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.

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.

KJV Myths

Myth 1. The KJV is not copyrighted.

Actually this is partially true, but not completely. Technically in the US anything prior to 1922 is free of copyrights. This is simply because of the lack of copyright laws at that time. If that were the only issue then the KJV would not have a copyright. The problem, however, is that the KJV is not a work produced by an American citizen. The KJV is actually copyrighted under the Crown Copyright of England therefore the copyright of the KJV falls under the jurisdiction of England. Since the Crown Copyright is a perpetual copyright it will never end. The US has agreed to honor copyright laws of other countries. As a result the KJV is actually copyrighted here in the US as well. It is rarely enforced simply because of logistical issues – its just not practical. But the KJV is under copyright here in the US.

Myth 2. The KJV is not copyrighted therefore there is no sinister motivation and thus more reliable than other translations that are copyrighted.

First of all, even if the KJV weren’t copyrighted, which we established above that it indeed is, that doesn’t mean that there is no malicious intent for producing the KJV. As stated above, the KJV was actually rushed through production for political reasons rather than religious reasons. Secondly, not having a copyright doesn’t mean that it is more accurate or reliable. A copyright is nothing more than a legal issue that prevents the copying of a work. It is not an endorsement of perfection.

Myth 3. The KJV is based on the textus receptus or the Received Text which is the most accurate original manuscripts.

As noted above, the textus receptus is a family of manuscripts known as the Byzantine Family and were nothing more than a collection of copies of the original. It is a succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale and eventually the King James Version.

The Byzantine manuscripts are far from the most accurate. Scholars generally agree that the Alexandrian manuscripts are much more accurate and reliable.

Myth 4. The KJV is the Preserved Word of God for the English speaking world – Matthew 5:18

The IFB use Matthew 5:18 to teach that the KJV is the “Preserved Word of God” because verse 18 reads: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (KJV). I was taught growing up that this verse means that the Lord will preserve His Word in the form of the KJV. The message was that other versions of the Bible added or subtracted or changed things in the Word of God and since the Lord tells us that “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law” then the KJV MUST be the only version we are to use.

This is completely false and nothing more than the twisting of scripture. First of all this verse is talking about the law, NOT versions of the Bible. Secondly, it isn’t our responsibility to preserve God’s Word. The Lord said that He would take care of that. Finally, as noted above, we know that the KJV has gone through many changes because of poor translations. Even if Matthew 5:18 did apply to Bible versions the KJV wouldn’t be the preserved version since it has errors.

Myth 5. All versions of the Bible other than the KJV are “perversions”

The IFB is infamous for using this silly little play on words. It’s nothing more than a straw man fallacy, however, and is little more than an attempt at manipulation. IFB leaders want you to think that you are reading a “perverted” form of God’s Word if you read from any version of the Bible than the KJV. Perverting the Word of God by translating it into forms other than the KJV is false and is not founded on Scripture. There is absolutely no Biblical basis for calling other translations “perversions”.

Myth 6. Versions of the Bible other than the KJV are just translations of the KJV and thus not as accurate.

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. 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. As a result the exact opposite of this Myth is true. Some of the more modern translations are actually more accurate and reliable.

Myth 7. The KJV is a literal translation and all other versions are figurative translations.

The IFB taught me that since the KJV is a word-for-word or literal translation it is most accurate. The IFB believes that all other versions are just figurative translations or translations that capture the message/thought of the author rather than the actual words. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The KJV is not completely a literal translation. It is next to impossible to completely translate the Bible into English using only literal or word-for-word translation. We simply wouldn’t be able to understand it. The culture then had idioms just like we do today that would make it impossible to translate the text word-for-word. Also, there are several modern translations that are based on a literal or word-for-word methodology such as the NAS, RSV and the YLT. The KJV is not the only version that makes an attempt at literal translation.

Myth 8. Because the KJV is a literal translation it is more accurate.

This is simply false. As I’ve already explained, it is impossible to capture cultural idioms with a literal translation. Some of the text in other version that rely on thought-for-thought translation are more accurate than the KJV.

Myth 9. The earliest manuscripts (the Alexandrian manuscripts) were produced by heretics.

The only evidence that KJV advocates use to support this is that the Alexandrian manuscripts disagree with the Byzantine manuscripts and their view. It’s just a biased view based on their beliefs. There is absolutely no evidence to support this myth.

Myth 10. Modern version delete verses and phrases from their translations.

Actually the opposite is true. Scholars generally agree that the translators actually added passages and verses to earlier versions of the Bible including the KJV. Dr. Charles Taylor in Bible with Wholes reminds us that when translating and copying the Scriptures, the translators and copyists tended to add explanations rather than remove words. “This is because the words are considered Holy and therefore must never be removed (cf Rev 22:19), though adding words of explanation was often considered acceptable.” [4] Careful inspection of the verses claimed to be “missing” from modern translations will yield the conclusion that the missing verses were actually additions made by earlier translators to explain the previous verse. As a result we can rest assured that those “missing” verses were added earlier and later dropped when new, more accurate manuscripts became available.

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

Related articles for download in .doc format:

A response to the King James Only Debate
Why so many Bible Translations



A response to Pastor Melton’s Questions for the KJV Critics.



A reader posted a comment with a link to Bible Baptist Church in Sharon, TN in which the author poses questions to Critics of the KJV. I would like to answer those questions in this post. They are below.

Before I begin, I think it’s important to bring to the reader’s attention that Pastor Melton is coming from the point of view that the KJV is a perfect translation which taints his entire perspective. The KJV is no more perfect then the other translations. One need not much more than common sense to understand that the KJV is a translation and was translation by imperfect human beings making it impossible for it to be a perfect translation. The idea that the KJV was inspired is ridiculous at best and heretical at worst.

Despite this obvious flaw in the thinking of KJV onlyists, I will try my best to answer the questions posed by Pastor Melton.

Enjoy!

1. Since you’re smart enough to find “mistakes” in the KJV, why don’t you correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?

First, only KJV advocated claim that there is a perfect Bible. Those who use other versions recognize that there is no such thing as a “perfect Bible”. This alone voids your assertion since critics of the KJV realize that a “perfect Bible” is impossible. Second, even if someone corrected all the mistakes in the KJV, a “perfect Bible” would still be impossible since we don’t have all the original documents. Third, being smart enough to find mistakes doesn’t necessarily constitute the knowledge to make a “perfect Bible”. Finally, this is essentially what the translators of the modern versions have done. They have corrected mistakes found in the KJV. Although they aren’t perfect they are certainly more accurate then the KJV.

2. Do you have a perfect Bible?

No. See answer to question 1

3. Since you do believe “the Bible” is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your terminology (“the Greek text says…the Hebrew text says….the originals say…a better rendering would be….older manuscripts read….” etc.)?

New Testament writers, especially Jesus and Paul frequently quoted from Old Testiment texts, especially from the prophets like Isaiah and Daniel. These text were written in Hebrew. Jesus quoted the original Hebrew text as many as 24 times during his ministry. See Luke 24:24 for an example.

This is really laughable. I will throw the same question back at you. Can you please show me in the Bible where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul or John ever practice YOUR terminology? Can you please show me in the Bible where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul or John ever quoted from the KJV? English wasn’t the language that Jesus, Peter, James, Paul or John spoke so that alone negates the idea that they quoted from the 1611 KJV.

I’ve sat under many KJV Only advocates who refer to the original language of the scriptures. This isn’t something that only advocates of modern versions do.

Anyway, logic dictates that Jesus, Peter, James, Paul and John made minimal reference to the original manuscripts because they weren’t available yet. There was nothing to refer to except the Old Testament so they couldn’t use terminology like “the Greek text says… older manuscripts read…” etc.

4. Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as “God’s word”?

For the same reason we refer to the KJV as “God’s Word” and at the same time declare it to be imperfect. It is God’s Word, the Bible. The true Word of God is the original documents. All others are translations, but we still refer to them as God’s Word.

5. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

I could ask you the same question. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible IS infallible, the Holy Spirit or man? I think that we would have the same answer.

6. Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow “evolved” and that men are more qualified to translate God’s word today than in 1611?

It’s not about being more qualified and it has nothing to do with education. It’s about having more accurate original manuscripts and having better ways to study and translate those original manuscripts. Can you share what the difference is between the education/qualification of the translators of the 1611 KJV and the modern translations?

7. There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it’s so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false “bibles”?

I don’t think it is wrong to teach that there is one true Bible. I just think it is wrong to teach that the KJV is that one true Bible since it isn’t. There are many false Bibles. I don’t deny that.

8. Isn’t it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the “originals,” but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?

This is partially true. I don’t believe that the original manuscripts are “lost” since we do have parts of the original text, but we don’t have all the original texts so yes, it is true that no one has a perfect Bible today?

9. Isn’t it true that when you use the term “the Greek text” you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?

No this isn’t lying or deceitful. There is only ONE original Greek text. But just like today’s Bible is broken down into verses and chapters the original Greek Text is broken down into many different parts. We use the term Bible (singular) and Books of the Bible (plural). It’s really not that difficult to figure out.

This is a classic straw man fallacy. You are arguing semantics here and it really has nothing to do with translating the Bible.

10. Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan?

Your use of the word “perversion” shows your bias, but I will ignore that for now and ask, how do you know that very few are being saved? What a bold statement. I find it very hard to believe that you have the ability to know who is and who isn’t saved.

It’s a bit short sighted and closed minded to hand wave the many good things that have happened because of the newer, more modern translations and focus on the negative. Just because the great revivals are over (and I’m not sure they are) doesn’t mean that the modern translations are the cause.

Now let me ask you… if the KJV is the reason for the great revivals, why aren’t there still great revivals going on in churches that still use the KJV? Seems kind of strange to me that you would blame the lack of revivals on modern translations anyway. What a silly argument.

Lets say for argument’s sake that you are correct and revivals began to decline at the same time as the modern translations came on the scene. A first year philosophy student knows that correlation doesn’t equal causation.

Ultimately, I could, again, ask you the same question. Given the damage that dogmatic and inflexible proponents of the KJV have done to Christians and non-believers, who has gained the most from the KJV, Satan or God?


I hope my answers to those questions are satisfactory, although I doubt they will be. I would love for Pastor Melton to read this and let me know if he is satisfied with my answers. It would be great to have a debate. I’m not getting my hopes up though.



A response to Pastor Melton’s Reasons for Accepting the KJV as God’s Preserved Word.



On the same page Pastor Melton has written 10 “Reasons for Accepting the KJV as God’s Preserved Word” not of which hold water as I will show below with my responses to each reason.

1. God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God’s pure words somewhere. If it isn’t the KJV, then what is it?

It’s important to make the distinction about what is meant by God’s “words”. This essentially has two meanings. In today’s Christian circles, “God’s Word” is typically taken to mean what we know of as the Bible or the “Word of God”. But God’s words can also mean his promises. I’m working under the assumption that Pastor Melton is making the argument that God’s words represent the Word of God or the Bible since that is the context in which he writes these things.

As such, this is a good example of where the KJV is wrong. When the Bible talks about God’s word – especially in the two passages that are mentioned in number 1 above – it is talking about literally God’s word or God’s promises, NOT the Bible as we know of it today. It’s similar to our phrase “you have my word on that”. It means God’s promises NOT the “Word of God” or the Bible. The bible wasn’t assembled, as it is for Christians today, during the times that those verses were written. We refer to the Bible as the “Word of God” but when those verses were written that phraseology wasn’t used so to interpret “God’s words” at the Bible or the Word of God is incorrect translation. (by the way the NLT among others properly translate those verses as God’s promises).

But lets say for argument’s sake that God did promised to preserve the “Word of God” (the Bible). God may have promised to preserve his Word, but he never told us how he would accomplish that promise. One thing is for sure, he did not promise to preserve his words by using only the KJV (if this is in the Bible somewhere I have yet to see it). To think that the KJV is the preserved Word of God simply because God promised to preserve his Word is nothing more than mere speculation and hearsay.

Psalm 12:6-7 is about God keeping his promises, it has nothing to do with the preservation of the Bible. Matthew 24:35 says that God’s words will never pass away not that God will preserve his word through the use of the KJV. You are taking those verses and twisting them so that they fit your agenda. You use of those verses to support your argument is manipulative at best and heretical at worst.

I will offer a challenge to anyone who want’s to accept it. 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.

2. It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it’s duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.

This is simply a lie. The KJV does have a copyright. See Myth 1 above.

3. The KJV produces good fruit (Mat. 7:17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn’t.

Using this logic one would have to conclude that the Latin Vulgate translation should be the version to use since it was in wider use and for more than twice as long as the KJV. You use the KJV, no doubt, because you don’t understand the Latin Vulgate just as many use more modern translations because they don’t understand archaic English.

This is an “Appeal to Tradition” fallacy. Just because something is older or been in use for a longer duration doesn’t automatically make it more correct. That’s like saying President Bush has done more good in office then President Obama. Well of course that’s going to be true since President Bush was in office for 8 years and Obama has only been in office for 9 months (at the time of this writing). The KJV has been around longer then any other modern translation, therefore, yes, it would produce more “good fruit”, but that doesn’t necessarily make it better or more reliable.

Also, “good fruit” is a pretty subjective term. How do you define “good fruit”? One could just a easily say that God has used the preaching and teaching of modern translations including the Spanish KJV, French KJV, and others to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. See, it works both ways.

Also, how do YOU know what fruit the translations have produced? You aren’t omniscient so you can’t make that claim. Only God knows the “good fruit” of the different versions of the Bible. It is very possible that the versions of the Bible other then the KJV have produced much more “good fruit”. It isn’t our responsibility to keep track of the fruit anyway. That’s God’s business.

Finally, I’m wondering how you KNOW that the Holy Spirit doesn’t favor the new versions? That’s a pretty bold and, I must say, arrogant claim to knowledge that you don’t nor ever could possess.

4. The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period (Rev. 3:7-13). The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway (Rev. 3:14-22), but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many great revivals (1700-1900). The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that “kept” God’s word (Rev. 3:8).

Any first year philosophy student can tell you that correlation does not equal causation. Just because there is a correlation between the lukewarm Laodicean period and modern translations coming on the scene doesn’t mean that the cause is the modern translations. The same is true for the revivals. Just because there is a correlation between the time of the revivals and the KJV coming on the scene doesn’t mean that the KJV is responsible for the revivals.

Revelation 3:7-13 does not tell us that “the KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period.” I don’t know why you referenced that passage. Your history is a bit off. Philadelphia was destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 17, almost 1600 years before the translation of the KJV.

Also, Revelation 3:14-22 doesn’t tell us that “the modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway.” I’m not sure why you referenced that passage either. The modern versions arrived on the scene about 1500 years after the Laodicean period started. Are you making this stuff up or are you really that confused about the history?

Finally your gross misinterpretation of that passage in Revelation is your error and is extremely laughable. God was praising the Church in Philadelphia because they were obedient, not because they used the KJV. The correct interpretation is obedience NOT “kept”. The use of the word “kept” is confusing you. “Kept” does not mean that they refused to use translations other than the KJV.

5. The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we’d know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.

This just a silly argument. You don’t KNOW that the KJV translators were completely honest in their work. This is an unfair argument because the KJV is a literal or word for word translation. Other translations are thought for thought translations. You’re comparing apples to oranges. Just because some modern translations don’t use the exact same distinctions as the KJV doesn’t mean they are less reliable.

6. All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn’t it strange that the new versions never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one Book–the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26.

Where do you get the idea that “all new translations compare themselves to the KJV”? I’ve never heard that before and I don’t believe it’s true. Do you have proof of this?

Lets say for the sake of argument, though, that that statement is true. There are many explanations for this. One could surmise that the reason is because people are deceived into thinking that the KJV is perfect and errorless by con artists like yourself and in order to promote the new translations the translators use the KJV as a basis for helping people understand that the KJV only arguments don’t hold water. It could also be simply because the KJV is so popular that the translators simply wish to show people that the new translations are just as good if not better then the KJV. It could also be so that when people make the transition from the KJV to another version the transition is easier and goes more smoothly. So no, it’s not strange at all that the new versions compare themselves to the KJV (if that’s even true).

Also, I’m not sure what Matthew 12:26 has to do with this argument. How do you get the idea that new versions of the Bible are bad because of Matthew 12:26? Jesus was answering the Pharisee’s accusations that he was getting his power to heal from Satan. He was explaining that Satan can’t cast out demons because it would hurt his cause. I would absolutely love to hear how you get an argument for using the KJV from that verse.

7. The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God (I Ths. 2:13). Just read the King James Dedicatory and compare it to the prefaces in the modern versions. Immediately, you will see a world of difference in the approach and attitude of the translators. Which group would YOU pick for translating a book?

This makes no sense to me. You’re saying that because the preface is better in the KJV it is more reliable and trustworthy? Weird. I’ve never heard anyone use that argument before. Couldn’t it be that the preface for the KJV sounds better because of the language used and the era in which it was written? This feels like you are grasping at straws.

Also, I’m not sure what 1Thessalonians 2:13 has to do with your argument. That verse does not say, or even hint to the idea, that “The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God”. Yet, another gross misinterpretation/manipulation of scripture. You should be ashamed.

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.)

This is simply a lie. I’m not sure where you are getting these facts from. Care to share your source or are you just making that up?

There are several things wrong this this argument. First, the original manuscripts aren’t based on the KJV. You’ve got is backwards. The KJV is based on the original manuscripts. This is another error based on your presumption that the KJV is the perfect, original Word of God.

Second, the Alexandrian family of manuscripts don’t represent “the remaining five percent” of the manuscripts that weren’t used by the translators of the KJV. The Alexandrian family of manuscripts are a completely different set of manuscripts then those used to translate the KJV.

Third, most scholars agree that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts are more complete and reliable (see article above).

Finally, calling The Alexandrian family of manuscripts “the Devil’s line” is nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy. It does nothing to prove your point except to attack the opposing view – unless of course you can provide evidence that the Devil was involved in this line of manuscripts. I would love to hear you explain this further.

This is laughable. What a crock.

9. No one has ever proven that the KJV is not God’s word. The 1611 should be considered innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.

There are several things wrong with this argument as well. First of all, if we must admit that no one has ever proven that the KJV is NOT God’s Word then you must also admit that no one has ever proven that the KJV IS God’s Word.

Secondly, innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply here. We are searching for truth not justice.

Third, this is an “Appeal to Ignorance” fallacy. Lack of evidence or proof is not a good reason to conclude that the opposite is true. The KJV should be considered a fallible translation simply because it is a translation done by fallible humans not because no one has ever proven that it isn’t God’s Word.

Fourth, you are asking the impossible. No one could ever PROVE that the KJV isn’t God’s Word. Your standards are too high. Which leads me to see your bias. You are unwilling to consider the opposite side of the argument until the impossible happens, which of course never will.

Finally, there is evidence to indicate that the KJV is not THE perfect, infallible, original Word of God. To ignore the evidence for the sake of unattainable proof is nothing more than hand waving and bais.

10. The KJV exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. The true scriptures should testify of Jesus Christ (John 5:39). There is no book on this planet which exalts Christ higher than the King James Bible. In numerous places the new perversions attack the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Second Coming. The true scriptures will TESTIFY of Jesus Christ, not ATTACK Him!

Where is your evidence of this? I have never read a translation that attacks the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, the resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, or the second coming. This is pure deception about modern translations. You are lying! There may be some minor differences in the various translations, but none of them make changes around core doctrine or absolutes of the faith.



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.

This entry was posted on Friday, May 1st, 2009 at 2:45 pm and is filed under KJV Onlyism . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

550 Responses to “ KJV Only Deception ”

  1. Sisterlisa says:

    Acts 12:4 in KJV is wrongly translated to Easter when in fact it’s supposed to be Passover. Easter is pagan not Christian.

    • Dr. Chad Bush says:

      Actually, Easter is the proper term. Even if you are not a
      KJV Only advocate a simple study of what is occurring clears this
      up rather quickly. In this passage of Scripture the feast in
      question takes place AFTER the feast of unleavened bread. Any Bible
      Scholar knows thus that Passover has already occurred and some
      other feast is in view. The people of Roman rule at that time did
      celebrate a time of feasting to Ashtar. This has in time become
      known as Easter. So, as I stated, even if you are not a KJV Only
      person, just knowing the proper cycles of the Jewish holy days
      would preclude the feast in view from being Passover. Also, you
      must ASSUME that the man in view is a proper Jew and not just a
      pawn of the state given a position which he feels he must keep by
      fitting in with his cohorts. This would also make it likely that he
      would attend a pagan feast though he was a Jew. Remember, not all
      Jews followed the Jewish faith, as historical accounts so
      attest.

      • greg says:

        The only thing a simple study of this passage reveals is that the KJV translators blew it right here by inserting Easter, hey they are only men, and this wasn’t their only mistake.

        • Dr. Chad Bush says:

          Actually, Greg, the truth is, the men who translated the
          work of the King James Bible did not insert the term. It was
          introduced by Wycliffe in his translation because he knew the feast
          being referred to was not Passover. It is amazing that so many
          people think they know what the term should be better than the many
          scholars who have shown this word should be Easter and not
          Passover. I guess we are more intelligent and studied in that area
          than they are though.

      • greg says:

        Chad – Unfortunately for you and thousands of other misguided KJVonly’s, the term “the Passover” is used of the *entire* celebration, including the days of the unleavened bread after the actual sacrifice of the Passover, in other places in scripture (note the wrapping up of the entire celebration under the term the “feast of the Jews”) in John 2:13, 2:23; 6:4 and 11:55.

        Herod Agrippa, according to Josephus, was continually trying to please the Jews by observing their customs and rituals(Acts 12:3) To even think that their was some “pagan” holiday in view is simply ludicrous. At the time this was originally written there was no such thing as “Easter” it was many years later before the pagan holiday became known as Easter.

        • greg says:

          Chad – The word that the KJV translates as “Easter” appears 29 times in the new testament. In each of the other 28 times the KJV translates the phrase as “the passover.” For most thinking people the argument end there.

          • greg says:

            Chad – Saying that Wycliffe is responsible for the mistake of “Easter” in the KJV translation illustrates your lack of knowledge regarding bible translations and its transmission down through history. The KJV translators were tops in their respective fields and did a very fine job translating into 17th century, elizabethean english. To attribute this “Easter mistake” to Wycliffe is simply ludicrous. The KJV translators are completely responsible for every word in the KJV translation.

            The KJV is a fine english translation that has stood the test of time. There are many good english translations, some came before the KJV and some after. The KJV translators made mistakes as all men do, and “Easter” is one of them. It would serve you well to read “The Translators to the Readers” this was printed with the KJV for many years, and I wish it still was. If KJV only’s would just simply read this preface to the KJV about “their” translation, there would be no foolish kjvonlyism. I think I’ll close this with a quote from the translators of your favorite translation

            “That a variety of Translations if profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures, where the text is no (sic) clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

          • greg says:

            Chad – Don’t know exactly where in the thread this will appear, but when I am quoting the the KJV translators it should read “a variety of translations *is* profitable”

            Do you believe the Romans hung the dead body of Jesus on the cross as the KJV unfortunately says at Acts 5:30?

            Forgive all the posts, but if its very long it usually won’t take it, and that is very frustrating!

