The Bible Agnostic Test.

The Bible Agnostic Test. A bible agnostic is someone who does not know (a = not + gnostic = to know) for sure what God said in many instances. Just go through this first part where you will find about 20 examples of completely different names and numbers in todays Bible Babble Buffet Versions and tell us if you know which readings are the ones God inspired in His Book. Just pick two examples if you like and let us know. OK? Most bible agnostics simply dodge the whole test and refuse to answer it. What about you? Willing to take the Test?


Keep in mind -


Chicago Statement on Inerrancy -

Another King James Bible Believer


Notice one particular requirement they list for us that defines this non-existent, hypothetical, philosophical, mystical and not yet in print “Inerrant Scripture” they keep wanting us to think they believe in. It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of ASSERTIONS IN THE FIELD OF HISTORY AND SCIENCE."

The Bible Babble Buffet Versions.

Among these "historic details" are the following examples:

Judges 18:30 Manasseh or Moses?

KJB - (NASB, Geneva Bible, Young’s, NKJV, MEV 2014, ISV 2014) "And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of MANASSEH, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land."

ESV (NIV, NET, LSB, Holman Standard, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "And the people of Dan set up the carved image for themselves, and Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of MOSES, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land."

Another King James Bible Believer


whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads MICHAL (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, MEV 2014, Douay-Rheims) or MERAB (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, LSB, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Another King James Bible Believer

It came to pass on the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or on the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, LSB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Another King James Bible Believer

1 Samuel 6:19 - 50,070 men slain or only 70 or 75 or 70 men 50 chief men or 50 oxen of a man? Why we cannot trust the Bible commentators or the modern versions.

1 Samuel 6:19 King James Bible (NASB, LSB, NET, NKJV, MEV, ISV) - "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked INTO the ark of the LORD, even he smote OF THE PEOPLE FIFTY THOUSAND AND THREESCORE AND TEN MEN: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

ESV 2016 (NIV 2011, CSB, Darby, Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985) - "He struck SEVENTY men of them, and the people mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great blow."

Young's "literal" translation reads: He smiteth among the people SEVENTY MEN - FIFTY CHIEF MEN.

The Voice of 2012, one of the new Critical Text versions, actually says: God struck down 75 men

The Holman Christian Standard Bible 2009 has come up with a reading that is different from them all. The HCSB now says: "He struck down 70 men out of 50,000 men."
Another King James Bible Believer

or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, LSB, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Look at the new "revision" of the ESV 2011. It came out in 2001 and they revised and changed about 300 verses in 2007 and then they revised it again in 2011. Take a look at what they have done with 1 Samuel 13:1. The ESVs have TWO different readings and they are BOTH wrong.

A similar thing happens with the constantly changing NASB. Notice it has TWO different readings depending on which edition you get and neither one agrees with any of the ESVs. From 1972 to 1977 they had 40/32 years, but now in the 1995 edition it reads 30/42 years, and BOTH ARE WRONG.

1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel. reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV, MEV, LSB, Amplified), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (LSB, Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years."!

But wait. There's even more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel...". Think about it. "Saul lived for one year and then became king". They just get loopier and loopier, don't they?

Can you guess which other bible version reads like the latest ESV? You got it. The Catholic Douay-Rheims and the Douay Version 1950 - "Saul WAS A CHILD OF ONE YEAR WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned two years over Israel."

By the way, here is a more in depth study showing why the King James Bible got it right, as it ALWAYS does.

Another King James Bible Believer

1 Samuel 17:4 How Tall Was Goliath?

In 1 Samuel 17:4 the Hebrew texts tell us that the height of Goliath was SIX cubits and a span, which would make him about 9 feet 6 inches tall. That indeed is a giant. However the LXX tells us that Goliath was a mere FOUR cubits and a span - which would make him only 6 feet 6 inches tall, which would hardly be much among NBA players today. King Saul himself was head and shoulders taller than the other Israelites, and yet he was afraid of this giant. If he were only 6ft. 6 inches, this would not make much sense.

Agreeing with the Hebrew text the he was 6 cubits and a span tall are the RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and all Jewish translations.

However there are a few loonies out there like Daniel Wallace and gang's NET version that says: "His name was Goliath; he was from Gath. He was CLOSE TO SEVEN FEET TALL."

Dan Wallace's group chose the reading found in SOME LXX copies of FOUR and a half cubits tall. Other LXX copies have FIVE and others still have SIX cubits and a span. Also reading this way are the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Catholic St. Josepeh New American bible 1970. So, which one is right? Was he 4 or 5 or 6 cubits and a span tall?

For more information on this see Scatterbrained Septuagint Silliness -

Another King James Bible Believer

2 Samuel 15:7 forty years or four years?

Here is another one where the "literal" NASB continues to change its text from one edition to the next.

King James Bible (Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, NASB 1972 - 1995 editions, Legacy Standard Bible 2021) - "And it came to pass AFTER FORTY YEARS, that Absalom said unto the king..."

ESV, NIV, NET, NASB 2020 edition, Holman Standard, Catholic St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT 2013 revision - "And at THE END OF FOUR YEARS Absalom said to the king..."

See why the KJB and the Hebrew text are right. Plus see the false footnotes found in many of these which change the Hebrew text.

