Questions for those holding an extreme KJVO position

[Will J. Kinney]

Show me the book

Congrats. You have pointed out there are differences in translations. There were differences before the KJV. There are differences between the different editions of the KJV. There are differences in many versions since the KJV. However...not one part of my doctrine gets changed by looking at your list. That "whooshing" sound is the air being let out of your versions balloon.

Now...we can disagree all day...but don't accuse me of not believing the Bible or not honoring God's Word. I believe that "All Scripture is God-breathed." Sorry if that disappoints you. I didn't mean to demolish the windmill you were planning on jousting. Actually, I did. :thumbs:

Hi rbell. So in other words you are not going to answer the question. Telling us that there are differences in translations is not an answer to the question asked of you.

Which "THE Bible" (singular noun) is it that you supposedly believe? You keep telling me that you believe "the Bible" but when I ask you to tell me what this Bible is, you avoid naming it or telling me where I too can get a copy of it.

Now if you go totally over the edge of sanity and logic and try to tell me that 5 or 6 different "reliable" versions that differ from one another by literally thousands of textual words omitted by some and in others, and that often reject the Hebrew readings but not in the same places, and have hundreds of verses with totally different meanings, are all somehow and magically "inspired and inerrant", then I suggest you try taking this argument before a court of law or even a high school debating team and see how long it takes before you are laughed out of the room.


So simple show me The Bible you say you believe in. Shouldn't be too hard, right?

Thanks,

Will K

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Hi DHK. Again, it is my solid bet that you yourself do not hold any Bible in any language as being the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. So as a result of your lack of any final written authority (true Bible) you then place your own mind and understanding above any complete Bible out there. You undoubtedly feel free to "correct, emend, alter, change, modify, retranslate, add to or omit from" any Bible anytime you feel so inclined.




Hi T. Try calming down just a second and think about what I specifically said. Don't read between the lines; don't jump to conclusions that are not there.

I stand by what I said."it is my solid bet that you yourself do not hold any Bible in any language as being the complete, inspired and infallible words of God."

Now if I am wrong on this, all DHK has to do is clearly and unambiguously tell us all exactly what this Bible (singular noun) is that he thinks is the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God. It obviously isn't the King James Bible. So which one is it? And if he ever does get around to telling us the name of his complete and inspired Bible (and I don't even care if its in Hebrew and Greek, that is fine with me), then does he also logically believe that any version or other translation that disagrees in both texts and meanings from his "infallible Bible" are NOT the inspired and infallible words of God?

This are basic questions and fundamental beliefs. Some of you guys seem to be flying off the handle and going bug eyed with rage thinking I said things that I did not.

So let DHK speak for himself if I am a "false accuser" and clear this whole matter up, OK?

Thanks,

Will Kinney

Ok I'm calm. Had to take a deep breath. I suspect though I will not put words into his mouth and I am certain that I would be the last person he would want to do that. But he would say that the scriptures in their autographs (I'm guessing) were the 100% inspired true words of God. So when the Torah was writen as it was being writen it was the 100% inspired true words of God. As the books of the Neviim were being writen it is the 100% inspired true words of God. As the books of the Ketuvim were being writen it is the 100% inspired true words of God. So it is with the NT. Does that help?

 

[Pastor Larry]

There is nothing wrong with the KJB reading of "strain at a gnat."

Actually Will, this is one of the easiest ones. While "at" is not the worst thing in this world, it is clearly not the best. Christ was contrasting two things. In the second half, he is talking about "swallowing" or taking something in. Therefore, in the first half he is talking about taking something out.

If you are going to pick on a particular phrase, at least choose a good one.

This is another example of your hate and disgust for God's word. You attack it because you don't like it. That's unfortunate, particularly when it disguises itself as loyalty. It is the worst kind of treachery to pretend to be a friend while undermining the very thing you are purportedly seeking to preserve.

 

[rbell]

Telling us that there are differences in translations is not an answer to the question asked of you.

Just because you don't like my answer or agree with it does not make it a valid answer.

Which "THE Bible" (singular noun) is it that you supposedly believe? You keep telling me that you believe "the Bible" but when I ask you to tell me what this Bible is, you avoid naming it or telling me where I too can get a copy of it.

Since you have trouble with comprehension, I'll say it again: All valid versions. There. I gave you my answer. Again. Your issues with my answer is not my problem.

Now if you go totally over the edge of sanity and logic and try to tell me that 5 or 6 different "reliable" versions that differ from one another by literally thousands of textual words omitted by some and in others, and that often reject the Hebrew readings but not in the same places, and have hundreds of verses with totally different meanings, are all somehow and magically "inspired and inerrant", then I suggest you try taking this argument before a court of law or even a high school debating team and see how long it takes before you are laughed out of the room.

First of all, I would think a Bible warrior such as yourself would be concerned with such biblical concepts as gentleness and kindness. For someone who purports to contend for the Truth, you sure do ignore its precepts. Name-calling and condescencion isn't Christlike.

Secondly...we are dealing with issues bigger than high-school debate. You might get laughed at in there...trying to prove the Incarnation, or the concept of Eternity. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Likewise...the doctrine of Inspiration is bigger than our brains, and we simply cannot grasp all of it. It doesn't mean it isn't true.

Furthermore...being "laughed out of the room" tends to happen when dealing with folks lacking in manners. You seem to know a great deal about that.

