KJV Debate: Kinney and Gastrich

By Will Kinney

Round 1

Is the King James Bible the only inspired, inerrant word of God?

A formal debate between Jason Gastrich and Will Kinney.

Greetings to all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, who loved us and gave Himself for us. I want to thank Jason and the other members of Baptist Board for allowing this debate about the Bible versions to take place.

May God be pleased to open our understanding and allow us to see the wondrous things found in His Book.


Jason's site: http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/BBV.htm

Quote from Jason's site:

"God's Word is inerrant in it's original form. This means that the copies of manuscripts and the English translations cannot be as accurate or perfect as the original texts."


Jason, it seems you have a lot of fans at this particular Baptist Board who are rooting for you to demolish any arguments I might present showing the King James Bible is the inerrant and complete words of God. I wonder if they are aware that you personally seem to be in opposition to their own preferred modern versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, and Holman Christian Standard.

Your site criticizes such versions as the NIV, NASB, RSV, Message, etc. for omitting many whole verses including 1 John 5:7 (the Three heavenly witnesses Who are One), Acts 8:37, Matthew 18:11 etc.; changing Lucifer to Morning Star, changing Son to Servant, and "God was manifest in the flesh" to "He appeared in a body".

You conclude your study about the modern versions with these statements: "The real reason for the flood of new versions is money...So much for an unchanging final authority.

Prov 30:5-6 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (KJV)

Rev 22:18-19 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (KJV)

Perhaps some of the publishers and translators of modern versions have no fear of God. One day, they are going to find out that He meant what He said in the above verses."


Jason, there is a good chance that maybe nine-tenths of your fan club here will take offence at your textual position which severely criticizes their own favorite versions for omitting thousands of God's words, changing sound doctrine, and perverting the truth of God; but then again, they may lay aside their "minor differences" and unite in spirit with anyone who would at least attempt to pick holes in the King James Bible and prove that no Bible on this earth is perfect and without error.

You close your article with this statement: "God's Word is inerrant in it's original form. This means that the copies of manuscripts and the English translations cannot be as accurate or perfect as the original texts.

You also came on Tom Lamb's Without the Camp Christian board (http://p209.ezboard.com/fwithoutthecamp19095frm9.showMessageRange?topicID=60.topic&start=1&stop=20) and stated " I conclude that the Bible is a book without error."

When you say the Bible IS A BOOK without error, what exactly are you referring to? A book is a long printed work on sheets of paper bound together within covers. Do you have such a Book that you can actually hold in your hands, read, memorize, and believe every word that is written therein? It is my contention that you do not have such a book at all.

I then asked you about a couple of alleged errors found in all Hebrew manuscripts and in the King James Bible. #1 How would you explain the age difference of Ahaziah in 2 Chron. 22:2 (42 years old) vs. 2 Kings 8:26 (22 years old)

And #2 the age difference of Jehoiachin in 2 Chron.36:9 (8 years old) versus 2 Kings 24:8 (18 years old).

To which you replied: "The translations that indicate he was 42 are incorrect. Only the original manuscripts and modern translations that indicate he was 22 are correct. Therefore, we can either call this a copyist error or an error in some of the modern translations (and even some of the ancient ones). Fortunately, some translations and manuscripts have gotten this number correct."

Jason, instead of labeling everything you do not understand as a "scribal error", I suggest that God made no mistakes and He has preserved His perfect words in the Hebrew texts and in the King James Bible. I believe God has laid several stumbling blocks in His inerrant words to test our faith and sift out those who would tamper with His words. There are reasonable explanations for both these apparent contradictions and many others that appear in the true Scriptures. But rather than being willing to believe the Book and ask God for understanding, it seems the multiple-choice modern versionists prefer to relegate everthing they don't understand to "scribal errors" and correct the Bible according to their own understanding - and none of them agrees with the others - and thus we have today's Bible Babel.

Jason, you refer to "the original manuscripts that indicate he was 22 are correct". Are you aware that there are no "original manuscripts", and there are no Hebrew copies that say 22? Did you just make this stuff up out of thin air? You don't believe any English Bible is inerrant; you don't believe any Hebrew texts are inerrant, and you are in disagreement with the Greek texts upon which most modern bible versions are based. So, could you please tell us exactly where we all can find this "final authority" you mentioned and this "Book that is without error"? Give it a specific name, so we can all go out and buy a copy for ourselves. Please, don't just keep it to yourself.

The truth of the matter is that you do not really have such an inerrant, complete, infallible, preserved and inspired Bible anywhere on this earth. Your final authority is a mystical, hypothetical, ever-changing and peculiar product of your own individual imagination, isn't it?


Since this debate is about the inerrancy of the King James Bible, I will state what my position is on the Holy Bible - also known as the King James Version.

The Bible believer first looks to God and His word to determine what the Book says about itself.

The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a
furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name
for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his
truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of
his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words
which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out
of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith
the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto
you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

God has promised to preserve His wordS here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.

I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:

#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. (Romans 3:2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.


#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.

#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English version that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.

"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5

#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.

"GOD was manifes in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16.


#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8


"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

I await your response to my opening thoughts.

In and by His grace alone,

Will Kinney

By Jason Gastrich

Round 1

Dear Baptist Board Members, Readers, and Will,

I hope you’re well, today.

As you read this debate, please keep in mind the resolution. The resolution of this debate is “The King James Version Bible is inerrant.” Will is trying to support the affirmative and I will be supporting the negative.

First, I will explain to you the reason for this debate and my position regarding inerrancy. Next, I will answer Will’s questions and assertions from his first round post. Lastly, I will show some errors in the KJV that I will expect Will to answer.

Introduction

After extensively studying the alleged errors in the Bible, I have come to several conclusions. Incidentally, much of my research was performed as I wrote a full rebuttal to The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible and revealed how God’s Word is inerrant. I found answers to every alleged Bible error. However, in my rebuttal, I couldn’t fully rely on the KJV. I had to look to the Hebrew, Greek, and even some other ancient manuscripts for the inerrant truth of God.

Lately, I have met some KJV-onlyists. The devout ones that tenaciously adhere to this doctrine resemble cult members. They will even claim that people who do not believe the KJV is inerrant and call themselves Christians really aren’t Christians at all. In my recent experience with them, they also mocked me, teased me, and called me a “Bible Corrector.” Instead of engaging them on their ezboard where they threatened to ban me if I didn’t repent, I decided to challenge a couple of them to a formal, one on one debate in a neutral venue. The owner of the ezboard banned me and blocked my emails to him. However, Will accepted my offer, so this is why we are here debating.

I’m not debating to show the weaknesses of the scriptures. I’m not posting messages to show the errancy of the Bible. I’m here debating Will because I know that the original autographs were inerrant, but the KJV is not. We know that the original autographs are inerrant by the ancient manuscripts that we possess, today. I affirm that we could compose an inerrant Bible with the lot of inerrant manuscripts that we have, but the KJV has some minor errors and problems.

Lastly, I do like the KJV. I think it is a fantastic translation. I use it often. However, to say it is inerrant is simply either naive or worse. In my studies, I’ve found a handful of problems in the KJV that could not be reconciled. If Will can explain them, then perhaps he can convince all of us that the KJV is inerrant. I’m looking forward to his explanations for the errors that I present him.

Answers to Will


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason, there is a good chance that maybe nine-tenths of your fan club here will take offence at your textual position which severely criticizes their own favorite versions for omitting thousands of God's words, changing sound doctrine, and perverting the truth of God; but then again, they may lay aside their "minor differences" and unite in spirit with anyone who would at least attempt to pick holes in the King James Bible and prove that no Bible on this earth is perfect and without error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The people who posted in this thread are people I barely know or people I don’t know at all. I surely wouldn’t call them my fan club. I’m sure they are fans of the truth, though.

Saying I believe that no Bible on earth is perfect and without error is disingenuous. Stick to the resolution of the debate. This is a straw man argument. The debate is about the KJV Bible and whether or not you can prove its inerrancy.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you say the Bible IS A BOOK without error, what exactly are you referring to? A book is a long printed work on sheets of paper bound together within covers. Do you have such a Book that you can actually hold in your hands, read, memorize, and believe every word that is written therein? It is my contention that you do not have such a book at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I say the Bible is a book without error, I’m referring to the original autographs. I’m also referring to the manuscripts that reveal the autograph’s inerrancy. Furthermore, you can take an English translation like the KJV and NKJV and use it effectively, while going back to the manuscripts to correct the handful of errors and problems.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I then asked you about a couple of alleged errors found in all Hebrew manuscripts and in the King James Bible. #1 How would you explain the age difference of Ahaziah in 2 Chron. 22:2 (42 years old) vs. 2 Kings 8:26 (22 years old)

And #2 the age difference of Jehoiachin in 2 Chron.36:9 (8 years old) versus 2 Kings 24:8 (18 years old).

To which you replied: "The translations that indicate he was 42 are incorrect. Only the original manuscripts and modern translations that indicate he was 22 are correct. Therefore, we can either call this a copyist error or an error in some of the modern translations (and even some of the ancient ones). Fortunately, some translations and manuscripts have gotten this number correct."

Jason, instead of labeling everything you do not understand as a "scribal error", I suggest that God made no mistakes and He has preserved His perfect words in the Hebrew texts and in the King James Bible. I believe God has laid several stumbling blocks in His inerrant words to test our faith and sift out those who would tamper with His words. There are reasonable explanations for both these apparent contradictions and many others that appear in the true Scriptures. But rather than being willing to believe the Book and ask God for understanding, it seems the multiple-choice modern versionists prefer to relegate everthing they don't understand to "scribal errors" and correct the Bible according to their own understanding - and none of them agrees with the others - and thus we have today's Bible Babel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everything, everything? You used that word twice to characterize my entire process of exegesis and my understanding of the Bible. If you know me or the way I wrote my rebuttal to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, then you’ll know that I do not label ANYTHING as a scribal error. In fact, this is one of the major things that sets apart my work from the online work of J.P. Holding and his explanations for alleged Bible errors. I like J.P. and we are friends, but I have told him that he jumped to the conclusion of scribal errors when there were other answers.

In truth, this isn’t a scribal error because we have the truth in certain manuscripts. Those manuscripts give us the correct number! How can their be a scribal error when there isn’t any error at all? The only way you would have to call this a scribal error (or call it a different kind of error if you wish) is if you choose to believe the KJV is inerrant.

Since you do believe the KJV is inerrant, then how do we account for this KJV error? You scold me for my research and revelation regarding this subject, but you do not offer any other solutions. Remember, this isn’t a big issue for me because I do not claim the KJV is inerrant. I claim the original autographs are inerrant, evidenced by the manuscripts we have today.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason, you refer to "the original manuscripts that indicate he was 22 are correct". Are you aware that there are no "original manuscripts", and there are no Hebrew copies that say 22? Did you just make this stuff up out of thin air? You don't believe any English Bible is inerrant; you don't believe any Hebrew texts are inerrant, and you are in disagreement with the Greek texts upon which most modern bible versions are based. So, could you please tell us exactly where we all can find this "final authority" you mentioned and this "Book that is without error"? Give it a specific name, so we can all go out and buy a copy for ourselves. Please, don't just keep it to yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You finished this paragraph in a condescending manner. Unfortunately, this has been my experience with every KJV-onlyist. Why do KJV-onlyists always feel the need to belittle Christians that don’t believe like them? Furthermore, how could a KJV-onlyist even begin to mock a Christian like me when they can’t even give an answer to this question?! Perhaps you should spend more time trying to show how the KJV is inerrant. So far, you haven’t addressed the resolution of the debate, so you are failing in your task of proving the KJV is inerrant.

Concerning the issue of 22 years of age, there are Greek Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac manuscripts that give the correct number. It is safe to conclude that at least these parts of manuscripts were taken from either the original autographs or (at least) an inerrant section of an early manuscript that had the truth in it.

Concerning the issue of 8 years old vs. 18 years old, one Hebrew manuscripts, some Septuagint manuscripts, and the Syriac all get the number right. The KJV translation did get it wrong though. How can you still call the KJV inerant?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth of the matter is that you do not really have such an inerrant, complete, infallible, preserved and inspired Bible anywhere on this earth. Your final authority is a mystical, hypothetical, ever-changing and peculiar product of your own individual imagination, isn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the contrary, I’ve already shown you the inerrancy of the scriptures. You have not explained how the KJV could be inerrant, though. You are the one without an inerrant Bible because you believe and errant translation is inerrant without any proof.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God has promised to preserve His wordS here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are arguing for biblical inerrancy with the scriptures you provided, then you are preaching to the converted. If you are saying that those verses apply to the KJV, then you have some explaining to do. You’ll also need to explain a few other things like:

1) Do those scriptures apply to all translations?