        • Dr. Chad Bush says:

          Pardon me, I did say Wycliffe was responsible for coining
          the term Easter as it so appears in the Scriptures. That was merely
          a name extrapolation in my previous posting. However, he left that
          particular verse in question untranslated as he was not convinced
          Herod was attending Passover. It was Tyndale who first translated
          the word as Easter. There are both secular and Christian historians
          who attest to this fact, and not so-called KJV Only believers. I
          never go to KJV Only believers for my facts alone. To assume so is
          a fallacy. When I study I try to be as open to the facts as is
          humanly possible. Thus, I try to garner the truth by studying the
          whole scope of a matter and exposing myself to as much of an issue
          as I can get my hands on. Yet, you react as a pro-deather would to
          a pro-lifer and assume that because I have reached an informed
          opinion founded upon facts that you may not choose to accept as
          facts then I must be misguided. I at least can see why you could
          believe what you believe. Yet, I have to be painted as the ignorant
          one. So, which one of us has spent a decade in fervent research on
          the issue, earned a doctorate due to that research and is readying
          that research to publish a book about? I figure I have the right to
          speak as a fool as much as Paul did seeing as you feel you have the
          truth alone and believe I am the fool. Herod was involved with a
          pagan feast day as he was involved with pagan peoples in the
          rulings of the Jews. He was trying to impress the peoples of Rome,
          not the people of Jerusalem. He wanted to keep his power. Where did
          his authority come from? Caesar gave him his power and authority.
          Thus, why would he have any vested interest in attending a feast
          day that had already passed for a people he did not care about?
          Tyndale knew that the feast day here was not the Passover. Passover
          had already passed. The days of unleavened bread was not the Day of
          Unleavened bread. Josephus attests that the Jews after the first
          century did not consider the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened
          Bread interchangeable. “The feast of unleavened bread succeeds that
          of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and
          continues seven days, wherein they feed on unleavened bread; But on
          the second day of unleavened bread, which is the sixteenth day of
          the month, they first “partake of the fruits of the earth, for
          before that day they do not touch them, (Antiquities of the Jews
          Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 5).” As far as the issue with Easter,
          do you suppose I will accept your statement that Easter was not a
          feast as fact? Let me explain something very simple to you. Before
          I was a Christian I was very heavily involved in Witchcraft. I
          practiced the feast days. One of the feast days was what most
          Christians call Easter now. This feast had been celebrated for
          centuries before Herod was ever born. It is indeed an ancient pagan
          feast day and goes by many names. One of the which is indeed
          Easter, or if you prefer the German it is Oestre (Both the Goddess
          and the Month of April). If you would like the Assyrian it is
          Ishtar. Whatever you choose it is well documented throughout
          history by multiple historians. On the issue of being slain and
          hung on the tree, I find it quite ironic I was meditating on that
          very passage as you even brought it up. Seriously, one would have
          to have a fractured mentality to think it means Christ was first
          killed and then placed on the Cross. It is a continuous thought. He
          was slain through the action of being placed upon the Cross.
          However, you are not the first person to ever bring that up. I
          mean, I think I remember Doug Kutilek, James White, Gary Hudson or
          some other such spitfire trying to hang up the semantics of the KJV
          on that very phrase over a decade ago. The quote you brought up by
          the Translators is a great one. Have you read their whole preface?
          I have. I had to because men like White, Kutilek and others have
          made much ado over what they “think” the Translators were saying in
          their preface. You can add your name to theirs. That variety of
          Translations they were referring to were the faithful ones in the
          proper textual lineage. They did just that. When they were making
          the Translation they not only looked at the Greek and the Hebrew
          that they found to be faithful, but also to some of the other close
          to 500 language translations that had already been published prior
          to their work. They studied the Peshitta, Old Itala, Syriak,
          Urgatic, Germanic, Earlier English translations, Russian and so
          forth. A may be KJV Only, but I have no problem reading the proper
          Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, German, Russian, Hindi, Latin, French,
          Vanuatu, Cluj or any other such translation of the Scriptures if
          they are FAITHFUL to the original texts and the faithful approaches
          of translation are strictly adhered to. I would not even have a
          problem calling those translations the Word of God in their tongue
          if they met the proper standards. The issue is, there has to be a
          standard and Christians today do not have that. This is one of the
          key issues Muslims contend against Christianity with. How can they
          have one version of their “holy book” when we have over 300? And I
          am supposed to believe I am the misguided or misinformed one? I am
          not worried about responding after this. I do have more important
          things to do. It is not that you have bested me in any means. I do
          have sermons to prepare, people to witness to, Sunday school
          lessons to prepare, studying to do, editing of my book and double
          checking all of my sources so those who hold to your view will have
          to contend with secular history and secular historians as well as
          critical text historians rather than so-called KJV Only writers and
          family life. I just do not have time to devote to this. I just
          wanted to see the misinformation being disseminated as factual
          evidences in the average chat rooms. It is nothing new that has not
          already been thoroughly refuted over a decade ago. Then again,
          sometimes I wonder if anyone actually reads some of the
          non-partisan works out there because they assume they are KJV Only
          works. I mean, Harvard, Oxford, Yale and secular historians such as
          Adam Nicolson keep dumping weight in the KJV Only corner and the
          Critical text crowd keeps ignoring it outright.

          • greg says:

            Chad – First off I see you didn’t touch my explanation of
            why both new and old translators alike decided not to include
            “Easter” in their respective translations. “Reached an informed
            opinion based on facts that you may choose not to accept as fact”
            Hey Chad if this author thing doesn’t work out for you maybe you
            should try stand up comedy. You continue to detail (brag) about
            your scholarly ways and all of this independent research, and yet
            you haven’t demonstrated anything new at all in this discussion.
            You are presenting the same old kjvonly bull that has been around
            for 70-80 years. Cloud, (Nutjob) Ruckman, Riplinger and (Bull Gipp)
            Samuel Gipp have all covered this tired ol trail. Btw with about as
            much grace! Continuing below

          • greg says:

            Chad – I was really trying to figure you out and I haven’t done that completely yet. I do recognize that you at least have a grasp of some of the literature that’s out there. I am going to offer some constructive criticism to you. (imagine that) You do not express yourself well in your writing, which is very important for an author. I hope you have someone experienced that is helping you with the writing of your book. If you don’t believe this about yourself, try this experiment, have a trusted friend look at our exchanges here and see if they can understand my points better than yours, you may have a giant blind spot on this, but I can assure you, your writing style is muddled and hard to follow. I am being serious.

            Your exclusive-allegiance-to-one-revision-of-one-edition-of-one-17th century-anglican-translation-of-the-bible-into-elizabethan-english is quaint and sweet but it is not logical nor smart or scholarly. As long as the world stands the work of translating those ancient texts into languages that people can understand will be necessary, for you, the educated man that you are, for me to have to explain this, just goes to show how pervasive this uneducated kjvonly stance has gone.

            one last thought below

          • greg says:

            Chad – Please consider the following, forgetting everything
            you think you know about bible translations for a moment. How can
            we imagine that imperfect men copied imperfect manuscripts
            (original autographs turned to dust hundreds of years earlier) then
            imperfect men took those imperfect manuscripts and translated them
            into an english text, then that english text to be revised by more
            imperfect men numerous times and have at last given us a perfect
            english bible, the 1769 KJV? I’m sorry to have this disagreement
            with you but kjvonlyism has done much harm to the body of Christ. I
            will not set by and let this foolishnes continue, I will challenge
            anyone, as a matter of fact by this time I can refute “scholars”
            such as yourself pretty easily, its not that I’m smart, its just
            that its easy to refute something which is wrong as this when there
            is so much information so easily available. Those ol uneducated
            fundy pastors don’t like it very much though.

          • greg says:

            Chad – I just re-read your meandering and non-sensical post again and I had missed another mistake of yours, which once again shows your lack of bible knowledge. The Passover was a feast lasting 7 days.

            Ezekiel 45:21 “In the first month on the fourteenth day you are to observe the Passover, a feast lasting seven days, during which you shall eat bread made without yeast.”

            You may want to hold off on that book.

          • Dr. Chad Bush says:

            I am rather amused by the little response you left. For one thing, I more than adequately answered what you think I seemed to miss. It is not my fault if you cannot see that. As for the writing issue, I am happy to see your concern yet honestly, you would be the first person I have ever known to make a comment. I have been writing my whole life. I wrote for my school newspaper in high school. I spent many years involved in creative writing classes and clubs. I have been involved in workshops on a myriad of subjects to deal with writing. I do take constructive feedback as it helps me to grow. However, I always receive praise for the clarity of my writing. Albeit, perhaps my speech is the issue. I do tend to speak in larger terms than some understand. That is not my fault.

            Now, to touch your issue with “Easter” and older translators. Not all men translate something the same. Why do you think the committees of the KJV had to translate and then hash out why they chose such wording. Even they had to discuss why each thought a certain word should be supplied. This allowed a checks and balances system. Such a system ensured that the proper terms could be supplied but that alternate words and phrases would have their fair share of a hearing as to why they should be considered. Other translators often chose to leave it untranslated as they were not certain of what term to use. This simple fact is attested to in many works, both secular and religious. However, this is nothing new. There are plenty of terms that were not “translated” in other versions. They were allowed to remain in the original language. If the men chose to leave it Pascha then what does that mean?

            Bede, in De Timpore Rationum, writes: In olden times the English people— for it did not seem fitting to me that I should speak of other nations’ observance of the year and yet be silent about my own nation’s— calculated their months according to the course of the Moon. Hence, after the manner of the Greeks and the Romans, [the months] take their name from the Moon, for the moon is called mona and each month monath.
            The first month, which the Latins call January, is Giuli; February is called Solmonath; March Hrethmonath; April, Eosturmonath[...etc.] Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated “Paschal month”, and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. NOW they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance.

            Bede was certainly no KJV Only believer. Yet even he who was of the people who celebrated the Easter rite shows the connection between the two. If he saw that Easter and Passover were different yet the celebrations had merged and he was alive in more primitive times than ours, as such closer to the source of the information, then how can such be dispelled off-hand? It would be ludicrous to ignore such recorded accounts. Bede does not stand alone. I merely use him as one example of the factual accounts given in our own history.

            Your issue with my supposed lack of biblical feasts is completely unfounded. Your ignorance rears it head for the problem lies not in that the feast lasted seven days, but in that the Feast of Unleavened bread itself began AFTER the feast of the Passover. I did not ignore this or overlook it. I absolutely knew this fact to begin with. I have studied all of the feasts in question in detail as well as how each of them typified Christ and the significance of the length of the days they were celebrated or observed. Your supposition was based on fallacy.

            You base much of your argument against factual evidence I supplied based on men or women you have read. I can read too. Yes, I have seen some of the works by the people you mentioned. Let me expound that for you here. I have read two or three books by Ruckman. I have read two books written by Riplinger. I have read one book by Salliby. I read one book by Gipp. I read one book by Cloud. I also read one book by Sorenson. That totals about 9 or 10 books written by KJVO advocates I have ever read. I have issues with Ruckman on many levels. Riplinger I do have some small issues with. Cloud I found lacking on many levels. Sorenson was not a real helpful work but a rehash of most of what others have already said. The truth is, almost all of what I have found to base my stand upon started and ended with those who are not KJV Only advocates.

            White supplied a lot of the information I have found. I have read 7 or 8 books by Westcott and Hort, including their letters as published by their own sons. I have read one book by Tischendorf. Nicolson wrote one book I found rather refreshing. I also have read works by Schaff, Metzger, Ehrman and so forth. Not to mention, I have read quite a few secular accounts as well. My research has relied heavily on mostly those who are considered opponents to or indifferent to the KJVO issue. They have supplied the facts in their own works. I did not have to twist their words or make it fit any view I had. As stated, I started the study not as a KJV Only advocate to begin with. The issue is factual accounts which I have seen more than enough of. I mean, can you state factually that you have read at least 50 books on the issue and that most of the books were prior to the 1950′s? I do not need the works of Riplinger, Ruckman, Cloud or some other person to make the points easily found by a person who actually knows how to do their research. All I had to do was go to the sources myself and find the answer in their own words.

            You also state that I somehow rehash things already stated by those whom you named. Am I supposed to find that a challenge? I mean, you are not stating anything that has not already been stated by White , Metzger, Ehrman and others. At least I can go to them for their own quotes damning exactly what they say they are opposed to. They supply their own rope. They discount their own stand. The Bible says there is nothing new under the sun.

            As such, I am through. We will not move one another or dissuade one another, for each has made up their own mind. However, at least I can say I have thousands of hours of personal research, Scripture, accounts by secular historians, the words of the opposition damning their own position and other such facts to back uop where I stand. You on the other hand, flail around stuck on one word? At least I could articulate the reason why Easter is proper. I will read my Bible, be a KJV Only advocate and stick to doing what God wants me to do, rather than attempt to debate as it is unprofitable. The fact remains that the sum total of all manuscript evidence supports the KJV readings an overwhelming 99% of the time compared to any other translation. That alone would be enough proof for me as to what version of the Bible is the Word of God in the English tongue. You might take issue with that, however, it is not for me to care.

            When you figure me out, let me know. I am not a scholar in one sense of the word. However, you have not refuted a single point of truth any more than Westcott refuted Burgon two centuries ago. Smug as it may sound, I know the truth and will not waver from it. It would be akin to asking me to waver on the issue of salvation by grace through faith alone, baptism by immersion after salvation, separation, the Trinity or some other truth. So, you can speak of my muddled responses all you want. I have seen no great gem of truth or refutation come forth yet. When you can irrefutably refute the position that I have found through much research and faith in what God has shown me regarding modern apostate Christianity and the watering down of doctrines, attack on the truth through liberal scholarship and deceit by those who have ulterior motives, then please let me know. I for one, am willing to take a look at something and see if it is true. After all, I used to be Pentecostal and carry a New Living Translation. Then someone showed me how the doctrines of the Charismatic movement conflicted with the doctrines of the Bible and I could not argue with the Word of God. That is why knowing whether the KJV was the proper translation or if any appropriate translation was adequate was so important to me. I MUST have the truth and Christ said The Word of God is the truth.

          • Katie says:

            Dr. Chad Bush wrote:

            When you can irrefutably refute the position that I have found through much research and faith in what God has shown me regarding modern apostate Christianity and the watering down of doctrines, attack on the truth through liberal scholarship and deceit by those who have ulterior motives, then please let me know.

            To require irrefutable evidence that contradicts your position in order for you to even consider the opposing view is to commit the fallacy of Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). It’s not a very open minded way to study the scriptures or the topic.

            Atheists use this fallacy all the time. They say they won’t believe in God until someone offer irrefutable proof that god exists (such as God appearing and performing a miracle right in front of their very own eyes). Of course that’s an impossible task. We just have to take the evidence we see and try to make our best understanding on that evidence. But the Atheist refuses to open his/her mind to the EVIDENCE and requires PROOF.

            It sounds to me like you are trying to do the same thing with this topic of the KJV. You have your mind made up and no one is going to tell you different unless they can offer the one bulls eye bit of information that will convince you otherwise.

            It’s an irrational position and ultimately a self defeating one because you then begin to rely on what you THINK you know rather then the truth. When what you THINK you know changes you miss it because you are too stuborn to consider anything else.

          • greg says:

            Chad – Good to see you again, I thought you had taken all your toys and gone home.

            I see though, that you have still not brought anything at all new to the fray. Is this all that you are going to have in your book? I hope not, if so why bother. No matter how many times you click your heels together, you are never going to make the Passover into Easter, to continue to fight this losing battle makes you look as goofy as Samuel “BullGipp” Gipp, on his 2-hr lying explanation of this same topic, your time would be much better served trying to “prove” some other “extra-biblical KJVonly bullgipp” this just shows not only your complete ignorance, but your total lack of understanding regarding this issue. May I shout?, “There was no such a thing as Easter in the entire world when this was written” You are obviously a fairly smart person, can you not understand this? How about alittle home-work assignment, go to the church fathers or any writers at all from antiquity, and find any reference, and I mean any reference at all from this time frame mentioning Easter. Easter, as we know it came many years after this writing. (Am I gettng paid for this Steve)

            Ok so you got this big Bede quote that is really gonna show us something. That there were some pagans that worshipped or celebrated Eostre or as some knew her as Astarte, in the world at this time, great, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China, no one in this debate, has ever denied that there were such people in the world at this time. Your job here was to prove that Herod was worshipping Eostre, and you havent’ even come close. Get off this horse its dead and you are making yourself look foolish. Gonna stop and continue on another post.

          • greg says:

            Chad – Good, it posted. For anyone following this that doesn’t know any better, regarding the KJV mistranslation of Easter instead of Passover, I think there are only about (8) other than the misguided KJVonly’s, stand-by and I will attempt to give a common sense explanation. Even some KJVonly’s recognize this mistake in the KJV.

            Attempting to make the Passover into Easter is actually funny but sad at the same time, and it will not stand up under any scrutiny.

            The word that the KJV translates as “Easter” appears 29 times in the New Testament. In each of the other 28 times the KJV translates it as “the passover” (for most the story ends right there) The days of unleavened bread, of course were, connected with the passover celebration. Yet in this one place the KJV contains the “odd” term “Easter.” Luke’s reference to the days of “unleavened bread” makes it clear that he is referring to the Jewish holiday season, not to some pagan festival that did not become known by the specific term “Easter” for some time to come. Posting – stand-by

          • greg says:

            continuing – Some uneducated KJVonly’s have tried to defend the translation “Easter” at Acts 12:4. The argument they use is that the “days of unleavened bread” extended from the 15th – 21st of the month, while Passover itself was the 14th. So according to this simple line of reasoning, the Passover was already past, and hence Herod, a pagan, was referring to “Easter” in its pagan celebration, not the Passover, of course we have nothing whatsoever in scripture or any ancient literature to support this foolishness. Of course the term “Easter” would still be wrong, since the celebration the English reader thinks of is far removed from the pagan worship of Astarte and further Herod Agrippa, was a conspicuous observer of the Jewish customs and rituals, and was attempting at all times to please the Jews (Acts 12:3) exactly as politicians do today. Josephus records this in his writings from that time. It is obvious that Luke is referring to the Jewish Passover, not a pagan celebration, and then thirdly you have to make the “days of unleavened bread” a completely separate period of time from the “the “Passover.” Unfortunately for the KJVonly position, the term “the Passovver” is used of the entire celebration, including the days of unleavened bread after the actual sacrifice of the passover, in other places in Scripture (note the wrapping up of the entire celebration under the term the “feast of the Jews” in John 2:13, 2:23, 6:4 and 11:55). This ingenious attempt at saving the KJV from a simple mistake fails under examination.

            Get off the horse Chad, the horse is not tired its dead.

  2. Spanking | says:

    [...] is due to the use of the King James Version. You can read more about KJV Onlyism by Clicking Here. The focus of the controversy regarding this topic is with the word that had been translated as [...]

  3. Ike says:

    NIV leaves out Acts 8:37 and Romans 16:24. These verses are in the KJV, but not the NIV.

    • jim says:

      Ike,
      That is an excellent point! The answer is this. For the same reason the KJV omits the virgin birth in Matthew 1;25 and the NASB uses the word virgin!It wasn’t in the manuscripts they used.

  4. Brian says:

    @Ike

    Read Myth 10

  5. Ike says:

    Why does the NKJV include these verses and the NIV exclude these verses?

  6. Site Admin says:

    The translators of the NKJV used the same family of manuscripts – the Textus Receptus which is a family of manuscripts known as the Byzantine Family of manuscripts – as the KJV. It is therefore almost an exact replica with the major difference being that the NKJV uses more modern second person pronouns replacing the more archaic uses of words such as thou, thee, ye, thy, thine, etc. Everything else is pretty much the same.

    • Dr. Chad Bush says:

      While this is partially true I must ask, which edition of
      the Textus Receptus was used? There are at least 4 in print now.
      Also, they used a different Old Testament text than the KJV did.
      The KJV Translators used the ben Chayyim and the NKJV Translators
      used the ben Asher text. So, they did use different texts even
      though they claim they did not. I have been studying the texts used
      by all translators for a decade now, so I know those on every side
      sometimes play fast and loose with their terminology and with their
      claims. I for one do not care about feelings and am willing to look
      into the truth.

  7. Holly says:

    @Sisterlisa
    I believe the passage is talking about the actions of Herod, who was roman and thus a pagan, and would have celebrated Easter rather than passover.(which take place around the same time of year)

    at least, thats what my KJV only church told me. :) (I no longer attend)

  8. brainouty says:

    A small correction is needed in the claim that all we have from the original-language texts are fragments. We have complete texts, just not all on one bundle. Moreover, we have so many copies, where a copyist makes an error in one copy, we’ll have another copy of that same verse which doesn’t have the error. So in aggregate, we have at least one complete error-free set of verses among all the copies. So it’s not true to say that the KJV is just a translation among a long train of translations, as if there were no original-language text used.

    Now it is true that other English Bibles make the same mistakes as the KJV and sometimes bigger ones — because THEY follow other translations rather than a true de novo rendering of the original-language text. For political reasons, translators shy away from a genuine correction if the populus is happy with an old translation: even if that old translation is in error. It would be nice if KJV-only type movements would vanish, because such stupidity ends up causing MISTRANSLATIONS to be preserved, to avoid backlash.

  9. Brian Evans says:

    If understanding the King James Version of the bible is difficult then why not write a handbook (NOT A REVISED BIBLE) to help with understanding it. The problem created when modifying the bible is interpretation. Re-writing the KJV bible and calling it (NIV or NLT) is foolish. You take a collection of so called religious “thinkers” and give them the freedom to add and take away part of the KJV and you end up with a collective interpretation that was never intended to be. It is another way liberal thinking is destroying everything in its path.

  10. Site Admin says:

    @Brian Evans
    Brian, did you even read the article? I address your questions/concerns in the article. Modern translations are NOT simply translations of the KJV. The translators of the NIV and NLT used an entirely different family of manuscripts. See Myth 6. Translators don’t add to or take away part of the KJV because the KJV is not what is used to translate modern versions. Please read the article.

  11. Me says:

    @Brian
    He is right Brian. I have read it myself and even shown the passage to my friends. The article is wrong. The passage in Acts completely removes the eunuch’s belief in Jesus as the son of God as a prerequisite for Baptism.

  12. Me says:

    As far as the Alexandrian text’s being better, the only reason this is claimed is b/c they are older and better preserved. However, logic would say that the reason they are so well preserved is due to the fact that they weren’t used. Also, I have seen with my own eye’s copies of some of the texts and have seen corrections made on them and even commentary from someone doing the correction for them to stay with the old reading. As far as no evidence to Alexandrians not being heretic, I see you have not studied church history or you would not make them out to be orthodox in their beliefs.

    • Dr. Chad Bush says:

      Good points. Also, some people do not realize that though
      the major champions of these textual families, the Vaticanus and
      Sinaiticus, actually agree more with the KJV readings than they do
      with one another. Dean Burgon pointed this out in the 1800′s, long
      before any so-called KJV Only movement existed. So, if the two
      major texts in the Alexandrian family agree with the KJV readings
      more than they do with one another, what is to say that they are
      not due to copyist errors? After all, there are some instances
      where you can clearly see that certain places have been altered and
      penned over on these manuscripts. There is also the fact that there
      are indeed Byzantine and Textus Receptus readings and manuscripts
      as old and sometimes older than those found in the Alexandrian
      Family line, yet scholars ignore this fact, often due to personal
      agendas or theological standings. When the scholars will not tell
      people the truth then what are the people to do. The only reason I
      know these things is because I study the manuscripts, their
      histories and their reliability.

      • greg says:

        We need to get you on 60 Minutes to do a special on the only man that has SEEN Byzantine and Textus Receptus readings and manuscripts that are older than the Alexandrian manuscripts.

        I’m reminded of an old saying that goes something like this, “Alittle bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing”

        • Dr. Chad Bush says:

          Who said I am the only man? There are plenty of other
          scholars who have seen these things. The question is, how do you
          not know this?

          • greg says:

            Chad – You said “When the scholars will not tell people the truth then what are the people to do?” For myself I’m just wondering when you are going to start telling the truth.

            First off the “Textus Receptus” is just a name given to the succession of printed greek texts of the new testament, the first of which was done by the Dutch Roman Catholic Erasmus in 1516. (really ancient, huh?)

            You have demonstrated once again your near total lack of understanding on the subject at hand. I will give you credit, you are the first KJV man that I ever heard say that the Byzantine family of manuscripts are older than the Alexandrian family of manuscripts.

            Ok boys and girls the following can be validated anywhere you want to look.

            The oldest near-complete manuscript of the new testament is Codex Vaticanus at 1209 A.D. the Codex Sinaiticus follows at around the early 4th century. These are from the Alexandrian family.

            continuing below, hopefully

          • greg says:

            Chad – continuing, There are some early papyrus manuscripts of portions of the new testament that go back even earlier, such as P66 and P75, these are from the early 3rd century, and are clearly alexandrian.

            Most date the Byzantine period from about the 10th century and later. There are only 6 byzantine manuscripts that date earlier than the 9th century, of which the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus is the oldest.

            This is information that anyone can find for themselves.

            When you made this fallacious statement was when I knew my foe had come to the battle with absolutely no ammunition.

          • Dr. Chad Bush says:

            I seriously had to laugh at your response. You keep claiming my ignorance but you keep tripping on your own. The Textus Receptus was not called such until the 1600′s, and I knew that. In particular, the Textus Receptus was the name of one of the editions made by the Elzevir brothers. Erasmus’ translation was merely Novum Instrumentum, or New Instrument. It was so called due to the fact that it was the text received, Textus Receptus, by almost all of the people. This is no new piece of information. The fact remains that the Textus Receptus did indeed rest upon the majority of the manuscript evidence as collated by many people. The fact that Erasmus work is only from the 1500′s does not mean the content is not ancient. After all, you would have to deny the evidence from the patristic quotes he used to collate translations which were from the first century. That is ancient. Try the fallible argument on someone else. I am too well immersed to see that as a point of countering. It is merely fodder for those who do not know the sum of the matter in which they are dealing.

            I have no need to lie. Man making much ado about nothing does not bother me at all. After all, I am even willing to admit that even in our day there are different Greek Majority Texts and different Textus Receptuses in print. The fact that man alters and changes things to cause confusion is no great surprise to me. I know these facts. I am not surprised by your “revelation” of what you said.

            Now, your issue with the Alexandrian text-types named is that they SUPPORT readings found in the Majority Text, TR and KJV which scholars often try to deny. This does not mean the reading is corrupt. It shows that even the oppositions fragments supported support the readings of the KJV. Even the Sainiticus and Vaticanus themselves support the authority of the TR and the KJV in certain places. Then again, men far more learned and knowledgeable, such as Burgon and Erasmus, have refuted the Alexandrian readings long ago yet liberal scholarship ignores this.

            I never come to anything unprepared. I had all the ammo I needed. I just do not lay everything out at one time as there is a process. I mean, my book is nearly 600 pages long and barely even scratches the surface of the issue. It is factual accounts and proof which fill my book, not the rhetoric often found in works by Ruckman or Riplinger. So, if I barely scratch the surface of what all could be covered in a 600 page work, yu would have to be daft to think that everything could be discussed on the issue in a matter of a few small posts on your blog.