Another King James Bible Believer


or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years of famine (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, LSB, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Another King James Bible Believer

or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, LSB, Douay-Rheims) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Another King James Bible Believer

Jeremiah 27:1 JEHOIAKIM or ZEDEKIAH? Has the Hebrew text been corrupted?

Jeremiah 27:1 KJB (Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, NKJV) - "In the beginning of the reign of JEHOIAKIM the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying...."

ESV, RSV, NIV, NASB, NET, LSB, Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "In the beginning of the reign of ZEDEKIAH the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD."

The King James Bible is right, as always. And here is why -

Another King James Bible Believer

Luke 10:42 How many things are needed? "ONE THING" or "A FEW THINGS"? Bible Babble Buffet at its Best.

King James Bible (ESV, NKJV, ASV, LSB 2021) - Luke 10:42 - But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

NASB 1963-1977 editions - But ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

NASB 1995 edition - But ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions - "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."

NIV 2011 edition - "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."

Did you notice that both the NASB and the NIV changed THE TEXT from one edition to another, AND that they REVERSED THEIR CHOICES? What is going on here in Bible Babble Buffet Land?

Another King James Bible Believer

Luke 10:1,17 were there 70 sent out to preach (NASB 1963 to 1995 editions, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB, LSB 2021) or 72 sent out? (NASB 2020 edition, NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Another King James Bible Believer

Notice again in Matthew 18:22 the TWO different ESV translations of the same verse. The first 2 ESV editions followed the Greek text. The second 2 ESV just made up a number. The NASB changed its text too.

or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not "until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times" (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB 1963 to 1995 editions, NKJV, RSV, ESV 2001, 2007 editions, ISV, Legacy Standard Version 2021, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts)

or 77 times? (NASB 2020 edition, NRSV, NIV, ESV 2011, 2016 editions, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness New World Translation)

JOHN 1:18

KJB - "No man hath seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

NASB 1962 to 1995 editions, LSB 2021 - "No one has seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

NASB 2020 edition has now changed its text once again after some 10 different editions. It now reads: “No one has seen God at any time; GOD THE ONLY SON, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.” - NO Greek text reads this way.

ESV 2001-2011 editions - "No one has ever seen God; THE ONLY GOD, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."

ESV 2025 edition - “No one has ever seen God; GOD THE ONLY SON, who[ is at the Father's side, he has made him known.” Again, NO Greek text reads this way.

NIV 1973 edition - "No man has ever seen God, but GOD THE ONLY SON, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

NIV 1984 edition - "No one has ever seen God, but GOD THE ONE AND ONLY, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

NIV 2011 edition - "No one has ever seen God, but THE ONE AND ONLY SON, WHO IS HIMSELF GOD and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

The reading followed by the NASB 1995 edition teaches that there are TWO Gods. Count 'em. There is the unseen God and then there is the only begotten God who declares the invisible God no one has seen.

The new NASB 2020 and ESV 2025 edition now read like the NIV 1973 edition, which they have twice since then rejected, and there is NO Greek text that reads "God the only Son."

The ESV 2001-2011 editions are utter confusion and contradiction. There we have the unseen God, and then there is the only God, who makes the unseen God known. Hellooo.......Is anybody home in there?

And then the ESV changed once again in 2025 and now reads as NO Greek text on this earth say “No one has ever seen God; GOD THE ONLY SON, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” And then it footnotes that the Greek actually says “bosom” (as the KJB has it) and not “side”.

The NIVs have THREE different translations of this one verse, and the modern versions don't even agree among themselves.
See the whole study here -


John 7:8-10 Did Jesus lie or tell the truth?

John 7:8-10 KJB (Revised Version 1881, NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions, Legacy Standard Bible 2021)- "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, THEN went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."

The old NIVs of 1973, 1978 and 1984 also read this way saying: "I am NOT YET going up to this Feast".

However now the 2011 has once again changed its underlying Greek texts and now has Jesus lying to His brothers by saying: "You go to this festival. I AM NOT GOING up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come."

ESV (NIV 2011 edition, NASB) - "You go up to the feast. I AM NOT GOING up to this feast, for my time is not yet fully come. After saying this he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, the HE ALSO WENT UP, not publicly but in private."

Revised Version 1881 - "Go ye up unto the feast: I go NOT YET unto this feast".

ASV 1901 - "Go ye up unto the feast: I go NOT up unto this feast"

See the whole study here -
https://brandplucked.com/john78didjesuslie.htm

or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 "this day have I begotten thee" (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, LSB, Douay-Rheims) or "today I have become your Father"? (NIV, Holman, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem).

Another King James Bible Believer


1 Thessalonians 2:7 "we were GENTLE among you" or "LITTLE CHILDREN among you"?

KJB (RV, ASV, ESV, NASB, CSB, ISV, Legacy Standard 2021) - 1 Thessalonians 2:7 "But we were GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children."

NIV 1973, 1978, 1984 editions - "but we were GENTLE among you, like a mother caring for her little children."

NIV 2011 edition -"Instead, we were like YOUNG CHILDREN among you. Just as a nursing mother cares for her children."

Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 (NIRV 2014) - "we became LITTLE CHILDREN, Like a nursing mother caring for her own children."