2) Do those scriptures regarding inerrancy apply to all English translations?

In short, you have yet to explain where or how the Bible says only the KJV is inerrant.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:

#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. (Romans 3:2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You rightly call it a belief. You have yet to prove your belief. Your #1 is your premise and your #2 is your assumption. If you want to prove your premise, you’ll need to support it. Why not support it by explaining the alleged errors in the KJV? You had every opportunity to do it in your first round post. If you ignore or evade the questions that I pose to you regarding errors in the KJV, I will repost them because you need to prove the KJV’s inerrancy to us.

Incidentally, your premise is just as flawed as your assumption. Do you have a copy of an original Hebrew Old Testament? Can you prove that the Septuagint and Syriac manuscripts weren’t taken directly from inerrant Hebrew manuscripts?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may sound nice to KJV-onlyists, but you have no evidence that any of this is true. The Koran has influenced billions of people. Are you saying the because the KJV influenced lots of people it must be the only inerrant Bible? If influence is the litmus test for accuracy and truth, then the Koran must be true as well. Incidentally, the Koran is not true and it is riddled with problems and errors.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English version that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, you are drifting far from the resolution of the debate. You aren’t even addressing my position regarding the inerrant scriptures. You are simply professing your faith in the KJV. Don’t forget that this isn’t a debate between the KJV and modern translations. You are trying to prove the resolution of this debate. You are trying to prove the KJV is inerrant.

My Questions to Will

In my studies, I found a handful of minor errors in the KJV. I’d like you to clarify them and tell us why we should believe the KJV is inerrant.

1. In the KJV, Luke 14:26 reads, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”

As a KJV-onlyist, you would need to hate your family. Right? Of course, I have an answer to this and it comes from the Greek. The word translated “hate” in the KJV is the Greek word “miseo” which means “love less.” See http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRGRK34.htm#S3404 . However, as a KJV-onlyist, you do not have the luxury in looking to the original languages, so how do you say this is inerrant?

2. Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead? The KJV says he was. However, I distinctly remember an Old Testament resurrection.

1 Kings 17:22 reads, "Then the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came back to him, and he revived."

In the KJV, Acts 26:23 reads, “That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.”

How do you reconcile this KJV error? I reconcile it like this: the Greek word “protos” was translated into the English word “first.” It means “foremost in importance.” See http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRGRK44.htm#S4413 .

3. Will the Earth really last forever? The KJV says it will.

Ecclesiastes 1:4 reads, “One generation passes away, and another generation comes; But the earth abides forever.”

We read about the true fate of the Earth in the New Testament. 2 Peter 3:10 reads, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”

How do you reconcile this KJV contradiction with the KJV? I found the answer in the Hebrew. The Hebrew word “olam” was translated “forever” and it actually means “the vanishing point is concealed.” Link: http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB57.htm#S5769 .

I have many more errors in the KJV and I have many more answers as well. I’m going to stop with those three and the ones from your post. I’ll be waiting for your reply.

Lastly, I got these answers from the CD-ROM called The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained - http://skepticsannotatedbible.org . I thought it would be appropriate to cite my source; even though I did the research and wrote the book.

I think you’re beginning to see that it is silly to deem the KJV inerrant. The Greek and Hebrew autographs were inerrant. Yes. However, there are simply some small errors and problems in the KJV.

May God richly bless you.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

By Will Kinney

JASON'S FIRST ROUND


Greetings saints and sinners, Bible believers and members of the Baptist Board community, and brother Jason,

Again, I want to thank you all for allowing us to publicly debate the Bible version issue here and I welcome the opportunity to defend the inerrant, preserved, inspired words of God as found in all their completeness and purity only in the King James Bible.

I will try to address the issues as brother Jason brings them up.

Jason>>>"Lately, I have met some KJV-onlyists. The devout ones that tenaciously adhere to this doctrine resemble cult members. They will even claim that people who do not believe the KJV is inerrant and call themselves Christians really aren’t Christians at all. In my recent experience with them, they also mocked me, teased me, and called me a “Bible Corrector.”


Jason, if it is only "lately" that you have met some of us who actually believe the King James Bible is the only pure words of God, I can only assume you have just recently gotten into the Bible version issue. You undoubtedly will have the opportunity to meet a lot more of us in the future.

I'm sorry to hear that you consider the Christian who actually believes we can hold in our hands a real Book printed on pages of paper and ink that is now the inerrant, preserved words of God to "resemble cult members". It appears that your view which promotes the idea that only the non-existent originals were at one time inspired and inerrant, but today we are left with a multitude of uninspired, mixed with error, multiple-choice, conflicting, "reliable" approximations of what God may or may not have said, is now, by implication, "the orthodox view".

As for those who claim that people who do not believe the KJV is inerrant are not really Christians at all, I personally know of no one who is a King James Bible believer who thinks this way. There may be a handful of them out there, but the vast majority that I know of do not hold this view. I certainly do not. The gospel of Jesus Christ is found in any version, no matter how poorly translated, and God can and does use them to bring His people to a saving faith in Christ. I do not dispute this.

However, I did and still do call you a Bible corrector and a fraud as far as the Bible version issue is concerned. I do not retract these statements in the least and hope to show that my evaluation of your present position in these matters is accurate.

The only final authority you have and present as "the book without errors" exists solely in your own fertile imagination. It is a mystical, non-existent, potential but not yet realized product of your own peculiar understanding.

The only thing some members of Without The Camp told you to repent of was your bogus and inconsistent stand on the Bible. On the one hand you said: "the Bible is a book without error". Then when we asked you where this Bible you speak of can be found, you said: "I'm referring to the original autographs."

Then you said: "I do not know where the original autographs are located...If we have enough inerrant manuscripts to compile an inerrant Bible, then who is to say that the original autographs were not inerrant? One could conclude that they were."

Jason, it is simply mind boggling to me and many others that you speak of a Book that IS, and yet when pressed to identify it for us, you go into all this tap dancing routine to explain that it once WAS, but you don't know where it IS now, but we can maybe piece it together today "IF we have enough inerrant manuscripts", but no one has done so yet to your personal satisfaction.

You now say: "I’m here debating Will because I know that the original autographs were inerrant, but the KJV is not."

Jason, how do you KNOW the original autographs were inerrant, when you have never seen them, you admit you do not know where they are, and you claim the Hebrew copies have been corrupted?

You are asking us to place our faith in something that does not exist now, and never did exist in a single Book, or you are asking us to place our faith in you to sort out the whole textual mess for us. Of course, your findings and conclusions will differ from those of everyone else who attempts to do the same thing, as it witnessed by today's conflicting, multiple-choice versions.

On the other hand, the King James Bible believer encourages people to place their faith in a tangible Book we can hold in our hands that God in His providence has been pleased to give us, and we don't need anyone else, no matter how many impressive letters they have attached to their name, to "correct or revise" it for us.

Jason>>>"We know that the original autographs are inerrant by the ancient manuscripts that we possess, today. I affirm that we could compose an inerrant Bible with the lot of inerrant manuscripts that we have"

Dear Jason, there you go again with that little word "are" as though it were something that really exits. If "We know that the original autographs ARE inerrant by the ancient manuscripts that we possess", then why is there so much confusion about WHICH of these ancient manuscripts has the correct reading?

You personally do not believe the Hebrew texts are always correct. Your niv, nasb, esv, Holman CSB etc. are all filled with conflicting readings and footnotes telling us that One Hebrew mss. reads...., the Syriac, LXX, Vulgate read...., the Hebrew is obscure..., the text has been corrected to read..., the Samaritan Pentateuch has..."

And by the way, Jason, who is this "WE" you are talking about? Apparently it is not the translators of the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NKJV, because they all disagree with each other about many readings, numbers, names, and meanings found in these ancient manuscripts. Don't you really mean "I", me, yours truly, DR. Jason Gastrich?


Jason>>>"Saying I believe that no Bible on earth is perfect and without error is disingenuous. Stick to the resolution of the debate. This is a straw man argument. The debate is about the KJV Bible and whether or not you can prove its inerrancy."

Jason, the word "disingenuous" means: lacking in frankness, candor or sincerity; insincere. I think you used the wrong word here. I am being quite frank, candid and sincere when I say that you openly admit that you don't believe any English translation or any Bible on this earth is perfect and without error. That is exactly what you believe. It is not a straw man argument. It is central to this discussion. You sit in judgment on the authority and truth of the King James Bible, and yet the basis and standard by which you criticize it is nothing more than empty air and your own idiosyncratic fantasies.


Jason, you really ought to pay more attention to what you yourself state. You seem to have a slight problem in the area of self contradiction. We noticed this before when you posted your "terms", remember? Well, here we go again.

You now say: "If you know me or the way I wrote my rebuttal to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, then you’ll know that I do not label ANYTHING as a scribal error. In fact, this is one of the major things that sets apart my work from the online work of J.P. Holding and his explanations for alleged Bible errors. I like J.P. and we are friends, but I have told him that he jumped to the conclusion of scribal errors when there were other answers."

"I DO NOT LABEL ANYTHING AS A SCRIBAL ERROR"

Uh, Jason. You might want to go back just a paragraph or two and look again at the answer you previously gave me. Here it is again to help refresh your memory.

I then asked you about a couple of alleged errors found in all Hebrew manuscripts and in the King James Bible. #1 How would you explain the age difference of Ahaziah in 2 Chron. 22:2 - 42 years old vs. 2 Kings 8:26 - 22 years old
And #2 the age difference of Jehoiachin in 2 Chron.36:9 -8 years old versus 2 Kings 24:8 - 18 years old.

To which you replied: "The translations that indicate he was 42 are incorrect. Only the original manuscripts and modern translations that indicate he was 22 are correct. Therefore, WE CAN either CALL THIS A COPYIST ERROR or an error in some of the modern translations and even some of the ancient ones. Fortunately, some translations and manuscripts have gotten this number correct."

So, Jason, did you or did you not call those two examples a "copyist error"?


Jason>>>>"Since you do believe the KJV is inerrant, then how do we account for this KJV error? You scold me for my research and revelation regarding this subject, but you do not offer any other solutions."

As for these two examples I mentioned of the differing accounts of the ages of these two kings, I have addressed these two examples (of which there are many more we may look at).

For those who are interested, you can see that there certainly is no consensus or agreement among the various scholars who translate the Bible, but there are reasonable explanations that can be given to solve these apparent and not real contradictions, if we believe God's word and don't try to correct it with other conflicting sources like the Syriac, Vulgage or Septuagint - none of which are always followed or agree with each other, let alone with the Hebrew text.

The age of Ahaziah, 22 or 42, or both?

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html

The age of Jehoiachin - 8 or 18?

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/8or18.html


Jason>>>"You’ll also need to explain a few other things like:
1. Do those scriptures apply to all translations?


Will K>>>No. Many bibles got it right, but only the King James Bible is ALWAYS right.


2. Do those scriptures regarding inerrancy apply to all English translations?

Will K>>>No. See answer above.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:
#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. Romans 3:2 The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18
#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason>>>You rightly call it a belief. You have yet to prove your belief. Your #1 is your premise and your #2 is your assumption. If you want to prove your premise, you’ll need to support it. Why not support it by explaining the alleged errors in the KJV?

Jason, the premise is that the KJB is based solely on the Hebrew texts, whereas the NASB, NIV, ESV, HOLMAN frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The premise is supported by the Bible itself and I already gave you the Biblical reference. Sorry you missed it. Romans 3:2 "What advantage then hath the Jew?...Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

You might also try Psalms 147:19-20 "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

See, Jason, I actually believe what the Book says about itself. Now, if you can just show us all where in the Bible your premise and assumption that the Hebrew texts would become corrupted with "scribal errors", and that God would fail to preserve His words in any single Book, but rather they would be scattered hither and yon in various conflicting Greek, Syriac, Samaritan, Vulgate, and one or two Hebrew manuscripts, then please produce a verse or two supporting your thesis. Thank you very much.

As for the alleged errors in the King James Bible, I will gladly address them as you bring them to our attention. I see you have produced three dubious gems in the remainder of your first round post, and I will get to them momentarily.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason>>>This may sound nice to KJV-onlyists, but you have no evidence that any of this is true.<<<


Jason, the evidence is plain to see from what has happened in history.