          • greg says:

            Chad (well immersed) Bush – Hi there bible scholar. How about this, there is not one, can you hear me, there is not one greek manuscript on this planet, did I say that there was not one? Not one Greek manuscript on this planet that reads like your Textus Receptus.

            I realize that my answers are sarcastic and I have been attempting not to come down to your level but when you side with complete kooks like Gail Anne Ludwig, Latessa, Kaleda,Riplinger, (that’s right she’s on her third husband and all the ex’es are still alive, guess they couldn’t stand this liar either) who lies on nearly every page of “New Age bible Versions” She says she was God’s secretary, she merely wrote down what God told her. New revelation maybe? I call that Blasphemy! Maybe you are not so far removed from your charismatic roots as you contend.

            One of the main reasons that I am not a KJV man is because my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ wasn’t. Jesus and the apostles quoted the old testament all the time and about two thirds of the time they quoted from the Greek Septuagint, as the KJV translators confirm in “Ther Preface to the Readers” you might try reading it sometime, it will keep you from making the fool, that you have made of yourself here.

            This brings up an old quote that you would do well to heed. “Better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

            I stand with none other than my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the creator of this universe and everything in it, against the idolatrous, man-made doctrine which is KJVonlyism.

  13. Me says:

    Acts 8:37
    (KJV) 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.

    (NIV) Omitted
    (ESV) Omitted
    (RSV) Omitted
    (NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) – Omitted
    (NAB-Roman Catholic) – Omitted – “Look, there is some water right there. What is to keep me from being baptized?” (This verse is half of verse 36)
    (NASB) [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] (NASB adds footnote stating “Early mss do not contain this verse”
    (NKJV) Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (NKJV adds the following center footnote (“8:37 NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition”)

  14. Site Admin says:

    @Me
    Did you even read the article? See Myth 10 above.

  15. Me says:

    Maybe now you can remove the lie. Or as you call it Myth 10

    NIV
    Acts 8:36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”[a] 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

  16. Me says:

    Just b/c you don’t want to believe something, doesn’t mean that it is not true.

  17. Site Admin says:

    If you can prove that Myth 10 is a lie I will remove it.

    What are you referring to that I supposedly don’t believe?

  18. Me says:

    @Site Admin

    Did you read the passage that I posted from the NIV? That proves it.

    You don’t believe that the KJB is the Bible for the English speaking people.

  19. Site Admin says:

    Yes I read the passage you posted, but I don’t see how it proves that Myth 10 is a lie?

    I never said that it wasn’t true just because I don’t believe it.

    By the way, there is no such thing as the KJB (King James Bible). It’s the KJV (King James VERSION of the Bible).

  20. Me says:

    @Site Admin

    OK. I guess I have to get very simple on the argument. I just thought it was pretty easy to see. Here goes: Myth 10 says that the modern versions do not omit verses. The NIV as I posted above goes from verse 36 straight to 38. And nowhere in the passage is it mentioned that Philip said if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest or that the Eunuch professed Christ. So since it is not found in the NIV, then the NIV omitted it.

  21. Site Admin says:

    I think you’ve misunderstood Myth 10 or you just didn’t read the entire paragraph or you just refuse to see it, not really sure which. At any rate here is Myth 10. I will bold the areas that you are missing:

    Myth 10. Modern version delete verses and phrases from their translations.

    Actually the opposite is true. Scholars generally agree that the translators actually added passages and verses to earlier versions of the Bible including the KJV. Dr. Charles Taylor in Bible with Wholes reminds us that when translating and copying the Scriptures, the translators and copyists tended to add explanations rather than remove words. “This is because the words are considered Holy and therefore must never be removed (cf Rev 22:19), though adding words of explanation was often considered acceptable.” [4] Careful inspection of the verses claimed to be “missing” from modern translations will yield the conclusion that the missing verses were actually additions made by earlier translators to explain the previous verse. As a result we can rest assured that those “missing” verses were added earlier and later dropped when new, more accurate manuscripts became available.

    In summary, the NIV doesn’t omit verses. The KJV actually adds verses. I’m not sure how to say it more clearly then that.

    • Dr. Chad Bush says:

      Any proof of this, or are you following what was stated by
      someone else. Have you looked at the manuscripts for yourself to
      see if this is indeed what occurred? I am just stating, one cannot
      make a “factual” statement like you have in that the NIV does not
      omit verses if you do not know for a fact if it does not. I for one
      do know that the NIV DOES omit verses. Even in instances where a
      verse was found in most manuscripts the NIV removes it from their
      text. So, factual knowledge would trump an assumption, right? The
      Bible does say a man should understand a matter before he answers
      or it is his own folly and shame. You have merely parroted what
      some man has said rather then delving into an in-depth study on
      your own. That is why I am the kind of scholar I am. I never take
      any man’s word for the final authority. I must see and handle the
      matter for myself, or come to the conclusion for myself with all
      the evidence in plain view.

      • greg says:

        Ok great scholar give us some examples of verses that the NIV omitted. I am beginning to believe that you are no scholar at all, or you are very bad at expressing your ideas clearly (if that’s the case I apologize) On the several comments here you have demonstrated an opinion but have not demonstrated any knowledge or explained with any clarity why you agree or disagree with the subject at hand. So lay it on us uneducated folks.

        • Dr. Chad Bush says:

          I asked for proof that the KJV and the Byzantine Textual
          family conflated the readings. If you insist that there are proofs
          that the NIV omitted verses someone already gave you some examples
          above. Even the verses they sometimes do not include in the NIV can
          be found in the Alexandrian Textual family. As far as being a great
          scholar, I never claimed to be great. I am well versed and studied
          though. I assumed that the prior examples might be enough to
          support the question I remitted and the point I stated. However, I
          see assumptions, as always, fall flat. So, take the verses already
          given, and compare them to the readings in the majuscules,
          miniscules, ancient translations and so forth. Then, when you can
          show me the NIV did NOT omit these verses show me the proof. I made
          a simple request for proof and all you did was attempt to make me
          look like a fool. As such, you totally ignored the challenge and
          went for a character assassination, not that I really care as I
          never have cared what a person thought of me. So, find the proof
          that the NIV did NOT omit the verses or capitulate the point.
          HOWEVER, I shall submit a few just for the ease of the issue at
          hand: Luke 17:36 is omitted. The reading is maintained in the
          following texts: D 700 Lect f13 lat vg syr et cetera I John 5:7 is
          partially omitted. The reading is supported by 61 88 221 429 629
          636 918 2318 and even the NIVn! How does one NIV testify against
          itself for the reading? Romans 16:24 is omitted. The reading is
          supported by D G Psi 614 630 1241 1881 2495 and again by the NIVn!
          How can they again disagree with their own translation if they used
          the proper texts? Acts 8:37 is omitted. The reading is supported by
          E 945 1739 lat later vg syr and the NIVn. I can give plenty of more
          if you need me to. Also, what do you do with P66? It is considered
          by most scholars to be of the Alexandrian textual family line and
          yet it attests to many of the Byzantine readings over against the
          Alexandrian ones. It is a 2nd century manuscript. This means the
          Byzantine readings often contested are supported by an older
          Alexandrian text. Not that I needed to prove I know what I am
          speaking of, but do you seriously suppose I would claim I have
          spent nearly a decade in research and think no one would try to
          test my knowledge? Believe me, I have to deal with men who have a
          more scholarly understanding than I suppose you have, Greg, on many
          issues. I do not mean that as an insult. I am just saying, when I
          have to speak to men who have spent years studying the same issues
          and evidences I have had a chance to study I HAVE to know that
          which I am speaking of. Do I know it all? No, and I would never
          claim such is the case. However, I would challenge any man who
          claims he did. Yet, in all of this, the issue still stands. Where
          is the proof that the KJV Translators or the Byzantine Text added
          to the readings when the Byzantine Textual family is not known for
          conflation? The Western Textual Family is known for conflations,
          the Alexandrian Textual Families are known for omissions to the
          text and the Byzantine is known for being the middle road of the
          two. Then again, I wonder if most people who claim they study this
          issue even realize that the Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus
          are not the same.

          • greg says:

            Chad – I’m not trying to assasinate your character, but you have come on this site acting as though you have some sort of in-depth knowledge about bible translations and I simply tell you that as of yet I haven’t seen any evidence of it, in fact I am still wondering and trying to figure you out. My guess is that you are a KJV only and look through the literature to find “evidence” that supports your already made-up mind, I could be wrong about this. Don’t take this wrong but I just simply don’t see you as a serious “scholar” as it relates to bible translations.

            Gonna post this before I get too much and it doesn’t post.

          • greg says:

            continuing – as for me I’m a retired guy that is a lover and follower of Jesus and became sick of the legalism and the ridiculous claims of the IFB’s and set about to find the truth about bible translations for myself. Btw the KJV is a very good english translation, its just that me and millions of others have a hard time understanding it.

            Now just a brief glimpse into Luke 17:36 shows clearly why its not included in many new and old translations, many older than the KJV translation, actually that’s not correct most have it footnoted at the bottom.

            Luke 17:36 is not contained in Vaticanus, Sinaticus or (A) It’s not contained in Erasmus Greek printed text (this is the one KJV translators most relied on) it is plainly not in most early reputable manuscripts – It’s not in Tyndale’s 1525 or Coverdale’s 1535 (both of which predate the KJV) Simply put many translators feel that the verse is not attested to well enough to be “original” it is also an assimiilatioon to the parallel in Matthew 24:40, so there is no grand conspiracy to hide this from anyone. I personally think that the eyes of the old copyists were getting tired and he knew the passage was similar to Matthew 24:40 so he decided he would add it in.

            I can do this all day long, its very easy, and I’m no kind of scholar.

          • greg says:

            concluding – I’m not saying that new translations are better or trying to get people to abandon their KJV’s, if they can understand it, good for them.

            I’m not against the KJV translation, but I am against the extra-biblical doctrine of KJVonlyism. God is a Spirit and we that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and Truth. I worship a living Saviour, not paper and ink.

          • Dr. Chad Bush says:

            I do not “look” through the literature. I spent more than a
            decade in in depth research on the issue. I personally compared 25
            translations on key doctrines before I even got into the issue of
            texts, translation techniques, history or the men behind it all. I
            used a New Living Translation before I started the study. I ended
            up making the study my Doctorate Thesis. I did not just peruse KJV
            Only works either. As a matter of fact, the majority of works I
            used for my studies were critical text men. I referenced many works
            by Schaff, Hort, Westcott, Tischendorff, Tregelles, Metzger, White,
            Kutilek and so forth. The KJV Only works I had reference to were
            only six: One book by Dr. Ruckman (whom I take issue with on many
            levels); one book by Riplinger (whom I checked all references
            before I even quoted); one book by Mickey Carter; one book by Bill
            Bradley (Chiefly historical accounts of the men who worked on the
            English translations) and one book by Salliby. The crux of what I
            believe was not founded by what any man said. It was based on the
            issue of what I saw in the way doctrines were expounded through the
            25 various translations. As for the issue with the ease of the
            modern translations, you gonna stick to that one? I mean, I
            actually used the KJV to teach illiterate men how to read and to
            earn their GED. I also know 5th grade kids that can read and
            understand the KJV. It is on the easiest reading level according to
            Flesch-Kincaide (and no, I did not just get that from Cloud or
            Riplinger). I would not admit I could not read a translation on a
            fifth grade reading level or that men who were illiterate used to
            get their high school diploma. Luke 17:36, huh? Well, let me see if
            I am scholarly enough in my decade of research to answer your
            charge. Is Luke 17:36 amiss? The evidence that supports it is:
            Itala(textual reading precedes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus by roughly
            200 years),Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Curetonian, Harclean,
            Armenian, Ethiopian, Slavonic, Arabic, Persian, Complutensian,
            quoted by Taitian in 172 AD, Eusebius 339, Ambrose 397, Augustine
            430, Western Saxon of 990 AD and 1175 AD, Wycliffe Bible of 1395,
            D, I, 030, 4, 262, 476, 700, a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ffr, f13, q,
            and r, grk 68, 76, 673, 813, 1223, plus at least 20 other
            manuscripts. You gave 2 manuscripts that do not support the
            evidence. 2. You mentioned Erasmus did not have it. Then you
            mention Tyndale and Coverdale. By my count that makes 5 witnesses
            against it? Is that right? I gave 39 outright examples and
            mentioned I could give 20 more easily (though admittedly it is more
            than 25 I could give in addition). So that makes 64 witnesses I can
            give FOR the reading without even having to try and look for them.
            The KJV has it too so that would make 65 witnesses. The others
            missed it. See all the weight behind the supported reading? It was
            a nice try, but what the others missed was fixed in the final
            translation. I can do this all day long, it is very easy, and I
            never claimed to be a scholar; I just know my subject matter
            in-depth. As for your last comment, can you give me Biblical proof
            that adhering to one translation as the Word of God is
            extra-Biblical? And the whole “I worship the Saviour, not paper and
            ink” thing has already been done as well. No KJV Only advocate
            places the KJV above the Saviour. Such an ignorant statement for
            someone who claims so much knowledge to make. I know plenty of KJV
            Only people and none of them worship the Bible in the same sense
            one would worship the Saviour. Do we revere the Word of God? Of
            course we do. We are commanded to. Who would confuse paper and ink
            with flesh and blood? However, both are worth fighting
            over.

          • greg says:

            Chad – You sound good and like you know what you’re talking
            about for a few minutes and then your “ol” fundy, hateful,
            indoctrinated brain kicks in and reveals your great big KJV biases.
            I was actually chuckling when you pulled out the old
            Flesch-Kincaide comment, do you know how old this is, I mean
            really? How long have I heard this bull gipp, get real, normal
            people speaking normal english don’t speak shakesperean english,
            folks can’t understand it. I hope you at least recognize that I
            have a modicum of sense and I can’t understand it, at least very
            well.. this venerated old translation. Do you think I’m lying? What
            are normal American readers supposed to do when they come across
            passages of Scripture like 2 Corinthians 6:11-13, call you? You are
            hilarious. What of the hundreds of archaic words? Wimples,
            ossifrage, neesings, beeves, emerods come to mind, but the worst
            are the actual english words which have changed their meaning since
            1611, I think gay clothing could get you looked at sorta funny, how
            about divers disease (I didn’t realize they were diving) our God is
            not pitiful, this is a slander on my God, our Lord is full of pity
            which most new translations correct. The word of God is not quick,
            it is living. Chad, seriously you need to get a clue. I hope God
            will show you the error of your way, and I know you probably think
            you are doing a good thing. Wake up Sir

          • greg says:

            Just found this today, had to add it.

            The KJV translators inserted a note at Luke 17:36 that read.

            “this 36th verse is wanting in most greek copies”

        • greg says:

          Chad – The following is from a real bible scholar, Dr James
          White, in his fine book “The King James Only Controversey” pg 125
          Yet is is important to point out that asking someone to cite bible
          verses about an issue of translation is tremndously 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 the Old Testament and the KJV translation is a good 3,000
          years; between the end of the New Testament and the KJV is about
          1,500 years. It is simply irrationl 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.

          • Dr. Chad Bush says:

            I own that book. It was one of the first I read that put me into this study. White is no scholar by any means. I am not afraid to state that. His facts are almost always twisted. I have caught him outright lying on quotes or evidence many times. I mean, he states the same about Riplinger or Ruckman and yet he does it? That is an issue for me. I for one do not need to follow his path. Where the truth is I will take it. The issue is not about language alone, but also doctrine.

            Now, you state the KJV is just archaic, in not so many words. The modern translations have archaic wording in them as well. Fine, you take issue with the Flesch-Kincaide but how about the Washington Post. They actually did research on the Versions in the late 90′s and attested that the majority of the wording in the KJV was not hard to understand. Want me to give a list of archaic wording in modern translations? Armlets instead of chains, breakers instead of waves, brooches instead of bracelets, colonnade instead of porch, satraps instead of lieutenants, galled instead of displeased. Seriously, you can do the same thing I do when a word comes up if I do not know it: look it up. WOW< imagine that.

            Quick means endowed with life. It does not just mean living. The Word of God is quick, not just alive. So living or alive sells the truth short, for in the Word of God alone do we find the Words of eternal life. You take issue with God being pitiful? A person who is pitiful is filled with compassion or pity. I learned that early on in school. So how is that a slander on God when you stated that God is indeed full of pity yourself? Just because man tries to change the meanings of words does not mean they should be cast aside. After all, the slang in our nation would cause confusion over something being hot, cool, fresh and so forth.

            So, there is my hateful fundy mind. Seriously, do you know how ignorant a statement that is? You assume that because I know something and will not cow down I must be hateful and indoctrinated. That itself is hateful. I take issue with fundamental Baptists on many things. 99% of the Christians I know are not KJV Only and are not fundamental Baptist. Not a single one of them would call me hateful.

            So, character assassination arises again when the truth was not easy to refute.

            I hate no one I should not hate. David, a man after God's own heart even stated he hated the enemies of the Lord with a perfect hatred. So there are those who deserve hate. Yet, no one I can name or think of do I hate. I hate sin. I hate Satan. I hate falsehood and lying. The child of God should.

            You call me indoctrinated? As in brainwashed? No, I take the truth from the Bible. If a Fundamentalist is wrong according to the Scripture then guess which one I will side with. I do not care about man's opinions. I do not care about man's religion or theology. I care about what God's Word says.

            Now, for your comment on the note about the verse not being in many manuscripts. How does that cause an issue to arise? After all, the translators found evidence for Luke 17:36. Where could this evidence be? It can be found in the Old Latin which precedes Vaticanus and Sainitucus by 200 years, according to the Nestle-Aland critical textual apparatus, along with copies of a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ffr, f13, q, and r; lectionaries 68, 76, 673, 813 and 1223; Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Curetonian, and Harclean, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Slavonic, Arabic, Persian, Complutensian, Greek manuscripts D, I, 030, 4, 262,476,700, and 25 others. The evidence was there. They did not omit the verse. They merely stated that it was found wanting in the manuscripts, not that it should not be in the Bible. Notice, they put it in there in regular print as well, and not in italics. They had plenty of support for the reading. I already attested to that. Where is the discounting or the refutation of this truth? I see none. You merely run to a marginal note and expect that it upholds your view that the Translators did not think it belonged in there. They obviously thought it did.

            I have more than a clue, Greg. I have the truth. I do not hold it alone. I do not attempt to hide it. I willingly present all of the evidence and allow the reader to make up their own mind. If someone reads my work and does not believe it it does not matter to me. My job is to provide the facts apart from emotions. However, because I have seen the facts I cannot simply remain neutral. That would be like asking a scientist who found that oxygen provides life for humans to present his findings in a neutral manner. I awoke to the truth and it was the anti-KJV Only crowd that showed me the truth for the most part. After all, if the KJV was not the Word of God in the English tongue, why would it be the version the issue centers around? If it was not then everyone could write off people like me and discount what we state easily. They can't.

            If the KJV were not the Word of God in the English tongue and there is not a single translation, then how is it that even the Muslims have had this as a point of contention in their refuting the whole of Christianity? They argue that they have ONE version of the Koran and even when it is translated into other tongues it is one version, yet Christianity has hundreds of versions of what is supposed to be the Word of God. If they can recognize this, why can't Christians? That is a sad affirmation when the enemy of salvation and truth sees the issue and the brethren do not. The more you guys argue against the KJV being God's Word in the English tongue, the more proof abounds. I mean, even a blind man should be able to see all of the facts and evidence given in the issue at hand.

            I am done with it. You never prove anything. You get stuck on one issue even when I have provided irrefutable proof of the fallacy; such as the Manuscript evidence. The Bible says there is a time to answer a man and a time to not answer a man. I believe this is such a time. I pray only the best for you and wish you well in your studies. Baptists are used to the bashing. We have taken it on many subjects: baptism, salvation, church structure, communion and so forth; so why not accept he single translation as an issue as well? After all the KJV lines up with the same versions used by our forebears.

          • greg says:

            Chad – White lies huh? Is that it? How about sharing with us what he has lied about. What if I say Chad lies, and did not provide one piece of evidence for it. I’m not really surprised, this is the nastiness from fundies that we have come to expect from folks like you. Hey Chad, try reading your favorite translation sometime and listening to its message! It would do you good, you attack dog KJVonly’s continually to confirm the stereotype.

            Folks don’t speak in elizabeathan english, quit making yourself look foolish, folks can’t understand it (most folks) I struggle with it and I’m somewhat familiar with it. Its another dead horse Chad, time to get off your hobby horse, you’ve gotten your 50 cents worth.

            Your bible might be quick, mine is living and powerful.

            Chad, you seriously need to stay far away from the subject of character assassination.
            Stop and read what you write some time. Were you kind and loving to Dr White?

            In ref to Luke 17:36, I simply took 5 minutes and looked up a few manuscripts that didn’t support the reading to show that there were reasons why new versions translators didn’t include it in their translation. The KJV translators also made these same type of decisions. For instance staying in the book of Luke. At Luke 10:22 the KJV translators had a marginal note that says “many ancient copies add these words *and turning to his diciples he said*” The KJV translators are not attacking the Word of God with such notes, why are the newer versions?

            The original KJV had 8,422 marginal notes and readings, many of these give alternative readings, but some indicated the fact that the KJV translators recognized the existence of textual variations in the Greek and Hebrew texts. I wish the KJV still contained these notes, it would perhaps quiet foolishness of the sort that you babble about.

            I am refuting you and writing you off, and your type is nearly gone from the scene, your battle is unecessary and spreads discord among the brethern. Btw where are the anti-kjv people, I haven’t seen any, do you know where they meet? Could you give me some clue where they are, you see there are a few loose-screws like yourself, Ruckman and Riplinger that are vitriol-spewing haters against the new versions, but I don’t see anything remotely like that “opposing” the KJV, most rational folks know that the KJV was a fine translation for its time.

            What a hilarious and sad strawman to compare muslim beliefs to christianity.

            So you agree with the KJV superstar Anglican translators on Baptism, interesting, especailly since they provided english speaking people with a “perfect” translation.
            In your dreams have you provided irrefuteable proof. Hey I’m investigating the claims of Santa Claus, want to help.

            For a “supposed” educated man you certainly don’t demonstrate the “smarts” that you want to think you possess.

            Come back and play anytime, but right now I’m taking your lunch money every day.

  22. Me says:

    @Site Admin

    Actually, the translators of the KJB held God’s word in high enough regard that if they added to the passage, they put it in italics with an emphasis that it was their words and that it was added for clarification. If you translate from the TR, you will find verse 37 in the Greek not added by the scholars.

  23. Me says:

    Let me clarify my stance on this issue. I think the modern translators done a good job in translating the modern versions. However the text which they translated from was corrupted. It is missing scripture. As I have said you can see where people tried to correct the older manuscripts and one even has commentary next to it that it should stick to the older reading. My problem with the translators is that if they think that the oldest is the best they don’t need to be skipping over numbers. IMO they are knowingly and willfully omitting scripture.

  24. Site Admin says:

    What is your reference for that particular verse? What source are you using for that information? I haven’t heard that before.

    I’m afraid that you are misinformed. What evidence do you have that the text the translators used for the NIV was corrupt?

    The NIV and other modern translations aren’t translated from the TR. They are translated from the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. Scholars generally agree that the Alexandrian manuscripts are much more accurate and reliable not because they are older but because they are closer to the original (i.e., more accurate) (this is all mentioned in the above article by the way).

    I would thank you to try and base these arguments on fact rather than opinion. It’s pretty bold to accuse the translators of “knowingly and willfully omitting scripture”. I find that statement judgmental and arrogant – unless you can back it up with evidence of course.

  25. Me says:

    http://www.allabouttruth.org/king-james-bible.htm

    I would like for anyone interested in the History and accuracy of the KJB to check this site. And no they are not KJV only, they even say that for many believers they recommend other versions, but they do defend the accuracy of its translation and the tranlators of the text. This is one of the most unbiased articles I have read on it.

  26. Site Admin says:

    I don’t typically allow links like that, but I left it there because its a good example of what I’m trying to communicate. The article on that site lists no references, sources or anything to indicate where they got their information from. It’s not a good article at all and there is no way to check its accuracy. Which makes me wonder why you think it’s a good article. The only conclusion I have is that you think it’s a good article because you are biased in your view. I hope that you will somehow prove me wrong, but I’m not getting my hopes up.

    My article lists 18 references that back up what I write. How do you justify supporting an article that provides no evidence or support for its view and not supporting the article I write with it’s references?

  27. Me says:

    @Site Admin

    “What is your reference for that particular verse? What source are you using for that information? I haven’t heard that before.”

    I am looking at a NIV and at a KJV no separate sources.

    “I’m afraid that you are misinformed. What evidence do you have that the text the translators used for the NIV was corrupt?”

    Well they disagree with a vast majority of the other texts. That is the most obvious to me. There are plenty of other reasons including writing found on one of the “more reliable” texts.

    “The NIV and other modern translations aren’t translated from the TR. They are translated from the Alexandrian family of manuscripts.”

    I already know this. You are talking to someone who has studied this quite in depth.

    “Scholars generally agree that the Alexandrian manuscripts are much more accurate and reliable not because they are older but because they are closer to the original (i.e., more accurate)”

    You are right they use the term “closer” to the original not in accuracy, but in time b/c they are older. That is their reasoning behind saying they are closer. B/c we don’t have the originals nor do we know(other than God’s promise in his word which I take literally) if any of them are close at all to what the originals said.

