through our conversation to get you to start thinking critically about these issues.

    Again, the kjv is a good translation done by wonderful men of God, they really didn’t do anything “wrong” on the above problem, if you get out your Strong’s you can figure out exactly what they did.

    Thank God today He’s faithful.

    Greg

  335. Greg,

    Lacking wisdom??? Have you read one book of Peter Ruckman’s? If so, could you get past his writing style and some of the “bluster” to get what he was trying to say and the evidence behind it? Surely that is “within your ability.”
    I wanted to write something of a “Holy Spirit to Greg” paragraph, but I wouldn’t want to be too presumptuous. But if I were to do that, the paragraph would ask questions like why you use a corrupted translation like the NIV, why you trust man’s wisdom more than God’s desire (or ability) to preserve His Word, why you don’t think God would preserve it if He inspired it, why you can’t see that the newer translations are from manuscripts that were changed by men who never really believed in the power of the Word anyway, etc, etc.

    John

  336. Greg,

    I’d say it’s more your condescending manner than the Holy Spirit.
    I don’t fear, Greg, I trust God’s ability to give me a translation that requires NO correction from anyone, regardless of their degrees, smarts, or ability to read Greek or Hebrew. (AKA KJV-Onlyism vs. Scholarship Onlyism) Why is that so hard for you to understand? I believe that we don’t need 5,000 manuscripts to get a translation in English that God wants me to have. We don’t need new discoveries and better renderings and expert opinions. What happens if someone makes another discovery similar to the Dead Sea scrolls and the manuscripts found don’t agree with the LXX, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus? If they’re older, are you going to want a new translation that reflects those differences? What are you trusting, Greg, man’s ability to translate or God’s ability to preserve? That’s the difference between most of us and most of you. We trust that God wants us to have and has given us a perfect translation in our language, today. You guys are trusting in man’s reasoning, logic and abilities (at least that’s what I believe).

    John

  337. John,

    Wow! Must have struck a nerve. I re-read my last post to see exactly what it was that may have set you off and it was actually less insulting to you than some of my earlier posts, I purposely tried to be nicer thinking that it was probably my last as you indicated that you were about done with the discussion. I am hopeful that what is happening is that the precious Holy Spirit, which your translation calls an “it” is starting to move and work and flex and is trying to show you something. Oh it can’t be Lord, it can’t be, Pastor kjv tells us every Sunday to beware of the leaven of the pharisees, listen John I have many ways to accomplish my will and get my word across to folks, someone somewhere just started this kjv and no other as being the Word of God was zealous, but without wisdom. Can’t you understand that human language is fluid, and I’m not just speaking of english, all human languages are fluid and changes over time, including those languages that I breathed on the writers of the “originals”, to think that I can only speak to english speaking people in one 17th century “translation” is to add to my words things which I never said, but Lord didn’t you say that your words are pure words like silver refined in a furnace? Yes I did I say that, in Hebrew, by the way. Holy Spirit to John, John I love you and want the very best for you. Now if I had just said to you John I charity you, would you have understood what I was talking about. No Lord, well its as simple as that, I don’t know what I must do to get you to stop trying to prove things about my word that aren’t true. Charity was a great word for love in the 17th century John, guess what its not the 17th century anymore. Ok Lord. John I have used men of God always in spreading my Word and accomplishing my will, just as I used translators in the 1600’s, I use them today. Do not try to box me in! Fear not John, for I do love and care deeply for you and I remember that you were made from the dust.

    As I wrote this I’m reminded that I too am made from the dust, I fail our Precious Lord many times, I am so thankful for His mercy and goodness and forgiveness. Thank you Lord for your mercies are new every morning, Praise God, He is so good to us. I love Him today.

    Greg

  338. Greg,
    Sorry, I lied, I’ll respond. Why do you continue to insult me? Why are you guys so sensitive about them “mean old Ruckmanites” when you’re really no better. Ruckman and his kind are more direct and caustic. You guys just sugarcoat your insults.
    You haven’t given me one scintilla of evidence that the newer versions aren’t the result of the devil himself using men like Origen to corrupt God’s Word.
    Erasmus was a Catholic, but that does not mean he used Catholic MANUSCRIPTS. Surely it is “within your ability” to understand that. (Doesn’t God sometimes use those that may not exactly be following Him? Cyrus, Pharoah-Necho, Herod, et al)
    If ALL of the versions have errors, then God’s Word – that we have in our possession – is not “Holy and pure.” Why can’t you “misguided” folks see that?
    What family of manuscripts did the Lord quote from? How do you propose to prove to me which family he quoted from? By using “the originals”?
    John