So simple show me The Bible you say you believe in. Shouldn't be too hard, right?

OK, even trade...I've given you my answer, you give me yours (and unlike you, I won't ignore yours):

Which KJV do you believe in, since they are not 100% identical in every way? And before you use the "spelling & printing correction" line...If God is powerful enough to preserve His word in the KJV only...then why did His providence fall apart until the "final" KJV printing (my guess is 1823)? Why didn't He simply preserve the 1611 printing?

Disclaimer, since we tend to ignore stuff: I love and appreciate my KJV. I use it very often.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Will Kinney

Let me say to you sir, that I appreciate the way that you merely present the facts as you see them. Who of us would not be passionate about the truth as we see it? I also appreciate the way that you have not resorted to personal attacks on individuals, but rather have attacked ideals and philosophies with which you find error. Sadly, there are some here who cannot discern the difference. I grow weary of the martyr complex I see so prevalent. Attacking my position is not at all the same as attacking me. If I am not grounded enough to intelligently support my position, then the Bible version issue is the least of my troubles.

 

[robycop3]

OK, let's deal with a REAL, UNDENIABLE GOOF in the KJV.

First, "unicorn" is not as bad a goof as it seems. The AV men and earlier English Bible-makers, had no reason to doubt the existence of unicorns. And after all, when the AV was made , a unicorn appeared on KJ's coat-of-arms, along with a lion.(It's unlikely that any of the AV makers had ever seen a lion, either!)

Second, "strain AT" represents the ACT of ATTEMPTING to remove a gnat, which may or may not have been successful. No doctrine is changed by saying "at" or "out" here. Jesus is using an analogy/metaphor that the Pharisee sees a gnat in his drink & endeavors to remove it, while ignoring & swallowing a camel in the same drink. To me, this is a useless argument on both sides.

Third, not even "Easter" in Acts 12:4 can be called a TOTAL goof, as, most likely in the childhoods of the AV translators, some folx still called passover 'Easter'. However, the fact that the AV renders 'pascha' as 'passover' the other 28 times it appears in the NT Greek is quite telling. And CERTAINLY, no English version is wrong in having 'passover' in Acts 12:4!

But I said I would give an example of an UNDENIABLE goof in the KJV. Well, here ya go!

In the KJV, 1 Timothy 6:10 reads in part, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil." This is INCORRECT, plain and simple! We ALL know of many evils, such as the Columbine HS shootings, the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, the palestinian suicide bombers, etc. that were done for reasons other than lova money.

The CORRECT translation is, "the love of money is *A* root of *ALL KINDS* of evil." None of the arguments against this correct reading hold water. Some of them are, "EVIL does not always mean SIN." This argument is killed by the GREEK. The word here rendered 'evil' is kakos, which means 'wickedness', thus elimination all the other possible definitions for 'evil' as used in that sentence. Furthermore, Greek has no indefinite pronoun article equivalent to the English 'a', but it DOES have a definite article equivalent to the English "the". But NO GREEK WORD appears between 'est'(is) and 'rhizo'(root), so an English translator must add an English word in order for the translation to make sense to an English reader. The English word 'a' here is correct,especially since it fits reality, and Greek has no equivalent word. If the highly-educated paul had meant 'the', he woulda written 'tou' or whatever case the Greek definite article would be if inserted between 'est' & 'rhizo'.

Scripture cannot be broken, and REALITY matches the CORRECT rendering of this verse. That alone proves the KJV's rendering wrong.

I'm sure Mr. Kinney, after writing his usual mantras of "you have no final authority", "Bible agnostic", "whateverist", will attempt to explain this'n away. But all he has is hot air, opinion, conjecture, & guesswork vs. FACT.

And before you ask "Which Bible do you believe in?", I shall answer...

"EVERY VALID VERSION, OLD OR NEW!"

 

[rbell]

Let me say to you sir, that I appreciate the way that you merely present the facts as you see them. Who of us would not be passionate about the truth as we see it? I also appreciate the way that you have not resorted to personal attacks on individuals, but rather have attacked ideals and philosophies with which you find error. Sadly, there are some here who cannot discern the difference. I grow weary of the martyr complex I see so prevalent. Attacking my position is not at all the same as attacking me. If I am not grounded enough to intelligently support my position, then the Bible version issue is the least of my troubles.

Just wow.

Let me see...

So as a result of your lack of any final written authority (true Bible) you then place your own mind and understanding above any complete Bible out there. You undoubtedly feel free to "correct, emend, alter, change, modify, retranslate, add to or omit from" any Bible anytime you feel so inclined.

If that's not an attack, I don't know what is. I would expect a BB moderator to recognize one when he saw it.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

If that's not an attack, I don't know what is. I would expect a BB moderator to recognize one when he saw it.

That most certainly is an attack; it is an attack upon a position, not a person. I would expect any adult to recognize that.

 

[RAdam]

Surely you realize that "all" often times (didn't say always) refers to "all kinds" in the KJV. For instance: Romans 3:9 says, "What then? are we ( meaining the Jews) better than they (meaning the Gentiles)? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." Here all refers to all kinds, all sorts, both Jews and Gentiles. The meaning is neither the Jew or the Gentile had place to boast over the other because both were sinners.