    “I would thank you to try and base these arguments on fact rather than opinion. It’s pretty bold to accuse the translators of “knowingly and willfully omitting scripture”. I find that statement judgmental and arrogant – unless you can back it up with evidence of course.”

    I find this site judgmental and arrogant. The judgmental is not really all that bad b/c we are commanded to judge as Christians, but the arrogancy I find unbiblical. Also there is nothing wrong with being bold. Paul confronted Peter to his face. That was a bold move and the right one.

  28. Site Admin says:

    If you are only looking at the KJV and the NIV then I’m afraid that you are missing an entire world of research and information. Since the two are translated from entirely different sets of manuscripts there are bound to be differences. I would encourage you to open your mind to other explanations.

    Just because they disagree doesn’t mean they are corrupt.

    I’m not sure what else to say. You have reduced the discussion to basically a “your wrong” message. When you have something of substance to back up your position feel free to post it.

  29. Me says:

    @Site Admin

    Then please explain with your research why one says one thing and the other doesn’t. The reason is they come from different text. One text says one thing the other says another. It doesn’t take much research. Anyone that can translate Greek(including myself) knows this. You tell me to open my mind. Lets open it this way and by the way I am using your argument on Myth 10 that the translators wouldn’t mess with the words b/c of Revelation and the importance of adding to or taking away from the word of God. If you compare the two texts, one of them, the TR, compiles a majority of the existing manuscripts and they agree with one another. The other text, Westcott/Hort text contains fewer of the manuscripts and they don’t necessarily agree with one another. One contains verses that the other doesn’t. So either one is adding to or the other is taking away from the word of God. So therefore by your logic and argument on Myth 10 one has to be corrupted. I am going to go by the one that agrees with the majority and the one that was already accepted.

    As far as citing my references, you bashed a website I posted. Any reference I post, you will bash.(I know I am setting myself up to be railed against.) Keep in mind that my arguments come from personal study over the course of a few years. Some of the books I no longer own, had borrowed, or read in a library. I was not trying to write a paper or an article as to why I was right. I was trying to strengthen my own convictions to make sure I wasn’t blindly following what someone told me.

  30. Site Admin says:

    What 2 texts are you referring to? There are more than 2 texts. There are entire ‘families’ of texts. Myth 10 is not referring to Wescott and Hort. Wescott and Hort use the same family of manuscripts as the TR known as the Byzentine Family of Manuscripts. All they did is just produce a different edition. Myth 10 addresses the different family of manuscripts: the Byzentine and Alexandrian.

    I think you are confusing the Majority Text and the Received Text. Although they are very similar the KJV was translated from the Received Text (e.g. the Textus Receptus). It seems that you are also confusing the Majority Text with the idea that it is from a majority of the original autographs.

    In my research I’ve found that many textual critics of the New Testament are in favor of the Alexandrian text-type as the closest representative of the autographs because among many other reasons (1) the Alexandrian manuscripts are the oldest we have found, and some of the earliest church fathers used readings found in the Alexandrian text and (2) the Alexandrian readings are more often found to be the ones that can best explain the origin of all the variant readings found in other text-types. (This comes straight from my research, by the way: See The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger)

    Dr. Michael Marlowe in his article What About the Majority Text writes:

    The idea that the majority of existing Greek manuscripts (i.e. the numerous medieval copies) somehow represent the original text better than any of the oldest manuscripts known to us is an idea that is very hard to defend intellectually. One would suppose, even on common-sense grounds, that a consensus of the earlier copies is likely to be closer to the original text. Against this, it is said that perhaps all of the early manuscripts known to us have derived from a deviant kind of text which gained currency only in the area around Alexandria, where these very old manuscripts were preserved on account of the dry climate. But this hypothesis fails to account for the readings of the ancient versions (e.g. Latin and Syriac) which frequently agree with the older Greek copies against the later ones. We cannot reasonably suppose that the Latin and Syriac versions were based upon manuscripts that were not circulating in Italy and Syria. And then there are the scripture quotations from ecclesiastical writers who lived outside of Egypt, which likewise often support the earlier manuscripts. It is very hard for a Majority Text advocate to overcome this evidence, and certainly it cannot all be brushed aside with an hypothesis about “Alexandrian” deviations. For this reason, very few competent scholars have argued in favor of the Majority Text.

    Based on the research I’ve done, I feel that the Alexandrian Family of manuscripts is more accurate. Based on my research I believe that the KJV adds rather than the reverse.

    Finally, your accusations of me “bashing” your article are completely unfounded. Trust me, if I bashed your article it would have been a lot more sinister. I didn’t bash it I just recognized that there are no references which indicated to me that the article is biased and based wholly on your beliefs rather than truth. Just show me where you got your information, that’s all I’m asking. I’m just curious to know if you are looking at both sides or just the side you believe in. In other words, are you basing your research on your beliefs or your beliefs on your research?

    The article you wrote is nothing new to me. I’ve heard that information a thousand times before. When I left the IFB and finally heard the other side of the argument, I decided to do my own research. I’ve based my view about this topic on that research. I’ve looked at both sides and came to a conclusion. I just want people who have been manipulated by the IFB on this issue to have a chance to see the other side of the argument. I only wish you could appreciate that.

  31. Me says:

    Comment moved to the Discussion with ‘Me’ page. To continue the discussion or follow along please click the link provided. Thanks

  32. Me says:

    @Site Admin

    “What 2 texts are you referring to? There are more than 2 texts. There are entire ‘families’ of texts.”

    You are the one that keeps referring to the Alexandrian and the Byzantine texts. And yes I know that they are made up of many, many manuscripts.

    “It seems that you are also confusing the Majority Text with the idea that it is from a majority of the original autographs.”

    Actually from my previous posts you should know that I don’t believe that. I critiqued your argument that the Alexandrian texts were deemed more accurate b/c they were closer to the originals. In that I told you we don’t have the original manuscripts, nor do we know outside of faith what they actually said.

    As to your reference, the author said “One would suppose, even on common-sense grounds, that a consensus of the earlier copies is likely to be closer to the original text.” Actually on common-sense grounds, one would wonder how these were so well preserved if they were used at all. Common sense says they were not used. Books and paper that are used frequently wear down.

    He also said, “It is very hard for a Majority Text advocate to overcome this evidence, and certainly it cannot all be brushed aside with an hypothesis about “Alexandrian” deviations.” Another reason this is argued is b/c one of the most praised of the Alexandrian texts, the Vaticanus, contains multiple corrections from scribes and even a note in the margin reading- “Fool and knave, can’t you leave the old reading alone, and not alter it!” I find it amazing that a reputable scholar such as the one you are quoting could say what he has with a clear conscience when a scholar centuries ago tried to correct it and go with the “OLDER” reading.

    “Trust me, if I bashed your article it would have been a lot more sinister. I didn’t bash it I just recognized that there are no references which indicated to me that the article is biased and based wholly on your beliefs rather than truth.”

    As my post said, the I didn’t even agree with the author of it. I said they were not KJV only and that it is unbiased. Both you and I are biased that article is not. And I would like to add that it seems you are trying to hold a monopoly on the truth which I am sure you would accuse the IFB of.

    “The article you wrote is nothing new to me. I’ve heard that information a thousand times before. When I left the IFB and finally heard the other side of the argument, I decided to do my own research. I’ve based my view about this topic on that research. I’ve looked at both sides and came to a conclusion. I just want people who have been manipulated by the IFB on this issue to have a chance to see the other side of the argument. I only wish you could appreciate that.”

    I always appreciate both sides of a point, but that doesn’t mean that I agree with you and that doesn’t mean that I won’t comment on an error. I would like to add that I am just the opposite in my experience with churches. I have found the most harsh people and close minded to come from the moderate camp rather than the fundamentalist, although there are plenty in both. I have received several tongue lashings from the “loving/open minded” liberals b/c I disagreed with them. I came from a liberal church and at one time had no problem with the beliefs you are championing on here. I would have agreed with you, but I came to my beliefs while in that movement that they were wrong and since I have done my own research I have come to the conclusion on my own. I have not been “manipulated” by the IFB as you probably believe.

  33. Donskey says:

    If Myth 10 is true then why did the translators of the Modern Versions number the verses of chapter like the KJV. How can you jump from verse 36 to verse 38 and hope no one notices. (Acts Ch 8, there are many more)

    As “Me” said, the verses are missing from the modern versions because they do not put the correct numbers next to the verses. You “Admin” will not address that. Maybe you can address it here, let’s see.

    These so called great modern scholars cannot either count (which is a worry, how can you trust their translation if they cannot even count to 50) or they did it on purpose.

    “Hmmm, let’s see now, there should be a verse between 36 and 38 but let’s just leave it out and hope no one will notice”

    When I count to 40 towards the end I would go 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40. Not 35, 36, 38, 39 and 40.

    This is what is in the Modern versions like your beloved NIV. I am not making this up. Now if you want to trust a version that cannot even get the simple numbering of verses correct then that is up to you.

    If the translators were so sure that the verses should not be there then they should have renumbered the verses of that chapter.

    “Hmm we can’t do that, we will not be able to sell any. Let’s just leave them out, don’t worry if people notice they won’t care they hate the KJV, we can just keep telling them this is much easier to understand.”

    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

    • Bryan says:

      HOW DARE YOU ACCUSED PEOPLE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND 16TH CENTURY ENGLISH UNSAVED! I HOPE IN YOUR LITTLE PIECE OF HEAVEN YOU SPEAK NOTHING BUT OLD ARCHAIC OBSOLETE ENGLISH.

      I guess God hates Filipinos because we were taught American English and cannot understand KJV. We must be going all to hell because of what you said.

      SHAME ON YOU! I REBUKE YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS!

  34. Steve says:

    I don’t know why the translators of the NIV numbered the chapters and verses they way they did. You’d have to ask them. We can speculate and my guess would be so that there would be less confusion. It would probably be pretty confusing for readers, especially those who use both the KJV and the NIV in their Bible study, if the NIV were numbered differently. The translators of the NIV probably omitted the verses that aren’t supposed to be there but at the same time kept the same medieval numbering so that the verses would be assigned the same verse numbers as in all other Bibles.

    But your argument doesn’t necessarily negate Myth 10 since Myth 10 is about textual criticism not verse and chapter assignment. I’ve already addressed this several times in my responses to “Me” and in the article itself.

    As for your assertion about my spirituality and salvation, I don’t usually allow ad hominem attacks, but I wanted to leave yours as an example of the skewed thinking of the IFB. Aside from the fact that only God and myself know if I have salvation or not, it’s important to remember that the KJV is not THE Word of God. I have difficulties understanding the KJV just like I would have difficulties understanding the Spanish translation or the German translation. It’s not a spiritual issue its a language issue. I just don’t understand the Old English vernacular. You may and that’s great, but not everyone has the same ability with languages as you do. It’s more of a learning disability than a spiritual disability. I find it ironic that you would talk down to me about my spirituality rather than celebrate with me regarding my new found understanding of the Word of God.

    Despite what you have learned in your IFB church, reading and understanding the KJV is not a requirement for salvation. The KJV is nothing more than a translation of God’s Word just like other translations. If, however, you can prove from scripture that one has to read and understand the KJV in order to be saved I would be more than happy to reconsider my position.

  35. Brother chris says:

    wow sorry that you had such a hard time in understanding the KJV bible ,i use it and understand it .i enjoy it and i have never wanted to use anything else .be blessed

  36. Michael Alessi says:

    I believe the King James Bible is the Infallible ERRORLESS WORD(Jesus) of God. I believe the Bible should be taken literally unless otherwise noted as a parable or signs. If im a legalist for taking the WORD of God literally then you have to condemn Jesus Christ(THE WORD), which is exactly what the world did. Jesus is the WORD of God. You see its not really fundamentalist that you disagree with, its the WORD of God which is Jesus Christ. Dont you see why they hated him. Jesus is a separatist because HE doesn’t conform to the world? He said “The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.” Jesus says the world is evil, is that a figure of speech or should I take that literally. Jesus said “He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal” Am I a “separatist” because I follow the Words of God and actually believe in them? That’s just 2 of many verses of Jesus telling us not to conform to the world. We are called fanatical, legalistic and separatist because we actually follow the words of God?? If that what im called in this world for following Christ then Im proud to be called them. Does this mean I agree with every IFB church out there. Asolutley not, because NO pastor is perfect. How many of the 7 churches in Asia Minor did Jesus rebuke. Let me help you out…EVERY SINGLE ONE. WHY? Because Jesus doesn’t except COMPRIMISE. Paul warned in 2 Timothy 3 that in the latter times the churches would turn away from SOUND DOCTRINE. Hmmm isn’t that’s whats really going on today? Isn’t that why the churches are in a mess. So please have a little respect for those who actually believe in the WORD(Jesus) of God, who actually put an effort to follow the WORD(Jesus) of God. No church is perfect but God bless the “Fundamentalist” the “separatist”, the “legalist” the “fanatic”. Jesus said man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY(that means all)WORD(Jesus) of God. EVERY WORD! What a fanatic huh? :)

    • Steve says:

      There are a few things that concern me about your thinking, Michael. First of all, there is no such thing as the King James BIBLE. There is the King James VERSION of the Bible but there is no King James Bible in the sense that you speak of it. Secondly, The KJV is far from perfect and is not THE Word of God. The KJV is nothing more than a translation of a long line of translations of the Word of God. See the article above for more information.

      Your assertion that I (or others who use a different version of the Bible) don’t believe the Bible because I don’t use the KJV is completely unfounded and nothing more than a straw man.

      I would like to challenge you. You’ve not given anything substantial in your post other than a generic “Your Wrong” message. If you can back up your claims that the KJV is “errorless” and THE Word of God using the Bible I will remove this site and put up an apology in its place.

    • greg says:

      Michael – I think you need a sedative.

  37. Michael Alessi says:

    @Sisterlisa

    QUESTION: Isn’t “Easter” in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation of the word “pascha” and should it be translated as “passover”?

    ANSWER: No, “pascha” is properly translated “Easter” in Acts 12:4 as the following explanation will show.

    EXPLANATION: The Greek word which is translated “Easter” in Acts 12:4 is the word “pascha”. This word appears twenty-nine times in the New Testament. Twenty-eight of those times the word is rendered “Passover” in reference to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt and killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), thus setting Israel free from four hundred years of bondage.
    The many opponents to the concept of having a perfect Bible have made much of this translation of “pascha”.
    Coming to the word “Easter” in God’s Authorized Bible, they seize upon it imagining that they have found proof that the Bible is not perfect. Fortunately for lovers of the word of God, they are wrong. Easter, as we know it, comes from the ancient pagan festival of Astarte. Also known as Ishtar (pronounced “Easter”). This festival has always been held late in the month of April. It was, in its original form, a celebration of the earth “regenerating” itself after the winter season. The festival involved a celebration of reproduction. For this reason the common symbols of Easter festivities were the rabbit (the same symbol as “Playboy” magazine), and the egg. Both are known for their reproductive abilities. At the center of attention was Astarte, the female deity. She is known in the Bible as the “queen of heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25). She is the mother of Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14) who was also her husband! These perverted rituals would take place at sunrise on Easter morning (Ezekiel 8:13-16). From the references in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we can see that the true Easter has never had any association with Jesus Christ.
    Problem: Even though the Jewish passover was held in mid April (the fourteenth) and the pagan festival Easter was held later the same month, how do we know that Herod was referring to Easter in Acts 12:4 and not the Jewish passover? If he was referring to the passover, the translation of “pascha” as “Easter” is incorrect. If he was indeed referring to the pagan holyday (holiday) Easter, then the King James Bible (1611) must truly be the very word and words of God for it is the only Bible in print today which has the correct reading.
    To unravel the confusion concerning “Easter” in verse 4, we must consult our FINAL authority, THE BIBLE. The key which unlocks the puzzle is found not in verse 4, but in verse 3. (Then were the days of unleavened bread… “) To secure the answer that we seek, we must find the relationship of the passover to the days of unleavened bread. We must keep in mind that Peter was arrested during the “days of unleavened bread” (Acts 12:3).
    Our investigation will need to start at the first Passover. This was the night in which the LORD smote all the firstborn in Egypt. The Israelites were instructed to kill a lamb and strike its blood on the two side posts and the upper door post (Exodus 12:4,5). Let us now see what the Bible says concerning the first passover, and the days of unleavened bread.
    Exodus 12:13-18: “And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
    14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
    15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
    16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
    17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
    18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.”
    Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD said that He would “pass over” all of the houses which had the blood of the lamb marking the door.
    After the passover (Exodus 12:13,14), we find that seven days shall be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are the days of unleavened bread!
    In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April 14th through the 21st.
    This religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers 28:16-18: “And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.
    17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
    18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:”
    In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the 14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the “days of unleavened bread.”
    Deuteronomy 16:1-8: “Observe the month of Abib (April), and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.
    2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there.
    3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction: for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.
    4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.
    5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee:
    6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.
    7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents.
    8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein.”
    Here in Deuteronomy we see again that the passover is sacrificed on the first night (Deuteronomy 16:1). It is worth noting that the passover was to be celebrated in the evening (vs.6) not at sunrise (Ezekiel 8:13-16).
    In II Chronicles 8:13 we see that the feast of unleavened bread was one of the three Jewish feasts to be kept during the year.
    II Chronicles 8:13: “Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.”
    Whenever the passover was kept, it always preceded the feast of unleavened bread. In II Chronicles 30 some Jews who were unable to keep the passover in the first month were allowed to keep it in the second. But the dates remained the same.
    II Chronicles 30:l5,21: “Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD. And the children of lsrael that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD.”
    Ezra 6:19,22: “And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.”
    We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows:
    (1) On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover.
    (2) On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.
    It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row.
    Now let us look at Acts 12:3,4: “And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
    Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (April 15-2 1). The Bible says: “Then were the days of unleavened bread.” The passover (April 14th) had already come and gone. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his statement concerning Easter. The next Passover was a year away! But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the “queen of heaven”. He was NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of thinking.
    First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod’s actions.
    Second, he could not have been waiting until after the passover because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matthew 26:17-19,47). They were also excited about Herod’s murder of James. Anyone knows that a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious festivities, not after.
    In further considering Herod’s position as a Roman, we must remember that the Herods were well known for celebrating (Matthew 14:6-11). In fact, in Matthew chapter 14 we see that a Herod was even willing to kill a man of God during one of his celebrations.
    It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested Peter during the days of unleavened bread, after the passover. The days of unleavened bread would end on the 21st of April. Shortly after that would come Herod’s celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he wanted to wait until Easter. Since it is plain that both the Jews (Matthew 26:17- 47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during a religious celebration, Herod’s opinion seemed that he was not going to let the Jews “have all the fun “. He would wait until his own pagan festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.
    Thus we see that it was God’s providence which had the Spirit-filled translators of our Bible (King James) to CORRECTLY translate “pascha” as “Easter”. It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish passover. In fact, to change it to “passover” would confuse the reader and make the truth of the situation unclear.

    • Steve says:

      Michael, you’ve gone to a lot of trouble to defend your position, but you neglect simple logic and common sense. My guess is that you are so interested in providing evidence to support the KJV as a perfect, God ordained Bible that you are simply blind to the obvious.

      Read in context Acts 12:3 states that Herod arrested Peter during the Passover Celebration… and the thought continues into verse 4 …and imprisoned him for an intended public trial after the Passover. Verses 3 and 4 are a continuous thought. Taken out of context and by itself verse 4 is an incomplete thought and easily misunderstood. Herod imprisoned Peter DURING the Passover with the intention of putting him on trial AFTER the Passover. It’s really not that difficult to figure out and over analyzing it will lead to a misinterpretation which is proved by your post.

      But that’s not all. It’s important to remember that the Passover was set as a series of celebrations lasting for 7 days – See Ezekiel 45:21. The Passover is combined with the Feast of Unleavened Bread festival. Passover was NOT a one night event, but an entire week of celebration and festivities.

      Logic, therefore, dictates that the word Pascha in Acts 12:4 be translated as Passover NOT Easter. There is no reason, other than defense of the KJV, to believe that the correct translation should be Easter in this context. The KJV translation of Pascha as Easter in Acts 12:4 is inconsistent and erroneous.

      • greg says:

        Steve – I know I have been “blowing” up your site lately with my back and forth with “Chad” but I just re-read your calm and simple answer to Michael and it just struck me once again how the KJVonlyists will go to any length to defend their preferred translation. These are supposed to be the folks that stand so strongly on the Word, and yet will dream up tales about worshipping Astarte or some other such drivel just out of the clear blue. What is extremely telling is that this pagan festival was not called “Easter” at the time of the original writing, so I guess in addition to the extremely difficult job of translating, the translators also had to be seers, or mindreaders. Ridiculous!

        Tks again for the site.

        • Steve says:

          Don’t you mean “Dr. Chadd”? I wonder what his Dr. is in? Anyway, I don’t mind your posts at all. My thanks and appreciation to you and several others (Bob, Katie) for sticking around to share your thoughts. I can’t tell you how nice it is to have so many who are willing to stand by my side and help to try and shed light on the darkness called IFB.

          Just know that the potential exists that anything you contribute can and will probably help someone along the way. I get many private emails every month from people sharing similar stories and sharing gratitude for this site. I commend you, Greg, and others, for coming here faithfully and “blowing up” the site with discussions. It’s WONDERFUL, thought provoking discussions and I love it. It’s been a dream of mine to have this happen so my thanks goes out to you. You are helping more than you realize.

          Hopefully as time passes, this site will gain in popularity and more people will emerge ready to fight for the truth. As this site grows, I’ve been working on a plan for those of you who are ready and faithful to defend and aren’t afraid to stand up for the truth. Hopefully the powers that be will be willing to hear my ideas and at least begin to plan for the future of this site, which is very exciting.

          So hang in there and continue to fight. Your fighting is not in vain.

          • greg says:

            Steve – It is a priviledge to join you and others in spreading the truth about this IFB foolishness, and I believe at its core, is this overwhelming attatchment to the KJV translation. I still find it hard to believe that relatively intelligent people such as “Chad” who are at least familiar with some of literature can hold to the KJV only view. I guess it just demonstrates how far the tendrils of legalism have gone.

            I’m not sure what you have in mind for the future but I’m up for anything if it will help folks come to a closer walk with our Saviour and out of the pits of legalism.

            Whom the Lord sets free is free indeed!

            God Bless.

  38. EJ says:

    Is KJV hard to read? look at this link and you decide for yourself.
    http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjv_easy.html

    For NKJV, take a close look at the logo and you decide for yourself
    http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html

    I agree KJV is translated by Byzantine type text or known as Syrian) from Antioch, Syria. As for NIV,it is translated in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus from Alexandria, Egypt (known as Egyptian or Hesycian type text). Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text from which our King James 1611 comes. Egyptian text is the minority form. The manuscripts from Alexandrai are produced by Origen Adamanticus and Clement of Alexandria. Who is Origen? google to find out yourself.Vatican history? google yourself as well and extend to conspiracy history as well. History don’t lie. Notice how Holy Spirit cast Egypt and Alexandria in a NEGATIVE LIGHT while His comments turned out to be POSITVE in Antioch. you can find out more details in this link below. Sorry NIV guys, I really don’t trust your NIV because it is pretty weird that all the modernised versions esp New King James Version with a ocultist logo inside out cover, imitating AVKJ and they came out all in 1900s to gang up against AV Kings James . Sounds like Satan devious counterfield to me. The logo is not trinity but more of gnostic symbol to me. Ask any witches and they will tell you the same thing.

    http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight3

    By the way, there are different versions about King James ordering the translation of AVKV for political purposes, which maybe true. Although he may not be of good charactor, he did it solely to ward of ever powerful influence of Vatican. You see, God even had a purpose in using this so-called homosexual, evil king. I don’t really bother about you people who stick to NIV, but since you wordship our Father in Christ-consciousness and beleive that you are washed(not loosened!) in Jesus’s blood, that is excellent. But, think hard NIV is owned exclusively by Rupert Murdoch through various subsidiary companies. So what does Murdoch relationship to NIV tells you? Why tell everyone to spend your money on Murdoch who doesnt serve our Father? Somemore Egypt was an ancient pagan country on the same level as Sodom as described in all your bibles.

    • Steve says:

      There is a difference in being easy to READ and being easy to UNDERSTAND. Just because something is easy to read doesn’t necessarily mean it’s easy to understand. I love reading Shakespeare because of it’s flowing nature and ease of reading, but I don’t always understand it. I love reading poetry because it’s easy to read, yet I don’t always understand what I’m reading or can’t understand the message within the poem. The same is true of the KJV. What a silly argument.

      And the Trinity symbol… what a crock. Witches also use crosses. Does that mean that crosses are satanic too? How silly. Your argument is completely unfounded and nothing more than a straw man fallacy.