  339. John,

    God’s word is perfect, translators words are not. There were at least 5 very good english translations prior to the kjv and I don’t know how many good translations since (not all are good I might add) But you and a bunch of other misguided folks have decided to crown the kjv translation as God’s perfect word for english speaking people. Now to go further, the kjv came out in 1611 and has now been revised 8 times. 99.99% of the folks currently use the 1769 edition. Was God’s word contained in the 1611? If so why have the revisions? You do know that Jesus didn’t speak in english don’t you? God never promised that he would give us a perfect translation in english, if you can show me that in the kjv or any other good translation then this discussion is ended and I’ll pack up my toys and go home. God’s Word is Holy and pure but there are no promises contained in the scripture that that Word would be contained in the kjv. I keep saying this over and over again, you continue to act as though the kjv is the standard and have yet to provide a scintilla of evidence to support that. Let me scream this, THE KJV IS A TRANSLATION MADE BY MEN, AND THEREFORE IMPERFECT. The perfect words of God were contained in the original autographs. All good and faithful translations today contain God’s word, including the kjv.

    Please do this for yourself and your personal knowledge, this should be within your ability. Jesus quoted the old testament often. Find out which manuscript family he quoted from and considered the Word of God. Hint its not the same family of manuscripts that the kjv translators used. I’m hoping that based on your own research on the matter you will begin to see that our Lord certainly doesn’t believe as you do regarding the kjv.

    The comment about “catholic manuscripts” would be funny were it not so foolish. Erasmus was a roman catholic priest, he compiled the greek new testament which was used by the kjv translators. He remained a faithful catholic til his dying day. This was one of the funnier things that I came across in my study into this kjvonly foolishness. My little catholic bashing baptist church would rail against “them catholics” and yet their whole new testament was based off of Erasmus’ greek text.

    I have been saved for about 43 years now, I love our Lord more now than ever, I look into His precious Word every day, I try to live a faithful life and be salt and light. I was once where you were. Please look into these things that I have asked of you and let God be true and every man a liar.

    Because He Lives,
    Greg

  340. Greg,

    I think this will be my last post on this because we aren’t getting anywhere.
    1) I don’t answer your arguments/questions, nor do you comment on mine. And I have to say, without directly calling me a dummy or sycophant or fool, you have been a little insulting (which we’re almost always accused of).
    2) Once again, I believe that the KJV is God’s perfect Word for us, right now. Not only am I not equipped to correct it (not are you, J. Vernon McGee, Wescott, Hort, my pastor, your pastor, etc.), I think it would be tantamount to correcting God’s very Word. That is the position that I come from. I believe He inspired it and he preserved it for us, today, in the KJV. I think that when someone says that the translators were wrong in how they described the Holy Spirit as an “it” (like the Word describes Jesus as a “thing” in Mary’s womb) in the aforementioned passages, that they are exhibiting great arrogance and self-will. Their education and knowledge does not equip them to correct God’s Word. I believe God’s word is holy, pure and won’t be corrected by you or me. It’s that simple. So all the evidence that a person can bring out will be interpreted by that stance. Now, what position does someone come from that believes they can correct the Bible? What are they trusting in? God’s ability and desire for us to have a Book that needs no correcting or their ability to find out what God really meant by looking at some fictitious originals that have not been in anyone’s possession for almost 2,000 years (give or take). Is it just a matter of looking at the evidence at face value? Or is it something a little more sinister (whether it’s well-intentioned or not)? I think it’s the latter.
    3) There’s no proof that Aleph or B or whatever is more accurate or closer to “the originals” than the T.R. NONE. You can say, “Show me the proof that the T.R. is more accurate.” I can’t prove it to you. All I can do is read different mens’ studies on the subject and make up my own mind (which is what we all have to do). The newer translations come from Catholic manuscripts which I believe have been cut and snipped and changed in key areas and the KJV does not. I believe that God will honor the use of the KJV more than He will the other versions and that we can see that today. I didn’t say He can’t use them, but I do believe He won’t honor them like he will the KJV.
    4) Brother, to me the correcting of God’s Word by some who think they’re smart enough to do so is not “foolishness”. (Rom. 1:22 might be good verse for that one.) To me, it’s very serious. Question, what is the only offense for which God says he will take someone’s name out of the book of life? Oh my bad, I forgot, that part of Revelation wasn’t in “the originals.”
    Anyway, you’re still my brother and we’ll meet someday. As I’ve heard a preacher say, “here, there, or in the air.”