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK. Again, it is my solid bet that you yourself do not hold any Bible in any language as being the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. So as a result of your lack of any final written authority (true Bible) you then place your own mind and understanding above any complete Bible out there. You undoubtedly feel free to "correct, emend, alter, change, modify, retranslate, add to or omit from" any Bible anytime you feel so inclined.

1. I don't gamble. I am not that kind of person. I didn't know you stooped that low.
2. I am a missionary. I serve in nations you no doubt have never been in. The fact is they have only one Bible. It is translated from the Critical Text. If I were to get up in front of a crowd of Christians or a congregation of a church and declare that "this is not the Word of God," it would do irreparable harm to those believers. Some of them may even turn aside from their faith. It is the worst thing a person could do--to declare that the Bible is not the Bible.
3. I don't worship a Bible as you do. If I had the skills of a translator I would translate the Bible of the language of the nation that I serve in from the TR, but we work with what we have. We are fortunate enough to have a Bible at all. I go to one nation that doesn't have a Bible at all. Be thankful for what you do have.
4. The authority for every translation, including English comes from the Greek and Hebrew not from a translation, not from the KJV. The KJV is only a translation, and that is all. It is no different than a translation from Cree, Icelandic, Hindi, Maori, Hungarian, Arabic or any other translation. It is a translation, and that is all. It has its shortcomings, its weaknesses. No translation is perfect. Learn a second language. Whenever something is translated from one language to another meaning is lost. There is no perfect translation. It is an impossibility. Meaning is always lost in a translation. That goes for the KJV.

Many other Bible translators disagree with you on this unicorn thingy.

I have done my research too. There are few if any that agree with you.

Let's look at the other side.

UNICORNS
Is the word “unicorn” an erroneous translation in the King James Bible? The English word unicorn occurs nine times in the KJB, and is found in Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. It is translated from the Hebrew word reem, which comes from a verb used only once, and found in Zechariah 14:10 “Jerusalem, and ‘it shall be lifted up’ and inhabited in her place.” This animal is characterized by something lifted up or high and in a prominent position. It is very strong - “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.” Num. 23:22. It is also used in a symbolic way in our Lord’s prophetic prayer as recorded in Psalms 22:21 “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.” There was no literal lion present when Christ died, but Satan, as a roaring lion, was present, for it was his hour and the power of darkness. There were no literal unicorns present either, but they symbolically or spiritually were present and assisted our Lord Jesus in His greatest hour of need.

You have no argument here. The unicorn was not a mythical symbolic creature (when translated correctly). It was real, just as real as the lion in 1 Peter when Jesus said about the devil--"he roams about as a roaring lion." He used a similie. But that does not negate the reality of the lion. The similie would have no meaning except for the reality of the lion.

This animal was untamable, as can be seen in Job 39:9 - 12, where God asks Job “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?” This passage shows that the unicorn, whatever it was, could not be tamed at all, nor used in farming to plow the fields like an ox can. This, as well as other verses soon to be discussed, shows that many modern versions, like the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, are incorrect in their rendering of this word as “wild ox”. The wild ox is nothing more than a “wild guess” and pure speculation on the part of the modern bible editors. A wild ox is like a wild horse. It can be tamed, by castration or placing a yoke on its neck, and bind him with his band in the furrow to bring home thy seed. God’s question to Job is intended to produce a definite NO, not a ‘Yeah, I can do that.’

I was untamable because it was wild. That is a no-brainer. Can't you do any better than that. There is no such thing as a unicorn.

Those who criticize the KJB’s unicorns try to muster a group of “scholars” who give their opinion as to what this animal was.

Those who base their opinion that the rendering of the unicorn is the correct rendering only because the KJV says so are very foolish and blind to reality. They are blind to the fact that people, even scholarly people make mistakes. The KJV translators made mistakes.

But listen carfully to their words. Henry Morris - “The Hebrew word translated unicorn is believed by most Hebrew scholars to refer to the huge and fierce aurochs, or wild ox now extinct.” W. L. Alexander (Pulpit Commentary) “the reem is supposed to be the aurochs, an animal of the bovine species, allied to the buffalo, now extinct.” Charles Spurgeon wrote “The unicorn may have been some gigantic ox or buffalo now unknown and perhaps extinct.” William Houghon “we think that there can be no doubt (how is that for certainty !) that some species of wild ox is intended.”

The wild ox, the buffalo--you should take their advice. The word should have been translated thusly, and the KJV translators should not have used a word from Greek mythology. They were wrong. Admit it.

Eastons’ Bible dictionary says: “The exact reference of the word is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo, others the white antelope called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes Bos Primigenius, which is now extinct.”

Because a certain kind of buffalo or ox is extinct now does not mean it was extinct then. It only indicates that you are ignorant of its extinction.

All of this is pure speculation. The fact is the modern bible translators do not know what this animal was, and many of them say that whatever it might have been, it is now extinct. Wild oxen still exist, and they can be tamed and domesticated. In fact some bibles like Darby and the Spanish of 1960 translate this word as “buffalo”, while the Douay Rheims sometimes has “rhinoceros” and other times “unicorns”. Young's 'literal' translation shows that he simply did not know what the animal in question referred to, so he merely transliterated the Hebrew word, and did not translate it at all. His version consistently reads "the rheem".