  39. EJ says:

    Alright, if you dont beleive the trinity symbol stuffs , that is fine, it is not that important to me because a symbol is a symbol. Witches too use cross too, which is satanic, BUT! the cross must be inverted, isnt that true? :)
    If you can’t understand, you are reading in the wrong way and probably do not have patience or you didnt attend cell group regularly??. I read AV and I had difficulty in reading AV but gradually, I grew to understand better. God wants you to read the scriptures dilligently and find out yourself or with among cell group members. There is no short cut in this world :)If you want to stick to modernised version, go ahead but you must be honest with yourself whether you are patient or not looking for short cuts because I can’t see your heart but God can all the times. By the way, poetry is written by man inspired by his thoughts. Word of God is written by man inspired by Holy Spirit. I think you are insulting Holy Spirit by comparing Word of God to poetry. So please stop making any excuses like ‘i cant read cos its difficult or confusing or just being lazy not to push yourself harder’ because thats extremely lame.

    ok how about this link on Dr Frank Logson’s testimony. What does he says about modernised versions esp NASB? He is the Co-Founder of New American Standard Bible (NASB). He was also the benefector through which NASB was published. Apparently he hinted that he was involved in corrupting God’s Word and he regretted his action and was fearful of Lord’s wrath on his judgement day since then. He made a public renouncement of any connection to NASB. You decide yourself.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/15443244/Testimony-of-Dr-S-Frank-Logsdon-NRSV

    • Steve says:

      Sometimes the cross is upside down but not always. Even so, they also use the Star of David in their symbols and the peace sign. My point is that you have to consider the context. Just because a Christian uses a symbol that is also used for another purpose doesn’t necessarily mean that the Christian is using it for inappropriate reasons.

      So you can’t think of any reason why it would be difficult for someone to understand the KJV other than laziness or resistance? What shortsightedness. I can’t help but find your accusations disturbing and judgmental. Aren’t you making the assumption that I haven’t made the effort to understand the KJV since you don’t know me? Besides I state right on the home page that I was in the IFB for over 25 years. If that’s not long enough to get a good understanding of the KJV then I think it’s time to move on to something else.

      I’ve addressed both of your assertions in my post above. Understanding the KJV has very little to do with spiritual maturity. I would recommend that you re-read it to gain a better understanding of where I’m coming from. This is really about language. I don’t understand the KJV for the same reasons I don’t understand the Spanish translation or the French translation. Just like Spanish and French, I don’t speak Shakespearean English. I’ve never been good at languages and I think that it would be safe to say that many other people aren’t good at languages either – especially considering that a large part of the church going population doesn’t even have a high school diploma.

      One may be able to understand the KJV, but have an EASIER time understanding another version. It’s not a matter of taking short cuts but of finding a way to better understand God’s Word. I still wonder why you would refuse to rejoice with me when I say that I understand the Word of God better when reading a different version of the bible. It seems to me that gaining a better understanding of the Word of God would be a good thing.

      At any rate, your logic just doesn’t make sense. By your logic we would be forced to conclude that translations into other languages are wrong since people should use the KJV and be able to rely on the Holy Spirit to guide them even though they don’t understand the language. How silly.

      Ultimately though, your belief that the KJV is inspired and perfect is your downfall. The comparison between poetry/Shakespeare and the KJV can be made because the KJV is a fallible human TRANSLATION, nothing more. The comparison can also be made because we are talking about easy of understanding not inspiration or interpretation. The KJV is not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Only the original documents are the inspired Word of God and guess what, the original documents aren’t in English! The Holy Spirit is able guide interpretation no matter what version is used. The Holy Spirit doesn’t stop helping people if they refuse to read and study the KJV only. The Holy Spirit isn’t so easily boxed in and the Holy Spirit is capable of much more than you give him credit for.

      Finally, your link about the NASB doesn’t interest me much since my argument is about the KJV. I don’t deny that there are bad translations out there. I’m arguing that the KJV is not the ONLY translation that is worth using. Reading that article, however, has produced some red flags. These red flags serve only to support my argument. The first red flag is that this article is based on the author’s “observations”. In other words his opinion. There are no references to researched work which makes me wonder where he is getting his information from. The second red flag is his association with Peter Ruckman. Ruckman was considered a nut case even among his friends and colleagues. Ruckman believed in aliens and UFO’s (Peter Ruckman, Black is Beautiful (Pensacola: Bible Believers Press, 1995), 85-86, 244, 310-11) and denies that the fetus is a living soul until it is born and breaths its first breath (taken directly from one of his sermons). Third, he claims, like you do, that the AV is “100 percent correct.” This is literally impossible. Even if it were possible it would be impossible to know that it is 100% correct. This article is based on conjecture and hearsay.

  40. EJ says:

    You don’t understand?? how on earth did you passed all your examinations (HIgh School all the way to bachelor/Master program?) I reckon you must have studied very hard to understand the theory components. I am very sure if you put in the same effort as you did in University, you would progress and grasp the meaning of the concepts plus we have ample of massive internet resources, text resources from christian shops for further studies help so why do you turn out to be so lame in front of such challenges just because everyone complaint and back down to give all kinds of lame excuses.

    Peter Ruckman, so what he beleives in alien?? I also beleive in aliens but I dont worship aliens. Did Peter ruckman worship aliens?? Aliens to me are considered Fallen Angels as described in bible. So why are you so stressed about his beleif in aliens? I can understand if belief is replaced by worship as you misinterpreted. You see, thats how those idiots keep replacing those words in modernised version and lead people astray due to confusion of precise word. I guess, you dont read bible line by line and passage by passage, words by words and pausing to understand for a moment. It suddenly occur to me that you didnt read the Testimony of Dr Frank Logman words by words ,which will take you ten minutes to read and find out if he is supporting your so called facts. If you have no time to read properly, then dont bother to put up this website. You cant expect everyone to read your website to know you well enough and you dont read their links properly, which they provided for you in self defence.Or are you illiterate, if that is so, my apologies because I didnt know someone helped to write up your website as you spoke…. I explain you now. Peter Ruckman spoke AGAINST Erasmus who translated the Authorised Version, which descended all the way from Antioch,which is the Jewish headquarter in ancient times. Peter Ruckman is just like you who spoke against AV. Its Eusibius, a protegee of Origin(who compiled Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus) and brought out the translation into a bible, which originate from Alexandra, Egypt a land of ancient pagan country. Codex Siniaticus is found the rubbish bin outside the Roman monastry on mt sinia. ( i cant remember the name). It is dumped because it was so sloppy work-doned. NIV is from the compilation of Siniaticus and Vaticanus, shouldnt you be glad to hear that due to your defensive on NIV? I guess you are only interested in seeing pictures of trinity occult sign and ignore the passage of important historical events or biography of important main figures involving the bible translation events. That tells me so much about your charactor and personality.

    So you are telling me that you support the publication of modernised version which are based mostly on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinianticus which are compiled by Origin and Alexandra (isn’t that a well known established history fact?) If you do, you are on the side of Vatican. on the other hand, AV King James was translated into Byzanterine Text via along the channel to Kings James , Erasmus and the origin was in Antioch, Syria as explained thoroughly in Dr Frank Logson’s theory and the bible supported the fact that Egypt (Alexandria was always in Neg light). AV has never nothing to do with Vatican, NEVER!. you didnt read my previous links above thoroughly and there are verses numbers which will tell you so much about Egypt in ancient days. what kind of bible we SHOULD use. Take your pick on bible on which manuscript is based on and its line of origin. If you feel AV is not good for you and prefer to stick to modernised version (NIV),so be it.
    I am out of this conversation because your replies are terribly chidlish and lack professional reading on research to response such as “what a crock’. ‘silly’, ‘Keen Observation’, Peter Ruckman beleives in alien therefore he is known as nutcase??, its not a sin to beleive in alien. Its a sin to worship aliens. I beleive in aliens because i beleive they exist as in form of fallen angels. Is that a sin or not? Believe is not = to worship. ect ect. i think you must be under 30-35 and you are extremely defensive, JUDGEMENTAL and CONDEMNING (on issues with IBF and also KJV DECEPTION???)

    I am amazed that there are presence of conflict on interest in NIV. It should have NEVER happen in the first place (promoting Homosexuality through previous publications, which was shortly withdrawed from the market. Its fine to be born as homo but to promote homosexual is SIN)

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/14776044/NIV-The-Corrupted-Bible-Version

    Scofield and his relationship with Hort and Westcott on revised edition leading to modernised version.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/10375287/Scofield

    All the informations on major figures including Dr Frank Logsman involved in translation and revision tells anyone about their charactor and personalities and plus current Vatican’s murky history connection to illuminati I think you ought to use a bit of common sense to know what you are actually thinking before speaking and voicing out. People like you ought to have this website closed down for good.I must say that you are indeed a very loyal misguided servant of Vatican through lack of common senses.

    End of conversation.

  41. Brian says:

    @Michael Alessi You are proving the point that this site is making – You are very judgemental and very legalistic!! :( :( I HATE YOU!!!!!

  42. Brian says:

    @EJ EJ, you are proving the site admins point!!! :( :( The link of the site you posted – the man running that site SLANDERS CCM artists!!! He’s about as legalistic and judgmental you can get!!! And, you’re just like him. I HATE YOU!!!! :( :( :( :(

    I enjoy my freedom in Christ without following man-made traditions added to the Word of God. I am a southern baptist and will never ever be in the IFB movement, again. I Love the Lord and He will show you one day that you are NOT God.

    Read Mark 7, where Jesus speaks about legalism!!!

  43. Steve says:

    @EJ

    I just parroted what I was taught by my IFB Church/School since that was good enough for them. As long as I said/wrote what they wanted me to say/write I was fine. We weren’t taught critical thinking so it didn’t really matter. We were just expected to learn what THEIR interpretations and beliefs are. We weren’t encouraged to develop our own beliefs and convictions. Not knowing this I thought I was very good at interpreting and understanding the KJV, until I realized that was I wasn’t interpreting or understanding the KJV at all. I was just repeating what I had learned from the leaders and teachers. It’s highly manipulative and one of the core issues of spiritual abuse. It was in college, actually, that I had a difficult time because I went to a non IFB university and had no skills at biblical interpretation because of the IFB indoctrination. I found out quickly that I had a hard time understanding the KJV once I was taught critical thinking.

    As for the rest of your post, I’m not sure what to say. Feel free to defend Ruckman and his ilk, but I want no part of their twisted views. I’m not interested in your conspiracy theories (the illuminati? Seriously?) and accusations.

    I’m not sure where your anger is coming from. I thought we were having a good conversation. I can surmise based on my experience with the IFB that you are angry because of my critical thinking and the way in which I question your beliefs. I found out that most IFBers get angry when I apply my critical thinking to their arguments, just like you are doing now. Critical thinking is rejected by most IFB types because it leads to exactly what I’m doing – rejection of the IFB beliefs and traditions. It’s felt as resistance against their belief system and it threatens their core beliefs. The IFB resists critical thinking because they know that once people start thinking and interpreting scripture for themselves they will realize the bull shit that the IFB promotes. I think that you are experiencing the same thing.

    Ultimately, I’m not sure how to respond differently, this is how I communicate. You’ve come here to voice your disagreement with this site and then when I don’t respond the way YOU want you get mad and refuse to continue the discussion. Talk about childish!!! But whatever.

    You actually raise a lot of good issues that I would like to address. For instance, You raise good points about the history of translations and original texts, but I think your history of a bit off. Also, I’m confused why you accuse me of being on the side of the Vatican or even why that has any bearing on the argument. The Codex Vaticanus gets it’s name simply because it is stored in the Vatican Library (Vaticanus = Vatican and Codex = Library) nothing more. Most scholars agree that the Codex Vaticanus is the oldest and most valuable manuscripts of the Greek Bible still in existence. That’s why the KJV is losing it’s popularity because the modern versions are translated from more complete and reliable sources.

    Did you know that the KJV used to contain the Apocrapha? Does that make the KJV tainted or related to the Catholic Church in some way? No of course not. So why would you think that just because the Codex Vaticanus is stored in the Vatican Library it is inferior or tainted? Your logic and facts are simply distorted and I’m having a difficult time taking you seriously because of it. You seem to have a closed mind and only see things that support your argument.

    I’m ignoring your ad hominems. I refuse to get into a pissing contest about things that don’t really matter. If you want to continue this discussion then please bring something to the table – other than me and my credentials. Leave out the assumption, accusations and down right mean comments and perhaps then we can have a healthy discussion.

    At any rate, thanks for being a shining example of the attitude of the KJV Onlyists. You fit the mold and are living up to the KJV Onlyists standards of irrational thinking and closed minded assertions. Congrats!!!

  44. EJ says:

    those people are warped. Quoting the bible verses and at the same time hating people and feeling a need to prove a point, which is baseless because we had never seen the original Greek manuscript nor the original Byzatarine/Codex Siniaiticus/Codex Vaticanus Texts except the founders of the bible publications who had done so in a very personal way. Do you happen to be proficience in Greek/Hebrew/Armenian languages? No, it is the same for me.What about them? no as I believe! Thats a huge SHAME for them, teaching one to hate each other when provoked, feeding one another to hate another as well? Its better they keep quiet instead.

    Could you be clear with anyone on what your core doctrine is based on? Please provide 2-3 lines which is sufficient for me. I would rather hear it from your inner self with pure mind and heart at the same time.

    Mine is: Our Heavenly Father sent his son, Jesus Christ to die on the cross for us. Our sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus. We worship Father in Christ.

    I am not interested in discussing the same topics with you anymore because we absolutely don’t agree with each other’s theory. Also I appreciate for one thing, you had told the world of your bad experience at IBF but it is important to let go and move on because they are no longer your business since they are out of your life, are they OUT of your life or not OUT of your life? Let someone with higher authority take care of them if they are found guilty in the eye of Lord. As for AV vs modernised versions, no one credit or discredit either bibles because as I said earlier, only the Founders of about 100 publishing companies on this planet knows the truth and you wont be expecting anything concrete from them personally. Our Lord will take of those who perverted the Word of God on their Judgement Day.

    Apologies if you feel that I had provoked/hurt your feelings though it is my main intention to do so in order to see your real personality.

    Elija

    • Steve says:

      Elija,

      The topic on this page is KJV Onlyism. If you want to talk about the KJV then this is the place to do it. If not let me know and I will set up a section on this site for you and I to have a private discussion.

  45. Brian says:

    Here is KJV-Only Deception at its worst: If you don’t have a King James Bible, you don’t have a Bible!

    This is from the site http://www.jesus-is-savior.com I copied and pasted.

    That statement is an outright LIE!

    The person who runs this site is a follower of the ultimate KJV-Onlyist, Jack Hyles.

  46. Brian says:

    Comment removed by site moderator – please use critical thinking to guide your comments rather than emotion. All are welcome to post comments and we welcome more discussion from EJ so long as he keeps it appropriate.

  47. Brian says:

    EJ,

    “Apologies if you feel that I had provoked/hurt your feelings though it is my main intention to do so in order to see your real personality.”

    That’s not an apology. You actually INTEND ON PURPOSE TO HURT SOMEONE’S FEELINGS. :( :( (Comment edited for content by site moderator – please use critical thinking to guide your comments rather than emotion)

  48. Shaun says:

    I believe the KJV IS proven. All of this is petty when there are STILL people dying and going to hell. Stop Muddying up the Gospel and go keep somebody out of hell.

    • Steve says:

      You think it’s petty yet you took the time to say “the KJV IS proven”. People are dying and and going to hell because of the deceptive practices of churches and denominations like the IFB. If it weren’t for the dogmatic belief and preaching of KJV onlyism this site wouldn’t even be necessary. I’m afraid you’re focusing blame in the wrong direction.

  49. mary stewart says:

    @Ike

    mi niv has those verses in the footnotes. :) sorry for trying mr fundie!

  50. derek says:

    @Sisterlisa
    Not True. At this point the Passover had already taken place. The next holiday would have been the Pagan ritual of Easter. This is translated correctly.

    Find Dr. Sam Gipp’s book on An Understandable History of the Bible. He also has a Q&A book that is very good. He explains this passage better than I can (I am going from memory…sorry)

    • Steve says:

      Derek,

      You should take the time to actually read what’s been written before you make the same tired argument. I’ve addresses your argument several times already. Below is a direct quote from when I answered the same argument from someone above. Sister Lisa is correct.

      Steve :
      Read in context Acts 12:3 states that Harod arrested Peter during the Passover Celebration… and the thought continues into verse 4 …and imprisoned him for an intended public trial after the Passover. Verses 3 and 4 are a continuous thought. Taken out of context and by itself verse 4 is an incomplete thought and easily misunderstood. Harod imprisoned Peter DURING the Passover with the intention of putting him on trial AFTER the Passover. It’s really not that difficult to figure out and over analyzing it will lead to a misinterpretation which is proved by your post.

      But that’s not all. It’s important to remember that the Passover was set as a series of celebrations lasting for 7 days – See Ezekiel 45:21. The Passover is combined with the Feast of Unleavened Bread festival. Passover was NOT a one night event, but an entire week of celebration and festivities.

      Logic, therefore, dictates that the word Pascha in Acts 12:4 be translated as Passover NOT Easter. There is no reason, other than defense of the KJV, to believe that the correct translation should be Easter in this context. The KJV translation of Pascha as Easter in Acts 12:4 is inconsistent and erroneous.

  51. derek says:

    The Greek word which is translated “Easter” in Acts 12:4 is the word “pascha”. This word appears twenty-nine times in the New Testament. Twenty-eight of those times the word is rendered “Passover” in reference to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt and killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), thus setting Israel free from four hundred years of bondage.

    The many opponents to the concept of having a perfect Bible have made much of this translation of “pascha”.

    Coming to the word “Easter” in God’s Authorized Bible, they seize upon it imagining that they have found proof that the Bible is not perfect. Fortunately for lovers of the word of God, they are wrong. Easter, as we know it, comes from the ancient pagan festival of Astarte. Also known as Ishtar (pronounced “Easter”). This festival has always been held late in the month of April. It was, in its original form, a celebration of the earth “regenerating” itself after the winter season. The festival involved a celebration of reproduction. For this reason the common symbols of Easter festivities were the rabbit (the same symbol as “Playboy” magazine), and the egg. Both are known for their reproductive abilities. At the center of attention was Astarte, the female deity. She is known in the Bible as the “queen of heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25). She is the mother of Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14) who was also her husband! These perverted rituals would take place at sunrise on Easter morning (Ezekiel 8:13-16). From the references in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we can see that the true Easter has never had any association with Jesus Christ.

    Problem: Even though the Jewish passover was held in mid April (the fourteenth) and the pagan festival Easter was held later the same month, how do we know that Herod was referring to Easter in Acts 12:4 and not the Jewish passover? If he was referring to the passover, the translation of “pascha” as “Easter” is incorrect. If he was indeed referring to the pagan holyday (holiday) Easter, then the King James Bible (1611) must truly be the very word and words of God for it is the only Bible in print today which has the correct reading.

    To unravel the confusion concerning “Easter” in verse 4, we must consult our FINAL authority, THE BIBLE. The key which unlocks the puzzle is found not in verse 4, but in verse 3. (Then were the days of unleavened bread… “) To secure the answer that we seek, we must find the relationship of the passover to the days of unleavened bread. We must keep in mind that Peter was arrested during the “days of unleavened bread” (Acts 12:3).

    Our investigation will need to start at the first Passover. This was the night in which the LORD smote all the firstborn in Egypt. The Israelites were instructed to kill a lamb and strike its blood on the two side posts and the upper door post (Exodus 12:4,5). Let us now see what the Bible says concerning the first passover, and the days of unleavened bread.

    Exodus 12:13-18:
    “And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

    14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

    15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.

    16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.

    17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.

    18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.”

    Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD said that He would “pass over” all of the houses which had the blood of the lamb marking the door.

    After the passover (Exodus 12:13,14), we find that seven days shall be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are the days of unleavened bread!

    In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April 14th through the 21st.

    This religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers 28:16-18:
    “And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.

    17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.

    18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation;ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:”

    In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the 14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the “days of unleavened bread.”

    Deuteronomy 16:1-8:
    “Observe the month of Abib (April), and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.

    2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there.

    3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction: for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.

    4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.

    5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee:

    6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.

    7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents.

    8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein.”

    Here in Deuteronomy we see again that the passover is sacrificed on the first night (Deuteronomy 16:1). It is worth noting that the passover was to be celebrated in the evening (vs.6) not at sunrise (Ezekiel 8:13-16).

    In II Chronicles 8:13 we see that the feast of unleavened bread was one of the three Jewish feasts to be kept during the year.

    II Chronicles 8:13:
    “Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.”

    Whenever the passover was kept, it always preceded the feast of unleavened bread. In II Chronicles 30 some Jews who were unable to keep the passover in the first month were allowed to keep it in the second. But the dates remained the same.

    II Chronicles 30:l5,21:
    “Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD. And the children of lsrael that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD.”

    Ezra 6:19,22: “And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.”

    We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows:

    (1) On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover.

    (2) On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.

    It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row.

    Now let us look at Acts 12:3,4:
    “And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”

    Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (April 15-2 1). The Bible says: “Then were the days of unleavened bread.” The passover (April 14th) had already come and gone. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his statement concerning Easter. The next Passover was a year away! But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the “queen of heaven”. He was NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of thinking.

    First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod’s actions.

    Second, he could not have been waiting until after the passover because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matthew 26:17-19,47). They were also excited about Herod’s murder of James. Anyone knows that a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious festivities, not after.

    In further considering Herod’s position as a Roman, we must remember that the Herods were well known for celebrating (Matthew 14:6-11). In fact, in Matthew chapter 14 we see that a Herod was even willing to kill a man of God during one of his celebrations.

    It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested Peter during the days of unleavened bread, after the passover. The days of unleavened bread would end on the 21st of April. Shortly after that would come Herod’s celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he wanted to wait until Easter. Since it is plain that both the Jews (Matthew 26:17- 47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during a religious celebration, Herod’s opinion seemed that he was not going to let the Jews “have all the fun “. He would wait until his own pagan festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.

    Thus we see that it was God’s providence which had the Spirit-filled translators of our Bible (King James) to CORRECTLY translate “pascha” as “Easter”. It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish passover. In fact, to change it to “passover” would confuse the reader and make the truth of the situation unclear. Dr. Sam Gipp.

    I know most of you will reject this explanation from this man, but it is good even so.

  52. Steve says:

    Well, congratulations. We now know you can copy and past. This is almost word for word from the post above. See @Michael Alessi. I’ve answered these arguments already. Please read above.

    You are doing nothing more that presenting the same tired argument, robotically repeating the IFB message about this topic. If you have something new to present I’m more than happy to entertain it. If not then please find another site to harass.

    By the way, You’ve got it backwards. The key to unraveling this is in verse 3 AND 4. Verses 3 and 4 are a single sentence. You can’t take them apart. Verse 3 alone is an incomplete thought. Verse 4 alone is an incomplete thought. You have to read them TOGETHER. When read together they show you that it was Passover. The actual words DURING and AFTER are used in those verses. I’m not sure how you can ignore that.

    Here is my reply to the post above that you copied from.

    Steve :
    Michael, you’ve gone to a lot of trouble to defend your position, but you neglect simple logic and common sense. My guess is that you are so interested in providing evidence to support the KJV as a perfect, God ordained Bible that you are simply blind to the obvious.

    Read in context Acts 12:3 states that Herod arrested Peter during the Passover Celebration… and the thought continues into verse 4 …and imprisoned him for an intended public trial after the Passover. Verses 3 and 4 are a continuous thought. Taken out of context and by itself verse 4 is an incomplete thought and easily misunderstood. Herod imprisoned Peter DURING the Passover with the intention of putting him on trial AFTER the Passover. It’s really not that difficult to figure out and over analyzing it will lead to a misinterpretation which is proved by your post.

    But that’s not all. It’s important to remember that the Passover was set as a series of celebrations lasting for 7 days – See Ezekiel 45:21. The Passover is combined with the Feast of Unleavened Bread festival. Passover was NOT a one night event, but an entire week of celebration and festivities.

    Logic, therefore, dictates that the word Pascha in Acts 12:4 be translated as Passover NOT Easter. There is no reason, other than defense of the KJV, to believe that the correct translation should be Easter in this context. The KJV translation of Pascha as Easter in Acts 12:4 is inconsistent and erroneous.

  53. derek says:

    Steve – Thanks for the congratulation!

    You’re wrong. Verse 3 and 4 are not one sentence.

    3And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

    4And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

    Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread. The Passover IS one day only. The Lamb was slain once, not over and over all week. And Jesus was slain one time only, not all through the week. The Passover was over.

    Here is the NIV.

    3When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. 4After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.

    Even here verse three and four are two different sentences.

    Oh wait…look here. The NASV has verse 3 and 4 as two separate sentences also :)

    3When he saw that it (C)pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also Now it was during (D)the days of Unleavened Bread.

    4When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four (E)squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after (F)the Passover to bring him out before the people.

    Huh?

    I know you ask everyone if they read your site when they dissagree with you, but I must ask…”did you even read your Bible?” :)

  54. Steve says:

    I said they are a complete THOUGHT. They could be a complete sentence too – (they are actually a single sentence in my Bible that’s why I said they are a single sentence in my last comment).

    They are a single sentence in some translations and separate sentences in others. Just because they are two different sentences, however, doesn’t negate the fact that they are a single THOUGHT. Changing the sentence structure doesn’t change the meaning of the thought.

