KJV-only author critiques other KJV-only authors

[Logos1560]

In his 2019 book The King James Bible In America--an orthographic, historical, and textual investigation, Bryan Ross critiques a few claims about editions of the KJV by other KJV-only authors such as Matthew Verchuur (Bible Protector), Keith R. Blades, and Kyle Stephens.

In his introduction, pastor Bryan Ross asserted: "It is not productive for King James Bible Believers to assert things which can easily be proven inconsistent by further comprehensive study of the historical and textual facts" (p. 5).

 

[Logos1560]

Concerning "throughly" and "thoroughly," "alway" and "always," "ensample" and "example," and "stablish" and "establish," Bryan Ross wrote: "It is high time that we King James Bible Believers cease manufacturing 'discriminated' differences in meaning between words which don't exist and accept the fact that there are different ways of saying the same thing" (King James Bible in America, pp. 57-58).

 

[Yeshua1]

In his 2019 book The King James Bible In America--an orthographic, historical, and textual investigation, Bryan Ross critiques a few claims about editions of the KJV by other KJV-only authors such as Matthew Verchuur (Bible Protector), Keith R. Blades, and Kyle Stephens.

In his introduction, pastor Bryan Ross asserted: "It is not productive for King James Bible Believers to assert things which can easily be proven inconsistent by further comprehensive study of the historical and textual facts" (p. 5).

If they actually decided to apply those standards, would cease to be Kjvo and become Kjvp!

 

[rlvaughn]

I found that Ross's Grace Life Bible Church makes this available online (whether it is exactly the same as the print edition, I know not).
The King James Bible in America: An Orthographic, Historical, and Textual Investigation

 

[Van]

I believe this observation has a wider application than just KJV-onlyism:

' Rather, the author is concerned with the articulation of a clear and consistent position with respect to the KJB, which does not outstrip the historical and textual facts.

I think many of the unorthodox views found on this forum outstrip the historical and textual facts.

 

[rlvaughn]

(whether it is exactly the same as the print edition, I know not).
The King James Bible in America: An Orthographic, Historical, and Textual Investigation

Comparing the linked version and the print book shows that the book is updated, so not exactly the same. For example:

The work and/or writings of Matthew Verchuur (Bible Protector), Keith R. Blades, Kyle Stephens, and Local Church Bible Publishers have been utilized throughout as a means of framing the discussion. While in disagreement with the position posited by these men and/or ministries on certain points; I respect and commend them for their fine work in standing for the final authority of the KJB. I have personally benefited from the ministries of all four. https://www.amazon.com/King-James-Bible-America-Investigation/dp/1945774371/

The work and/or writings of Matthew Verchuur (Bible Protector), Keith R. Blades, and Local Church Bible Publishers have been utilized throughout as a means of framing the discussion. While in disagreement with the position posited by these men and/or ministries on certain points; the author respects and commends them for their fine work in standing for the final authority of the KJB. He has personally benefited from the ministries of all three. https://gracelifebiblechurch.com/wp...he-King-James-Bible-in-America-Final-Copy.pdf

Nevertheless, the version at the link is substantially the same and will prove useful to anyone who does not have the book.

 

[Logos1560]

According to WIll Kinney, are any actual manuscript copies of the Hebrew Old Testament and any actual manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament the complete, inerrant words of God?

Is any one printed edition of the Hebrew Old Testament and any one printed edition of the Greek New Testament [available before 1611] the complete, inerrant words of God?

What does he suggest was used as the perfect inerrant standard for making over 2,000 changes to the 1611 edition of the KJV?

Can he name and identify any one volume before 1611 with the complete, inerrant words of God or does he contradict the Scriptures and suggest that God shows partiality only to English-speaking believers after 1611, after 1769, or actually after 1900?

Once Will Kinney claimed to me that the 1762 Cambridge edition of the KJV was the inerrant word of God, and yet it has several words different from any actual post-1900 KJV edition that he may read or use.

Does he claim that actual errors in KJV editions are inerrant words of God?

Does he claim that the KJV translators lied when they acknowledged or pointed out in some of the 1611 marginal notes that they provided no English rendering for some original-language words of Scripture in their underlying texts?

Perhaps he chooses to believe an inconsistent, non-scriptural view concerning only one English Bible translation that even the KJV itself does not state nor teach. He does not clearly demonstrate that his making unproven, non-scriptural claims for the KJV is actually believing what the Bible states. Perhaps he believes that accepting his own preconceived opinions concerning the KJV is somehow believing the Bible when the Bible does not state some of what he chooses blindly and unscripturally to believe.