Lexham English Bible 2012 (Tree of Life Version 2015) - "we became INFANTS in your midst, like a nursing mother cherishes her children,"

https://brandplucked.com/gentlebabes1thes27.htm

1 Corinthians 13:3 - “give my body TO BE BURNED” or “give my body THAT I MAY BOAST”?

1 Corinthians 13:3 we read in the KJB (RV, ASV, NASB 1972—1995 editions, ESV, LSB, NIVs 1973 - 1984 editions) - "and though I give my body to BE BURNED, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing”.

NASB 2020 edition, NIV 2011 edition, Holman CSB 2009, CSB 2017 - “THAT I MAY BOAST”.

Scroll down to see the whole study here -


2 Thessalonians 2:13 - “From the Beginning” or “the Firstfruits”? Modern Scholarship At Its Best

KJB - (NASB 2020, NET, ASV 1901, RSV 1971, Holman Standard, NIV 1984 edition) ”But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath FROM THE BEGINNING chosen you to salvation..."

ESV (NIV 2011 edition, LSB, ISV 2014) - “ But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you AS THE FIRSTFRUITS to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.”

"From the beginning" (απ αρχης) is the reading found in the majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus, D, K, L, Psi, the Old Latin ar, b, d, e, g, mon, o as well as the Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Sahidic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic and Ethiopic ancient versions. It is also so quoted by Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodore, Varimadum, Theodoret, Vigilus and John-Damascus.

However the reading of FIRSTFRUITS (ἀπαρχὴν) is that found in Vaticanus.

Not even the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” agree with each other. Sinaiticus has “from the beginning” and Vaticanus has “the first fruits”.

“FROM THE BEGINNING” (απ αρχης) was the reading of the previous Nestle-Aland Greek editions and that of Westcott & Hort as well.

“FROM THE BEGINNING” is the text of the Nestle Greek text 4th edition 1934. However the Nestle Greek text 21st edition 1975 changed their text to read “THE FIRSTFRUITS”, which comes primarily from the Vatican manuscript.
See the whole study here -
https://brandplucked.com/2thes213frombegining.htm


John 5:3-4 Is this Inspired Scripture or not?

John 5:3-4 The Troubling of the Water

Many modern versions and some "scholars" cast doubt on the authenticity of the inspired words we find in John 5:3-4. Here we read of the pool of Bethesda, having five porches.

KJB (NASB 1995 edition, ISV 2014, Holman Standard 2009, Legacy Standard Bible 2021) John 5:3 - "In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, WAITING FOR THE MOVING OF THE WATER.

John 5:4 - FOR AN ANGEL WENT DOWN AT A CERTAIN SEASON INTO THE POOL, AND TROUBLED THE WATER: WHOSOEVER THEN FIRST AFTER THE TROUBLING OF THE WATER STEPPED IN WAS MADE WHOLE OF WHATSOEVER DISEASE HE HAD."


ESV John 5:3: - (NASB 2020 edition, NIV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, modern Catholic versions - "In these lay a multitude of invalids - blind, lame and paralyzed........................"

John 5:4 ..................................................................................................................................................


All these capitalized words are omitted in such modern versions as the NASB 2020 edition, ASV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Wallaces NET version, Common English bible, and the Message. They are also omitted in the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and in the more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

See the whole article here as to why the KJB and many others are right, along with examples of how corrupt the so called “oldest and best” texts really are as well as how many early church writers directly quote or refer to these verses.

https://brandplucked.com/john534troubling.htm


Did the Lord Jesus Christ say these words or not?

The Lord's Prayer - Is your Bible a Vatican Version?

KJB (NASB 1963-1995 editions, Legacy Standard Bible 2021, Holman Standard 2009, NKJV) - Matthew 6:13 "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER. AMEN."


ESV (NASB 2020 edition, NIV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic versions) - "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

See why these are the inspired words of God here -
https://brandplucked.com/matthew613.htm

If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions, ask yourself Which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

So, try to honestly answer the basic question here. Do you or do you not believe there IS (or ever was) a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language that IS the inerrant and infallible words of God? Are you a Bible believer or a Bible agnostic who doesn't know if such a Bible exists or not and what it might look like if it did?

ALL of grace, believing the Book - the King James Holy Bible.

Will J. Kinney said:

The Bible Agnostic Test. A bible agnostic is someone who does not know (a = not + gnostic = to know) for sure what God said in many instances. Just go through this first part where you will find about 20 examples of completely different names and numbers in todays Bible Babble Buffet Versions and tell us if you know which readings are the ones God inspired in His Book.

So, try to honestly answer the basic question here. Do you or do you not believe there IS (or ever was) a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language that IS the inerrant and infallible words of God? Are you a Bible believer or a Bible agnostic who doesn't know if such a Bible exists or not and what it might look like if it did?

Click to expand...

Your so-called test and questions are based on use of fallacies such as begging the question as you merely assume the unproven premises of your test to be true. You do not know that your KJV-only opinions and premises are true and scriptural since you merely assume them by use of fallacies. Your own test would make you a "Bible agnostic" concerning the Bible before 1611 and would make the KJV translators into "Bible agnostics." Your test does not prove a KJV-only theory to be true and scriptural.