    John

  341. You know guys, I really only wish we stop this madness of bashing each other, you know conservatives versus liberals. I’m getting sick of it. It pains me a lot. Can you just for a moment think how is Jesus reacting to what we all are doing?

    If Jesus is browsing this website and He saw us doing this, will he be pleased?

    Don’t you think we are grieving the Holy Spirit?

    Let’s talk heart to heart, I don’t think the IFBs and other churches are not different when it comes to their faith in Jesus Christ. We both agree that :
    1. God the Father wants us to be with him
    2. Man sinned and his fellowship with God the Father was interrupted
    3. Man did everything to bridge the gap but nothing worked so
    4. Jesus died for our sins and became the only way to bridge the gap between man and God
    5. The only thing we must do to have eternal life is to receive Christ as his personal Saviour and Lord and continue to work out that relationship

    So now, if we all abide by that and cut all that doctrinal shenanigans, don’t you think we will be a good testimony to the unbelievers? Because although we are different in doctrines and details, we still serve our Master and united by that aim?

    The reason people (at least here in the Philippines) refused to be born again because they can clearly see that we are divided and won’t budge towards reconciliation (the Baptists especially think reconciling with other churches is ecumenical). The catholics in the Philippines don’t want to go to a dysfunctional Church because we are so into family ties.
    “WHY DO WE WANT TO BE BORN AGAIN? YOU PROTESTANTS ARE NOT EVEN AGREEING ON THINGS? AT LEAST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ONE HOLY UNITED CHURCH UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE POPE.”

    It is sad to think that many Filipinos refused to be born again precisely because of this and I think there is a valid wisdom in it. Simple – why would I commit myself to a dysfunctional organization?

    Filipinos are very emotional people – that is ingrained in the Filipino psyche. And seeing conflicts between brothers and sisters especially in the same faith is very painful for a lot to bear. That’s why they’d rather stay Catholic at least there is not open conflict.

  342. John, there was one who said that to me and he is not my friend anymore. And so many other insulting remarks that infers that I am not saved. But I would rather not enumerate them. It’s just reliving the pain and I don’t want that.

    Greg, in the Philippines, many Filipinos are religious fanatics. If one is a Catholic, they would defend the Catholic faith even if proven wrong. Let me give you a hint:

    “EVEN IF IT IS PROVEN THAT SALVATION IS BY FAITH THROUGH GRACE, I STILL WILL NOT BELIEVE IT BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT THE HOLY MOTHER CHURCH SAYS”

    “HOW DARE YOU SAY MARY IS NOT TO BE PRAYED AT?! MARY IS THE MOTHER OF GOD – IF YOU CAN PRAY TO THE GOD THE FATHER THEN YOU CAN PRAY TO GOD THE FATHER’S MOTHER. DON’T YOU SEE, MARY HAS A HIGHER RANKING THAN GOD THE FATHER?”

    “WHY BE A BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN? I WAS BORN A CATHOLIC AND I WILL DIE A CATHOLIC! ALL OF MY RELATIVES ARE CATHOLICS. I’D RATHER SPEND MY ETERNITY IN HELL THAN DISPLEASE MY RELATIVES FOR CHANGING RELIGION.”

    And this is the same with the Baptists in our country – especially the Bible Baptists. They really do believe salvation is found nowhere except in their church because they are the only church who follows the apostolic doctrines to the letter.

    They also claim to be the only church who can trace their origins back to the time of John the Baptist.

    They also declare the Reformation was another foolish historical event and they use to say they were not part of the Reformation – another heretical event.

    Now if you think this thing is going away, I really hope it goes out fast. Because these churches are so uncooperative in the advancement of the Kingdom. Other churches do a lot of work (feeding the poor, sponsoring children to go to school, sponsoring missionaries etc…) while these uber conservative churched keep warning their constituents to stay away from us like AIDS.

  343. Bryan,

    I see your heart in your responses. Don’t allow this kjv foolishness to bother you for another moment. Your NIV is a wonderful, faithful translation. Do you know that the translators who worked on this beautiful translation had over 5,000 copies of ancient manuscripts