Does he possibly deceive himself by choosing to believe something that he does not prove that the Scriptures teach?
Does he demonstrate that he may choose to err from the truth by believing assertions that he does not prove to be true?

 

[Logos1560]

I read the article and I agree with brother Bryan Ross and the points he made.

Does you agree with this point made by Bryan Ross? Is his point factually true?

Concerning Aitken's Bible of 1782, Bryan Ross asserted: "Textually, Aitken's Bible conforms to the standard King James Oxford Text of 1769 edited by Blaney" (King James Bible in America, p. 103).

 

[Will J. Kinney]

According to WIll Kinney, are any actual manuscript copies of the Hebrew Old Testament and any actual manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament the complete, inerrant words of God?

Is any one printed edition of the Hebrew Old Testament and any one printed edition of the Greek New Testament [available before 1611] the complete, inerrant words of God?

What does he suggest was used as the perfect inerrant standard for making over 2,000 changes to the 1611 edition of the KJV?

Can he name and identify any one volume before 1611 with the complete, inerrant words of God or does he contradict the Scriptures and suggest that God shows partiality only to English-speaking believers after 1611, after 1769, or actually after 1900?

Once Will Kinney claimed to me that the 1762 Cambridge edition of the KJV was the inerrant word of God, and yet it has several words different from any actual post-1900 KJV edition that he may read or use.

Does he claim that actual errors in KJV editions are inerrant words of God?

Does he claim that the KJV translators lied when they acknowledged or pointed out in some of the 1611 marginal notes that they provided no English rendering for some original-language words of Scripture in their underlying texts?

Perhaps he chooses to believe an inconsistent, non-scriptural view concerning only one English Bible translation that even the KJV itself does not state nor teach. He does not clearly demonstrate that his making unproven, non-scriptural claims for the KJV is actually believing what the Bible states. Perhaps he believes that accepting his own preconceived opinions concerning the KJV is somehow believing the Bible when the Bible does not state some of what he chooses blindly and unscripturally to believe.

Does he possibly deceive himself by choosing to believe something that he does not prove that the Scriptures teach?
Does he demonstrate that he may choose to err from the truth by believing assertions that he does not prove to be true?

Hi Rick. Long time since we banged heads. I see you have not changed at all.

To address some of your interminable questions.
No, I do not believe there was a complete and inerrant words of God Bible before the KJB. And neither do you. In fact, you STILL do not believe that any Bible in any language you can show us - including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek - is now or ever was the complete and inerrant (100% true) words of the living God.


Now, if you think I am wrong about this, then all you have to do to clear your good name is to SHOW US A COPY of this inerrant Bible you supposedly believe in. But that is not gonna happen, is it.

As for the changes in the KJB, there was the change from Gothic to Roman type, the correction of printing errors and the updating in spelling. But the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the KJB have never changed.

This is in sharp contrast to Bible Babble Buffet Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, all which continue to deliberately change both their underlying Greek and Hebrew texts and their translations from one edition to the next, and that nobody, including you, really believe are the inerrant words of God.

As for the marginal notes, the KJB translators saw other possible ways of translating something, but they finally decided on what should be put in the TEXT. It is the text of the KJB that is the inspired and inerrant words of God; not the marginal notes.

I believe God guided them to the right texts and to the right translation of those texts in giving us this masterpiece.


And, finally, No, Rick, I do not believe there are any errors in the King James Bible.

If you know of one provable error, please point it out to us and just give us your Number One example - not the usual laundry list. Thank you.

 

[Logos1560]

No, I do not believe there was a complete and inerrant words of God Bible before the KJB. .

In effect, you seem to suggest that before 1611 God failed to preserve the actual exact specific words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. You seem to suggest that the doctrine of preservation supposedly changed in 1611 [actually after 1900] when the Scriptures themselves do not teach that human opinion. You fail to demonstrate that the Scriptures teach your human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.

There were actual proven errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV and in later editions of the KJV.

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV had proven errors including one that remained uncorrected in most Cambridge and Oxford editions for over 100 years. Actual errors in KJV editions are not inerrant words of God regardless of your human KJV-only opinions.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

In effect, you seem to suggest that before 1611 God failed to preserve the actual exact specific words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. You seem to suggest that the doctrine of preservation supposedly changed in 1611 [actually after 1900] when the Scriptures themselves do not teach that human opinion. You fail to demonstrate that the Scriptures teach your human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.

There were actual proven errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV and in later editions of the KJV.

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV had proven errors including one that remained uncorrected in most Cambridge and Oxford editions for over 100 years. Actual errors in KJV editions are not inerrant words of God regardless of your human KJV-only opinions.

Hi Rick. You yourself do not believe there was a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in ANY language that you can show us. You know you don't. So just be honest about it.