Any question that assumes as true unproven premises is not actually a simple question and is not a pure question, but instead it would be a complex, invalid question. Claiming a question is very simple could indicate use of the obvious fallacy. Jason Lisle noted: “A complex question is the interrogative form of begging the question. This is when a question contains an unproven assumption” (Ultimate Proof of Creation, p. 127).

Use of the fallacy of begging the question would not be a simple, common sense, impossible-to-refute argument. From the beginning, do typical KJV-only arguments attempt to assume by use of the fallacy of begging the question the point in dispute and attempt to exclude any non-KJV-only answer? The KJV-only view’s unproven, uncertain conclusions have not been demonstrated to follow directly and soundly from clearly-stated premises proven to be true and scriptural. Blind or mindless faith in unproven premises would not make those premises become true. Would the God of truth approve of the use of fallacies? Would the truth need the use of fallacies to defend it or to advocate it?

KJV defender Edward F. Hills asserted: “Error and falsehood, however, are not from God but from Satan, the evil one” (KJV Defended, p. 240; Text, p. 398). Does that statement indicate that the use of fallacies in KJV-only reasoning should be excused or should that use be condemned and removed? Does human KJV-only reasoning compromise the truth by making use of fallacies?

In a letter to Martin Dorp, Erasmus is translated into English by Robert Adams as writing: “Neither is there the slightest reason to suppose that mankind will suddenly abandon their faith if word get outs that there is something in scripture that an ignorant or sleepy scribe wrote amiss, or that some unknown translator rendered ineptly” (Praise of Folly, p. 249). In this same letter, Erasmus asked: “Who does more to promote a lie, the man who corrects and removes a mistake, or the man who, out of reluctance to make a change, lets it stand?” (p. 247). Erasmus wrote: “These are the men who want nothing corrected lest their own ignorance be made manifest. These people throw up imaginary obstacles such as the supposed authority of councils [including a council of Church of England men in 1611], they exaggerate the terrible perils to Christian faith, they spread fantasies about the dangers to the church, as if it rested only on their shoulders” (p. 248).


KJV defender Edward F. Hills wrote: “The first New Testament textual critics were editors such as Erasmus (1466-1636), printers such as Stephanus (1503-1559), and Reformers such as Calvin (1909-1564) and Beza (1519-1605)” (KJV Defended, p 62; Text, p. 120). Edward F. Hills added: “In this department of biblical study they were unmethodical, and some of their remarks concerning the New Testament canon and text reflect the humanistic culture in which they had been reared” (Ibid.). Edward F. Hills suggested that there appears “in Erasmus a humanistic tendency to treat the New Testament text like the text of any other book” (Believing Bible Study, p. 203; KJV Defended, p. 204; Text, p. 343).

Will J. Kinney said:

todays Bible Babble Buffet Versions and tell us if you know which readings are the ones God inspired in His Book.

Click to expand...

Do you tell us which of the varying renderings in the Bible Babble Buffet of many varying editions of the KJV are the ones God inspired in His book?

Will, you once claimed to me that the 1762 Cambridge edition of the KJV was inerrant. Do you consider all the renderings in the 1743 Cambridge standard edition and 1762 Cambridge standard edition of the KJV to be the ones God inspired in His Book?

As also indicated by David Norton, the revised 1743 Cambridge standard edition already has a majority of the renderings and spellings that could be or are considered to be characteristic of the later 1762 Cambridge edition. Old Testament examples would include the following: “men” (Gen. 47:6), “consecration” (Exod. 29:16), “hath sinned” (Lev. 5:10), “shall they be” (Num. 3:13), “one silver bowl” (Num. 7:61), “and ye shall have” (Deut. 4:25), “all lost things“ (Deut. 22:3), “and the Gadites” (Josh. 12:6), “nor of Halbah” (Jud. 1:31), “that” before “after the year” omitted (2 Sam. 11:1), “eightieth” (1 Kings 6:1), “Asa‘s heart” (1 Kings 15:14), “thou thyself hast” (1 Kings 20:40), “until now” (2 Kings 8:6), “all the business” (1 Chron. 26:30), “whom God alone” (1 Chron. 29:1), “rulers of“ (1 Chron. 29:6), “Charchemish“ (2 Chron. 35:20), “and the gold” (Ezra 7:18), “Mordecai‘s matters” (Esther 3:4), “and he seeth“ (Job 8:17), “the Highest himself” (Ps. 87:5), “and he saveth” (Ps. 107:19), “wit’s end” (Ps. 107:27), “these things” (Ps. 107:43) “children shall also sit” (Ps. 132:12), “merchant ships” (Prov. 30:31), “farther” (Eccl. 8:17), “gone to” (Isa. 15:2), “feedeth on ashes” (Isa. 44:20), “astonished” (Isa. 52:14), “is” (Jer. 1:13), “The word that” (Jer. 40:1), “astonished” (Dan. 4:19), “the whirlwind” (Hos. 13:3), “and he kept” (Amos 1:11), “Hamath“ (Amos 6:14), “hidden things“ (Obadiah 1:6), and “fleeth away“ (Nahum 3:16). New Testament examples include these renderings: “casteth out devils” (Matt. 9:34), “in the judgement” (Matt. 12:41), “had no root“ (Matt. 13:6), “the Christ” (Matt. 16:16), “eternal life“ (Matt. 19:29), “farther“ (Matt. 26:39), “word” (Matt. 26:75), “bodies of the saints“ (Matt. 27:52), “farther“ (Mark 1:19), “afterwards“ (Luke 4:2), “and he cried out” (Luke 4:33), “lifted” (Luke 16:23), “a third” (Luke 20:12), “his lord” (John 15:20), “but the time” (John 16:25), “doctor of the law” (Acts 5:34), “killedst” (Acts 7:28), “And they wrote” (Acts 15:23), “from things strangled” (Acts 21:25), “lifted” (Acts 22:22), “and in the prophets” (Acts 24:14), “sitting on” (Acts 25:6), “and have gained” (Acts 27:21), “have not charity” (1 Cor. 13:2), “in utterance” (2 Cor. 8:7), “in knowledge” (2 Cor. 8:7), “journeyings” (2 Cor. 11:26), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “access“ (Eph. 2:18), “and I beseech” (Phil. 4:2), “our‘s“ (Titus 3:14), “be ye warmed and be ye filled” (James 2:16), “labourers who“ (James 5:4), “inhabitants“ (Rev. 17:2), and “on either side” (Rev. 22:2).