Jason>>>The Koran has influenced billions of people. Are you saying the because the KJV influenced lots of people it must be the only inerrant Bible? If influence is the litmus test for accuracy and truth, then the Koran must be true as well. Incidentally, the Koran is not true and it is riddled with problems and errors.<<<


Jason, here at least you seem to tacitly admit the great influence the KJB has had on history and multitudes of people, which you seemed to call into doubt in the previous sentence clamoring for "evidence".

We are talking about is the Holy Bible here. That is the topic, isn't it, and not the Koran? We are talking about the inspired and preserved words of the one true God, if they exist on this earth and where they can be found today. It seems to me you tried to slip in a little apple to apricots comparison there for a minute. Please don't go off on a lengthly tangent about this - it is not that important a point.

Now, we finally get to your incipient list of alleged errors.

My Questions to Will

In my studies, I found a handful of minor errors in the KJV. I’d like you to clarify them and tell us why we should believe the KJV is inerrant.

1. In the KJV, Luke 14:26 reads, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
As a KJV-onlyist, you would need to hate your family. Right? Of course, I have an answer to this and it comes from the Greek. The word translated “hate” in the KJV is the Greek word “miseo” which means “love less.” However, as a KJV-onlyist, you do not have the luxury in looking to the original languages, so how do you say this is inerrant?


#1. Well, Jason, not only does the King James Bible say "and HATE not his father, and mother"...etc. but so also do the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, and Holman versions.

In fact, none of these versions have translated the word as "love less". Where on this earth is the Bible you are referring to that does so? Is it that mystical one that exists in your own mind again? Where are the "ancient manuscripts" that correct what all Greek texts and English versions say here, Jason?

It is one thing to interpret a passage and say that Christ is referring to a love so strong for Him that any other would be considered as "hate", and quite another to change the inspired text of what Christ actually said and make our particular interpretation the only acceptable meaning and put it in the Bible as the correct TEXT, and then accuse the Bible itself of being in error. Your first "error" shows a lot of chutzpa, even for a Bible corrector.


2. Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead? The KJV says he was. However, I distinctly remember an Old Testament resurrection.
1 Kings 17:22 reads, "Then the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came back to him, and he revived."
In the KJV, Acts 26:23 reads, “That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.”
How do you reconcile this KJV error? I reconcile it like this: the Greek word “protos” was translated into the English word “first.” It means “foremost in importance.”

#2 Jason, this is really getting silly. I expected a bit more from a guy like you. Again, not only does the KJB correctly say that Christ should be the first to rise from the dead, but so also do the NIV, NKJV, Holman, ESV, and RSV. Only the Nasb screws this verse up badly by saying: "he Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles." - which also is an error. Christ certainly was not the first to proclaim light or truth to the Jews and Gentiles.

Your interpretation is again very faulty. Christ was the first to rise from the dead IN A RESURRECTED BODY. Get it? Again, I don't know of any Bible version that translates this verse in the way you have suggested - "that He should be the foremost in importance that should rise from the dead." Maybe you should just go ahead and write your own bible version and see how it sells. Whad' ya think, Jason? It might be a bestseller, what with the great hunger there is today for innovation and quirkiness.


3. Will the Earth really last forever? The KJV says it will.
Ecclesiastes 1:4 reads, “One generation passes away, and another generation comes; But the earth abides forever.”
We read about the true fate of the Earth in the New Testament. 2 Peter 3:10 reads, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”
How do you reconcile this KJV contradiction with the KJV? I found the answer in the Hebrew. The Hebrew word “olam” was translated “forever” and it actually means “the vanishing point is concealed.”

#3 Again, Jason, a little logic and common sense might go a long way in solving your alleged contradiction. Not only does the KJB translate the verse this way but so also do the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman, etc. I don't know of any version that says: "but the earth abides the vanishing point is concealed", but I have to admit, it has a nice ring to it and makes a whole lot of sense

Jason, the earth will abide forever. It will be remade and rennovated and will remain forever. Just like me and every other person redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. Our bodies will die, decay and rot away in the grave, but God will raise us up and we shall remain forever. Is it the same me? Yes, just in a different and better form.


Jason>>>I have many more errors in the KJV and I have many more answers as well. I’m going to stop with those three and the ones from your post. I’ll be waiting for your reply.

Jason, I can hardly wait to see what you come up with next. Are you actually going to post this stuff on your site and allow all 25,000 of your email recipients to see how you are faring so far? I hope you do, but I personally would be embarrassed.

Can't wait for your next round.

Purchased by His precious blood,

Will Kinney

By Jason Gastrich

There is a part A, part B, and part C to this reply. This is part A. Part B will be in the subsequent post, with part C immediately following. This was done because of limitations in the amount of allowed html in each thread.

PART A

Dear Readers,

I pray that you are well, today.

Thank you for following the debate between me and Will. I hope that you are encouraged and blessed.

Please keep in mind a few things. First, Will claims to be a Christian, therefore his words should resemble a Christian's words. Despite our
differences, he should be "speaking the truth in love." I've done my best to do this, to show Will respect, and to attack the topic; not the person. I encourage Will to begin doing this.

Next, keep in mind the resolution of the debate. Here it is: The KJV is inerrant. When you read Will's arguments and my arguments, ask yourself, "Is this leading me to believe the KJV is errant or inerrant?" Keep in mind
that rejecting the inerrancy of the KJV is NOT rejecting the inerrancy of the scriptures.

Some people have labeled the belief that the KJV is the only inerrant translation as "single-translation-onlyism." Unfortunately, the achilles
heel of this doctrine is the fact that it exalts the English KJV while lowering the significance and importance of the manuscripts that were
translated into the KJV! To a rational and freethinking Christian, it is absurd to suggest that this English translation is more authoritative and accurate than the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Lastly, if you wish to comment on the debate, please do! We have created a
thread for comments and it is here:
CLICK THIS LINK

Without further adieu, here is my Round 2 post to Will.

Round 2
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for those who claim that people who do not believe the KJV is inerrant are not really Christians at all, I personally know of no one who is a King James Bible believer who thinks this way. There may be a handful of them out there, but the vast majority that I know of do not hold this view. I certainly do not. The gospel of Jesus Christ is found in any version, no matter how poorly translated, and God can and does use them to bring His people to a saving faith in Christ. I do not dispute this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: This web page: click - (middle of this page under King
James Onlyism)

King James Only_ism

An aberrant teaching that considers the King James Version _ specifically the '1611 Authorized Version' _ to be the only legitimate English_language Bible version.

KJV_onlyists who go so far as to insist that people who do not use the King James Version are not saved, are heretics (in that they violate the Biblical doctrine of salvation by adding conditions not taught in Scripture).

_ Articles _

The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.

So, is there a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I believe there is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern
translations. Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to elevate an anti_intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem
antiquated and difficult to understand. ... It takes little thought to see who is behind such a conspiracy.

-

There is an extended entry on KJV-Onlyism on the Apologetics Index site. If any of you have used AI, then you know that it is a fantastic resource
because it uses documented information instead of third hand information. If you wish to research this heretical movement, please go to the link I gave above.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I did and still do call you a Bible corrector and a fraud as far as the Bible version issue is concerned. I do not retract these
statements in the least and hope to show that my evaluation of your present position in these matters is accurate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coming from a KJV-Onlyist, I'll take this as a compliment.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only
final authority you have and present as "the book without errors" exists solely in your own fertile imagination. It is a mystical, non-existent,
potential but not yet realized product of your own peculiarunderstanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, are you saying that there must be a single inerrant Bible in every language? You shied away from this question last time. You claim the KJV
must be inerrant because God would preserve His Word. Well, wouldn't there have to be inerrant Bibles in all languages? Why just English? Of course, this is no problem for me. I understand that the original autographs were inerrant. Saying a translation into another language is inerrant is a laughable claim to a scholar. People know that the words don't translate
perfectly into other languages. As we see below, you have to resort to adding words and hand waving to make the KJV inerrant. Quite telling.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing some members of Without The Camp told you to repent of was your bogus and inconsistent stand on the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aren't these KJV-Onlyists sweet and loving? I'm sure many people reading are ready to run out and be one, now.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the one hand you said: "the Bible is a book without error". Then when we asked you where this Bible you speak of can be found, you said: "I'm referring to the original autographs." Then you said: "I do not know where the original autographs are located...If we have enough inerrant manuscripts to compile an inerrant Bible, then who is to say that the original
autographs were not inerrant? One could conclude that they were." Jason, it is simply mind boggling to me and many others that you speak of a Book that IS, and yet when pressed to identify it for us, you go into all this tap dancing routine to explain that it once WAS, but you don't know where it IS now, but we can maybe piece it together today "IF we have enough inerrant manuscripts", but no one has done so yet to your personal satisfaction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's called scholarship; not tap dancing. Once again, your derogatory and condescending attitude (which does resemble the cultists) is noted.

Try and describe the trinity for us. Would you like it if I called you a tap dancer if you couldn't describe the trinity in one sentence? This is what you are doing to me for explaining biblical inerrancy.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You now say:
"I''m here debating Will because I know that the original autographs were inerrant, but the KJV is not." Jason, how do you KNOW the original
autographs were inerrant, when you have never seen them, you admit you do not know where they are, and you claim the Hebrew copies have been
corrupted?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I already answered this. You even quoted me! Read up a few paragraphs.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are asking us to place our faith in something that does not exist now, and never did exist in a single Book, or you are asking us to place our faith in you to sort out the whole textual mess for us. Of course, your findings and conclusions will differ from those of everyone else who attempts to do the same thing, as it witnessed by today's conflicting, multiple-choice versions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing is for sure. The KJV is not worthy of the claim of inerrancy. This is evidenced below and it will be painfully obvious to any reader by the end of this debate.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, the King James Bible believer encourages people to place their faith in a tangible Book we can hold in our hands that God in His providence has been pleased to give us, and we don't need anyone else, no matter how many impressive letters they have attached
to their name, to "correct or revise" it for us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Too bad the English couldn't reproduce exactly what the Greek and Hebrew said and meant. If it could, then maybe you'd have a case. However, as we see below by your poor answers to my questions regarding inerrancy, we see that the KJV is in error.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason>>>"We know that the original
autographs are inerrant by the ancient manuscripts that we possess, today. I affirm that we could compose an inerrant Bible with the lot of inerrant manuscripts that we have"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the answer to the question you asked above! You quoted me twice, now.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jason, there you go again with that little word "are" as though it were something that really exits. If "We know that the original
autographs ARE inerrant by the ancient manuscripts that we possess", then why is there so much confusion about WHICH of these ancient manuscripts has the correct reading?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There isn't any confusion at all. You are taking part in a certain practice that atheists love. I call it becoming "conveniently confused." They usually become this way when it comes to Bible prophecy and such. It suddenly becomes so darned confusing for them that they just can't figure it out. They won't study and they can't accept an explanation. They call it tap dancing. They say they want one word answers and stuff. Sound familiar?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You personally do not believe the Hebrew texts are always correct. Your niv, nasb, esv, Holman CSB etc. are all filled with conflicting
readings and footnotes telling us that One Hebrew mss. reads...., the Syriac, LXX, Vulgate read...., the Hebrew is obscure..., the text has been corrected to read..., the Samaritan Pentateuch has..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the first time you go on your rabbit trail about other translations. I will delete every rabbit trail below because it is not the issue. You are trying to prove that the KJV is inerrant. Why do I have to keep reminding you about the resolution of the debate? You are not trying to prove that the KJV is better than the handful of other translations that you despise.
Please keep this in mind.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason, you really ought to pay more
attention to what you yourself state. You seem to have a slight problem in the area of self contradiction. We noticed this before when you posted your "terms", remember? Well, here we go again. You now say: "If you know me or the way I wrote my rebuttal to the Skeptic''s Annotated Bible, then you''ll know that I do not label ANYTHING as a scribal error. In fact, this is one
of the major things that sets apart my work from the online work of J.P.
Holding and his explanations for alleged Bible errors. I like J.P. and we are friends, but I have told him that he jumped to the conclusion of scribal errors when there were other answers."I DO NOT LABEL ANYTHING AS A SCRIBAL ERROR" Uh, Jason. You might want to go back just a paragraph or two and look again at the answer you previously gave me. Here it is again to help refresh your memory. I then asked you about a couple of alleged errors found in all Hebrew manuscripts and in the King James Bible.
#1 How would you explain the age difference of Ahaziah in 2 Chron. 22:2 - 42 years old vs. 2 Kings 8:26 - 22 years old
And #2 the age difference of Jehoiachin in 2 Chron.36:9 -8 years old versus 2 Kings 24:8 - 18 years old. To which you replied: "The
translations that indicate he was 42 are incorrect. Only the original manuscripts and modern translations that indicate he was 22 are correct.
Therefore, WE CAN either CALL THIS A COPYIST ERROR or an error in some of the modern translations and even some of the ancient ones. Fortunately, some translations and manuscripts have gotten this number correct." So, Jason,
did you or did you not call those two examples a "copyist error"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No! I call it an ERROR IN SOME OF THE MODERN TRANSLATIONS (E.G. THE KJV).
You're doing what we call selective reading to try and slam me, again. Let's just stick to the resolution that you're trying to prove. Don't forget. You're not just doing damage control and trying to answer my questions. You are also trying to prove that the KJV is the only inerrant Bible on Earth. You should really invest your time wisely because you lose lots of points when
you take the low road and try and attack my character. Just a word to the wise.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason>>>>"Since you do believe the KJV is inerrant, then how do we account for this KJV error? You scold me for my research and revelation
regarding this subject, but you do not offer any other solutions." As for these two examples I mentioned of the differing accounts of the ages of
these two kings, I have addressed these two examples (of which there are many more we may look at). For those who are interested, you can see that there certainly is no consensus or agreement among the various scholars who
translate the Bible, but there are reasonable explanations that can be given to solve these apparent and not real contradictions, if we believe God's word and don't try to correct it with other conflicting sources like the
Syriac, Vulgage or Septuagint - none of which are always followed or agree with each other, let alone with the Hebrew text. The age of Ahaziah, 22 or 42, or both?