If these translations know what the animal was why don't you? They certainly don't believe it was a mythological creature like a unicorn. That is now what "rheem" means.

 

[DHK]

I recently discovered something that I think is very interesting of quite enlightening about how modern scholars are changing the definitions that words once had. I have in my study two different printings of the well known Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon. One is from 1887 and the other one is from 1976, which was a reprint of the 9th edition of 1940. The more modern Liddell and Scott defines the word monokeros as "a wild ox". However the 1887 edition gives only one definition of the word - A UNICORN!!!. Now, it should be obvious that Liddell and Scott themselves were not alive in 1976 so that they could suddenly change their minds about what this word meant. So who changed the definition of this word for future generations?

If Liddell and Scott go against all the evidence already given, then perhaps they are wrong. To my knowledge their forte was not in Biblical languages.

Unicorn means literally, “one - horned”; it was a one horned animal. Daniel Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 defined unicorn as “an animal with one horn; the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.” There have been fossils found, and are now in museums, of a giant one horned beast or dinosaur. There are also the unicorn bird, the unicorn fish, the unicorn moth, the unicorn shell, plant, root and the unicorn constellation. So several things, both plants and animals have the word unicorn attached to them to describe some physical characteristic.

Believe what you want--a one horned bird. The Bible does not describe that. The Bible has nothing to do with Greek mythological creatures. You really stretch your definitions don't you?

There are even historical accounts of the unicorn. In 416 BC, the Greek physician Ctesias set out to attend to the Persian King Darius II, where he spent 18 years. He later wrote a book called Indica, in which he said: “There are in India certain wild asses which are a large as horses, and larger. They have a horn on the forehead which is about eighteen inches in length.”

Wild asses seem to be correct. Remember you working from a translation not from the KJV; not from Shakespearean English.

Pliny the Elder, in the first century AD, describes “an exceedingly wild beast called the Monoceros (one - horned)...It makes a deep lowing noise, and one black horn two cubits long projects from the middle of its forehead. This animal, they say, cannot be taken alive.” Aristotle frequently mentioned the unicorn. He said in one passage: “I have found that wild asses as large as horses are to be found in India. It has a horn on the brow, about one cubit and a half in length..” Julius Caesar said they could be found in the Hercynian Forest, and Alexander the Great is said to have seen one before attempting to invade a certain territory, and took it as a sign not to attack, because the land was protected. Are these reports true? I do not know, but I mention them only to show that there are many conflicting views as to what this animal was and in what form it existed.

Again you are working from a translation that did not specifically use the word "unicorn." As you mentioned they used the word "asses." Your argument is weak. They did not speak Shakespearean English.

Justin Martyr writes concerning the unicorn in Psalm 22. In his book "Dialogue with Trypho" this early church fathers says: "And what follows of the Psalm,--'But Thou, Lord, do not remove Thine assistance from me; give heed to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion's mouth, and my humility from THE HORNS OF THE UNICORNS,'--was also information and prediction of the events which should befall Him. For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. Moreover, it is similarly foretold that He would die by crucifixion. For the passage, 'Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion's mouth, and my humility from the horns of the UNICORNS,' is indicative of the suffering by which He should die, i.e., by crucifixion. For the 'horns of the, unicorns,' I have already explained to you, are the figure of the cross only."

Are you sure the word is "unicorn"? Or is that your bias from the KJV Bible that you use? Again you are working from a translation that you are unfamilar with. Can you demonstrate that Justin Martyr used the King James version of the Bible? Can you demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that the word "unicorn" was used in his language?

In chapter 16 Justin Martyr continues his reference to the unicorn, saying:

How do you know this is in reference to a unicorn? Do you speak fluently his language? Or does he speak Shakespearean language and write in the same?

“And God by Moses shows in another way the force of the mystery of the cross, when He said in the blessing wherewith Joseph was blessed, ‘From the blessing of the Lord is his land; for the seasons of heaven, and for the dews, and for the deep springs from beneath,... Let him be glorified among his brethren; his beauty is like the firstling of a bullock; his horns the horns of an UNICORN: with these shall he push the nations from one end of the earth to another.' Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an UNICORN represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns."

Your conclusions are biased. They are based on a translation that doesn't use the KJV. It is ridiculous logic to even conclude such.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

"the Bible" that would have been

Ok I'm calm. Had to take a deep breath. I suspect though I will not put words into his mouth and I am certain that I would be the last person he would want to do that. But he would say that the scriptures in their autographs (I'm guessing) were the 100% inspired true words of God. So when the Torah was writen as it was being writen it was the 100% inspired true words of God. As the books of the Neviim were being writen it is the 100% inspired true words of God. As the books of the Ketuvim were being writen it is the 100% inspired true words of God. So it is with the NT. Does that help?

Hi Thinking. Well, I for one do not know what brother DHK would say and I would like to hear him tell us, but I sure hope he doesn't try to make us think he believes in the completeness and inerrancy of the Bible by giving the answer you just did.

If you or anyone else says they believe "The Bible" WAS "the autographs" or something like I see so often on so many Christian sites where they say "only the originals are inspired and inerrant; no translation is perfect", then this 'bold confession' of faith in The Bible is both silly and destructive to faith.