The 1762 Cambridge used an apostrophe in possessive pronouns as now found in some present Oxford editions [“their’s” (Gen. 15:13), “our’s” (Gen. 26:20), “your’s” (Gen. 45:20), “her’s” (Deut. 21:15)]. The revised 1762 Cambridge edition does have some differences, changes, or revisions in its text that were not found in the 1743 Cambridge edition [“to-day” (Gen. 40:7), “Spirit of God” (Gen. 41:38), “toward Israel’s right hand” (Gen. 48:13), “thoroughly” (Exod. 21:19), “lifted” (Lev. 9:22), “lain” (Num. 5:19), “from among his people” (Num. 9:13), “lifted” (Num. 20:11), “their father’s brother’s sons” (Num. 36:11), “brakedst” (Deut. 10:2), “besides” (Deut. 18:8), “besides” (Deut. 19:9), “of thy neighbour’s” (Deut. 23:25), “the widow‘s” (Deut. 24:17), “besides ornaments” (Jud. 8:26), “besides” (1 Sam. 2:2), “hath borne“ (1 Sam. 2:5), “priest‘s custom“ (1 Sam. 2:13), “priest‘s offices“ (1 Sam. 2:36), “in a straight” (1 Sam. 13:6), “at Michmash” (1 Sam. 13:11), “road” (1 Sam. 27:10), “And made” (2 Sam. 2:9), “sins“ (2 Chron. 33:19), “lain” (Job 3:13), “sneezings” (Job 41:18), “thine handmaid“ (Ps. 116:16), ”grey” (Prov. 20:29), “enclosed” (Song of Solomon 4:12), “counsellor“ (Isa. 3:3), “make ye“ (Isa. 32:11), “lain“ (Jer. 3:2), “Rachel” (Jer. 31:15), “beast“ (Ezek. 34:28), “marshes“ (Ezek. 47:11), “LORD God“ (Hab. 3:19), “Berechiah“ (Zech. 1:1)].

Anyone who knows you knows that you simply do not believe there is now or ever was such a thing as a complete and 100% true words of God Bible you can show us.

Logos1560 said:

Do you tell us which of the varying renderings in the Bible Babble Buffet of many varying editions of the KJV are the ones God inspired in His book?

Will, you once claimed to me that the 1762 Cambridge edition of the KJV was inerrant. Do you consider all the renderings in the 1743 Cambridge standard edition and 1762 Cambridge standard edition of the KJV to be the ones God inspired in His Book?

I do not remember making this claim to you, but I know I have told you that any Cambridge printing King James Bible you can buy in any bookstore today is the complete and 100% true words of God.
You can slso get them at these two places - good quality and reasonable price.

Click to expand...

Church Publishers.
https://churchbiblepublishers.com

Or Bearing Precious Seed Publishers.
https://www.bpsmilford.org/store/Bibles-c1973814

Anyone who deals with you should know that you will NEVER actually show us a copy of any Bible in any language that you yourself believes is now or ever was the complete and 100% true words of God. This is just a fact.

And as you well know, I have read your silly book.

Another King James Bible Believer


Book Review: The Unbound Scriptures - Part 1 - Part 5 [of 17 Parts]

Part Two - Those Dreadful Archaic Words
Part Three - Imperfect men, Perfect Bible
Part Four - Revision
Part Five - Printign Errers and Spellin

Next Set, Parts 6 through 12


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

Will J. Kinney said:

there is now or ever was such a thing as a complete and 100% true words of God Bible you can show us.

Click to expand...

Do you claim that the KJV's underlying original Hebrew OT text and Greek NT text were the complete and 100% true words of God? Do you reject the greater authority of the preserved original-language words of Scripture?

How is the KJV a complete English Bible translation in that it does not give an English word/rendering for each and every original-language word of Scripture in its underlying texts?

David Loughran asserted that “a translator must, therefore, translate God’s words—all of them” and that “the King James Version translators employed a ‘word for word’ translation technique” (Woods, King’s Bible, p. 81). Gary Miller claimed that the KJV translators “made sure to clearly translate each and every word” (Why the KJV Bible, p. 18). David Daniels maintained that the KJV translators “were careful to translate the exact meaning of every word, or phrase, or verse in clear English words” (But I Trust, p. 56). Charles Keesee asserted: “If God inspired a word to be written down and your Bible does not contain it, then your Bible has an error” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 31).