- snipped link -

The age of Jehoiachin - 8 or 18?

- snipped link -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You need to make your case. I'm not going to your web pages to read what you have to say. You could have used 1000 more words on your 2nd round post. Why didn't you? In a formal debate, you need to summarize and present your case.
This isn't a link war. If you cannot or will not make your case, then I'll conclude that you do not have one.

PART B immediately follows in the next post.

PART B


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will K: No. Many bibles got it right, but only the King James Bible
is ALWAYS right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you typed the word "bibles" when referring to non-KJV Bibles, were you deliberately trying to show disrespect to them by not capitalizing the word "Bibles"? If so, this is another similarity you have to the atheists. They
love to do this.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You might also try Psalms 147:19-20 "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." See, Jason, I actually believe what the Book says about itself. Now, if you can just show us all where in the Bible your premise and assumption that the Hebrew texts would become corrupted with
"scribal errors", and that God would fail to preserve His words in any single Book, but rather they would be scattered hither and yon in various
conflicting Greek, Syriac, Samaritan, Vulgate, and one or two Hebrew manuscripts, then please produce a verse or two supporting your thesis.
Thank you very much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another common tactic from the cultists: taking a verse that has nothing to do with what they are promoting or believing, yet applying it to their
argument.

Frankly, my premise is that the KJV Bible has errors because it says contradictory and incorrect things. I've already illustrated this, too.
However, I also affirm the Bible's inerrancy because it is revealed in the manuscripts that we have. I snipped your response about the Koran because it was off. You made an appeal to numbers when you gave one of your points regarding the KJV's inerrancy. I think it is clear to all that your claim was a logical fallacy. Claiming that something is inerrant due to its influence is foolish.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Questions to Will In my studies, I found a handful of minor errors in the KJV. I''d like you to clarify them and tell us why we should believe the KJV is inerrant. 1. In the KJV, Luke 14:26 reads, "If any man come to
me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my
disciple."

As a KJV-onlyist, you would need to hate your family. Right? Of course, I have an answer to this and it comes from the Greek. The word translated "hate" in the KJV is the Greek word "miseo" which means "love less." However, as a KJV-onlyist, you do not have the luxury in looking to the original languages, so how do you say this is inerrant?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1.
Well, Jason, not only does the King James Bible say "and HATE not his father, and mother"...etc. but so also do the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, and
Holman versions. In fact, none of these versions have translated the word as "love less".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would have snipped your rant about other translations, as I said above, but it wouldn't have left you with much. I'll leave it this time, so people see the context of your statement.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where on this earth is the Bible you are referring to that does so?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I already answered this question. You even quoted me twice. Read up and see.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it that mystical one that exists in your own mind again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another condescending, non-answer is noted. Is anyone ready to join the KJV-Onlyists, yet? Will sure seems like a lovely representative from their
group.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where are the "ancient manuscripts" that correct what all Greek texts and English versions say here, Jason?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I gave a link to the Strong's concordance. It showed you my answer. I'm still waiting for YOUR answer, though. I think we're all waiting for YOUR
answer.

Since you snipped and forgot my answer, I'll repost it from last round:

As a KJV_onlyist, you would need to hate your family. Right? Of course, I have an answer to this and it comes from the Greek. The word translated "hate" in the KJV is the Greek word "miseo" which means "love less." See THIS LINK However, as
a KJV_onlyist, you do not have the luxury in looking to the original languages, so how do you say this is inerrant?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is one thing to interpret a passage and say that Christ is referring to a love so strong for Him that any other would be considered as
"hate", and quite another to change the inspired text of what Christ actually said and make our particular interpretation the only acceptable
meaning and put it in the Bible as the correct TEXT, and then accuse the Bible itself of being in error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try and avoid run-on sentences. When you use them, people can't understand what in the heck you're trying to say. Let's analyze your
statement, anyway.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is one thing to interpret a passage and say that Christ is referring to a love so strong for Him that any other would be considered as
"hate",
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The KJV commands people to hate their family. The Greek says that people should love their family less than Christ.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and quite another to change the inspired text of what Christ actually said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. We really shouldn't change the inspired text of what Christ actually said. Let me be more specific, though. The KJV translators really
shouldn't have changed the inspired text of what Christ actually said. They should have translated it correctly.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and make our particular interpretation the only acceptable meaning

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is our? Mine? Yours? No idea. Anyhow, I'm saying that the KJV is giving the WRONG meaning and the Greek is giving the RIGHT meaning. Pretty simple.
Why did the KJV change the Greek to give us an incorrect meaning?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and put it in the Bible as the correct TEXT, and then accuse the
Bible itself of being in error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty slick. I know you're used to calling the KJV the "Bible" (capital "B"). However, don't forget that you're trying to prove the KJV is inerrant.
Don't confuse people. I'm not saying the Bible is in error. I'm saying you and the KJV are in error. In fact, I'm not the one saying it because I'm merely affirming what the Greek Bible (you know, the one that came before
the KJV) is saying.

This leads me to another question. What did English speaking people do before the KJV 1611 Bible? Where was this preserved Word of God and where is it, today?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead? The KJV says he was.
However, I distinctly remember an Old Testament resurrection.

1 Kings 17:22 reads, "Then the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came back to him, and he revived."

In the KJV, Acts 26:23 reads, "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

How do you reconcile this KJV error? I reconcile it like this: the Greek word "protos" was translated into the English word "first." It means
"foremost in importance."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2 Jason, this is really getting silly. I expected a bit more from a guy like you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More condescending remarks from the one who supposedly has the one, inerrant Bible.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, not only does the KJB correctly say that Christ should be the first to rise from the dead, but so also do the NIV, NKJV, Holman, ESV, and RSV. Only the Nasb screws this verse up badly by saying: "he Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles." - which also is an error. Christ certainly was not the first to proclaim light or truth to the Jews and Gentiles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What the heck. I've let your last two rabbit trails about the versions stay. I'll let this one stay as well. Just don't forget. You're not trying to prove that the KJV is better than those translations that you hate. You're trying to prove it's inerrant. Please save us all time and avoid translation bashing while you try and present your case.

quote:
-------------------------------------------------Your interpretation is
again very faulty.
-------------------------------------------------

You'd like to think so.

PART C TO FOLLOW IMMEDIATELY

PART C


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ was the first to rise from the dead IN A RESURRECTED BODY. Get
it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I get it. Sure. However, I can read what the scriptures say. They don't say this. The KJV says that Jesus will be the FIRST TO RISE FROM THE DEAD.
And He wasn't.

The GREEK says Jesus will be the FOREMOST IN IMPORTANCE to rise from the dead. And He was.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I don't know of any Bible version that translates this verse
in the way you have suggested
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rabbit trail/red herring.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- "that He should be the foremost in importance that should rise from the dead." Maybe you should just go ahead and write your own bible
version and see how it sells. Whad' ya think, Jason? It might be a bestseller, what with the great hunger there is today for innovation and
quirkiness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's that lower case "b" for "bible," again. Your disrespect is noted.

I have considered translating and composing an inerrant translation of the Bible. There is a possibility that I will do it, too. This has little to do with this debate, but it is interesting to me that you brought this up; even
though it was in jest. Nonetheless, I have been considering the composition of an inerrant Bible from the inerrant manuscripts that we have. Too bad the KJV isn't inerrant. It would have saved me a lot of trouble.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Will the Earth really last forever? The KJV says it will.

Ecclesiastes 1:4 reads, "One generation passes away, and another generation comes; But the earth abides forever."

We read about the true fate of the Earth in the New Testament. 2 Peter 3:10 reads, "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

How do you reconcile this KJV contradiction with the KJV? I found the answer in the Hebrew. The Hebrew word "olam" was translated "forever" and it
actually means "the vanishing point is conncealed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3 Again, Jason, a little logic and common sense might go a long way in solving your
alleged contradiction. Not only does the KJB translate the verse this way but so also do the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman, etc. I don't know of any version that says: "but the earth abides the vanishing point is concealed", but I have to admit, it has a nice ring to it and makes a whole lot of sense
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are translation bashing and giving us a rabbit trail/red herring, again.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason, the earth will abide forever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it won't. This isn't what 2 Peter 3:10 says. This isn't even what Ecclesiastes 1:4 says! It's only what your flawed translation says.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be remade and rennovated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remade and renovated? Hmm. I guess you disagree with Peter. Being burned up with fervent heat or abiding forever aren't the same as remade and
renovated. Either it will last forever or it will be burned up with fervent heat. You can't have it both ways. Of course, if you would prefer the
originals over the English translation, you would be wiser and closer to the truth. However, you like to think that the English is better than the
original.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and will remain forever. Just like me and every other person redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. Our bodies will die, decay and rot away in the grave, but God will raise us up and we shall remain forever. Is it the same me? Yes, just in a different and better form.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this called tap dancing? I'm just curious. You coined the phrase and used it when I gave you a sound explanation of biblical inerrancy. Now, you are reaching for an explanation for two verses that contradict in the KJV by giving us an analogy that has nothing to do with what the verses say. With all due respect, YOU are the "Bible corrector" (another phrase you have used for me). I'm a "Bible affirmer" because I affirm the inerrancy of the originals. I find the truth in them when translations like the KJV let us down.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason: I have many more errors in the KJV and I have many more answers as well. I'm going to stop with those three and the ones from your
post. I'll be waiting for your reply. Jason, I can hardly wait to see what you come up with next. Are you actually going to post this stuff on your site and allow all 25,000 of your email recipients to see how you are faring so far? I hope you do, but I personally would be embarrassed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you could understand how foolish your theory and defense is, you wouldn't want people to see it. However, you can rest assured that this debate will be online forever for people to read.

More Questions For Will

I'm going to exhaust my 5,000 words with some more questions to Will regarding KJV errors. Let's see if he can answer them without adding words to the scriptures and without using the Greek and Hebrew. He might as well
wear a blindfold and tie both hands behind his back.

Please note. I have the answers to these questions. I can affirm the inerrancy of the scriptures. However, the answers did not come from the KJV.
The KJV does have some errors. This time, I will withhold my answers until later. I want to see Will answer these questions. Please note: I expect will to answer these questions in the 5,000 word limit and in the debate thread;
not on his web site. If he thinks he has the answer on his web site, then I expect him to summarize it in the debate thread.

1. Do rabbits really chew the cud?

Leviticus 11:6 reads, "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

The KJV says that rabbits chew the cud. Rabbits don't chew the cud. Rabbits practice refection which is chewing partially undigested food that comes out of the anus.

2. Was Jehu the son or grandson of Nimshi? Yet another KJV contradiction.

3. Did Saul inquire of God? The KJV gives two contradictory accounts.

1 Samuel 28:6 and 7 reads, "And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. 7 Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and inquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor."

1 Chronicles 10:13, 14 "So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it; 14And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse."