    Perhaps you should learn English before you try and interpret the Bible. The word “and” is a coordinating conjunction and serves to connect words, phrases, and clauses of equal value. In English it’s never proper to use a coordinating conjunction to begin a sentence. If you see the word “and” used to start a verse you can bet that it is a continuation from the previous verse.

    The passage should read: “3) When Herod saw how much this pleased the Jewish leaders, he arrested Peter during the Passover celebration 4) and imprisoned him, placing him under the guard of four squads of four soldiers each. Herod’s intention was to bring Peter out for public trial after the Passover.” (NLT)

    It doesn’t matter if there is a period after “celebration” or not. The thought of the passage doesn’t change. It’s a single THOUGHT. The verses go together no matter what sentence structure is used. You can’t separate them. They are a continuous thought. I don’t know how to say it more clearly. This is hermeneutics 101 stuff.

    The NASV takes out the coordinating conjunction “and” and makes one sentence into two. It’s still a single thought though. The sentence structure is just different. Changing the sentence structure doesn’t change the meaning of the passage.

    I feel that you are grasping at straws here. How pathetic.

    By the way, I don’t ask everyone who disagrees with me if they have read the site. I only ask people who post things that are obviously already addressed and especially when they are already addressed just a couple comments above theirs as was the case with you. It’s pretty obvious to me when someone – like you – doesn’t read the site and just wants to start an argument with me by posting their biased view without considering my point of view.

  55. derek says:

    Well we have a problem, because we now have versions of the Bible that disagree. Most of the versions other than the King James mention the days of unleavened bread, which is AFTER the Passover. Anyone can find some translation out there that will change that fact to “Passover Feast” and thus call it all the Passover.

    Sorry – you’re still wrong. And you still didn’t address the fact that the Passover was one day, clearly shown in scripture, and clearly shown in figure.

    “I feel that you are grasping at straws here. How pathetic.”

    Oh well, we disagree…that happens some time.

  56. Steve says:

    Sigh… Yes, I did address the passover. Do you still wonder why I accuse you of not reading what I write? From my response above…

    …the Passover was set as a series of celebrations lasting for 7 days – See Ezekiel 45:21. The Passover is combined with the Feast of Unleavened Bread festival. Passover was NOT a one night event, but an entire week of celebration and festivities.

    Ezekiel 45:21  21In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. – KJV

    That’s a direct quote from your precious, perfect KJV. This is the same festival mentioned in Acts.

    So if you think the passover was a one day event then I’m afraid it’s not me you are disagreeing with but the Bible. Most Bibles other then the KJV combine the passover and the feast of unleavened bread because the KJV is wrong on this issue.

    Anyone can find some translation out there that will change that fact to one day Passover and thus call it just a one day event. See, it works both ways.

    In your next post, please write something more substantial then “your wrong”. If you don’t it will not be approved. I welcome discussion, but closed minded, generic “your wrong” messages aren’t welcome.

  57. derek says:

    I will say this…you have brought me to think some more on this subject.

    In Luke 22:1, it says “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.” (KJV)

    I will get back to you on this :)

  58. Kenneth says:

    I do not understand where your extreme hatred for the Word of God originates. After reading your ridiculously long rant I came to the conclusion that you not only hate the Word of God but you also hate anyone who loves it. I do not know where you get your “facts”, but let me tell you, you are sorely mistaken as to the origins of the KJV and its translators. You said that you understand that their is not a perfect Bible. Let me explain to you though, to say this is to say that God is awsome and perfect enough to create everything, but is not perfect enough to do such a simple thing as to preserve his written word to all mankind as he promised, therefore calling God a liar. You also mocked KJV onlyist as KJV worshipers. Well guilty as charged my friend. Yes I do worship the KJV Bible. Why? Because when you think about it, what is the Bible? A: the Word of God. Now, what is the Word of God? A: Not what is but who is. Ok, so who is the Word of God? A: My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. “Well Jesus is a person not a book”! Wrong my friend. Jesus is the Word of God. The same Word that created everything, including you. “No he’s not”! Oh contrare my friend. John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God” You also see evidence of this in the creation story many times when we read the words “And God said or then God said. You see, by Gods spoken Word was everything created that was created. Now I believe that the KJV Bile is Gods written Word “Jesus Christ in black and white if you will and if Jesus is written on paper then yes I will worship him there also. To all things be the glory of God, have a nice day Bible hater.

  59. Kenneth says:

    Just want to add one more little piece of knowledge that you failed to mention to people when contending that the new translations did not omit any verses. Here it is. Older does not neccesarily mean more accurate or more reliable. Harmony, verse to verse book to book is all that matters. I also want to say that there is not a need of new translations, what there is a need of is for people to stop dumbing themselves down, pick up a dictionary and look up those hard to understand words. The KJV was written at the height of the english language, before we perverted it into what we speak today. Anyways, I may believe the KJV to be the only inspired inerrant infallible Word of God in the english language, but the truth is, no matter what “version” you choose if you are truly searching for God and truly want to learn and follow in his ways then God will bless that. By saying that I am in no way saying these modern translations are ok but I am saying that if a person picks up a dictionary and actually tries to educate themselves before giving up on the KJV and whining that it is to hard to read then God will bless that Bible student all the more. Because that Bible student is studying and shewing him or herself approved before God.

  60. Steve says:

    Kenneth :
    Just want to add one more little piece of knowledge that you failed to mention to people when contending that the new translations did not omit any verses. Here it is…

    I did mention that. I also answered your other objections already. Please see above.

    Kenneth :
    To all things be the glory of God, have a nice day Bible hater.

    How hysterical. Thanks for being an example of the IFB hypocrisy. In the same sentence you preach that “to all things be the glory of God,” and then call me a Bible hater in the same sentence. Do you really think that calling me a “Bible hater” brings glory to God or are you somehow exempt from that?

    Kenneth :
    I do not know where you get your “facts”, but let me tell you, you are sorely mistaken as to the origins of the KJV and its translators.

    I have a list of resources just below the main article. How did you miss that if you read it like you say you did? If you think I’m wrong then please provide your argument rather then a generic “your wrong” message. I will be happy to entertain thoughtful critiques of my position on this issue, but I will not tollerate people coming here and attacking me. If you want to present a counter argument then do it. I would love to hear your information.

  61. Terry says:

    This issue really provokes the IFB folks and reveals their judgmental, hypocritical tendencies. It seems that one of their major distinguishing characteristics is that tendency to make harsh, judgemental condemnations without Scripture or other evidence. Furthermore, they exhibit a marked tendency to attach harsh labels to those who disagree with them (name-calling). When done from the pulpit, the auditorium often resounds with loud “Amens” from other shallow-minded supporters who never question anything a leader says. They are absolutely opposed to the concept of critical thinking because it naturally leads to questioning authority which in turn undermines their authority and control of the people in their congregations. The thought has occured to me that the IFB movement has become the very thing they so condemn in Roman Catholicism. I have heard in jest of folks who referred to IFB pastors as little Baptist popes of their little religious kingdoms. This certainly does not apply to all IFB pastors or IFB churches. Independence without accountability is dangerous; it opens the door to corruption.

  62. Steve says:

    @Terry

    I couldn’t have said it better myself, Terry. Well said.

  63. John says:

    The common issue is that english is a conglomerate of different languages. If you took your 1611KJV bible by itself naturally you would not rightly divide the Word of God Spoken to and through the prophets and the appostles of Jesus. What each seeker of the “real Word” of God must realize is that man has had a hand in translation, man is falable and in some cases malicious.

    Ginsberg and E.W. Bullinger both highly regaurded scholars of the ancient languages, collaborated to provide, as best they could, the english translations from the Massorah Magna & the Massorah Parva. In thier conclusions they conceeded that some interpretation was their best effort and invited legitimate correction.

    For most poeple The Companion Bible KJV Pulished by Kregel and easily available from Sheperds Chapel Network with a simple phone call or write them in Gravette, AR.. Pastor Murray a student of Bullinger would also recommend that you have a Strongs Concordance so that you, the reader, can look up the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek word meanings for yourself, arranged much like a dictionary in form. Also this Companion Bible has 198 appendixes going into great depths on culture of those times and Hebraisms (phrases that do not literally mean what is written as our modern phrases such as “paint the town red” which would confuse a non-American person), as well as maps and time lines and alot of discusiion on various topics which I found to be helpfull. I am not affiliated with Shepards Chapel, but I do like his chapter by chapter, verse by verse method of teaching the Bible.

    I feel for you Derek but you are wrong on so many levels and your ideas are shall I say…”out in laft field”. However If you believe in Jesus and His teachings as well as repenting your sins…I am not your judge, but you may make it in spite of your criticisms. It is good to question theology and especially, question what our polititians do in our good name always.

    Peace

  64. Juli says:

    Why is this still an issue people ??? God is the Almighty is He not, I think He can get His point across in any translation if He wishes – this argument is just another excuse to go on and on about why your going to heaven and we’re not-just more selfserving, selfrighteous behaviour.

  65. CarolinaGirl says:

    The KJV issue has become so divisive and a source for Satan to take the Word of The Lord and make it into idolatry. If people would be more diligent about actually reading the Bible and getting out the gospel, things would be much better and different. But I was told on a mission trip that if someone wasn’t lead through the Romans Road out of the KJV then they weren’t saved. How is this statement true of a salvation through faith and not of works? Thanks again for all of this info.

  66. greg says:

    how about this regarding “pascha” it is translated “passover” 29 times in the kjv and only once is it translated “easter” to me it seems real simple. the engish translation of this word is “passover” it can’t be something else. this lengthy explanation is really funny, actually kinda sad that something so simple can’t be accepted. you should look around the internet and see how they try to get around acts 5:30 where the kjv has the romans killing jesus and then hanging his dead corpse on the cross. I’m just coming out of a somewhat abusive kjv only church but i am more committed to living for the Lord as I’ve ever been. Pls pray for me and my family.

    • Dr. Chad Bush says:

      Greg, I can honestly say that I am sorry you had a bad
      experience in a KJV Only Church. I am KJV Only, but I am not
      abusive. Please hear me out and read this through, not just
      glancing over it. Let me give you an example. I have a friend who
      is a Methodist preacher. He uses the NIV. He knows I am KJV Only.
      HOWEVER, I speak to him and he speaks to me. We both realize that
      we have the same goal of seeing souls saved. I am an evangelist. I
      have seen some VERY legalistic churches. I try not to be
      legalistic. I do believe in standards, but I do not say you can not
      own a television or some of the other kind of things I have heard
      some preachers say. These men do not understand the Scriptures on
      compassion. HOWEVER, at the same time, let me explain my KJV Only
      position. I believe the KJV is the Word of God in the English
      language. I know from my studies the other versions are either
      corrupt, unsupported or inferior in their readings. I did not start
      out as a KJV Only believer. I was raised on other versions almost
      my whole life. I used a New Living Translation until I was 21 or
      22. When I saw a work saying there was an issue with the versions I
      started studying it. I did not start with a man’s book. That work I
      merely glimpsed through. What I did was take key doctrines of the
      faith and start running references from about 20 translations to
      see where they all stood. I saw where they all lacked seriously on
      major doctrines of the faith. All of them except the KJV. From
      there I started studying the history of the textual families and
      the variants. I studied the men behind the major translations and
      the major Greek apparatuses. I studied the fruit produced by each
      of the major translations, such as: missions, souls won, revivals,
      separation, sanctification and so forth. I then started to study
      the Greek and Hebrew and which was best supported. I did all of
      this in an objectionable manner because I wanted to know the truth
      about where I should stand. That is how I form all of my
      convictions. I find the truth and see what the Word of God says and
      then define my life by that. I have even stood in opposition to
      some IFB preachers on certain things because they cannot support it
      from the Scriptures. I am also HUGE on context. If the passages of
      Scripture do not fit the context then I call them on twisting what
      it says. It does not make me popular among many groups of people to
      say the least. When it was all said and done there was only one
      English translation that was superior and that was the KJV. Now, if
      you do not accept that the KJV is God’s Word preserved in the
      English language that is between you and the Lord. Just as if I do
      accept it is it is between me and the Lord. However, I did not make
      a decision until I knew the sum of the whole matter. At the same
      time, I would not sink to vilify any man or demean him because he
      uses a translation other than the KJV. I will call him out when he
      states something that is incorrect or untrue, but you better
      believe I have called out other KJV Only preachers when they have
      done the same thing. The bottom line is that we are all men. We all
      need the Saviour. None of us know it all. We must all answer to God
      for what we know and what we do with what we know. If I were to
      take a stand other than a King James Only stand with what I have
      seen and learned through thousands upon thousands of hours of study
      then I would have to answer God with shame. Saying that I must also
      say this, and it gets me in trouble with other IFB preachers
      sometimes too, and that would be, do what you know with what you
      have. If you do not believe the KJV is God’s Word in the English
      language then at least put into effect whatever it is you learn
      from the translation you do believe to be the Word of God. (That is
      not an admission that I believe it is.) Also, I do not believe in
      forcing anyone to learn English to have the Word of God. There are
      perfectly preserved versions of God’s Word in other tongues. I have
      a friend who is working on a translation into the Romanian
      language. He is using the Greek, Hebrew and the King James Version.
      Isn’t that what the KJV Translators did? They used the Greek,
      Hebrew and prior translations from the English and other tongues.
      The Romanians have NEVER had the Word of God fully translated into
      their dialect. I used to attend a church that supported a
      translator for the Word of God into the Vanuatu language. The
      Vanuatu speak more than 113 different dialects. Could you imagine
      trying to make a translation in their tongue? Yet someone is doing
      it and they are using the same method I just mentioned above. The
      Word of God is not bound. That means it is not contained in just
      one language. That does not mean that the language it is translated
      into MUST meet certain requirements in order for it to be called
      the Word of God. So, I hope that gives you a little insight into a
      more compassionate King James Only Fundamental Baptist. I know many
      people who have been hurt by churches like the one you described. I
      am glad I have never been under one of those kind of churches. All
      of the ones I have been in have been very compassionate,
      understanding, patient and seek to show love to everyone they reach
      out to. I wish you well as you seek the face of the Lord. I also
      hope this will help define any interactions we have in the
      future.

      • greg says:

        Chad – Just lost a detailed response, and am aggravated, so will shorten this one.

        I absolutely do accept the KJV translation as God’s word in english. The problem is that 99% of the population of the U.S. can’t understand this shakesperean english. Jesus spoke plainly and clearly to the people of his time, why in this world wouldn’t you want His word in a language that folks could understand today? Chad, the whold job of translating is to take a language that is unfamiliar to a targeted people and put that language into a form that the targeted people can understand. The fact that I have to explain this simple process to you just goes to show how far this insidious KJVonlyism has gone.

        here goes nothing-continuing below, hopefully

        • greg says:

          Chad – I also know from my studies into the subject of bible translations, that you are all wet in your allegiance to KJVonlyism. You have not demonstrated any independent thinking at all, you have spouted the same ol tired stuff that’s been around for years. You’ve made Gail Anne, Ludwig, Latessa, Kaleda, Riplinger proud! You stand with nuts like her and Peter (nutjob) Ruckman with this KJVonly foolishness. Btw, you mentioned you checked some of her references from her book of lies NABV, well check again, she has lied on nearly every page of this filthy so-called book, staunch defenders of the KJV like David Cloud and the Waite’s of the Dean Burgon society have called her out about her lies, her 2 previous husbands apparently couldn’t live with this liar either, so look at the great company you are keeping in your twisted attempt to keep this extra-biblical 80 year old tradition alive

          • greg says:

            Chad – With all of this negativity that you and I have thrown around, let me say I do believe that you are a christian and that you think that you are doing something good for the kingdom, please pray about it. I was once where you are now.

            Our Precious Saviour died for wicked men like you and me, please believe me, He wants His Word to go out to all folks, and most of those folks don’t speak or understand KJV style english, believe it.

  67. bob says:

    I thought I would comment on here. I have found that the KJV only crowd for the most part do not speak one lick of Koine Greek or Modern Hebrew or Paleo Hebrew.

    The entire game is based upon a stupid argument that I will expose for you. The KJV only websites will say something like “The NASV has 3,000 changes from the KJV”! O MAN! This is a stupid argument. Who cares if the NASV differs from the KJV, you will notice these websites never once check the Greek to see what the Greek says and which version is correct.

    Fact #1 No English Version of the Bible is 100% correct. Yes the KJV is accurate for the most part but it does have issues. So does the NIV.

    Fact #2 The KJV has been revised well over a dozen times to correct errors, which blows away the 1611 KJV infallibility foolishness.

    Fact #3 The KJV translators admit it was not perfect.

    Fact #4 The KJV like most modern versions of the Scriptures hid the name of the Creator YHWH (YaHuWaH) almost 7,000 times in the Torah and Prophets alone! They replaced it with “the LORD”. Lord means BAAL in Hebrew! Let me repeat this, the translators hid the name of the Creator, and replaced it with BAAL almost 7,000 times! Utter translation bias and manipulation at its best! With this in mind now, read Eliyahuw’s (Falsely translated as Elijah) encounter in Kings with the priest who were teachings that the Creator’s name was “BAAL”………

    Fact #5 “Jesus” is a fake, made up name, and is not even a translation of the Messiah’s true name. Find this hard to believe? Keep in mind the same people covered up the Creator’s name 7,000 times with BAAL. The argument that “Jesus” is a transliteration of a name through several languages is stupid. We can translate it straight from Hebrew to English. He has the exact same name as “Joshua” the second in command of Moses. A direst modern Hebrew translation would be Yehoshua, but only with Masoretic vowel pointers which were created to hide the Creator’s name from being spoken aloud. The pre-Masoretic vowel pointers would be Yahushua. Yah or Yahu is the poetic short form of the Creator’s name. Yahushua literally means Yah is our Salvation. Much like EliYahu means Yahu is our Elohim.

    Fact #6 Anyone with a Exhaustive Greek Concordance can find out very fast that the KJV has biased translations according to church Dogma. John 3:36 is a great example. The 2nd believe is a totally different Greek word which means OBEY. Notice the KJV has Believe twice to promote the “pray a prayer punch your ticket to heaven. Shaul’s (Paul’s) letters are butchered with bias translations according to church dogma. When Paul says “let all meats be received with thanksgiving” the word meat is Broma which means “clean according to the Torah laws”

    Col 2:16-17 is another perfect example. The word “Is” is in italics showing it was added, where it says “but the body of Christ” should say “For the body of Messiah”, the word meat is Broma! These verses in Greek say the 180 degree opposite of what most churches teach! Paul’s teachings line up very well with the Messiah’s when translated correctly.

    Matthew Chapter 7 where the Messiah says “Depart from me you workers of Iniquity” in the KJV is a VERY BIASED translation. The Greek says “Depart from me you who are WITHOUT TORAH” ANOMIA is used. A meaning without. Nomia meaning Torah.

    The word “Church” never once occurs in the Bible. The word used is the same word the Hebrews used in the Greek LXX for the assembly of Israel. The word church comes from the word CIRCE, who was the Greek goddess who made men drink from her cup and turned them into swine! (now let that come to mind with Revelations and the Mother of Harlots who rides the beast)

    The word “cross” never occurs in the Greek. The Greek word Stauros is used in all text except the latin vulgate! Stauros means Upright pole, like a Telephone pole. The Cross had always been a symbol of pagan sun god worship!

    This is just scratching the surface. The publishing companies loose their butts on a true translation cause the crazy preachers go around burning everything but the KJV, so nothing gets published.

    now do not get me wrong. I am not saying the KJV is totally bad. It is for the most part a very good translation, but these people who say it is the 100% infallible word of Elohim are either Ignorant or Liars.

  68. Morgan says:

    I was raised with the KJV, and I thank God that our church/denomination decided to change to the NIV back in the ’80′s. Suddenly the Word of God was alive to me! Now I have four or five different translations of the Bible and enjoy studying them and comparing them. I get different insights from each version, and I thank God for the faithful men who work so hard to translate the Bible into words we can understand and appreciate.

  69. Ukulelemike says:

    @Site Admin
    IN Wescott and hort’s own words, they admitted to wanting to change certain doctrines of the Bible in their Greek text.

  70. Steve says:

    Where did you read that? What is your source? Thanks

  71. David Emme says:

    For me, I am a bit of a KJV as basically-I see critiques on both sides. Until recently this figurted large into my thinking and then saw how so many got in the flesh to slander others-this has been going down in my priorities as I think it is more important to live the bible you use now as opposed to go around and check others. The one way I can describe this-so many think they are the spiritual boss of everyone else. Do I have problems with modern bible versions? Sure.

    The problem becomes when we just repeat what we say and not do any sort of research. People point to Westcott and Hort and my beef is not with them-but with Griesbach as he was way more careful then westcott and Hort in his ideas on the bible as far as text criticism-but usually most KJV only people do not even know who he was.

    When so often it is taught that the reason for early manuscripts is because they were judgedd as being erroneous-the fact that Origen by today’s standards would be seen as a neo platonic Gnostic who worked on the Hexlapa and never mind Alexanderia was sacked and much hidden to preserve them-this rerquires getting the thick books out and reading. Personally-Ruckman and Riplinger-I see it as it takes a bit of work to learn bible languages-so which requires less work-to learn Latin, Greek, and Hebrew or to teach God re-inspired the bible in the KJV(which also speaks of God losing his word so obviously he did not preserve his word.)

    On the other hand-I can shew works written before the SDA was even born advocating for letting the KJV remain untouched and no other revisions-translations needed.

    There is quite abit on the other side of the debate I think is easily defeated-except when I shared elsewhere and some used my thoughts and evidances to slander a brother in Christ whom I highly respect-and yes we disagreed on the KJV-but it weas never a point of contention. Going through that experiance-I see no need to share when it is used as an occasion to slander good people we disagree with. Besides this-do your own work and do not copy mine.

    In the same online community-as much was said about the ESV and when I used Logos for some quick checking on the accusations-more often then not-the KJV used the same words as the ESV or vice versa-just in different passages-but the same words. In other words, when the translators so quickly teach the use of other words so as not to have a very wooden and highly literal translation and then see how this was done between KJV and ESV-can I really judge the ESV as heretical? No. I always kind of liked the ESV and basically approaching possibly making the switch-as am also looking ath the NET bible because I prefer learning the language and use language tools-if you know of the NET bible-this is conducive to those wanting to go a bit deeper in the language. Am sure someone will come and challang my statements on the ESV. Let ‘em! I just hope Dr. John MacArthur uses the ESV for his study bible! Did I ever mention when I became an IFB at nearly the same time before we were taught to hate MacArthur-I alreadfy did the research on the Lordship Controversy and beliueve Lordship Salvation? Maybe this was the influance of a Godly man who loved God’s word that might have redeemed me from the IFB movement as I never hid this part of my belief systems and when challanged-most walked away scratching thier heads trying to figure out how could they justify being against a brother who obviously knows the bible and basically-we can not really approach his knowledge base of the scriptures and only thank God that the two who discipled me when I first became a Baptist were huge macArthur fans.

    Sorry for the eternal run on sentence.
    God bless
    Dave Emme

    When I went to PCBBC in ’95 and ‘ 9 as I never hide something-I used the letters to Young churches by Phillips. When queried-I woulkd hand it over and tell them to read the intro and explain what was wrong with it which I never got a good answer when they read that Phillips stated it was not a translation but a free re-interpretation which is never to be used for study, memorizing, preaching, and not intended to take the place of your normal bible.

    Of course when I left the school, the VP Ken Jones told me he was glad to see me leave as i was nothing but a curse from the time I got there and I told him the feeling was mutual.

  72. Matthew Sweeny says:

    Under Myth 3: I do not believe you have it stated correctly. The textus receptus is not a family of manuscripts, but is a work from Erasmus when he used about 6 manuscripts and some latin vulgate to form the textus receptus.

    So it goes like this: Handwritten Manuscripts(Codex Basilensis, ect.)—–> Formulates the Byzantine Text Type (whole new Testament made of many codex’s) —–> Erasmus used 6 Manuscripts mostly of Byzantine Family, along with Latin Vulgates to formulate the Textus Receptus.

    It is said that Erasmus did not have all of Revelation so he translated some of it into greek to finish the Textus Receptus. After my research I can tell you Erasmus’s goal was not to formulate the Textus Receptus for Kin James version use, but to make a really good Latin Vulgate with Greek for accuracy checking.

    If that doesnt make sense, then please let me know and if I am wrong please correct me:)

    Thanks,
    Matthew

  73. Steve says:

    Matthew, it’s kind of confusing I know, but this is really semantics. The Textus Receptus is really nothing more then the name given to the succession of Greek texts which Erasmus used (not created) while attempting to translate the texts into Latin. It can certainly be considered in and of itself a family of manuscripts. It is the base for many, many other translations including the German Luther Bible, the Geneva Bible and the KJV. The Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text. Erasmus’ work formed the base of the Textus Receptus, but isn’t itself the Textus Receptus.

    It’s interesting to remember that Erasmus’ work was rushed through the translation and printing process for publication and as a result was full of errors. Also, of interest to note is that scholars now know that Erasmus was a humanist and manipulated the text to change its message to suit his beliefs and values.