According to KJV-only assertions demanding word-for-word translation and every word translating, the KJV itself would not measure it since it omits giving any English word/rendering for many original-language words of Scripture in its verses.

Logos1560 said:

Do you claim that the KJV's underlying original Hebrew OT text and Greek NT text were the complete and 100% true words of God? Do you reject the greater authority of the preserved original-language words of Scripture?

How is the KJV a complete English Bible translation in that it does not give an English word/rendering for each and every original-language word of Scripture in its underlying texts?

David Loughran asserted that “a translator must, therefore, translate God’s words—all of them” and that “the King James Version translators employed a ‘word for word’ translation technique” (Woods, King’s Bible, p. 81). Gary Miller claimed that the KJV translators “made sure to clearly translate each and every word” (Why the KJV Bible, p. 18). David Daniels maintained that the KJV translators “were careful to translate the exact meaning of every word, or phrase, or verse in clear English words” (But I Trust, p. 56). Charles Keesee asserted: “If God inspired a word to be written down and your Bible does not contain it, then your Bible has an error” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 31).

According to KJV-only assertions demanding word-for-word translation and every word translating, the KJV itself would not measure it since it omits giving any English word/rendering for many original-language words of Scripture in its verse/

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

You could not show us a copy of "the greater authority of the preserved original-language words of Scripture" if your life depended on it, and you know you can't. Who are you trying to fool?

Click to expand...

If you have a copy of "the preserved original language words of Scripture" you so piously refer to, then kindly give us a link to where we can see it. Or just be honest about it and admit that you have no such thing and don't believe one exists. How about it? What do you say? (Note- He will never answer this question. He will always dodge it.)

And I really don't care all that much what other KJB believers may or may not have said. Sometimes they are right and others times not so much. NO translation I am aware of, including the KJB, is always a word for word translation. It generally is far more literal than the modern versions like the ever changing NASBs, NIVs, ESVs, etc. but at times it is verbally equivalent rather than verbally identical. But the meaning is always right.

Here is an example.

Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak FACE TO FACE, that our joy may be full.- 2 John 1:12.

But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak FACE TO FACE. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name. - 3 John 1:14.

The literal Greek is στομα προς στομα = mouth to mouth.

Not only does the King James Bible say “face to face” but so too do the following Bible translations - the English Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Twentieth Century N.T., Weymouth, Goodspeed, Riverside N.T., Lamsa’s translator of the Syriac Peshitta, Montgomery N.T., Williams N.T., New Simplified bible, International Standard Version, Amplified Bible, Christian Standard Bible, Common English Bible, Evangelical Heritage Version, ESV, Holman Christian Standard, Legacy Standard Version 2021, Modern English Version 2014, Mounce N.T., NASB 2020, New Century Version, NET, NIV, NKJV, New Living Translation, RSV, New Revised Standard Version, New Testament for Everyone, Lexham English bible, Berean Standard Bible, Majority Standard Version, Tree of Life Version, The Voice, Bible in Basic English, An Understandable Version, A Faithful Version, Common Edition N.T., World English Bible, New Heart English Bible, Jubilee bible, Complete Apostles’ Bible, Wilbur Pickering N.T., The Koster Scriptures 1998, Mebust Bible 2007, The New European Version 2010.

Foreign Language Bibles = face to face.

Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - y hablaremos cara a cara.

Spanish Reina Valera 1960- 1995 - porque espero verte en breve, y hablaremos cara a cara.

Portuguese Almeida Actualizada - y hablaremos cara a cara.

Will J. Kinney said:

You could not show us a copy of "the greater authority of the preserved original-language words of Scripture" if your life depended on it, and you know you can't. Who are you trying to fool?

If you have a copy of "the preserved original language words of Scripture" you so piously refer to, then kindly give us a link to where we can see it. Or just be honest about it and admit that you have no such thing and don't believe one exists. How about it? What do you say? (Note- He will never answer this question. He will always dodge it.)

And I really don't care all that much what other KJB believers may or may not have said. Sometimes they are right and others times not so much. NO translation I am aware of, including the KJB, is always a word for word translation. It generally is far more literal than the modern versions like the ever changing NASBs, NIVs, ESVs, etc. but at times it is verbally equivalent rather than verbally identical. But the meaning is always right.

Here is an example.

Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak FACE TO FACE, that our joy may be full.- 2 John 1:12.

But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak FACE TO FACE. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name. - 3 John 1:14.

The literal Greek is στομα προς στομα = mouth to mouth.

Not only does the King James Bible say “face to face” but so too do the following Bible translations - the English Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Twentieth Century N.T., Weymouth, Goodspeed, Riverside N.T., Lamsa’s translator of the Syriac Peshitta, Montgomery N.T., Williams N.T., New Simplified bible, International Standard Version, Amplified Bible, Christian Standard Bible, Common English Bible, Evangelical Heritage Version, ESV, Holman Christian Standard, Legacy Standard Version 2021, Modern English Version 2014, Mounce N.T., NASB 2020, New Century Version, NET, NIV, NKJV, New Living Translation, RSV, New Revised Standard Version, New Testament for Everyone, Lexham English bible, Berean Standard Bible, Majority Standard Version, Tree of Life Version, The Voice, Bible in Basic English, An Understandable Version, A Faithful Version, Common Edition N.T., World English Bible, New Heart English Bible, Jubilee bible, Complete Apostles’ Bible, Wilbur Pickering N.T., The Koster Scriptures 1998, Mebust Bible 2007, The New European Version 2010.