Conclusion

It is clear to all that the originals are better than the English KJV. The KJV is not inerrant.

If anyone has an argument or a point they want me to use in this debate, please contact me. I'd be happy to consider it.
Contact link:
http://jcsm.org/contact.php

Sincerely in Christ,

Jason Gastrich

By Will Kinney

Hi all. Thank you for your interest in the Bible version issue. I also would request that this section be limited to a discussion between Jason and myself alone, and for those who wish to make comments to do so in the other thread provided. Otherwise it gets confusing knowing who is saying what to whom.

Jason, I will briefly respond to some points you bring up in your second round and then address your next three examples of "errors" in the King James Bible.


Jason>>>I'm going to exhaust my 5,000 words with some more questions to Will regarding KJV errors. Let's see if he can answer them without adding words to the scriptures and without using the Greek and Hebrew. He might as well
wear a blindfold and tie both hands behind his back."

Jason, I never said a King James Bible believer cannot use the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie this magnificent Bible. They certainly are not needed, but I do consult what I can of these languages, mostly so I can refute the alleged errors people like you bring up.


Jason>>>Some people have labeled the belief that the KJV is the only inerrant translation as "single-translation-onlyism." Unfortunately, the achilles
heel of this doctrine is the fact that it exalts the English KJV while lowering the significance and importance of the manuscripts that were
translated into the KJV! To a rational and freethinking Christian, it is absurd to suggest that this English translation is more authoritative and accurate than the Hebrew and Greek texts.<<<

Jason, this is more than a little hypocritical of you. YOU are the one who is telling us that the Hebrew texts are incorrect and corrupted in several places, not me.

Why is it absurd to claim inspiration and preservation for a translation? Are you telling us that a translation CANNOT be inspired? Where did you get this erroneous idea? Certainly not from the Bible.

As a sort of footnote before I continue my response, you criticized me for posting two links that give explanations to two of the toughest examples of alleged contradictions in the Hebrew text found in the KJB.

The age of Ahaziah, 22 or 42, or both?
- snipped link -
The age of Jehoiachin - 8 or 18?
- snipped link -

You then said: "You need to make your case. I'm not going to your web pages to read what you have to say. You could have used 1000 more words on your 2nd round post. Why didn't you? ...This isn't a link war. If you cannot or will not make your case, then I'll conclude that you do not have one."

Jason, it seems to be OK for you to post numerous links in your rounds expecting us to go to them to find out what you have to say, but then it is not OK for me to post just two of them. I posted two links to articles on my webpage that give an explanation of these two alleged errors. It is much easier for a person who is interested in these to just click on the link and find the article.

I do not need to use up all my allotted words, do I? I don't remember seeing this requirement in your terms.


Jason>>>As a KJV_onlyist, you would need to hate your family. Right? Of course, I have an answer to this and it comes from the Greek. The word translated "hate" in the KJV is the Greek word "miseo" which means "love less." See THIS LINK However, as
a KJV_onlyist, you do not have the luxury in looking to the original languages, so how do you say this is inerrant?...I'm saying that the KJV is giving the WRONG meaning and the Greek is giving the RIGHT meaning. Pretty simple...Why did the KJV change the Greek to give us an incorrect meaning?<<<


Jason, a KJB believer has just as much right to "look at the Greek" as anyone else. As I pointed out, there is not a bible version on this earth that says what you think the Greek should mean here. It is your personal opinion. Not an undisputed fact, nor even the right translation. One of the reasons we have so many variant readings in the manuscripts is because of guys like you. Self appointed critics who think they know more than God. They think "Well, it really should read this way." And Presto, we now have a new variant. God knows how to say "love less" but He didn't say that here in Luke 14:26. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Jason>>>I'm not saying the Bible is in error. I'm saying you and the KJV are in error. In fact, I'm not the one saying it because I'm merely affirming what the Greek Bible (you know, the one that came before the KJV) is saying."

Jason, WHICH "Bible" is it that is not "in error" here? Does it exist in paper and ink somewhere? Remember, you have yet to compose your peculiar inerrant bible for us yet. Why is it that only you got it right, and every other Bible translator in all languages throughout history have missed the correct meaning? And where is this "THE Greek Bible" you refer to. You don't even have "THE Greek Bible" that you consider to be the inerrant words of God. You are continually referring to a fabrication of your own imagination that you have yet to put into print. You are talking about things here as though they really existed someplace other than your own mind. This is not a sign of good mental health.


Jason>>>This leads me to another question. What did English speaking people do before the KJV 1611 Bible? Where was this preserved Word of God and where is it, today?<<<

Good question. I was wondering when you would get around to this. Before the KJB the English speaking people use what most BB members and modern bible promoters call "reliable versions". They were much closer to the text of the King James Bible than the "reliable" NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman, etc, but they were not perfect.

As for where it was, I have written an article about this found, - horror or horrors -, at this link.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html

It is so ironic that you of all people would ask "Where is it today?". Can you please tell us? I'm sure we would all find your answer to this question quite illuminating.


Just a few more thoughts on the earth abiding forever, as ALL bible versions out there read in Eccl. 1:4


Jason>>>No it won't. This isn't what 2 Peter 3:10 says. This isn't even what Ecclesiastes 1:4 says! It's only what your flawed translation says....Remade and renovated? Hmm. I guess you disagree with Peter.

No Jason, I do not disagree with Peter. He goes on to say: "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."

I also know there is a different view of what some statements in Ecclesiates mean about "under the sun". I am familiar with these views, and we didn't even discuss these. However Psalm 104:4-5 say: "Who maketh his angels spirits; and his ministers a flame of fire: Who laid the foundations of the earth, THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED FOR EVER."

2 Peter 3 speaks of the present earth being "burned up", "disssolved" and "melt with fervent heat", but it will not be obliterated to nothing and cease to exist.

The earth will be renovated and abide forever. Many Christians have held this view. For example, John Gill comments on these verses: "the earth also will be purged and purified from everything that is noxious, hurtful, unnecessary, and disagreeable; though the matter and substance of it will continue." If you disagree with my conclusions, there is nothing I can do about that, but I am not the only one to hold this view.


Now for your latest three "errors"

1. Do rabbits really chew the cud?
Leviticus 11:6 reads, "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

Jason>>>The KJV says that rabbits chew the cud. Rabbits don't chew the cud. Rabbits practice refection which is chewing partially undigested food that comes out of the anus.

Jason, First of all, when you criticize the King James Bible as being in error here, you show again that not only do you criticize the KJB but the understanding of a whole lot of other Bible translators as well. Since you yourself do not have the originals, nor have you written your own peculiar bible version yet so we can all see what an infallible bible looks like, I guess we are just supposed to take your word for what this text SHOULD say, huh?

Agreeing with the King James Bible in Leviticus 11:6 "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud" are the Hebrew translations into English of the Jewish Publication Society 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, and the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible. These Jewish translators, even though Hebrew is their native language, apparently do not have a firm grasp of the nuances of their own language that you claim to possess.

Not only do the Jewish Bible versions read: "and the hare, because he cheweth the cud" but so also do every Bible version I looked at. These include Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, the King James Bible, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Webster's, Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Here are a few others that many on the Baptist Board prefer. Let's see what these say, shall we?

Holman CSB 2003 - "the hare, though it chews the cud,"

NASB - "the rabbit also, for though it chews cud"

NKJV - "the hare, because it chews the cud"

RSV, NRSV, ESV - "And the hare, because it chews the cud"

NIV - "The rabbit, though it chews the cud"

Young's - "and the hare, though it is bringing up the cud"

The Message - "The rabbit chews the cud"

You see, Jason, you set yourself up as the final authority and take offense when some of us do not take you very seriously. You admit on the one hand that you do not know where the originals are, and you have not yet compiled and written your own bible version for which the world sorely pines. Are we just supposed to take your word for what the text really should say and toss all our error ridden bibles in the trash?

I have run into a lot of King James Bible critics, but they at least usually refer us to some other written bible version they think is better, but you can't even do this, can you? You just expect us to take your word for it. Jason, it really appears that you, and you alone, are the only final authority for what is God's word and what it really means.

An explanation:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.as

The Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

http://www.ldolphin.org/contradict.html

The clue here is in the meaning of 'cud.' Rabbits and hares pass two kinds of stools. One is feces. The other is a mucous-covered green pellet which the rabbit will re-ingest, licking it off its anus. These are generally passed in the early morning hours. If cud is defined as being only what a ruminant, or animal with a special stomach division which brings up food for chewing, can have, then rabbits and hares do not chew the cud. However if cud is defined as undigested matter which is re-ingested, then rabbits and hares certainly do chew the cud. Here again we have a grouping which includes a unique group with a general group, in much the same way bats were included with the birds. It makes perfectly good sense seen from their point of view.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/coney

Easton's Bible Dictionary

When it is said to "chew the cud," the Hebrew word so used does not necessarily imply the possession of a ruminant stomach. "The lawgiver speaks according to appearances; and no one can watch the constant motion of the little creature's jaws, as it sits continually working its teeth, without recognizing the naturalness of the expression" - Tristram, Natural History of the Bible.


2. Was Jehu the son or grandson of Nimshi? Yet another KJV contradiction.

Jason, I would appreciate your giving us the verses in question in the future, OK?

I assume you are referring to 1 Kings 19:16 where God told Elijah: "And Jehu THE SON of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel." Is this right?

Then I assume you will then refer to 2 Kings 9:2 where Elisha tells someone: "Look out there Jehu THE SON of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi" and to anoint him king. Is this right?

So, you now accuse the King James Bible of being in error for calling Jehu the SON of Nimshi, do I have this right?

On your website I notice you usually quote the NKJV as being your bible of choice. It is a shame you are reduced to using an error ridden version like this until you finally get around to producing your own bible. Again, you have set up your own understanding as being the final authority and have no inspired, inerrant, complete Bible to give anyone.

First of all, though you dislike my referencing other versions, and believe me, I can understand why you would not like me to do this, I will continue to do so to show how absurd your biblical position has become.

Not only does the King James Bible call Jehu the SON of Nimshi in 1 Kings 19:16 but so also do your NKJV, which you constantly use, the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman and the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, and the Complete Jewish Bible 1998.

As you should know, both the Hebrew and the Greek term for "son" has a very wide application. It means any male descendant, no matter if this son is generations removed. It can even be used to include those who are female.

We might just as well ask you if Jesus was the son of David as recorded in Matthew 1:1. Or is this also an error? How would you translate this verse for us, Jason?

Or was David the son of Abraham as found in Matthew 1:1?

Were the blind men wrong for calling Jesus the son of David in Matthew 9:27?

Or how about Revelation 21:7 where God says: "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be HIS God and HE shall be my SON." What? No women included? How would you translate this verse in your hypothetical inspired version?

I hope the other members here at Baptist Board realize that you are not only criticizing the King James Bible of being in error in everything you have posted so far as your examples, but you are also telling them that they are all using uninspired, error ridden versions as well. This should be readily apparent to anyone who has active brain waves and a pulse.

3. Did Saul inquire of God? The KJV gives two contradictory accounts.

1 Samuel 28:6 and 7 reads, "And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. 7 Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and inquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor."

1 Chronicles 10:13, 14 "So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it; 14. And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse."

Conclusion
It is clear to all that the originals are better than the English KJV. The KJV is not inerrant.


#3 Jason, again you show your utter unbelief in any Scriptures out there in print, and your unwillingness to accept any point of view or understanding contrary to your own opinion. A more accurate statement by you would be "It is clear to ME - not ALL- that the NON-EXISTENT originals WERE - not ARE - better that ANY TRANSLATION EVER MADE SO FAR."

Again, every version I checked says either exactly or essentially the same thing as does the King James Bible. This includes the Jewish translations, the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman, NKJV etc.

Secondly, and more importantly, it is you who miss what the text is talking about.
There are TWO events referred to in 1 Chronicles 10:14 and two consequences of these two events. You only see one and are blinded to any other possibility. You are creating an alleged contradiction where none exists.

Here is my explanation. Notice carefully the language used in the inspired King James Bible text, and it matches all the others too, - except for that mystical one you haven't written yet. I hope for your sake you never put it together. It will only compound your guilt before God who does not take kindly to those who mess with His words.

In 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 we read: "So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, AND ALSO for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;" - TWO events are referred to here. His transgression of not keeping the word of the Lord, as recorded in 1 Samuel 13, AND ALSO for consulting the familiar spirit.