Why do I say this? Well, there are several reasons. The "autographs" never did form a complete Bible of 66 inspired books combined into a single volume Bible. The originals simply do not exist. You have never seen a single word of "the autographs" a day in your life, let alone a whole book from either testament in the originals. So this stated belief that "the autographs WERE (notice the past tense verb) inspired" simply leaves us with no inspired and inerrant Bible NOW.

It is also a very silly statement because this position is confessing a faith in something that they KNOW does not exist.

So I sure hope brother DHK comes up with something a little better thought out than than trite and frivolous statement we hear so often.

God bless,
Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Strain at a gnat

Actually Will, this is one of the easiest ones. While "at" is not the worst thing in this world, it is clearly not the best. Christ was contrasting two things. In the second half, he is talking about "swallowing" or taking something in. Therefore, in the first half he is talking about taking something out.

If you are going to pick on a particular phrase, at least choose a good one.

This is another example of your hate and disgust for God's word. You attack it because you don't like it. That's unfortunate, particularly when it disguises itself as loyalty. It is the worst kind of treachery to pretend to be a friend while undermining the very thing you are purportedly seeking to preserve.

Hi Larry. You of course at entitled to you opinion, but that is all it is - a personal opinion not shared by many others. I thought I explained very well why the King James Bible's "strain AT a gnat" is not only not wrong but the better translation. If you do not see it that way, that is fine.

However I do take exception to the rest of your post. You say that I have hate and disgust for God's word. Now, that is a very serious accusation to make. I believe quite the opposite is true.

So while you talk about "God's word" would you mind telling us exactly what you are referring to when you say "God's word"? Is it a real and tangible Book called The Bible that a person can hold in their hands, read and believe every word? Or it is some mystical, hypothetical concept or nebulous and non-specific "various readings" out there somewhere in a pile of dusty manuscript pieces that nobody seems to be able to put back together again?

What exactly is this "word of God" that you profess such great love for and that I allegedly hate and despise? Would you mind defining your terms, or showing me a copy of this "God's word" you refer to?

Now, I will tell you what I do hate. Since I honestly believe that the sovereign God of the universe has preserved His words in "the book of the LORD" and that this tangible and very real Book is the King James Bible with all its beauty and purity of sound doctrine, then anything that comes along purporting to be the Bible that perverts and distorts this sound doctrine, that omits thousands of inspired words or adds to them, and that causes more and more Christians to disbelieve in the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture (which is happening at an alarming rate today), then that is something that I do hate.

If something is false, especially when it comes to the true words of God, then we should hate it with a passion.

"Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way."

Blessings,

Will K

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Hi Thinking. Well, I for one do not know what brother DHK would say and I would like to hear him tell us, but I sure hope he doesn't try to make us think he believes in the completeness and inerrancy of the Bible by giving the answer you just did.

If you or anyone else says they believe "The Bible" WAS "the autographs" or something like I see so often on so many Christian sites where they say "only the originals are inspired and inerrant; no translation is perfect", then this 'bold confession' of faith in The Bible is both silly and destructive to faith.

Why do I say this? Well, there are several reasons. The "autographs" never did form a complete Bible of 66 inspired books combined into a single volume Bible. The originals simply do not exist. You have never seen a single word of "the autographs" a day in your life, let alone a whole book from either testament in the originals. So this stated belief that "the autographs WERE (notice the past tense verb) inspired" simply leaves us with no inspired and inerrant Bible NOW.

It is also a very silly statement because this position is confessing a faith in something that they KNOW does not exist.

So I sure hope brother DHK comes up with something a little better thought out than than trite and frivolous statement we hear so often.

God bless,
Will K

He has and did. Your assertion that the belief that the autographs themselves were 100% inspired is disingenous because 1) they weren't writen as the 66 books of the bible to begin with and 2) they are no longer extant; is ridiculous.

To the first opposition note how I said as they were writen no one has made the claim that the autographs were initially compiled into one book. It makes no difference to the autograph POV. When they were writen they are the inerrent word of God. To the 2nd opposition. It matters a great deal if you believe that God had a part or a whole with the writing of the initial autographs. DHK is right with regard to translations. I've lived in many countries most of them 3rd world. I know. I do not agree with either you or DHK with regard to the TR. I do not believe they are superior to the CT. Nor do I believe they are inferior. As I've noted before there is an issue with the Byzantine text.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Thank you

Let me say to you sir, that I appreciate the way that you merely present the facts as you see them. Who of us would not be passionate about the truth as we see it? I also appreciate the way that you have not resorted to personal attacks on individuals, but rather have attacked ideals and philosophies with which you find error. Sadly, there are some here who cannot discern the difference. I grow weary of the martyr complex I see so prevalent. Attacking my position is not at all the same as attacking me. If I am not grounded enough to intelligently support my position, then the Bible version issue is the least of my troubles.

Hi brother Bob. I appreciate your kind and wise words. Some people assume that when I say something like "I am a Bible believer" and So and So is a Bible agnostic, that I am attacking the person. No, I am merely stating a fact. There really is a very specific Bible that I do believe and I believe every word of it. I do not believe that Bible agnostics are not Christians, or unbelievers in the salvation given to us through our Lord Jesus Christ. The bible agnostics are not dead in their sins and on their way to hell. I don't even believe a Christian needs to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture to get saved.


By calling someone a Bible agnostic, I simply refer to what their true position is regarding "The Bible". They simply do not know for sure what things God said and what He didn't say or cause to be written down in His complete and inspired words.