Foreign Language Bibles = face to face.

Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - y hablaremos cara a cara.

Spanish Reina Valera 1960- 1995 - porque espero verte en breve, y hablaremos cara a cara.

Portuguese Almeida Actualizada - y hablaremos cara a cara.

Click to expand...

What I see in your post is just the arrogance of a narrow mind.

You think the KJV is the best but overlook the many advancements in textural studies and the texts we now have as compared to the 16 & 17 hundreds.

The only texts that were perfect were the original autographs. Every copy of those could have included errors and since we do not have those autigraphs

But you will happily carry on in your KJVO view and say everyone else is just using an inferior text.

Will J. Kinney said:

The Bible Agnostic Test. A bible agnostic is someone who does not know (a = not + gnostic = to know) for sure what God said in many instances. Just go through this first part where you will find about 20 examples of completely different names and numbers in todays Bible Babble Buffet Versions and tell us if you know which readings are the ones God inspired in His Book. Just pick two examples if you like and let us know. OK? Most bible agnostics simply dodge the whole test and refuse to answer it. What about you? Willing to take the Test?


Keep in mind -


Chicago Statement on Inerrancy -

Another King James Bible Believer


Notice one particular requirement they list for us that defines this non-existent, hypothetical, philosophical, mystical and not yet in print “Inerrant Scripture” they keep wanting us to think they believe in. It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of ASSERTIONS IN THE FIELD OF HISTORY AND SCIENCE."

The Bible Babble Buffet Versions.

Among these "historic details" are the following examples:

Judges 18:30 Manasseh or Moses?

KJB - (NASB, Geneva Bible, Young’s, NKJV, MEV 2014, ISV 2014) "And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of MANASSEH, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land."

ESV (NIV, NET, LSB, Holman Standard, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "And the people of Dan set up the carved image for themselves, and Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of MOSES, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land."

Another King James Bible Believer


whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads MICHAL (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, MEV 2014, Douay-Rheims) or MERAB (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, LSB, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Another King James Bible Believer

It came to pass on the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or on the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, LSB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Another King James Bible Believer

1 Samuel 6:19 - 50,070 men slain or only 70 or 75 or 70 men 50 chief men or 50 oxen of a man? Why we cannot trust the Bible commentators or the modern versions.

1 Samuel 6:19 King James Bible (NASB, LSB, NET, NKJV, MEV, ISV) - "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked INTO the ark of the LORD, even he smote OF THE PEOPLE FIFTY THOUSAND AND THREESCORE AND TEN MEN: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

ESV 2016 (NIV 2011, CSB, Darby, Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985) - "He struck SEVENTY men of them, and the people mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great blow."

Young's "literal" translation reads: He smiteth among the people SEVENTY MEN - FIFTY CHIEF MEN.

The Voice of 2012, one of the new Critical Text versions, actually says: God struck down 75 men

The Holman Christian Standard Bible 2009 has come up with a reading that is different from them all. The HCSB now says: "He struck down 70 men out of 50,000 men."
Another King James Bible Believer

Click to expand...

Just stepping in to inform you that using a person's real first and last name when they have registered here under a pseudonym is not acceptable.

Also, are you aware that the SBC missions organization estimate that approximately 158,000 people across the world GO TO HELL every single day. Not per year, week, or month. PER DAY.

I pray for the "158,000" when they come to my mind. Which is often.

What do you do for the case of the lost?

This King James Only hate filled DIATRIBE bores me to tears. I like the King James. It's what I was raised on. When I was saved, the pastor was preaching from it. But it's not the only Bible I use. I use a variety.

Your conversation with people bashing and outing them because they don't agree with you is also unacceptable.

I will come out of moderation to take care of this if it continues. Not a threat, just a plead to behave and obey Christ's words to "love one another as I loved you."

@Will J. Kinney,

How is this "The Bible Agnostic Test," supposed help Bible believers and non-believers? What I already don't like about it, it is effectively anti KJB.

Silverhair said:

What I see in your post is just the arrogance of a narrow mind.

You think the KJV is the best but overlook the many advancements in textural studies and the texts we now have as compared to the 16 & 17 hundreds.

The only texts that were perfect were the original autographs. Every copy of those could have included errors and since we do not have those autigraphs

But you will happily carry on in your KJVO view and say everyone else is just using an inferior text.

Click to expand...

Hi Silverhair. By your own admission you are just another version rummaging bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the inerrancy of any Bible in any language you can show us. It is not arrogance to point this out to you and others like you. It is just a cold, hard and undeniable fact.

I notice you did not actually take up any of the examples I listed in the Bible Agnostic Test and let us know which readings are the true historical readings that God inspired to be in his book.

Nor did Rick Norris give us any examples of where he compares those original Hebrew and Greek thingies he apparently is privy to with the different readings found in today's Bible Babble Buffet versions to let us know which ones are right.

Any idea why that might be?

Thanks.