Verse 14 continues: "AND ENQUIRED NOT OF THE LORD: therefore he slew him, AND TURNED THE KINGDOM UNTO DAVID the son of Jesse." - This refers to the other event which happened earlier as recorded in 1 Samuel 13:8-14.

In 1 Samuel 10:8 Samuel comes to Saul and tells him: "And thou shalt go down before me to Gilgal; and, behold, I will come down unto thee, to offer burnt offerings, and to sacrifice sacrifices of peace offerings: seven days shalt thou tarry, till I come to thee, and shew thee what thou shalt do."

But, 1 Samuel 13:8-14 tells us what Saul did and the consequences of his not enquiring of the LORD what he should do since Samuel had not yet come. There we read:

1 Samuel 13:8 "And he tarried seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed: but Samuel came not to Gilgal; and the people were scattered from him.


13:9
And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offering.


13:10 -
And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, that he might salute him.


13:11 -
And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash;


13:12 -
Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the LORD: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering.


13:13 -
And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast NOT KEPT THE COMMANDMENT OF THE LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.


13:14 -
BUT NOW THY KINGDOM SHALL NOT CONTINUE: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast NOT KEPT THAT WHICH THE LORD COMMANDED THEE.

When it gives the reason for turning the kingdom over to David in 1 Chronicles 10:13, it is because Saul did not enquire of the LORD. This refers back to the event recorded in I Samuel 13, - NOT to when Saul enquired of the LORD when the Philistines came against him later on in his life, God didn't answer him, and he ended up consulting the woman with the familiar spirit.

The only direct equation between God taking away the kingdom from Saul and giving it to David is because of the events recorded in I Samuel 13 where Saul disobeyed the commandment of Samuel and "forced himself to make a burnt offering". It was at that time that Saul was told that God would take away the kingdom from him and give it to David.

Saul was guilty of two things. One was not enquiring of the Lord for directions when Samuel was late, and this is why the kingdom was passed on to David. The second thing was consulting the familiar spirit, and for these two things combined, God took his life.

Jason, you have no inspired, infallible, complete Bible you can give any person here or on your vast email list. You criticize every single Bible version out there as being full of errors. You "use" the NKJV on your website, but you don't think it is inspired or accurate either. Your present biblical position is pathetic in the extreme, and what amazes me even more is that some people are still taking you seriously, even when you, by extension, blast their own preferred versions as being equally in error along with the King James Bible.


I will close this second round with a question for you. You give me three verses to deal with at a time. I would like to give you just one, if you don't mind. Your answer will help clarify what your textual position really is for us.

In Judges 14:12-18 Samson puts forth a riddle to the Philistine companions of the wedding feast. In verse 15 the Hebrew text and the King James Bible say: "And it came to pass on THE SEVENTH DAY, that they said unto Samson's wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father's house with fire...

In verse 17 it says "she wept before him THE SEVEN DAYS, while their feast lasted".

However, in verse 15 such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman have all changed the SEVENTH day, to the FOURTH DAY, and they got this number from the Syriac and SOME Septuagint versions.

My question for you is this: Which reading is correct and why? Can you explain this riddle within a riddle for us? How would you translate Judges 14:15 in your "inerrant" bible version, if you ever get around to having it printed?

Will Kinney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Jason Gastrich

Part A, which will immediately be followed by B.

Jason>>>As a KJV_onlyist, you would need to hate your family. Right? Of course, I have an answer to this and it comes from the Greek. The word translated "hate" in the KJV is the Greek word "miseo" which means "love less." See THIS LINK However, as a KJV_onlyist, you do not have the luxury in looking to the original languages, so how do you say this is inerrant?...I'm saying that the KJV is giving the WRONG meaning and the Greek is giving the RIGHT meaning. Pretty simple...Why did the KJV change the Greek to give us an incorrect meaning?<<<

Click to expand...

Jason, a KJB believer has just as much right to "look at the Greek" as anyone else.

Click to expand...

No, they don’t. You say the KJV is inerrant. Therefore, you need to defend your position by using the KJV Bible. You have absolutely no right to look to the Hebrew or Greek for anything. Your position and the resolution of this debate is that the KJV, which is an English translation, is inerrant. Therefore, you cannot use any other Bibles in your arguments.

God knows how to say "love less" but He didn't say that here in Luke 14:26. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Click to expand...

You’re right. God does and God did in the Greek. The KJV did not and this is why there is an error in the KJV. - snipped off-topic rant by Will that included slams about my mental health - - snipped your repetitious questions regarding my premise that was already clearly stated -

Just a few more thoughts on the earth abiding forever, as ALL bible versions out there read in Eccl. 1:4

Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter what "ALL bible versions out there read." We aren’t talking about all Bible versions. As I said above, you can only use the KJV because that’s the topic of this debate and that is the translation you say is inerrant. It’s clearly in your best interest to try and muddy the resolution of this debate with other translations and even the ancient manuscripts when you do not have the luxury of using either in order to prove your case: that the KJV is inerrant. Stick to the subject. I will call you on your avoidance and red herrings.

Jason>>>No it won't. This isn't what 2 Peter 3:10 says. This isn't even what Ecclesiastes 1:4 says! It's only what your flawed translation says....Remade and renovated? Hmm. I guess you disagree with Peter.

Click to expand...

No Jason, I do not disagree with Peter. He goes on to say: "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."

Click to expand...

"New" isn’t the same thing as "renovated." Face it. You gave us another ad hoc explanation to try and convince someone that your biased point of view is correct. We are all used to them by now and we can all spot them a mile away.

1. Do rabbits really chew the cud? Leviticus 11:6 reads, "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you." Jason>>>The KJV says that rabbits chew the cud. Rabbits don't chew the cud. Rabbits practice refection which is chewing partially undigested food that comes out of the anus.

Click to expand...

Jason, First of all, when you criticize the King James Bible as being in error here, you show again that not only do you criticize the KJB but the understanding of a whole lot of other Bible translators as well.

Click to expand...

Stick to the subject. You are trying to prove the KJV is inerrant.

Since you yourself do not have the originals, nor have you written your own peculiar bible version yet so we can all see what an infallible bible looks like, I guess we are just supposed to take your word for what this text SHOULD say, huh?

Click to expand...

No. Any reasonable person can read something and hold it to the truth and decide whether or not it is true or not. This isn’t rocket science. However, here are some exegetical principles that we can follow that may help you understand the scriptures. Http://herm.jcsm.org .

Agreeing with the King James Bible in Leviticus 11:6 "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud" are the Hebrew translations into English of the Jewish Publication Society 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, and the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible. These Jewish translators, even though Hebrew is their native language, apparently do not have a firm grasp of the nuances of their own language that you claim to possess. Not only do the Jewish Bible versions read: "and the hare, because he cheweth the cud" but so also do every Bible version I looked at. These include Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, the King James Bible, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Webster's, Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Click to expand...

Haha! You did it again! In order to try and prove the KJV is inerrant, you appeal to other translations. Get over it. We aren’t talking about other translations. THEY DO NOT HELP YOUR CASE THAT THE KJV IS INERRANT!!!

- deleted rant about other translations -

You see, Jason, you set yourself up as the final authority and take offense when some of us do not take you very seriously.

Click to expand...

This is called ad hominem. This is when you turn and attack me instead of the issue at hand. This is the sign of someone who either cannot debate or who is losing badly.

You admit on the one hand that you do not know where the originals are, and you have not yet compiled and written your own bible version for which the world sorely pines. Are we just supposed to take your word for what the text really should say and toss all our error ridden bibles in the trash?

Click to expand...

I’ve already stated my premise about the inerrant scriptures. Reread it if you need to. You really should because you keep mis-characterizing my position. Nonetheless, it is YOUR POSITION that you need to defend.

Do rabbits chew the cud? No. Is the KJV wrong? Yes. You haven’t given us any other option or any rational defense of your case. In other words, you have lost this point because you cannot convince us that the KJV is right.

I have run into a lot of King James Bible critics, but they at least usually refer us to some other written bible version they think is better, but you can't even do this, can you?

Click to expand...

Now you’re getting disturbed because I won’t join you in your rabbit trail. No pun intended. Stick to the topic. You’re trying to prove the KJV is inerrant. So far, you have an errant statement by the KJV.

You just expect us to take your word for it. Jason, it really appears that you, and you alone, are the only final authority for what is God's word and what it really means.

Click to expand...

More ad hominem.

The Hebrew phrase for ‘‘chew the cud’’ simply means ‘‘raising up what has been swallowed’’.

Click to expand...

You don’t have the option to consult the Hebrew. You have ONLY THE KJV. You claim the KJV is INERRANT. Therefore, you must argue from the KJV. If you can’t, then you lose.

2. Was Jehu the son or grandson of Nimshi? Yet another KJV contradiction. Jason, I would appreciate your giving us the verses in question in the future, OK? I assume you are referring to 1 Kings 19:16 where God told Elijah: "And Jehu THE SON of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel." Is this right? Then I assume you will then refer to 2 Kings 9:2 where Elisha tells someone: "Look out there Jehu THE SON of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi" and to anoint him king. Is this right? So, you now accuse the King James Bible of being in error for calling Jehu the SON of Nimshi, do I have this right? On your website I notice you usually quote the NKJV as being your bible of choice. It is a shame you are reduced to using an error ridden version like this until you finally get around to producing your own bible. Again, you have set up your own understanding as being the final authority and have no inspired, inerrant, complete Bible to give anyone. First of all, though you dislike my referencing other versions, and believe me, I can understand why you would not like me to do this, I will continue to do so to show how absurd your biblical position has become.

Click to expand...

And I’ll keep deleting them and you’ll keep losing the debate. It’s not that I arbitrarily don’t like it when you quote other translations. It’s that you do not support your case, which is the resolution of the debate: THE KJV IS INERRANT, when you quote other translations. It does nothing for your case and is off-topic. You need to use the KJV to make your case.

As you should know, both the Hebrew and the Greek term for "son" has a very wide application. It means any male descendant, no matter if this son is generations removed. It can even be used to include those who are female.

Click to expand...

You cannot use Hebrew or Greek. This debate is about the KJV. You say the KJV is inerrant. Prove it. You cannot use other language Bibles because they are not the KJV. Use the KJV if you can. So far, this is another point you have lost because you either cannot argue effectively or you are wilfully arguing poorly because you have no case from the KJV.

3. Did Saul inquire of God? The KJV gives two contradictory accounts. 1 Samuel 28:6 and 7 reads, "And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. 7 Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and inquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor." 1 Chronicles 10:13, 14 "So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it; 14. And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse." Conclusion It is clear to all that the originals are better than the English KJV. The KJV is not inerrant.

Click to expand...

#3 Jason, again you show your utter unbelief in any Scriptures out there in print, and your unwillingness to accept any point of view or understanding contrary to your own opinion.

Click to expand...

Again, you manage to squeeze in some ad hominem attacks and off-topic statements.

A more accurate statement by you would be "It is clear to ME - not ALL- that the NON-EXISTENT originals WERE - not ARE - better that ANY TRANSLATION EVER MADE SO FAR." Again, every version I checked says either exactly or essentially the same thing as does the King James Bible. This includes the Jewish translations, the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman, NKJV etc.

Click to expand...

...which isn’t the topic of this debate. You either have a really short memory or you have given up trying to defend your position. Right? What else can we conclude? By the way you are defending your position, we could conclude that your position is indefensible.

Part B

I don’t think I need to say it again, at least for those that are reading, but here it is again for you Will. Stick to the topic. You are trying to prove the KJV is inerrant. You are failing, so starting talking about the KJV if you want to convince someone you are doing something other than wasting everyone’s time.

Here is my explanation. Notice carefully the language used in the inspired King James Bible text, and it matches all the others too, - except for that mystical one you haven't written yet. I hope for your sake you never put it together. It will only compound your guilt before God who does not take kindly to those who mess with His words.

Click to expand...

More ad hominem nonsense. However, it does show that you and the KJV desire to be the final authority. It also goes along with your push to be unschooled in original languages and the truth. "Turn off your brain and believe the KJV" seems to be your mantra.

Even in your cultish perspective, why couldn’t another English translation be better than the KJV? What makes it the best ever and what makes it better than every future translation? You aren’t taking a scholarly perspective. I’ll weigh every word of the KJV against the Greek and Hebrew and against the truth. Do you honestly do this? I don’t think so. We’ve already seen your twisted ways of arguing and thinking.

Saul was guilty of two things. One was not enquiring of the Lord for directions when Samuel was late, and this is why the kingdom was passed on to David. The second thing was consulting the familiar spirit, and for these two things combined, God took his life.