Even versions like the NASB, Holman, and others have [bracketed] anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses in their New Testaments. What do these brackets mean? They mean DOUBT about whether certain verses are real Scripture or not. This type of thing promotes biblical agnostism.

There also is the ludicrous position of trying to believe that several "reliable versions" that contradict each other in literally hundreds of ways with different numbers, names and meanings are all equally and at the same time the "inspired and inerrant words of God". But such an inane attempt to appear "orthodox in belief" only makes one look completely foolish and unthinking (to put it very mildly). They have committed intellectual suicide and call it advanced insight.


With stated positions like this last one that I am beginning to see more and more Christians now affirm, it is small wonder that the world thinks Christians are idiots and the Arab world mocks at our multi-choice "bibles" that constantly contradict and differ from one another.

Blessings,

Will K

 

[rbell]

I won't bother quoting Will, because see no need to repeat drivel.

But you haven't told us...

Which version of the KJV is the "right one?"

Things that are different are not the same.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Robies "undeniable goof" 1 Timothy 6:10

But I said I would give an example of an UNDENIABLE goof in the KJV. Well, here ya go!

In the KJV, 1 Timothy 6:10 reads in part, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil." This is INCORRECT, plain and simple! We ALL know of many evils, such as the Columbine HS shootings, the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, the palestinian suicide bombers, etc. that were done for reasons other than lova money.

The CORRECT translation is, "the love of money is *A* root of *ALL KINDS* of evil." None of the arguments against this correct reading hold water. Some of them are, "EVIL does not always mean SIN." This argument is killed by the GREEK. The word here rendered 'evil' is kakos, which means 'wickedness', thus elimination all the other possible definitions for 'evil' as used in that sentence. Furthermore, Greek has no indefinite pronoun article equivalent to the English 'a', but it DOES have a definite article equivalent to the English "the". But NO GREEK WORD appears between 'est'(is) and 'rhizo'(root), so an English translator must add an English word in order for the translation to make sense to an English reader. The English word 'a' here is correct,especially since it fits reality, and Greek has no equivalent word. If the highly-educated paul had meant 'the', he woulda written 'tou' or whatever case the Greek definite article would be if inserted between 'est' & 'rhizo'.

Scripture cannot be broken, and REALITY matches the CORRECT rendering of this verse. That alone proves the KJV's rendering wrong.

I'm sure Mr. Kinney, after writing his usual mantras of "you have no final authority", "Bible agnostic", "whateverist", will attempt to explain this'n away. But all he has is hot air, opinion, conjecture, & guesswork vs. FACT.

And before you ask "Which Bible do you believe in?", I shall answer...

"EVERY VALID VERSION, OLD OR NEW!"

Hi Roby. Thank you for your fair and unbiased introduction to this alleged error you have managed to latch onto and keep bringing up at every opportunity. As you well know, I have answered this alleged "error", but you do not agree with with my explanation. That is fine. Some people will see it and others won't. By the way, you have several times stated that the King James Bible was inerrant and inspired along with several other versions. Now you close with "Which Bible do you believe in? Every valid version, old or new."

So, are you now taking the King James Bible off your list? Just wondering.

Now, let's look once again at this alleged error Roby has come up with.

I will make a separate post on 1 Timothy 6:10

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

1 Timothy 6:10 and the King James Bible

1 Timothy 6:10

A verse that is frequently criticized in the King James Bible is 1 Timothy 6:10. "For the love of money is the root of all evil."

James White, in his book The King James Only Controversy, on pages 139 - 140 compares the KJB reading with the NASB, NKJV, and NIV. "For the love of money is A root of all SORTS OF evil". Then he comments: "First, is the love of money THE root of evil, or A root of evil? Secondly, is it a root of ALL evil, or ALL KINDS OF evil? Once again we enounter a situation in which something can be said for each translation."

"The word for 'root' in the Greek does not have the article before it, hence the more literal translation in this case would be 'a root', not the definite 'the root'. The text is not saying that the love of money is the only origin or source of evil, but that it is one of great importance."

"And is it ALL evil, or ALL KINDS OF evil? Literally the Greek reads, 'of all the evils', the terms being plural. The modern translations see this as referring to all KINDS of evils, while the KJV takes all evil as a whole concept. The KJV translation is a possibility grammatically speaking, but it seems to miss Paul's point."

" The love of money gives rise to all sorts of evil things, but there are, obviously, evils in the world that have nothing to do with the love of money. A minister friend of mine pointed out with reference to this passage that it is difficult to see how rape, for example, can be blamed on 'the love of money'. Such is surely a good question for a person who would insist upon the KJV rendering."

These are James White's comments and they are frequently brought up by those who criticize the King James Holy Bible.

In the first place ALL Bible translations frequently place a definite article 'the' when it is not in the Greek text and omit it when it is there in the Greek. Even the Holy Ghost does the same thing when we compare the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke. Often the definite articles are found in a phrase in one gospel and not in the other . This is not uncommon nor inaccurate in the least. There are several examples of both in all versions right here in 1 Timothy. A small sampling of examples are found in I Timothy 3:16. There is no definite article before the flesh, the Spirit and the world, yet all versions put them in the English text.