  74. greg says:

    Quite a hornet’s nest here! I can’t help but notice after reading nearly all comments here how nasty and even un-christiantlike these kjv only folks are. I don’t want to say that all of them haven’t been studying their kjv’s but it certainly appears that they aren’t, I don’t see alot of fruits of the Spirit being displayed in their responses. If you are so wrong Steve why aren’t some of the kjv brothers demonstrating some christian love and helping to shed some light on this topic?

    After going through my own journey with the ifb/kjv only crowd for about 20 years and then studying into this translation business I have arrived at a number of conclusions. First off it is a relatively “new” starting somewhere along in the 1950′s. So its not something that’s been going on for very long. The kjv folks want to believe and have been “told” that they are carrying on a great tradition, when this great tradition has only been going on for about 50 years. Secondly notice how they all say the same things? Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, Samuel Gipp, most of them get their marching orders from folks like these. Please look up any of these folks and read the things they write. They have nastiness dripping off of them, it is certainly a christianity exhibited that I don’t want any part of. Now I must say there are some decent folks and even a few wonderful scholarly ones that support the kjv and the texts that support it. Dr Maurice Robinson and Dean Burgon come to mind and yet they don’t support wild view like Ruckman, who believes that the kjv english can “correct” the greek and hebrew!

    I will conclude these comments by saying if everyone would talk about things they know something about they would be wise. If you love your kjv and can understand it, by all means stay with it, it is God’s word in 17th century english.

    In His Grace,
    Greg

  75. Bryan says:

    Greg, you see what I saw man! These onlyist are displaying unChristlikeness simply because they are taught to judge other people who they think are not following the word of God.

    Why can’t they show love? I have never seen them do it yet. They always love to put exposes and show to us that their isolationist point of view is valid because Christians are supposed to be “set apart”. I really don’t understand how extreme can they get.

    They are no different from the Catholic Church who they so hate and the Radical Islam who they also hate to the core. Moreso, they are very much how the Pharisees act and think during Jesus’ time. Well the more you hate something, the more you become the thing you hate.

    I became a Christian at the age of 13 and have used the KJV, NIV, ESV and TEV. Before these useless exposes by the fundies came to me, I thought all Bible translations are saying the same thing. There are differences of course but the same overall meaning comes across to me loud and clear – WE NEED JESUS, THE ONLY WAY TO GOD THE FATHER.

    If the fundies cannot show love, why can’t they at least show some respect? I bet Mr. Yeshua bar Yusef is not pleased by your actuations.

    So to conclude – can’t we just get along? I mean my salvation depends on my faith through Grace in the Lord Jesus Christ and not worshipping any translation (the fundies themselves admit they WORSHIP the KJV).

    I AM NOT GOING TO HELL JUST BECAUSE I AM NOT A FUNDAMENTALIST BAPTIST OR MY PREFERRED BIBLE IS THE NIV. I challenge the fundies on this last sentence of mine.

  76. Brandon says:

    Well, all I can say is that where do we draw the line. I am not saying a person can’t get saved out of another Bible translation, or that you can’t use another Bible translation. Where is the line drawn though? Do we accept Bible translations that say that God is feminine, or unisex? Do we accept Pro-homosexual Bibles? Where are you going to draw the line? What makes one Bible better than another one? I believe that the KJV holds the closest to the original manuscripts (i.e. Textus Receptus, not Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). If you don’t, ok, I don’t force you to teach in my church. If you want to, we use the KJV. I don’t see where that philosophy is dogmatic or authoritative. I give account for what happens in my church because I am the pastor. If you don’t agree with that, sorry. There are other churches where it isn’t an issue and the pastor doesn’t agree with me, so go there. Stop trying to change what I believe to match what you believe.

  77. GM says:

    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!

  78. Bryan says:

    To GM
    Well last time, I checked, I never believed in the new age philosophy – NEVER. I also believe that there are really poor bible translations. The thing is, you always accuse other churches of being in error to the point that you claim that the IFB is the true church. I don’t think relying on the NIV because that was the version I easily understand and ministers to me made me think there is a wrong way of identifying Jesus. You made that all up. Prove it that I have a false impression of Jesus. Prove it that bacause I am not a baptist that I am not saved. Prove it that I believe in salvation by works because I relied on the NIV

    You know, learn to respect other denominations.

  79. Bryan says:

    To GM
    (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)
    I never believed in free love.
    (It’s not enough to need Jesus, the question is WHICH Jesus? WHICH salvation?)
    Let me assure you that the Jesus I belive is the same as yours
    (Because the “new age bibles” portray a different Jesus than the Bible (KJV) and a different salvation (not faith but works))
    I don’t think salvation is by 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)????)

    In all the bibles I have read, it says that Jesus is God, born of a virgin and eternal and everlasting. Are you telling me that I believe otherwise because I use the NIV?

    (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?)
    True my friend, but I believe Jesus did not speak in 17th century English. No matter how hard I try, being a Filipino, I really cannot grasp old English. It is just my second language.

    (These New Age Bibles do nothing but promoting the Satanist religion of uniting all “faiths” under one umbrella, preparing the way for the Antichrist!)
    You better tell me what bible translations and what particular verse in those translations tells us the new age way and preparing the way for the Devil!

  80. greg says:

    GM, boy you have a long way to go in understanding bible translations. One thing I do appreciate is that you do in fact stand up for the Word of God, even if it is in 17th century english. Just one question here, what do you think of the very fine english translations that pre-date the KJV? Are they inerrant? Your constitution analogy falls flat on its face because the constitution was originally written in english, it in no way compares with translators working with ancient manuscripts to put one language into another language, its a very tedious process, God bless faithful bible translators. Now GM just a couple more things. Do you believe that the Romans hung a dead Jesus on the cross of calvary? Thats exactly what your KJV says. Act 5:30 “The God of our father’s raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.” Most new translations correct this obvious error. Now for an open book test for you GM, open your KJV and w/out going to any other source material I want you to look up 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 and I want you to tell me what it means, …..I’m waiting……Give Up? Ok, go ahead and look it up in the NIV on the internet, I know you wouldn’t have such a book at your home! Now go ahead and read, AHHH isn’t it wonderful reading the precious Word of God with understanding!!

    GM, I know I have been alittle sarcastic with you and I really don’t want to turn you off, I am simply trying to make a point that I along with millions of others have a difficult time understanding Shakesperean english. If you can understand your KJV, by all means continue to use it until Christ’s return to planet earth, but please don’t treat those of us so badly that use othere versions, ones that we can understand We want to know God’s will for our lives as well!

    Let me state for the record the KJV is a good 17th century english translation, it absolutely contains God’s Word I just have a very difficult time understanding it.

    In His Grace
    Greg

  81. greg says:

    Hey Brian,

    Don’t know how I missed your post, its a good one! One very good thing that I pointed out in the above post is the fact that the kjvonlyists do stand up for the Word of God, and I can certainly appreciate that. What is really at work here is that many folks are speaking about things that they know very little about. If everyone would speak about things they know something about we wouldn’t have nearly as many problems. What happens is you get some (and I truly hate to say this) un-educated pastor that has got ahold of some of Ruckman’s or Riplinger’s disinformation and then he brings that mess into his church and pontificates upon it as though it has any validity, which it does not, and then he confuses his congregation, and gets them into a “witch” hunt for folks carrying other translations. My last day at my fundamentalist Baptist church was when my pastor got into the pulpit, after having consumed some Jack Chick junk (not all of his stuff is junk) and began to pontificate about a “secret” code that was contained in the english translation of the KJV, of course I wondered if that same “secret” code was contained in just the 1611 version or the 1769 version that everyone uses today or was it from the 8 other versions that occurred between 1611 and 1769!

    The bible says that God is a Spirit (not a ghost, you kjvers) and that we must worship Him in Spirit and in truth. Please don’t worship paper and ink, God is way bigger than that.

    Your point about being saved by grace through faith, excellent! How wondereful Grace is, I thank Him today for His marvellous Grace. Oh that this KJV foolishness would pass away and folk get involved in the work of the Lord.

    Let me emphatically state here once again. I am not against the KJV, but I am diametrically opposed to kjvonlyism. The KJV is a fine translation in 16th century english, it contains God’s message to mankind, however in a language that is unfamiliar to most of us here in the U.S. and I for one have a hard time understanding it.

    In Christ,
    Greg

  82. Bryan says:

    Same here, I am not against KJV and in fact I use it once in a while. But no matter how I force myself, my mind is not trained to understand 17th Century English.
    And then here come some people saying things like:
    1. If you don’t have the KJV – you don’t own a bible
    2. If the Greek and Hebrew contradicts the KJV, throw away the Greek and Hebrew!
    3. If you accuse us of worshipping the KJV then we take that as a complement. Because we WORSHIP THE WORD OF GOD. (then takes “man does not live on bread alone” totally out of context as a means to intimidate)
    4. If you don’t understand 17th century English then you don’t have Christ in you!

    All outrageous and even derogatory comments.

    The fundies have so much time in their hands don’t you think so? While we sponsor missionaries in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq; sponsor worthwhile city projects to help the poor in our towns and cities; pray for a lot of people who cannot have the privilege to worship – here come the fundies telling us that the very doctrines in which we abide by are demonic; Darlene Zschech and Hillsong are Satanists, Billy Graham was a tool of Satan to deceive believers into thinking the Catholic Church are alright!

    Oh they also say they do not hate the Catholics, Evangelicals and Pentecostals………….

    I remember Mahmoud Ahmadinejad keeps telling the press the people of Iran do not hate the Western World, Christians, US and Israel…………..

    GO FIGURE!

  83. greg says:

    I’m burning this site up lately, but I re-read through some of the posts and saw where someone was reccomending Pastor Murray and Shepherd’s Chapel. Please everyone stay as far away from this kook as you can, he may be the only guy crazier than Ruckman and Riplinger. He believes that Eve had sex with the serpent in the garden, he also does not believe in the rapture of the church. The crazy things he believes in are too long to list here. If you google him there is a video of him threatening a man in his congregation with a gun! He is on television all the time, that’s “FRIGHTENING”

    In Christ,
    Greg

  84. John says:

    Site Admin, It was written above that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts was closer to the originals. Can anyone prove this? Has anyone seen the originals? You also wrote that the family of manuscripts used to create the KJV has verses/passages added that were not in the originals. Can you prove this as well?
    I do see what a lot of people say about KJV-Only types being hateful and un Christlike, I really can’t argue with that. I personally do not hate anyone or call them a reprobate for using a version other than the King James. To me, the bottom line is believing that the Lord inspired AND preserved His Word and for English-speaking people, that version is the KJV. I don’t need to know any ancient Greek to figure out what He wants me to know and I don’t need to go to a scholar to get further guidance on what the Bible really says.
    In addition, no one talks much about Satan’s attack on God’s Word. Again, to me, he attacked God’s Word by changing it as shown in the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. It’s really that simple.
    So much evidence can be brought up by either side saying this or that which supposedly “proves” each sides’ position, but ultimately it’s going to boil down to each individual’s preference. I think there’s ample evidence that shows that the newer versions are corrupt, but so what. I know I can’t convince people to change their minds on it, so I tend to leave it alone. Who am I to throw stones? The Lord has used people in my life that probably haven’t used a King James in years.

  85. Bryan says:

    That’s the thing John, it’s a preference and if one has a bias for it, one should keep it to himself, not go around telling us that our souls are in trouble because we are using some other version.

    The problem is that they are unrelentless in telling us we are wrong. They have too much time rebuking when there a lot of more important things to do as a Christian.

  86. greg says:

    John,

    You bring up a couple of good points. First off in ref to the alexandrian manuscripts, many folks think they are closer to the originals because in age they are in fact closer to the originals, in other words they are much older than the manuscripts used to translate the KJV, there are other reasons, but I think for many this is the main one, now I would personally submit that older doesn’t necessarily mean better. Now I would turn the question you pose back to you. Can you prove the manuscripts that support the KJV are closer to the originals? Now you question why the site admin contends that verses were added by the KJV translators. Let me state that I do believe that happened from my studies on the matter, and at this particular moment I don’t have the source materials to delve into that, so I will just tell you to look into “textual criticism” and you can pretty quickly see how things can get added by overzealous scribes. Now friend please tell me where in scripture does God promise english speaking people a perfect translation. Do you contend that all of the english translations that came before the KJV were not inspired. I don’t know if you are ready to understand this, but so many wild-eyed kjv onlyists prop up the king james translation as the standard, it just doesn’t deserve that place. A good translation yes, but nonetheless a translation made by men, just as translations that came before it and translations that came after it. If there has got to be a standard it would have to be the original autographs that unfortunately have passed from this earth. But I believe God allowed that on purpose, look at yourself venerating a 17th century translation, what you do if you actually had the original autographs. You would be worshipping them, that’s probably what you would be doing. God is a Spirit, and we that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth. We don’t worship ink and paper.

    I have never seen any “proof” that new versions are corrupt, I would love to see that if you have it. Now don’t bring us any Riplinger, Ruckman, Gipp disinformation. They have harmed the cause of Christ greatly with their foolishness. Real evidence, that’s what I would like to see.

    In Christ,
    Greg

  87. Bryan says:

    Bring it on Greg my man! I hope they answer this without any condescending or derogatory remarks.

  88. John says:

    Greg and Bryan, I have been around many, many KJV only Baptists, and I’ve never heard one of them say that someone’s soul is in jeopardy for not using the KJV. Not once. Not eben anything remotely close to that. Are many of us, rude, lude, crude, and obnoxious? Yes. I’m sorry for that. (I try as much as I can not to be.) I don’t doubt your salvation or sincerity or even knowledge of this subject. (I think I stated it before – not sure if it was on this thread or not – but one of the men that has influenced the most in my life and I respect as much as just about anyone uses one of the new versions.)
    But let me ask you, do you think less of me for believing that God has preserved His Word in the KJV? Are you guys ever “condescending or derogatory” toward us? Only you can answer that. Why is it so hard to believe that God can and would preserve His Word? (The King James is a translation made by men, but it was men that penned the “originals” wasn’t it?) I meam, I’ve been mocked for believing what I believe, by other Baptists no less! I’ve heard people make somewhat snide remarks about the KJV-only position or about being a Ruckmanite. And Bryan, I’ve had people that won’t leave me alone because they disgaree with me on this, so it’s not just KJV-only types that are “unrelentless” in this debate.
    Now on to the Alexandrian manuscripts, I can’t prove either way which ones are closer to the originals, but neither can you or Westcott and Hort or the faculty of BJU. It’s an assumption that those manuscripts are more reliable because they’re older. For me to say that the newer versions are corrupt is based on the passages that are missing from them that are contained in the KJV. Were passages taken out or added? I believe they were taken out. The truth is, you and I can both quote “proof” after “proof” to back up our positions, but we’re really quoting others’ research. Have you ever read “The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence”? (Please don’t put down Ruckman in an effort to discredit this book. I know a lot about Peter Ruckman and his many faults and quirks and “strange” beliefs.) Have you ever read anything by Ruckman or on of the KJV only camp and just concentrated on the evidence they’re bringin out and not all the tongue-in-cheek stuff?
    And listen, I have to call you on this, what do you mean by “look at yourself venerating a 17th century translation”? Is it wrong to hold God’s Word in high esteem? (Psalm 138:2) Where do we get all of our doctrine, beliefs, standards, counsel, etc.? God’s Word and the Spirit, right? So why wouldn’t I venerate it? I don’t have a shrine built to it or pray to it or burn incense to it, but do I cherish it and believe in it’s power? Without a doubt. (Isa. 55:11, Eph 5:26, John 17:17, Psalm 119:9, etc.) Please read those passages from the KJV…… :o) (Sorry, brother, couldn’t help it.)
    I hope I haven’t sounded condescending or derogatory, that wasn’t my intention.

    John

  89. Bryan says:

    Ok John, thanks for airing your side.

    At least I know there are some KJV advocates like you who are still very respectful to others. And for the record, I never question the KJV followers conviction in fact I give them my respect – if only they are more respectful like you.

    Thanks John for clarifying that you don’t doubt our salvation. But it is saddening that a lot of members of the IFB consider as like infidels.

    My childhood friend who was a deacon in an Alliance Church led me to Christ. And it wasn’t the King James that we used as a reference point in Bible verses, we used a Catholic Version of the Good News Bible! For 3 years that has been my only Bible in my house. Since the the Good News Bible (Today’s English Version) is very easy to understand, I reckoned I got to know God a lot. Then 3 years after I accepted Jesus as my Saviour and Lord, my friend gave my first NIV. And also around that time, I procured a King James Version (I found it in my classroom that for months no one claimed ownership). I tried to read those two versions side by side (plus the Good News Bible) and NIV was the clear winner in terms of the way I got to know the contents of the Bible.

    NIV was my version of choice. And though I am not saying it will always stay that way, I assert that it will be my version for a long while.

    What saddens me is that there are a lot of Baptists that I encountered that questioned my salvation or how I know about God because I did not used KJV as my reference point. One clear example? Look at GM’s post addressed to me.

    They have to understand that English is just my second language and they cannot force me to be an expert in Elizabethan English. Why can’t they accept that? There was a post in this website (I just don’t remember the exact page) that says if you don’t understand the KJV, then you are not saved because “My sheep hear my voice”. How insulting can these people be?

    And we never speak from the pulpit or spread the word that the Baptists are wrong in their stand for the KJV but there are a lot of people declaring in websites (David Cloud for instance) that we are all apostates if we are not fundamentalist in doctrines! Where is this all coming from?

    I even have a friend who keeps emailing me that he is praying that one day I become a Bible Baptist because he fears that my soul is lost.

    John, after all these years my question remains – can’t we live together as brothers and sisters in Christ? A lot refused to do so because that is tantamount to ecumenical movement and that’s heresy?

    Where is the respect here? Where is the love?

    Let us not talk about the translations and all that, let’s talk about how all this has divided the body of Christ. I hope you consider us your brother in the faith too. Unless you believe that the Baptist Church is the ONLY Christian church like what my friend believes.

    For the record John, to answer your question : do you think less of me for believing that God has preserved His Word in the KJV? No! In fact you earned my respect. God has preserved his word in the KJV, as much as the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV. There is no mystique to this. God wants to be understood, He wants us to know Him. That’s why I believe there are many ways God wants to be known to every individual. That’s why there are different Bible translations. HOWEVER, there are Bible translations that are just plain insulting to GOD. One example – the NWT of the Jehovah’s Witness. Man, this is just plain wrong.

    I’m sorry if there are people who are unrelenting in their debate in defending more modern English translations. But that is never me. If the KJV leads you closer to God then by all means use it. The bottom line is – are we being Christlike.

    Bryan

  90. Paul says:

    John,
    I appreciate your honesty. I almost hate this debate. It has so polarized people into either God’s camp or the Devil’s camp and nothing could be further from the truth. I again say that I almost hate this debate but will still choose to enter in at times because there is truth in this argument that needs to prevail. I hate it because to argue or debate this changes no one. I fear at times that it only drives one deeper into the view they hold.

    As someone who once held the KJV only view with a white knuckled grip, I’ve stated many of the same arguments that you have shared. From where I once stood, for me to change those view looked impossible. I was convinced and my mind was made up. I was not going to embrace nor condone such “blatant error.” That’s how it looked from back there. I’m no longer there. The white knuckled grip as been released. For me, it was God wrestling this from me. Knowing Him became more important than anything else and as a result some things just needed to give way to the reality of who He is. So did I have to give up my KJV – absolute not. Did I have to heartedly embrace every and all new versions on the market. I did not. But from where I stand now, as I look back, I am thrilled that God won this from me. OK, brand me as a heretic, no problem. But at least give it a chance.

    Over the course of the past few decades, I’d sat at the feet of many of those who have made the KJV only issue what it is today. I remember the day that Ottis Fuller came to our small church back in the late ’70’s. I read his books. I can remember the day when Dr. Hyles corrected himself from the pulpit (First Baptist Church, Hammond, Ind.) stating after he had just said that a better rendering of this word in the KJ Bible would be – he stopped and stated that he would have to stop doing that because God had given the word He wanted us to have. I’ve been in the meetings and rooms with the Jack Hyles, Lester Roloffs, Lee Robersons, Curtis Hudsons, Moses – well maybe not Moses. I’ve watch the progression of this war expand. I’ve watched God’s kids war and fight in the most unChristlike manner.
    A very good friend of mine is close friends with Al Lacey – calls him “dad.” I’ve heard Al Lacey preach and have read his book “Can I Trust My Bible” at my friend’s request. Not a single footnote just his ranting that he and God hates the Alexandrians. My friend came over for a weekend not long ago. I realized there was nothing I could say that would change his view(s). He was KJV to the core. I asked him if we could get all the experts who supported the varying views (versions) in one room, would it be beneficial to us to sit in on their debate? He agreed that it would be, so off we went via modern day media. I was trained and polished by many of those who have crystallized is issue. I’ve propagated the KJV only views. I believed what I had heard and been taught and sough to sway others is this direction. But then….

    A few years ago God brought me head to head with an issue in the IFB church that I was attending. My wording for it is that I had ran smack dab into “religion” (not in a good sense) and found my life was covered with it. Please don’t read into this – what I’m saying is a broad statement that only getting to know me would avail its true meaning. God challenged me to question this issue (not the KJV only issue – something else). I studied and sought God concerning this and was brought to a place of complete reversal of what I had believed. My wording again – but God was inviting me into the reality of who He was. My belief system took a free fall as more and more questions were demanding answers. It was during this time that the KJV only view(s) were also being visited. This is a HUGE issue and can be very difficult because of the subject and because of it’s complexity. But I began to question. I began to question why men like John R. Rice and others had taken such a different view. I began to scrutinize some of the KJV only arguments. What was the preserved Word of God in 1611? I purchased a copy of the Geneva Bible – I wasn’t sure if someone had just made a mistake by putting a Geneva cover on a King James Bible. But there were differences – minor. Did the newer English versions in use today agree? No But why didn’t they agree? “Do they disagree in passages with major doctrinal implications (for lack of a better way of putting it)?”
    http://www.kjv-only.com/jesusnew.html
    I had always been told and taught that the new versions were and had destroyed or perverted doctrine. But had they? “Do they come from different families of manuscripts?” What did that look like? What did that mean? “Is God the author of this confusion?… Is Satan attacking God’s Word?”… Or are we just messing it up all by ourselves in the name of God? … newer version which are based on the Catholic/Alexandrian family of manuscripts
    http://www.kjv-only.com/doug/erasmus.htm.
    What does that mean?
    For every KJV only argument against these newer versions (i.e. NIV…), I had to let them speak in their own defense against the accusation(s). I was finding KJV only arguments falling off the cliffs for lack of substance. Example: (Jesus is a sinner in some versions -
    http://www.kjv-only.com/matt5_22.html

    Yes, while I was in the IFB churches, hearing only the attacks and the one-sidedness of the argument – I believed God was behind the KJV and the Devil was behind everything else. This might just be a bad place to be wrong.

    Believe me, I don’t have all the answers. In fact, I have more questions now then I do answers. I’ve sought to share just a portion of my story. And believe me, I know what I look like from an IFB, KJV onlyist position. And it is not in anyway what I though it would look like now that I’m here. Your story is different and should be. Neither of ours is complete. My desire is to know HIM. So now for some more heretical statements. I have found that when being engulfed in Him many things that I though were so important are not. The Bible points us to HIM and in embracing a relationship with Him the Bible becomes so less important. The Bible is not God. It is not the 4th member of the deity.

    I spent time last night with Tozer in his book, “The Pursuit of God.” With the discussion about the Bible being fresh on my mind, I delighted in what he said concerning the Bible and what he said about those who have a burning heart to know God. I let his words fan the embers of my heart to burn hotter and brighter.

    Why is it that those who knew scripture better than anybody else in Jesus day did not recognize God when He stood right in front of them?

    Enjoy your walk with Jesus. Live loved. May all of our steps be found more in tune with His. Your brother in Christ, Paul

  91. greg says:

    John,

    Thank you for your kind and christian response.

    Absolutely God has preserved His Word in the kjv. It is God’s Word in 17th century english. The main problem is folks like me and Bryan and millions of other Americans can’t understand it very well. For instance do you know what almug, cracknels, wimples, wot, trode, ouches, kab, strake,nard mean? Me neither! Another huge problem at least for me is the words that have changed in meaning since the publication of the kjv. For instance did you know that in the kjv the word advertise means tell, allege means prove, conversation means behavior, communicate means share, prevent means precede. Its tough for me to get to what the Lord wants me to know when I began to wade through this antiquated language.

    Yes I have read Ruckman as well as Riplinger and many other works promoting kjvonlyism, I actually own works by these two. Riplinger in her book “New Age Bible Versions” contends that she merely acted as God’s secretary, writing down what He told her to. I know you requested I not do this, but I feel I must. Ruckman believes that the english of the kjv “corrects” the hebrew and greek! that aliens regularly visit planet earth and that when we get to heaven men and womem will all be 33 yr old males, that a baby isn’t a human being until she takes her first breath outside of the womb, so no I really won’t be taking anything seriously these two have to say about anything, much less about the tedious, complicated work of bible translating.

    John, love your kjv, study your kjv, preach your kjv. It is God’s Word in 17th century english, keep your Strong’s concordance close and your Vine’s expository dictionary handy and you will be fine.