Click to expand...

I know you can’t look in the Hebrew to find your answer regarding the KJV’s inerrancy, but that is where the answer to this question is. There are two, distinct words used in these passages. They are both translated "inquire" in the KJV, though. This is why the KJV is inerrant and this is how we find the answer. I’ll explain it for you.

In 1 Samuel 28:6, this Hebrew word for "inquire" can be translated "demand." When Saul sought the Lord in this way, He did not hear him. See http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB75.htm#S7592 .

In 1 Chronicles 10:13 and 14, this different Hebrew word for "inquire" means "worship," "seek," "search," "follow" and "ask." Saul did not do this and this is part of the reason why God judged Him by taking his life. See http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB18.htm#S1875 .

Jason, you have no inspired, infallible, complete Bible you can give any person here or on your vast email list.

Click to expand...

I think you’re wrong. However, even if you are right, this STILL doesn’t help your case that the KJV is inerrant!

- deleted more ad hominem attacks and nonsense -

In Judges 14:12-18 Samson puts forth a riddle to the Philistine companions of the wedding feast. In verse 15 the Hebrew text and the King James Bible say: "And it came to pass on THE SEVENTH DAY, that they said unto Samson's wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father's house with fire... In verse 17 it says "she wept before him THE SEVEN DAYS, while their feast lasted". However, in verse 15 such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman have all changed the SEVENTH day, to the FOURTH DAY, and they got this number from the Syriac and SOME Septuagint versions. My question for you is this: Which reading is correct and why? Can you explain this riddle within a riddle for us? How would you translate Judges 14:15 in your "inerrant" bible version, if you ever get around to having it printed? Will Kinney

Click to expand...

It’s fitting that your one question is regarding the KJV vs. other translations. This isn’t the topic of the debate, though. You are trying to prove that the KJV is inerrant. Don’t forget. Eventually, your poor arguments will be seen as evasion because it’s hard to believe that you are simply unable to support your position in any way whatsoever.

Conclusion

At this point, it is obvious that Will has given "answers" that do not help his case. In order to give him a hand, I’m going to avoid giving him new questions. He needs to either give answers to the old questions or admit that he doesn’t have any answers from the KJV.

By reading Will’s posts, is anyone convince that the KJV is inerrant?

Sincerely,

Jason Gastrich

By Will Kinney


Brother Jason, I asked about Judges 14:15 because it will reveal a great
deal about how you view the Hebrew Scriptures. You have stated before that
the Hebrew texts were miscopied and they now contain "scribal errors". The
example in Judges 14:15 is just one of many such places where the NASB, NIV,
ESV, Holman, etc. have decided the Hebrew text is wrong and have followed
some other source, in this case, the Syriac.

However by their saying the fourth day, instead of the seventh day, they not
only reject the Hebrew reading, but they also contradict information given
in the passage itself where we are told in verse 17 that "she wept before
him the seven days, while their feast lasted."

I suspect that you do not wish to reveal too much more about your nebulous
textual stand, and that you yourself do not understand the passage. Please
accept my apology if I misread your motives.

You close with: "By reading Wills posts, is anyone convinced that the KJV is
inerrant?"

I would like to ask everyone reading your posts if they are convinced that
you have proven any error so far in the King James Bible. I may not have
proven the KJB to be inerrant, but I think I have done a fair job of showing
your six alleged errors to be no errors at all. I fail to see where you have
made one valid point so far against the inerrancy of the King James Bible.

Jason, if you wish to have your alleged errors knocked down every time, then
get up and claim Victory and walk away from the fight, I guess there is
little I can do about it; but you sure look a little foolish doing this.

"Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law."

Psalm 119:18

Will Kinney

By Jason

Round 4

Will,

Let me be painfully clear to you. You claim the KJV is inerrant. Therefore,
you have no right to use other Bibles to prove your case. You must use the
KJV to prove your case.

These are the errors that you cannot answer using the KJV.

1. Did Saul inquire of the Lord? In the KJV, one scripture says he did, but
another scripture says he doesnt. This is called an error, Will. Be honest.

1 Samuel 28:6 reads, And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered
him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.

1 Chronicles 10:13 and 14 read, So Saul died for his transgression which he
committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept
not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to
inquire of it; 14And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and
turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.

Those verses say two different things in the KJV. If you say they dont, then
you are a liar. If you want to lie to us and say that these two verses dont
contradict in the KJV, then nothing you say can be trusted. In a court of
law, this would be as perjury.

The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you cannot use the Hebrew. You say the
KJV is inerrant. If you have to go to the Hebrew to clear up an error in the
KJV, then you lose the debate.

2. The KJV is in error regarding Jehu. Jehu was the grandson of Nimshi; not
the son. However, we find passages in the KJV that say both.

1 Kings 19:16 reads, And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king
over Israel . . .

2 Kings 9:2 reads, And when thou comest thither, look out there Jehu the son
of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in . . .

Will, these two verses say two different things in the KJV. This means there
is an error. As before, the answer is in the Hebrew. However, you are
arguing that the KJV is inerrant. Therefore, you cannot refer to the Hebrew.

These two verses plainly say two different things. If you claim they do not,
then you are a liar. If you want to lie about this, then we cannot trust
anything you say.

Do the KJV-onlyists really want to lie and support liars? Take this to heart
and stop making yourself look foolish. Agree with the simple truth of Gods
Word. There are errors that you cannot reconcile in and within the KJV. You
can only reconcile them by going to the Hebrew and Greek and this is
impossible for a KJV-Onlyist to do. This is what normal people do; normal
people who understand there are some errors in the KJV. You cannot have it
both ways. If you have to look to another text to help the KJV be correct,
then you have lost the debate and admitted error.

3. Hares dont chew the cud. The KJV says they do. This is an error. If you
say its correct, then you are ignorant of science.

Leviticus 11:6 reads, And the hare, because he cheweth the cud . . .

The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you dont have the liberty of looking
in the Hebrew. You claim the KJV (KING JAMES VERSION) is inerrant. So, prove
it. Prove the KJV is inerrant with the KJV. Hint: You cant.

Do rabbits chew the cud, Will? Yes or no? No, they dont. If you say they do,
then you are a liar.

4. Unicorns dont exist. The KJV says they do. Therefore, the KJV is in
error.

Many verses in the KJV claim that unicorns exist. Here is one. Psalm 92:10
reads, But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be
anointed with fresh oil.

Do unicorns exist, Will? No, they dont. The KJV is in error. We have an
answer from the Hebrew text, but you cannot use the Hebrew text if you want
to say the KJV is inerrant.

Conclusion

There are errors in the KJV. There are errors in the KJV that cannot be
explained with the KJV, with science, or with logic. If Will wants to look
at the errors in the KJV and tell us they are not errors, then he is a liar
and a willful deceiver.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

By Will

What Jason says versus what Jason does:

What Jason says:>>> Will claims to be a Christian, therefore his words
should resemble a Christian's words. Despite our differences, he should be
"speaking the truth in love." I've done my best to do this, to show Will
respect, and to attack the topic; not the person.

What Jason does:

Jason>>>>"To a rational and freethinking Christian, it is absurd to suggest
that this English translation is more authoritative and accurate than the
Hebrew and Greek texts."

Well, Jason, I guess then by implication I and many others are not rational,
but irrational and we hold to absurd beliefs.

Previous post by Will>>>The only thing some members of Without The Camp told
you to repent of was your bogus and inconsistent stand on the Bible."

Jason>>>Aren't these KJV-Onlyists sweet and loving? I'm sure many people
reading are ready to run out and be one, now.<<<

Will>>>Why are we so sweet and loving? Because we thought you needed to
repent of your wrong views about the inerrancy of the Holy Bible? Is
thinking you need to repent being so harsh? If so, then why in your opening
statements did you think I need to repent as well? You clearly stated: Jason
Gastrich
Member
Member # 8973
posted August 18, 2004 01:27 PM

"Thanks for the heads up Bro. Bill. In my experience, the things you listed
are generally the positive results from a formal debate. Even though the
vast majority of my opponents have been atheists, I DON'T necessarily EXPECT
HIM TO REPENT; even if I put forth an excellent argument."

So, Jason, are you being sweet and loving when you think I need to repent,
but I, on the other hand, am being harsh and unkind for thinking the same of
you?

Jason>>> You should really invest your time wisely because you lose lots of
points when
you take the low road and try and attack my character. Just a word to the
wise.

Jason>>>
You are taking part in a certain practice that atheists love. I call it
becoming "conveniently confused."<<<

Jason>>>"...this is another similarity you have to the atheists. They love
to do this.<<<

Jason>>>Another common tactic from the cultists: taking a verse that has
nothing to do with what they are promoting or believing, yet applying it to
their argument.<<<

Jason>>>With all due respect, YOU are the "Bible corrector" (another phrase
you have used for me).<<<

Jason>>>>... you and the KJV desire to be the final authority. It also goes
along with your push to be unschooled in original languages and the truth.
Turn off your brain and believe the KJV seems to be your mantra.

Jason>>>The only question left is whether or not the KJV-Onlyists are
willfully trying to deceive or just simply ignorant.

Jason>>>10 out of 10 honest people will admit that those scriptures say
opposite, contradictory things.

Jason>>>then you are a liar. If you want to lie to us and say that these two
verses dont contradict in the KJV, then nothing you say can be trusted.

Well, Jason, I guess I was taking "the low road" and being un-Christian for
calling you a Bible corrector - God forbid - , but then you turn around and
liken me unto an atheist, a cultist, call me a liar, accuse me of being a
dishonest, "turn off your brain", "unschooled" kind of guy, and nothing I
say can be trusted. Do you call this "showing Will respect"; - "speaking the
truth in love" - and "attacking the topic, not the person"?

Jason, I want to make one thing clear about all this name calling. I am not
reacting out of spite or retaliating in kind when I accused you of being a
Bible corrector and a fraud for your Biblical position. I called you these
two things long before you challenged me to this debate here at Baptist
Board. You should have known what you were getting into when you challenged
me to debate the King James Bible issue.

Even if you really were all sweetness and light, I would still call you a BC
and a fra.., because of your alleged position of defending the inerrancy of
a "bible" that exists solely in your own mind, and nowhere in reality any
place on this earth. When you say on your website that The Bible is a book
that is the inerrant word of God, you really aren't referring to anything
anybody can actually hold in their hands, read and believe.

You accuse of error and "correct" not only the King James Bible, but every
single Bible version that is out there in print today. You are more extreme
than most Whateverists I have met so far, but at least I credit you with
having taken their position to its logical conclusions - that is, - there is
no inspired, inerrant, complete Bible on the face of this earth and God has
not preserved His words in any single Book. Each one of us is then left to
our own devices and everybody disagrees with everyone else as to what God
really said and how or where He said it.

One of the big differences between the King James Bible believer and people
like yourself who have no inerrant, complete Bible, is that when the KJB
believer comes across numbers, names or apparent contradictions in the text,
he or she then turns to God in prayer and asks for understanding. He does
not automatically assume that the text is wrong or that there has been a
"scribal error" or that the text has been lost over time. These latter
assumptions are all made by the people who put out such versions as the
NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NKJV and Holman.

The King James Bible believer actually believes God has kept His promises to
preserve His words of truth and that we have them in the King James Bible.
Over the years, and especially since God gave me the faith to believe the
KJB really is His preserved words, He has cleared up many of these apparent
contradictions and confirmed the truth of the King James Bible. More and
more pieces of this amazing Book have fallen into place over the years.

I hope this last post of yours was not your final round in our discussion. I
noticed you did bring up the old canard about the "unicorns". I congratulate
you. Finally you have chosen an alleged "error" that is not shared by the
NKJV, NIV, NASB.

I would then ask you if you think all these modern versions that speak many
times about "dragons" are also incorrect?

Anyway, here is the info I have about unicorns. It is on one of those
dreaded links to my website

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unicorn.html

Jason, it appears that no matter what you post, you will continue to think
you have proven errors in the KJB and I will not. So get used to the idea
that you and I will not be in agreement, and go on to other things or
examples. We will just have to each post our respective views on the
passages your bring up and let the other readers consider our thoughts and
decide for themselves.

Let's not keep going over the same 6 examples again and again. Nothing more
is to be gained from doing this.

Why don't you try the riddle within the riddle in Judges 14:15? Give it a
shot and tell us all how you would go about translating it in your yet to be
written version.

God bless,

Will Kinney

By Jason

Round 5

quote:

Will:
Let's not keep going over the same 6 examples again and again. Nothing more
is to be gained from doing this.