I DO believe God preserved his words but not in any one particular Bible. God knows which are his inspired words and which ones are not. From the very beginning there were many corrupting the words of God. Some by accident and others deliberately. 2 Corinthians 2:17.

So there was a gradual purifying process and the final product is the King James Bible.

This is not really a different view than most people have. They think the correct readings are out there somewhere, maybe even in one or two manuscripts, and they think it is the scholars job to sort through all the evidence and decide which are the true readings and put them all together in a book.

I believe God has already used a group of men to go through this process and we have a finished product - a complete and inerrant Bible. The King James Holy Bible.

Apparently you and most people think this is still an ongoing process and you still have no inerrant Bible to show us.

You say this is a human opinion. Well, where is anything you guys usually tell us found in the Bible? You know...things like "only the originals are/were inspired" or "only the original languages are the true words of God" or "No translation is perfect". Are not these mere human opinions? None of this stuff is found in the Bible.

As usual, you have dodged my questions. Here are the two main ones again.

Question Number One.

Is there any Bible in any language - including “the” Hebrew and “the” Greek - that you can SHOW US that you honestly believe IS now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God? Yes or No?


IF Yes, can you tell us which one it is or give us a link to where we can see it and know what it says?


IF No, then are you honest enough to admit it?

Question Number Two.
What is the biggest, provable error you think you have found in the King James Bible?
Let us know what you think it is, and we can take a look at it.
Thank you.


By the way, there are lots of evidence and reasons why the King James Bible is God's inerrant Book.
Reasons Why The King James Bible Is The Absolute Standard - God's Historic Witness to the Truth.
Another King James Bible Believer

Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Logos1560]

I DO believe God preserved his words but not in any one particular Bible. God knows which are his inspired words and which ones are not. From the very beginning there were many corrupting the words of God. Some by accident and others deliberately. 2 Corinthians 2:17.

How is your stated belief concerning preservation by God any different than my belief? Does your own stated belief demonstrate that you inconsistently and unjustly condemn my acceptance of the Bible doctrine of preservation? I accept and believe all that the Scriptures actually state concerning themselves so you in effect would attempt to condemn me for believing the Scriptures. Holding a consistent view of preservation, I believe that God was just as faithful to preserve the actual, specific words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles before 1611 as after 1611.

According to scriptural truths, words added by men are not the inspired words of God, words omitted by men should be restored, and changed words that diminish or take away from the meaning of the inspired words are not inerrant and inspired.

 

[Logos1560]

So there was a gradual purifying process and the final product is the King James Bible.

You fail to demonstrate that the Scriptures teach your human KJV-only opinions. It seems that you advocate a process of restoration instead of any consistent view of preservation.

The words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were and are 100% absolutely pure and those words did not need to go through any human purifying process of textual criticism.

 

[Logos1560]

Well, where is anything you guys usually tell us found in the Bible? You know...things like "only the originals are/were inspired" or "only the original languages are the true words of God" or "No translation is perfect". Are not these mere human opinions? None of this stuff is found in the Bible.

Perhaps you have not read your Bible as carefully as you think or do not understand it correctly if you do not see that the Bible doctrine of preservation concerns the actual specific words that were given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

Besides the fact that words are translated into different words in another language, words are also added in the process of translation (for which there is no original-language word of Scripture) and words are omitted in the process of translation so that all the exact same words are not preserved in a Bible translation.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

You fail to demonstrate that the Scriptures teach your human KJV-only opinions. It seems that you advocate a process of restoration instead of any consistent view of preservation.

The words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were and are 100% absolutely pure and those words did not need to go through any human purifying process of textual criticism.

Rick, you put on a pious front of pretending you are a Bible believer who firmly believes "The words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were and are 100% absolutely pure and those words did not need to go through any human purifying process of textual criticism.", and yet you have repeatedly refused to give us the proof of your pious profession and SHOW US A COPY of these "pure, preserved words" you profess to believe in.

And, you NEVER will show them to us. Why? Because you really do not believe such a thing exists as a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in ANY language you can show us. You are just too dishonest to admit what is obvious to anyone who is paying attention to what you are actually saying.


So, once again you have dodged my two questions. You have not shown us this complete and inerrant Bible you apparently want people to think you believe in, and you have not given us one provable error in the King James Bible.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Rick. Long time since we banged heads. I see you have not changed at all.

To address some of your interminable questions.
No, I do not believe there was a complete and inerrant words of God Bible before the KJB. And neither do you. In fact, you STILL do not believe that any Bible in any language you can show us - including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek - is now or ever was the complete and inerrant (100% true) words of the living God.