    In Christ,
    Greg

  92. greg says:

    John,

    I don’t know alot about computers and I lost 3 complete responses to you and they were all alot more
    in depth, but I see where you took me to task about my “venerating a translation” comment and I would like to apologize for that, I actually had in the previous “lost” responses. What I was trying to do was to demonstrate that if the kjvonlyists value, unrealistically so to my way of thinking, the kjv translation, what would they do if they actually had the original autographs!

    Because He Lives,
    Greg

  93. Bryan says:

    Well Greg, look at my side. If you – and American – whose primary language is English already experienced a lot of trouble understanding the KJV, what more me – a Filipino where English is only our second language (although it is one of our official language as stated in our constitution, we were taught American 20th century English).

  94. greg says:

    Byan

    I hear you friend. I wish all of this foolishness with translations would just go away and everyone would get to work serving our Lord. I love God’s people too much to let these kjvonly’s get by with saying outrageous things that they know nothing or very little about. If folks love their kjv’s they should stay with it, don’t condemn others for preferring other translations. I don’t see or hear anyone trying to make fun of the kjv or a great movement to try and make them use another translation.

    Keep on keeping on my filipino brother, may God richly bless and keep you. And now these three remain, Faith, Hope and Love, but the greatest of these is love.

    In Christ,
    Greg

  95. bob says:

    I know this KJ-only issue is difficult to deal with. There are some good people, I am sure, who hold this belief. The basic concern I have is defending truth. I only want to be involved in standing for what the bible says. If the bible doesn’t address a particular issue, then it’s not a great concern to me. If the bible does address an issue, I had better believe it and defend it.
    Jude :4 says that THE FAITH was once for all handed down to the saints. The faith being the body of truth that comprises Christian doctrine. Jesus taught the disciples/apostles personally and later the Holy Spirit showed them “things to come”. This body of Christian truth was passed on by the apostles and finally recorded as Scripture.
    The body of Christian truth we have today is exactly what the apostles believed and taught. There is not one difference between the apostles teaching in the early church and what the bible teaches today.
    The idea that there is a doctrine for “English speaking people”, that the apostles did not know is heresy. If the apostles didn’t believe in KJV-only, then you can be sure you don’t need to either.
    It is impossible that there would be “new revealed truth” outside the scope of God’s revelation in Scripture. The faith has been handed down ONCE for all to the saints. There is nothing to add, unless of course you want to add something?
    There have always been faithful men in the church age who believed that the Scriptures were inspired by God and without error in the original manuscripts. This is what Fundamental Baptists used to believe until about the 1970′s. Yes, there were a few men who insisted on the KJ earlier, but KJ-onlyism never really took off until then.
    From the beginning, faithful men have held to the inspiration of Scriptures and inerrancy in the original manuscripts.

  96. John says:

    Greg,
    Apology accepted. It’s all good, brother.

    Bryan,
    Of course we’re brothers and of course we can have fellowship. Are you saved by the blood? Well, so am I. That, to me, makes us brothers.

    Bob, Paul, Bryan and Greg – I really think this debate is more complicated than “go with whatever version you like.” Again, my belief (and that of others) is that the newer versions are the result of a deliberate attempt by Satan (using men like Origen) to water-down or leaven God’s Word. If that is true, why would I want to use those versions? Hasn’t Satan been trying to get us to doubt what God has said from the beginning (Gen. 3:1)? Doesn’t Satan understand the power of God’s Word? Yes on both counts.
    The newer versions do not agree with the KJV in major verses and passages (Matt. 18:11, Mark 9:44 & 46, Mark 11:26, 1 John 5: 7 & 8, Acts 8:37, etc.). I believe that this can be directly attributed to Satan’s attack. To me, that is the major argument and fact behind all of this debate.
    Please don’t let others’ comments and attitude jade your opinion of some of us. Not all of us are flled with anger and vitriol. Some of us will readily admit that we do not have a monopoly on truth. Funny thing is, doctrinally I’m definitely Baptist and I’m closer to being independent than anything else, but I agree with a lot of what’s on this site. Many of us Baptists really get bogged down with seemingly superficial rules. I, for one, don’t like it. That being said, I don’t really doubt many IFB peoples’ hearts or intentions. Maybe we’re just too caught up with the outward appearance of things.
    Again, hope I didn’t come across as too aggressive. Just trying to be direct.
    John

  97. Bryan says:

    Bob, I would like to comment on something you said. Feel free to clarify me or add more info if you think I am onto something:

    You said this staunch KJVonlyism started in the ’70s in the age of Aquarius, Heavy Metal, Psychedelics, Vietnam, abortion and the like. 1973 was also the year the New Testament NIV was first released. 1971 was also the time the complete NASB was released. Oh wait a minute, according to Wikipedia, there was a proliferation of modern English bible translations starting in the ’60s.

    Could all these be construed as a threat by the IFB so in order to preserve their status quo, they lashed out disinformations, character assassinations and the like? Because we know these people are so inflexible?

    I mean some IFB refused to start up a website because they think the internet is a tool of Satan = SINTERNET!

    Call it conspiracy theory if you may. But the truth be told that after the world war II, America changed dramatically.

    Why all this in the 70s?

  98. Bryan says:

    And one more thing Bob, I get you why this onlyism thing is difficult to deal with – it is causing a lot of division within the body of Christ. A very strong tool of Satan that we can see the effects now.

  99. greg says:

    John,

    You’re still doing it. You state “the newer versions don’t agree with the kjv in major verses and passages” So what! I could say exactly the same thing to you that your kjv doesn’t agree with my (choose any good newer translation) You are making the kjv the standard, that’s the problem friend. Why should the kjv be the standard? I still submit that the original autographs should be the standard. If you prefer the kjv (which you obviously do) great, but can you understand that I don’t, and I have studied the matter in depth and in fact believe that not only are many newer versions vastly easier to read but are also much more accurate. I see that you have yet to answer any of the specific questions I posed earlier, not that you have to, but it seems brother John that you have this attitude of “don’t confuse me with the facts.” Could you answer if any of the following english translations that pre-date the kjv translation are the Word of God, The Bishop’s bible, The Matthews Bible, Wycliffe Bible and the Tyndale Bible. Why or why not! Do you believe that the Romans hung our Saviour’s dead body upon the cross of calvary as the kjv states at Acts 5:30? Do you understand your kjv translation at 2 Cor 6: 11-13. I could go on and on but I will finish with what I think is the biggest mistake the kjv translators made. Do you believe that our blessed Holy Spirit, the third person of the trinity is an “it”, well I got bad news for you, thats the way the kjv translators rendered Him (Holy Spirit) at John 1:32, Romans 8:16, Romans 8:26, 1 Peter 1:11. The only other translation to render the Holy Spirit an “it” is the wicked “New World Translation” of the cult group Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    Brother John, no offense to you but I can tell you love the Lord and you are zealous to support His Word, that’s great. I can also tell that you are simply mouthing things that you have heard from other people. This topic is not easy to understand and listening to rabble rousers like Ruckman or Riplinger or others of their ilk just doesn’t cut it. Take a deep breath and if you really want to know more about your kjv and bible translations start studying. If you will simply try to answer the above questions and do some research into these things I have asked you, you will be well on your way to understanding alot more about bible translation.

    The kjv is a good translation, there are alot of good translations, some came before the kjv and many others have come after the kjv. Continue to study the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life, and these testify of Jesus Christ.

    Greg

  100. John says:

    Greg,

    1) I think you’re taking a little liberty with Acts 5:30. It does not say “whom ye slew him and THEN hanged on a tree.”
    2) I don’t know what “God’s Word” was in 1610. I don’t have to.
    3) I do not 100% understand 2 Cor. 6:11-13, but that is where I would go to someone (maybe a commentary) and ask for some guidance.
    4) How can you say that the NWT is “wicked”? Are you all of a sudden the arbiter of which translation meets some kind of holy standard? (aka, scholarship onlyism)
    5) We are BOTH repeating things we’ve heard. And I’d say that we’ve BOTH studied this subject in depth.
    6) You state “the newer versions don’t agree with the kjv in major verses and passages. So what!” SO WHAT?!?! That is our whole argument. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” We believe that the new versions have been leavened going all the way back to the early centuries by men like Origen who had a bone to pick with God’s Word. (2 Cor. 2:17) It’s just that simple. If you say that you believe the opposite is true and that the KJV comes from attempts to add to God’s Word, that’s fine. Then it’s going to boil down to opinion.
    7) Maybe I don’t want to get bogged down with some facts, but we could argue “facts” till the cows come home. The facts, as I see them, are that there are the Byzantine family of manuscripts and then there are the Catholic, Alexandrian family of manuscripts. The KJV (and NKJV) come from one family and ALL the newer versions come from the other family. No one has proven that the supposed older, Alexandrian family is closer to the originals. They’ve made an assumption based on the “older is better” theory. That’s it. There’s no real proof, just the “expert opinion” of a bunch of “scholars” who really never believed in the inerrancy of the Word to begin with. Why can’t you guys see that? It doesn’t matter how hateful or rude the KJV only camp is, the bottom line is that we believe that Satan has corrupted God’s Word as evidenced in the newer versions and that he has done this to limit the power of God’s Word. And we can see the effects of these efforts all around us.
    8) Sorry, Greg, I am a little offended at your “mouthing” comment. (No biggie, though.) I’m not just some rapid, foaming-at-the-mouth acolyte of Ruckman’s that goes into robotic, repeat-what-Hyles-says mode every time I come within 10 feet of the NASV. C’mon man, “take a deep breath” and “start studying”? That’s a little insulting.
    And I have to tell you, for all his faults Peter Ruckman is far maore than some rabble-rouser. He knows this subject as well as anyone and is quite simply brilliant in his grasp of the Bible. I disagree with him on some major points and probably would never even want to be a member of his church, but he knows this subject as well as anyone.
    9)Bob and Bryan, how can you say that KJV onlyism only started in the 70′s? Have you ever heard of Dean Burgon?
    John

  101. Bryan says:

    Well, John not me (about the onlyism in the 70s). The very reason I asked Bob about it because that statement is very intriguing. And I am so curious.

    Ok, I have heard your side John and it’s all good. At least we can be at peace and will be waiting for each other when we meet the Good Lord in eternity in Heaven.

    KJV or whatever version, I want Jesus and his Word in a way I can understand. I am a Filipino and was only taught American English. Reaching out to brothers and sisters in the faith is already a good thing for me.

    I really hope my case ends here. I don’t want some IFB telling me I am not saved and my eternity is in hell because of my progressive thinking in Christianity and my bible of choice is the NIV.

  102. John says:

    Bryan,
    Did someone really tell you that you were unsaved because you didn’t use the KJV? Or did you somehow infer that? Like I said before, I’ve never heard any KJV-only type even hint that someone was unsaved because they used the NIV. I know I wouldn’t. There are people that I disagree with on all kinds of doctrinal and theological issues and I wouldn’t imply that they’re lost. (We’re all only human and none of us are going to get it right 100% of the time.)
    John

  103. greg says:

    John,

    My whole intent today is to attempt to get you thinking critically on the matter of bible translation. Your response to #1 is going to require me to get a bit sarcastic but please bear with me. BTW for anyone else reading this, see how John (above) tried to just walk away from this “problem” in the kjv. No offense bro John but your response is pitiful.

    Ms Smith to her 3rd grade class at Happy Bible School. Now class could someone please read the bible verse at Acts 5:30 from your 1611 …errr..1769 revised 8 times kjv. Little Billy waving his hand. Go ahead Billy “The God of our Father’s raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Ok thank you Billy, now there is a word here that is not used very often anymore, can someone tell me what “slew” means? Nathan waving wildly, OK Nathan, My mommy makes it all the time, you put some meat and vegetables in it and stir it all up and eat it for dinner. No Nathan that’s “stew” Someone else? Becky yes go ahead, it means someone “kilt” him. Very good Becky. Now can someone tell me what happened next? Mary can you tell us? Yes they hung him on a tree, but my daddy said it was a cross! very good. So now this will be on your test tomorrow. Was Jesus hung on the tree before or after he was killed? Whole class together “after” Are you sure. Little Tommy, Ruckman’s nephew, Yes because its God’s word and contained in the only preserved and perfect Word of God the kjv, and I want you to know that unicorns are real too because they are also in the perfect word of God. My, My even these 3rd graders can read and understand this unfortunate wording in the kjv.

    Alittle assignment for you John. When Jesus quoted the old testament, which version did he use? Got a hint for you, it wasn’t the manuscripts that the kjv translators used.

    I’m not trying to make you use another version or saying that satan “leavened the whole lump” of the kjv and that we should still be sticking with God’s perfect preserved word in the Bishop’s bible. The people at that time did though! No I’m telling you that the kjv is a fine translation and if you use your strong’s concordance and Vine’s expositionary dictionary you can work through odd passages like the above, if you have an aversion to use an updated modern version which reads clearly at this verse and thousands of others like it.

    Again, I know you get offended when I tell you that you are just mouthing things you have heard, its clear to almost any thinking person that has followed this thread that you can’t answer any argument that I have put to you. You just fall back on the ol “if its good enough for Paul, its good enough for me”
    Put this foolishness away from you and let’s go to win the world for Christ.

    Love in Christ,
    Greg

  104. greg says:

    Hey John,

    Sorry but I wanted to respond so quickly that I missed a critical point. Yes bless God I’ve heard of Dean Burgon, man of God, kjv only’s have done him a great disservice in putting words in his mouth that he never said, this is always what they do! Burgon in fact does support the manuscripts behind the kjv translation to a large degree, but if you will read him, he freely admits many problems in the manuscript evidence. No offense but I doubt you have ever read him, because he would not have supported your view of the kjv, its a fact! You just heard folks like Gipp, Ruckman, D.A Waite and others quote him when it was convenient for them. He stated that the textus receptus needed extensive revision (hope you know what the textus receptus is) Burgon proposed 120 changes to the gospel of Matthew alone. He also stated that in some places that the english revised new testament of 1881 was an “improvement over the obscurities and innacurracies of the kjv” Please don’t take my word for any of this, you can see them for yourself, and should, by reading his famous book “The Revision Revised in Baptist Biblical Heritage” vol lV no 2, pp 4,11,16.

    Dean Burgon would never have joined the Dean Burgon Society!

    I just hope and pray that you will start looking into these things, you see you thought you had a great man of God (Burgon) supporting your un-biblical view of bible translation, but when the truth is revealed, nothing could be further from the truth. I would love to see Burgon get ahold of someone like Ruckman!

    Keep studying!

    In Christ,
    Greg

  105. greg says:

    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 to work from? Someone has described it as “an embarrassment of riches” On the other hand poor old Erasmus (Roman Catholic priest) who worked on the greek, which was used by the kjv translators only had only about a half dozen manuscripts to work from! He had no manuscripts which contained the last 6 verses of Revelation so he took the roman catholic “Vulgate” and translated back into the greek for the last 6 verses of revelation!

    I don’t know how big this kjvonly foolishness is in the Filipines or wherever you are presently living, but I really believe its on the way out, partly because of the internet. You see uneducated pastors would stand in pulpits all across the country and spout this foolishness and folks that knew better really didn’t have a way to get the truth out to rebut the foolishness, ah, but thank God times change. Now when someone brings up something foolish, it can be shut down in moments. And anyone with a willing heart and mind can search out things for themselves on the internet. So brother Bryan unless the ifb’s are really attacking you where you are I wouldn’t concern myself with them, just love on them, if at all possible.

    Bryan, I really believe our Lord is coming back soon, there is much work to be done, how we need to be salt and light and examples in our walk with the Lord to this lost and dying world.

    God bless you in your walk with Him and pray for the ifj/kjvonlyist, they have been led astray by the wiles of men.

    By the way the NIV is the main bible I use.

    Because He Lives,
    Greg

  106. Bryan says:

    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.

  107. Bryan says:

    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.

  108. John says:

    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

  109. greg says:

    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

  110. John says:

    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

  111. greg says:

    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

  112. John says:

    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

  113. John says:

    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

  114. greg says:

    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

  115. greg says:

    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

  116. John says:

    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

  117. John says:

    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

  118. greg says:

    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

  119. John says:

    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

  120. greg says:

    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

  121. greg says:

    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

  122. John says:

    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

  123. greg says:

    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

  124. greg says:

    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

  125. John says:

    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

  126. John says:

    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

  127. John says:

    Greg,

    Correction – I got the John 12:29 reference from Ruckman. My bad.

    John

  128. greg says:

    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

  129. greg says:

    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

  130. John says:

    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

  131. John says:

    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

  132. greg says:

    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

  133. John says:

    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

  134. greg says:

    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

  135. greg says:

    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

  136. greg says:

    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

  137. greg says:

    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

  138. greg says:

    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

  139. John says:

    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

  140. greg says:

    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.

  141. greg says:

    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

  142. John says:

    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

  143. greg says:

    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

  144. greg says:

    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.

  145. greg says:

    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

  146. greg says:

    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

  147. greg says:

    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

  148. greg says:

    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

  149. greg says:

    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

  150. greg says:

    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

  151. greg says:

    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

  152. John says:

    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

  153. Bryan says:

    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.

  154. greg says:

    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

  155. greg says:

    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

  156. greg says:

    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

  157. greg says:

    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

  158. John says:

    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

  159. greg says:

    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

  160. greg says:

    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

  161. John says:

    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

  162. John says:

    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

  163. greg says:

    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!

  164. greg says:

    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

  165. Allen Sanchez says:

    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.

  166. greg says:

    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

  167. greg says:

    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

  168. Paul says:

    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.

  169. Paul says:

    Sorry,

    “onesided”

  170. keith says:

    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.

  171. Katie says:

    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.

  172. John says:

    Katie,

    Which verses does the KJV delete and from where are they deleted? (i.e. the TR, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.)

    John

  173. greg says:

    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

  174. Bryan says:

    HEY wait a minute. Where did some of my posts go?

  175. John says:

    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

  176. greg says:

    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

  177. Katie says:

    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.

  178. John says:

    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

  179. John says:

    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

  180. greg says:

    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

  181. greg says:

    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

  182. Bryan says:

    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.

  183. John says:

    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

  184. John says:

    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

  185. greg says:

    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

  186. Allen Sanchez says:

    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!

  187. greg says:

    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

  188. John says:

    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

  189. John says:

    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

  190. Bryan says:

    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.

  191. greg says:

    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

  192. John says:

    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

  193. John says:

    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

  194. greg says:

    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

  195. greg says:

    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

  196. Paul says:

    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

  197. Paul says:

    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

  198. John says:

    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

  199. Katie says:

    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.

  200. greg says:

    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

  201. Paul says:

    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

  202. Paul says:

    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

  203. greg says:

    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

  204. greg says:

    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

  205. greg says:

    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

  206. Paul says:

    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

  207. Paul says:

    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

  208. John says:

    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

  209. John says:

    Greg,

    Sorry, I wasn’t trying to sound too impatient with my comment regarding thinking critical.

    John

  210. John says:

    Greg,

    Sorry, I wasn’t trying to sound too impatient with my comment regarding thinking critically.

    John

  211. greg says:

    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

  212. greg says:

    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

  213. greg says:

    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

  214. Bryan says:

    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?

  215. John says:

    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

  216. John says:

    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

  217. greg says:

    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

  218. Paul says:

    John,

    You stated – “I found a cool website….
    Can you shoot me the link? pmayru@sbcglobal.net

  219. John says:

    Sorry, Paul, it was Greg that found the web site.

    John

  220. greg says:

    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

  221. greg says:

    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

  222. Paul says:

    Ys know, I didn’t have these problems in my previous life.
    Sorry John,

    Greg,

    Can you shoot me the link?

    Paul

  223. greg says:

    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.

    • chad says:

      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)

      • chad-humblethinker says:

        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

  224. John says:

    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. greg says:

    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

  226. John says:

    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

  227. greg says:

    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

  228. Paul says:

    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.”

  229. John says:

    Paul,

    Are you asking me or Greg? I would agree somewhat with the second statement.

    John

  230. Paul says:

    I’m asking either of you or anybody.

    John how would you somewhat agree with the second statement.

  231. John says:

    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

  232. greg says:

    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

  233. John says:

    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

  234. greg says:

    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

  235. John says:

    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

  236. greg says:

    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

  237. Paul says:

    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

  238. John says:

    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

  239. John says:

    Paul,

    I tried to go to the above link on my work computer, and it was labeled pornography and blocked. Strange.

    John

  240. John says:

    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

  241. John says:

    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

  242. greg says:

    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

  243. greg says:

    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

  244. greg says:

    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

  245. Bryan says:

    Yo Greg, what it T.U.L.I.P.? That could not be the opposite of D.A.I.S.Y.? Hehehehe…Joke!

  246. John says:

    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

  247. John says:

    Greg and Paul,

    Here’s another site with some good info on it.

    http://watch.pair.com/another.html

    John

  248. greg says:

    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

  249. Katie says:

    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”.

  250. John says:

    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

  251. John says:

    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

  252. John says:

    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

  253. Paul says:

    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

  254. greg says:

    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

  255. Katie says:

    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.

  256. Paul says:

    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

  257. Joseph says:

    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

  258. greg says:

    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.

  259. Michael J. says:

    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.

  260. Starcher says:

    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?

    • Bryan says:

      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!

  261. bob says:

    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.

  262. bob says:

    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.

  263. Alexander says:

    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!

  264. greg says:

    Alexander – I think that using your logic you should really just go to the original languages, then you would really have to study!

  265. bob says:

    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.

    • Lars says:

      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.

      • bob says:

        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”.

  266. Carol Parker says:

    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

    • Bryan says:

      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!

    • greg says:

      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

  267. greg says:

    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

    • bob says:

      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”.

      • Dr. Chad Bush says:

        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.

        • bob says:

          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.

          • Dr. Chad Bush, D.B.S. says:

            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.

  268. Dr. Chad Bush says:

    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.

  269. Paul says:

    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.

  270. greg says:

    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.

    • Dr. Chad Bush, D.B.S. says:

      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.

  271. bob says:

    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.

  272. greg says:

    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.

  273. greg says:

    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!

  274. Bryan says:

    Do I hear “arguing from a conclusion?”

  275. Kenneth Fuquay says:

    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

  276. greg says:

    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?

  277. Kenneth Fuquay says:

    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

  278. Kenneth Fuquay says:

    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.

    • greg says:

      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.

  279. greg says:

    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.

  280. Kenneth Fuquay says:

    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.

    • greg says:

      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.

  281. Rebekah says:

    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

    • greg says:

      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.

      • Rebekah says:

        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!

        • greg says:

          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.

  282. Bryan says:

    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?

  283. Kenneth says:

    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

    • Bryan says:

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

    • Bryan says:

      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.

  284. Kenneth says:

    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.

  285. David says:

    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.

    • Bryan says:

      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!

  286. greg says:

    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?

  287. 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

    • Katie says:

      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.

  288. 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

    • Steve says:

      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?

  289. greg says:

    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

  290. greg says:

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

  291. bob says:

    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.

  292. Matt says:

    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.

  293. Matt says:

    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

    • Steve says:

      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.

      • Matt says:

        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.

        • Steve says:

          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.

          • Matt says:

            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.

          • Steve says:

            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.

  294. greg says:

    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.

    • Matt says:

      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.

      • Katie says:

        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?

        • Matt says:

          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.

          • Katie says:

            “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.

      • greg says:

        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.

        • Matt says:

          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.

          • greg says:

            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.

  295. greg says:

    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.

    • Steve says:

      You can reply whenever you like Greg. No problem.

    • Matt says:

      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.

      • Bryan says:

        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.

  296. greg says:

    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.

    • Matt says:

      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.

      • greg says:

        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)

        • Matt says:

          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

          • greg says:

            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

  297. Matt says:

    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.

    • Steve says:

      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.

  298. greg says:

    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)

    • Matt says:

      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.

  299. greg says:

    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!

  300. Matt says:

    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.

    • greg says:

      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.

      • Matt says:

        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.

  301. bob says:

    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.

    • Matt says:

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

  302. Bryan says:

    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.

  303. greg says:

    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.

  304. Tim says:

    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.

  305. charles Johnson says:

    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

    • Katie says:

      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.

  306. Ross says:

    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.

    • charles Johnson says:

      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.

  307. Ross says:

    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.

  308. Alex says:

    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.

  309. charles Johnson says:

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

  310. Javier says:

    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.

  311. Mary says:

    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.

  312. Armored says:

    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.

  313. Armored says:

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

  314. Armored says:

    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?

  315. Armored says:

    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?

  316. bob says:

    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.

  317. Katie says:

    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.

  318. Katie says:

    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.

  319. Steve says:

    Armored :
    Steve :

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

    Nope.

  320. greg says:

    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.

  321. SharpenedSword says:

    This is a good website too Armored:

    (Link spam removed by site moderator)

  322. Will Kinney says:

    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)

  323. Will Kinney says:

    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

    • Steve says:

      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.

  324. John 10:10 says:

    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

  325. greg says:

    Uh-oh he found us!

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

  326. Lipton says:

    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.

  327. Steve says:

    @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.

  328. Bryan says:

    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?

  329. Bryan says:

    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?

  330. amy hiser says:

    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.

  331. greg says:

    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?

  332. Holly says:

    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.

  333. Katie says:

    @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.

  334. bob says:

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

  335. Katie says:

    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.

  336. Javier says:

    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