Likewise the definite articles are not translated in the NASB in 1 Tim. 6: 1 in 'the' masters, 'the' God and 'the' doctrine. I can make a very long list of such examples in just this little epistle of 1 Timothy.

Secondly, at least Mr. White admitted that the KJB reading is grammatically possible. Mr. W. Robertson Niccoll, in his well known book The Expositor's Greek Testament, explicitly says on page 144 of Volume Four, regarding "the root of all evil" that the reading of the Revised Version 'a root of all kinds of evil' (which is the same as found in the NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV) quote: "is not satisfactory. The position of riza (root) in the sentence shows that it is emphatic." End of quote.

Thus this other "scholar" is saying that the phrase in question should have the definite article 'the' before 'the root'. Mr. Niccoll is by no means a KJB only; he frequently corrects the Bible text according to his own understanding, just as Mr. White does, yet here his opinion is opposite to that of Mr. White.

Thirdly it should be noted that the readings of the NASB, NIV, and NKJV all add the words KINDS or SORTS to the text, which is not found in the Greek either, and omit the definite article THE before the word "evil". Neither do they make the word "evil" plural, as Mr. White suggests. So much for Mr. White's consistency in criticizing the King James reading as not being strictly literal.

Fourthly, not only does the KJB render this phrase as "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" but so also do Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale's New Testament 1534, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, The Great Bible, Wesley's translation 1755, Daniel Mace's N.T. 1729, Darby's translation, the Revised Standard Version, Webster's 1833 translation, the Douay 1950 version, the New American Bible of 1970, the Living Oracles New Testament, Goodspeed's American Translation, the Spanish Reina Valera versions of 1569, 1602 and 1858, the Lockman Foundation (same people who put out the NASB) Spanish Biblia de las Américas 1997 - "Porque LA raíz de todos LOS males es el amor al dinero",the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez Bible "Porque el amor al dinero es LA raíz de todos los males"; the Italian Diodati version 1602 and the New Diodati 1991, the French Martin 1744 and the 1996 French Ostervald - "Car l'amour de l'argent est LA racine de tous les maux"; the New English Bible 1970, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the 2003 International Standard Version, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, and The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969 - "For the love of money is THE root of ALL evils."

 

[Will J. Kinney]

1 Timothy 6:10 continued

Finally and most importantly James White is the one who is missing the meaning of the text and not the King James Bible. I agree with him that the love of money is not the root of every form of evil out there like rape, the fall of mankind in Adam, pride, hatred or lust. But let's take a closer look at versions like the NKJV, NIV, and the NASB to see if they have solved the very problem men like James White address. The NKJV and NIV tell us "the love of money is A root of ALL KINDS of evil", while the NASB has: "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS OF EVIL."

How many evils are included in the phrase "ALL kinds" or "ALL sorts of evil"? Well, it seems obvious that this would include ALL kinds of evil, not "many kinds" or "lots of different sorts", or "various types of evil". If Mr. White is going to criticize the King James reading because the literal meaning doesn't make sense to him, then to be fair, we would have to conclude that neither does the literal sense of his favorite versions. "All kinds of evil" still means ALL evil, and his modern versions are right back to meaning the very thing he criticized. How can the love of money be A root (and there necessarily must be other roots too that do the same thing) of ALL kinds of evil? This would also include the fall of man, rape, hatred, pride, and sexual lust.

Mr. White and many others seem to read the passage as though it said "the love of money is the root of all SINS". It doesn't. The text is not speaking of all kinds of sins, but of all evil. Evil is the result of sin, not the sin itself.

ALL EVIL is not referring to every kind of evil or sin but rather to a state of evil without mixture of any good. The word evil here denotes the consequences of sin, like unrest of the soul, a guilty conscience, a lack of contentment and other calamities both internal and external.

Notice the context: v.2 "And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren: but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. THESE THINGS TEACH AND EXHORT. 3 If any man TEACH OTHERWISE, and consent not to the wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, AND TO THE DOCTRINE WHICH IS ACCORDING TO GODLINESS; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, surmisings. 5 PERVERSE DISPUTINGS of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, SUPPOSING THAT GAIN IS GODLINESS:from such withdraw thyself. 6 But GODLINESS WITH CONTENTMENT is GREAT GAIN. 7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. 8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. 9 But they that be rich FALL INTO TEMPTATION and snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, THEY HAVE ERRED FROM THE FAITH, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

The context is clear...it's about teaching false doctrines for monetary gain.

This person falls into a state of 'all evil' with no mixture of anything good in his life. He is drowned in destruction and perdition by many foolish and hurtful lusts. He is pierced through with many sorrows. There is no consciousness of anything good in this persons life and all he feels and experiences is a state of evil. The immediate context of 1 Timothy 6 is that of a Christian's attitude toward money, and in this context the root of all evil is the love of money. It is not speaking about the origin of sins in general.

Compare the following verses to see that the phrase 'all evil' does not refer to every imaginable form of evil or sin, but rather to a state of being which consists of unmixed evil.

In Joshua 23:15 Joshua tells the children of Israel: "Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you ALL EVIL THINGS, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you."

Likewise in Proverbs 5:14 "I was almost in ALL EVIL in the midst of the congregation and assembly." And in Genesis 48:16 Jacob testifies: "The Angel which redeemed me from ALL EVIL, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them."