37818 said:

@Will J. Kinney,

How is this "The Bible Agnostic Test," supposed help Bible believers and non-believers? What I already don't like about it, it is effectively anti KJB.

Click to expand...

Hi W. How in the name of common sense it the Bible agnostic test "effectively anti-KJB"?

With most of the examples I list I also give an explanation as to why the KJB got it right and the others did not when they differ from it. YOU yourself do not really believe that ANY Bible in any language you can show us is now or ever was the completer and 100% true words of God, right? IF you think you do have one you can show us, then please give us a link to where we can see it and read what it says. Can you do that for us? Not gonna happen, is it.

Thanks.

Will J. Kinney said:

Hi Silverhair. By your own admission you are just another version rummaging bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the inerrancy of any Bible in any language you can show us. It is not arrogance to point this out to you and others like you. It is just a cold, hard and undeniable fact.

I notice you did not actually take up any of the examples I listed in the Bible Agnostic Test and let us know which readings are the true historical readings that God inspired to be in his book.

Nor did Rick Norris give us any examples of where he compares those original Hebrew and Greek thingies he apparently is privy to with the different readings found in today's Bible Babble Buffet versions to let us know which ones are right.

Any idea why that might be?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Well since we do not have the autographs we can be quite sure that while we are very close we will never be able to say that what we have is perfect.

But what we can know for sure is that your KJV is not perfect even though you will still make the silly claim it is the only inerrant one.

Polite discussion is not possible with someone such as yourself.

Scarlett O. said:

Just stepping in to inform you that using a person's real first and last name when they have registered here under a pseudonym is not acceptable.

Also, are you aware that the SBC missions organization estimate that approximately 158,000 people across the world GO TO HELL every single day. Not per year, week, or month. PER DAY.

I pray for the "158,000" when they come to my mind. Which is often.

What do you do for the case of the lost?

This King James Only hate filled DIATRIBE bores me to tears. I like the King James. It's what I was raised on. When I was saved, the pastor was preaching from it. But it's not the only Bible I use. I use a variety.

Your conversation with people bashing and outing them because they don't agree with you is also unacceptable.

I will come out of moderation to take care of this if it continues. Not a threat, just a plead to behave and obey Christ's words to "love one another as I loved you."

Click to expand...

Hi Scarlett. I looked at the listed topic and it is Bible Versions and Translations. That IS the topic, right?

And my name is there when I registered and many others here use a screen name as well as I do. I have no shame simply saying my name is Will Kinney, I am a redeemed by the blood of the Lamb Christians and a King James Bible believer.

If you are bored to tears with the KJB discussion, then don't pay it any attention.

Most Christians today simply do not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and 100% true words of Gods. If you do not believe many other parts of your "bible of choice" are true or accurate, then why would you think the gospel parts are true? At what point does God start to tell us the truth?

Do you think that all "bibles" teach the same doctrines? That is a common mantra of the Bible agnostic crowd. But it is not true. And I can prove it. I have found about 40 examples of false doctrines in the modern versions and most of them are not textual but are translational.


Fake Bible Versions DO teach false doctrines - Links to some 40 examples -

Another King James Bible Believer


Fake Bible Versions DO teach and pervert several biblical doctrines of theology, and the infallibility of the Bible (any bible in any language) is a huge doctrine that most Christians do not believe anymore.

For ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God. Jeremiah 23:36


But what usually happens is that a moderator who happens to be another bible agnostic with NO inerrant Bible in any language they can show us and they like being their own authority gets upset as seeing the KJB defended as God's complete and inerrant Bible they just go ahead and block me or kick me out of their forum.

They act like Liberal Democrats.

Silverhair said:

Well since we do not have the autographs we can be quite sure that while we are very close we will never be able to say that what we have is perfect.

But what we can know for sure is that your KJV is not perfect even though you will still make the silly claim it is the only inerrant one.

Polite discussion is not possible with someone such as yourself.

Click to expand...

Two things. First, usually when someone tells me we are very close to the autographs, what they usually mean is that they have set aside the vast Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts and the Traditional Reformation bible text as found in the King James Bible and they have embraced the Vatican supervised, ever changing Critical text which is based primarily on two very corrupt manuscripts that not only differ from the Majority but they differ from each other some 3000 times just in the gospels, and most of you don't even know what they are really like.

Undeniable Documented Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, LSB, Holman Standard, NET, modern Catholic bibles, Jehovah Witness NWT etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"

Another King James Bible Believer

Undeniable Textual Proof the ESV, NIV, LSB, Holman Standard, NET, NASBs, modern Catholic bibles, Jehovah Witness NWT are the new "Vatican Versions" Part TWO - Textual proof.

Another King James Bible Believer

To see the true nature of these so called “oldest and best manuscripts” upon which most modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, LSB, Holman, the Jehovah Witness NWT and the modern Catholic versions are based, see my article here -

The true character of the so called "Oldest and Best Manuscripts" Part One - Matthew thru Luke.
Another King James Bible Believer

The True Character of the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts Part Two - John to Revelation.

Another King James Bible Believer


Second thing. Since you deny the inerrancy of the KJB how about you give me your Number One example of a provable error found in the KJB and we can take a look at it to see if you are right or not, OK? Not the usual laundry list you got from the internet, but just your # 1 best example.

Thanks.