Now, if you think I am wrong about this, then all you have to do to clear your good name is to SHOW US A COPY of this inerrant Bible you supposedly believe in. But that is not gonna happen, is it.

As for the changes in the KJB, there was the change from Gothic to Roman type, the correction of printing errors and the updating in spelling. But the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the KJB have never changed.

This is in sharp contrast to Bible Babble Buffet Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, all which continue to deliberately change both their underlying Greek and Hebrew texts and their translations from one edition to the next, and that nobody, including you, really believe are the inerrant words of God.

As for the marginal notes, the KJB translators saw other possible ways of translating something, but they finally decided on what should be put in the TEXT. It is the text of the KJB that is the inspired and inerrant words of God; not the marginal notes.

I believe God guided them to the right texts and to the right translation of those texts in giving us this masterpiece.


And, finally, No, Rick, I do not believe there are any errors in the King James Bible.

If you know of one provable error, please point it out to us and just give us your Number One example - not the usual laundry list. Thank you.

the ONLY perfect and inerrant were the originals, as they alone were inspired by the Holy Spirit!

 

[Will J. Kinney]

the ONLY perfect and inerrant were the originals, as they alone were inspired by the Holy Spirit!

Hi Yeshua 1, Well, IF what you say here is true, even though there is not a word about this in the entire Bible (can we say "human reasoning"?) then this means that you have NO inspired and inerrant Bible now.

You are professing faith in a Phantom "bible" that never did exist. The originals never did make up an entire Bible - not even close to it. So you now profess a faith in something you have never seen; never read; very likely could not read if you had them; you can't show them to anybody else and you KNOW that they don't exist! And THAT, my friend, is your Phantom "bible". And you guys think we King James Bible believers are loopy?

It looks like, according to your view, God totally dropped the ball. He inspired a whole bunch of words; promised to preserve them and said that heaven and earth shall pass away but his words would not pass away, and then he just forgot about the whole thing and let his inspired words turn to dust and blow away into oblivion.


By the way, you don't happen to know where that verse is that says "ONLY the originals are/were perfect and inerrant" do you? For some reason I can't seem to find it when I look in my concordance for the word "originals". Thanks.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Yeshua 1, Well, IF what you say here is true, even though there is not a word about this in the entire Bible (can we say "human reasoning"?) then this means that you have NO inspired and inerrant Bible now.

You are professing faith in a Phantom "bible" that never did exist. The originals never did make up an entire Bible - not even close to it. So you now profess a faith in something you have never seen; never read; very likely could not read if you had them; you can't show them to anybody else and you KNOW that they don't exist! And THAT, my friend, is your Phantom "bible". And you guys think we King James Bible believers are loopy?

It looks like, according to your view, God totally dropped the ball. He inspired a whole bunch of words; promised to preserve them and said that heaven and earth shall pass away but his words would not pass away, and then he just forgot about the whole thing and let his inspired words turn to dust and blow away into oblivion.


By the way, you don't happen to know where that verse is that says "ONLY the originals are/were perfect and inerrant" do you? For some reason I can't seem to find it when I look in my concordance for the word "originals". Thanks.

God inspired the OT books, and Jesus promised to his Apostles the same inspiration to record down their books as the OT prophets had!
Do you need a perfect translation to have the word of God then?

 

[Will J. Kinney]

God inspired the OT books, and Jesus promised to his Apostles the same inspiration to record down their books as the OT prophets had!
Do you need a perfect translation to have the word of God then?

Hi Yeshua 1. You don't have the originals to show us. At this point you don't even have a copy of both the Hebrew and "the" Greek Bible that you can show us that you really believe is the complete and inerrant words of God. Right? IF you do, then can you give us a link to where we can see this original languages bible you think is the inerrant and complete words of God. But that is not gonna happen, is it.
I believe God did give us a perfect translation. In fact, it is the only Bible believed by thousands of Christians even today to be the inerrant words of God. It's called the King James Bible.
So, Yes, if you need a perfect Bible today that is complete and inerrant, then get yourself a copy of the King James Bible.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Yeshua 1. You don't have the originals to show us. At this point you don't even have a copy of both the Hebrew and "the" Greek Bible that you can show us that you really believe is the complete and inerrant words of God. Right? IF you do, then can you give us a link to where we can see this original languages bible you think is the inerrant and complete words of God. But that is not gonna happen, is it.
I believe God did give us a perfect translation. In fact, it is the only Bible believed by thousands of Christians even today to be the inerrant words of God. It's called the King James Bible.
So, Yes, if you need a perfect Bible today that is complete and inerrant, then get yourself a copy of the King James Bible.

The Kjv version has known errors and mistakes in it, and which Kjv is the perfect one then? 1611, 1769, 1873?