In James 3:16 we are told: "For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work." Are we to conclude from this verse that where there is envy and strife, there also exist the fall of man, rape, incest, greed and murder? No, rather the presence of these two sins contaminate and affect everything else going on around them, and result in a state of evil.

The experience of most Christians is living in a state of blessings of good along with the presence of evil or difficulties in our lives. But the Christian who pursues the love of money will soon find himself in a state of only evil, sorrows and hurtful lusts and will lose the sense of God's presence and approval in his life. He has erred from the faith. I understand this to be the true sense of the passage as is found in the King James Bible, and many others as well.

Apparently even back in the days of John Calvin some were criticizing the reading of "the root of all evil". John Calvin translated it as it stands in the King James Bible and then makes these comments: "For the root of all evils is avarice" There is no necessity for being too scrupulous in comparing other vices with this. It is certain that ambition and pride often produce worse fruits than covetousness does; and yet ambition does not proceed from covetousness. The same thing may be said of the sins forbidden by the seventh commandment. But Paul’s intention was not to include under covetousness every kind of vices that can be named. What then? He simply meant, that innumerable evils arise from it; just as we are in the habit of saying, when we speak of discord, or gluttony, or drunkenness, or any other vice of that kind, that there is no evil which it does not produce. And, indeed, we may most truly affirm, as to the base desire of gain, that there is no kind of evils that is not copiously produced by it every day; such as innumerable frauds, falsehoods, perjury, cheating, robbery, cruelty, corruption in judicature, quarrels, hatred, poisonings, murders; and, in short, almost every sort of crime. Statements of this nature occur everywhere in heathen writers; and, therefore, it is improper that those persons who would applaud Horace or Ovid, when speaking in that manner, should complain of Paul as having used extravagant language."

The King James Bible is always right.

Will Kinney

 

[Pastor Larry]

Hi Larry. You of course at entitled to you opinion, but that is all it is - a personal opinion not shared by many others.

I think most people who have reason to know what they are talking about share my view, but that’s irrelevant since truth is not up for majority vote.

I thought I explained very well why the King James Bible's "strain AT a gnat" is not only not wrong but the better translation.

yes, but you were wrong, even if you think you were right. Your “thoughts” aren’t the measure of truth. Your thinking is true only when it corresponds to reality.

However I do take exception to the rest of your post. You say that I have hate and disgust for God's word. Now, that is a very serious accusation to make.

Yes, because your position is very serious. If you are right, then the whole foundations of the faith are shaken.

I believe quite the opposite is true.

Again, irrelevant. Belief is not the measure of truth. Reality is.

So while you talk about "God's word" would you mind telling us exactly what you are referring to when you say "God's word"?

As I have said before, it is the 66 books of the Christian Scriptures.

Is it a real and tangible Book called The Bible that a person can hold in their hands, read and believe every word?

Yes.

Or it is some mystical, hypothetical concept or nebulous and non-specific "various readings" out there somewhere in a pile of dusty manuscript pieces that nobody seems to be able to put back together again?

Here you reveal a fundamental ignorance about the issues. The KJV was translated from those “dusty manuscripts” that you complain about. The KJV never existed prior to its translation. By your own argument, the word of God never existed until 1611 because nothing prior to the KJV was identical to it and therefore was corrupt. Even now, the KJV you hold is not the 1611. It is either made better than the 1611 or made worse. Either the 1611 had errors and were changed to be right, or the 1611 didn’t have errors and the Bible you have now does because they are not the same. And don’t talk about printer’s errors because they are still “errors” as you can see from the name “printer’s errors.”

What exactly is this "word of God" that you profess such great love for and that I allegedly hate and despise? Would you mind defining your terms, or showing me a copy of this "God's word" you refer to?

Again, the 66 books of the Christian Scriptures.

Since I honestly believe that the sovereign God of the universe has preserved His words in "the book of the LORD" and that this tangible and very real Book is the King James Bible with all its beauty and purity of sound doctrine, then anything that comes along purporting to be the Bible that perverts and distorts this sound doctrine, that omits thousands of inspired words or adds to them, and that causes more and more Christians to disbelieve in the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture (which is happening at an alarming rate today), then that is something that I do hate.

Here is your own admission that what I said was true. You hate the Word of God in other translations. You started with an honest but false belief that destroys the foundation of our faith. If you are right, then the Bible is wrong. Your “honest belief” is irrelevant if you believe wrongly, as the Bible declares that you do.

If something is false, especially when it comes to the true words of God, then we should hate it with a passion.

Which is how I feel about the attacks you make on the Word of God, and on brothers who love it.

"Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way."

Indeed. If only you would listen to the precepts of Scripture rather than the thinking of your own mind. Look back at this post and look at how many times you appealed to your own mind with things like ‘I think” or “I believe.” Your mind is your authority, not the Scriptures. If you hated every false way, then you would hate your own position. Fortunately, it is not irremediable. It can be fixed and there are plenty of sources for you to correct your false beliefs, starting with the Scriptures themselves.

You want to play little word games and mind games with the Scripture, and it undermines people's faith. I have had people in my office who doubt the truth of God's word because of the teaching you espouse. When you see it threaten people's faith as I have, then you should have a different opinion of it. You, as purported teacher, will be judged by a higher standard (James 3:1). And that is a serious matter. That, in and of itself, should frighten you away from this doctrine you have embraced.