Sorry. Thats not how I debate. I want straight answers, Will. Ill repost my
questions to you and leave spaces for you to give your replies.

--

These are the errors that you cannot answer using the KJV.

1. Did Saul inquire of the Lord? In the KJV, one scripture says he did, but
another scripture says he doesnt. This is called an error, Will. Be honest.

1 Samuel 28:6 reads, And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered
him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.

1 Chronicles 10:13 and 14 read, So Saul died for his transgression which he
committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept
not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to
inquire of it; 14And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and
turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.

Those verses say two different things in the KJV. If you say they dont, then
you are a liar. If you want to lie to us and say that these two verses dont
contradict in the KJV, then nothing you say can be trusted. In a court of
law, this would be as perjury.

The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you cannot use the Hebrew. You say the
KJV is inerrant. If you have to go to the Hebrew to clear up an error in the
KJV, then you lose the debate.

Wills answer:

2. The KJV is in error regarding Jehu. Jehu was the grandson of Nimshi; not
the son. However, we find passages in the KJV that say both.

1 Kings 19:16 reads, And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king
over Israel . . .
2 Kings 9:2 reads, And when thou comest thither, look out there Jehu the son
of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in . . .

Will, these two verses say two different things in the KJV. This means there
is an error. As before, the answer is in the Hebrew. However, you are
arguing that the KJV is inerrant. Therefore, you cannot refer to the Hebrew.

These two verses plainly say two different things. If you claim they do not,
then you are a liar. If you want to lie about this, then we cannot trust
anything you say.

Do the KJV-onlyists really want to lie and support liars? Take this to heart
and stop making yourself look foolish. Agree with the simple truth of Gods
Word. There are errors that you cannot reconcile in and within the KJV. You
can only reconcile them by going to the Hebrew and Greek and this is
impossible for a KJV-Onlyist to do. This is what normal people do; normal
people who understand there are some errors in the KJV. You cannot have it
both ways. If you have to look to another text to help the KJV be correct,
then you have lost the debate and admitted error.

Wills answer:

3. Hares dont chew the cud. The KJV says they do. This is an error. If you
say its correct, then you are ignorant of science.

Leviticus 11:6 reads, And the hare, because he cheweth the cud . . .

The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you dont have the liberty of looking
in the Hebrew. You claim the KJV (KING JAMES VERSION) is inerrant. So, prove
it. Prove the KJV is inerrant with the KJV. Hint: You cant.

Do rabbits chew the cud, Will? Yes or no? No, they dont. If you say they do,
then you are a liar.

Wills answer:

4. Unicorns dont exist. The KJV says they do. Therefore, the KJV is in
error.

Many verses in the KJV claim that unicorns exist. Here is one. Psalm 92:10
reads, But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be
anointed with fresh oil.
Do unicorns exist, Will? No, they dont. The KJV is in error. We have an
answer from the Hebrew text, but you cannot use the Hebrew text if you want
to say the KJV is inerrant.

Wills answer:

I wish Will the very best as he tries to defend his position that the KJV is
inerrant.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

By Will

Hi Jason, I see you are calling this last post of your the 5th round. I
guess you want to get this thing over with as quickly as possible.

You have done nothing more than repeat three of your original six examples
of alleged errors in the King James Bible, and added one more for the second
time about the unicorns.

I have already answered all these questions, pointing out that not only the
King James Bible but also all the other Bible versions read the same way in
the first six examples.

I have defended and explained the "hares chew the cud" by providing three
different links, two from Creation Science ministries and one from a Bible
Dictionary. You personally do not accept the explanation and have not
provided us with how you would translate this phrase in your yet to be
written, inerrant "bible" version.

As for the Jehu son of Nimshi example, I showed how ALL Bible versions say
the same thing and explained the use of the word "son" in both Hebrew and
Greek. I even asked you the following questions, taken right from the KJB,
and yet you have refused to answer these. This was my defence, yet you never
attempted to refute it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
We might just as well ask you if Jesus was the son of David as recorded in
Matthew 1:1. Or is this also an error? How would you translate this verse
for us, Jason?

Or was David the son of Abraham as found in Matthew 1:1?

Were the blind men wrong for calling Jesus the son of David in Matthew 9:27?

Or how about Revelation 21:7 where God says: "He that overcometh shall
inherit all things; and I will be HIS God and HE shall be my SON." What? No
women included? How would you translate this verse in your hypothetical
inspired version?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

As for the Samuel inquiring of the Lord and not inquiring, I explained to
you that you are confusing two different events as being one, and therefore
you see a contradiction where none exists. ALL Bible versions, including the
three Hebrew translations agree with the King James reading.

I have every right to consult the Hebrew texts and the Greek text that
underlies the King James Bible as you do. I at least believe the underlying
Hebrew and Greek texts of the KJB are the preserved and infallible words of
God. You do not believe the Hebrew text is without error, and yet you tell
us the answer is in the Hebrew, which you don't consider to be inerrant.
Funny position to hold, Jason.

I consider the King James Bible to be the inerrant, inspired, complete words
of God in the English language, and its underlying base is the inspired,
preserved Hebrew and Greek texts, and these have correctly been translated
in the English language and God has put His clear stamp of divine approval
upon this English Bible.

You, on the other hand, have no inspired, inerrant, complete WRITTEN words
of God anywhere on this earth, and in an inconsistent attempt to support
your own peculiar, mystical, non-existent "bible" you appeal to the Hebrew
texts which you yourself consider to be plagued with errors. Then, when you
refer to the Hebrew, you don't even tell us how you would translate it. All
you do is repeat your refrain "the KJV is in error".

Here is your latest example of "error" in the King James Bible.
Jason>>>

4. "Unicorns dont exist. The KJV says they do. Therefore, the KJV is in
error.
Many verses in the KJV claim that unicorns exist. Here is one. Psalm 92:10
reads, But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be
anointed with fresh oil.
Do unicorns exist, Will? No, they dont. The KJV is in error. We have an
answer from the Hebrew text, but you cannot use the Hebrew text if you want
to say the KJV is inerrant."

Jason, I already gave you my response to this alleged error.

What I said is that many Bible translators have considered "unicorn" to be
an accurate translation of this Hebrew word. Even the Jewish translation of
1936 does this.

The "scholars" are not at all in agreement among themselves as to what this
animal was or how to translate the word. Many think it was the buffalo, or
the rhinoceros, or a dinosaur, a unicorn, or some other extinct animal of
some kind.

I think it was either a unicorn in much the same way we think of unicorns
today, or maybe it was one-horned dinosaur, or possibly a rhino. I don't
really know, but it is obvious that the NKJV, NIV, NASB etc. have gotten it
wrong with "a wild ox".

You could give us your personal opinion as to what this animal was, but that
is all it would be - your opinion. Many Bible translators both ancient and
modern and in foreign languages too have considered "unicorn" - a one horned
animal- to be a perfectly good translation.

Then you and a lot of fellow KJB bashers mock at the idea that there ever
could have been such a thing as a unicorn, but when I ask you about the
"dragons, satyrs, and many headed monsters" found in your modern versions,
you fall strangely silent.

Here is an article about the dragons and other "mythological" animals found
in your modern versions.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/satyrs.html

You cannot "prove" that the King James Bible is wrong here. You certainly
have not made your case for any error in the King James Bible so far.

Here are a few excerpts from my article about the unicorn:

The King James Bible is not at all alone in translating the Hebrew word as
unicorn. In fact the word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation, Tyndale
(he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdales
Bible 1535, Taverners Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible 1568, the
Geneva Bible 1599, the so called Greek Septuagint version, the Italian
Diodati as well as the Spanish of 1602, all of which preceeded the King
James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn
are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras
1999 edition, the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darbys translation, the
21st Century KJB, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Websters translation of
the Bible, published in 1833, Lamsas 1933 Bible translation of the Syraic
Peshitta, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by
the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York.

The Greek Septuagint (LXX) - Regardless of when you think this Greek
translation of the Old Testament was made or by whom, this version is
chock-full of satyrs, devils, dragons, and unicorns. The word unicorns is
found in Numberbs 23:22; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9; Psalms 22:21; 29:6;
78:69, and 92:10.

One other verse that puts the lie to the modern versions use of wild ox,
besides the reference in Job, is Psalms 92:10. But my HORN shalt thou exalt
like the HORN of AN UNICORN. The NASB, NIV, NKJV read: You have exalted my
HORN like THAT OF A WILD OX. Now, I ask you a simple question. How many
horns does a wild ox have? Not one, but two.

People who are interested in reading the whole article can see it at:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unicorn.html

Jason, you have repeatedly avoided answering any of my questions to you. I
have tried to answer every one of your questions to me. You may not like the
answers I have given, but I don't see how a good form of debate is to
continue to ask the same questions over and over again when you keep getting
the same answers. If you are hoping my answers will change to ones that will
be more to your liking, I'm afraid you will be disappointed.

It is clear that neither one of us is going to change the other person's
mind on this issue. All we can profitably do is finish our debate in the 7
rounds you suggested. There seem to be quite a few people interested in our
discussion and I hope we can cover some new ground. I suggest you not keep
bringing up the same old examples hoping for a different response from me.
It isn't going to happen. We will let the other readers decide who has made
the best case for their Biblical position, and leave the results with God.

Hoping to hear from you soon,

Why don't you try the riddle within the riddle in Judges 14:15? Give it a
shot and tell us all how you would go about translating it in your yet to be
written version.

God bless,

Will Kinney

By Jason

Round 6

Will,

If you could avoid your off-topic opining about other translations, you
would probably have room for another entire round post.

You keep trying to use the Greek and Hebrew to explain the errors in the
KJV. You also want us to think this is allowable. It may be allowable to
some, but it isnt allowable to you. Why?

You are forbidden to use the Greek and Hebrew texts to correct the errors in
the KJV because of the resolution of this debate. In case you forgot, the
resolution of this debate is: The KJV is inerrant.

quote:

I have defended and explained the "hares chew the cud" by providing three
different links, two from Creation Science ministries and one from a Bible
Dictionary. You personally do not accept the explanation and have not
provided us with how you would translate this phrase in your yet to be
written, inerrant "bible" version.

Hares dont chew the cud; even the thought is laughable. Hares practice
refection. They chew partially digested dung. This is very different from
chewing the cud.

Once again, I have an answer because I can read the ancient, non-English
scriptures and discover the answer. Conversely, you have no answer because
you chose to try and defend the following resolution: The KJV is inerrant.

quote:

As for the Jehu son of Nimshi example, I showed how ALL Bible versions say
the same thing and explained the use of the word "son" in both Hebrew and
Greek.

Which doesnt mean one single thing. Youre supposed to be trying to defend
the resolution of this debate. Resolution: The KJV is inerrant.

quote:

I even asked you the following questions, taken right from the KJB, and yet
you have refused to answer these. This was my defence, yet you never
attempted to refute it.

Im going to refuse again because Im passing the football in the air while
youre trying to defend a ground attack.

quote:

As for the Samuel inquiring of the Lord and not inquiring, I explained to
you that you are confusing two different events as being one, and therefore
you see a contradiction where none exists.

This is a bizarre bit of ad hoc, piecemeal exegesis. Both of those
scriptures are talking about the exact same event: when Saul (NOT SAMUEL)
wasnt/was inquiring of the Lord before he met the witch of Endor. This is a
very clear, KJV contradiction. However, it is cleared up quite nicely in the
Hebrew. It even lends for a fantastic sermon based on the right/wrong kinds
of inquiring of the Lord.

quote:

ALL Bible versions, including the three Hebrew translations agree with the
King James reading.

One KJV verse said Saul (NOT SAMUEL) did inquire. One KJV verse said Saul
(NOT SAMUEL) did not inquire. How could anything agree with both passages?
Furthermore, Ive already illustrated how the Hebrew text DOES NOT agree with
the KJVs contradiction. Two completely different Hebrew words are used for
the English word inquire.

Once again, the KJV got it wrong, but the Hebrew shows us the truth.
Unfortunately for Will, he cannot fall back on the Hebrew to help him in his
quest to make the KJV inerrant. We have decided on the following resolution
for this debate: The KJV is inerrant.

quote:

I have every right to consult the Hebrew texts and the Greek text that
underlies the King James Bible as you do.

Maybe in another debate with another resolution. Not in this one though,
Will.

quote:

Here is your latest example of "error" in the King James Bible.
Jason>>>
4. "Unicorns dont exist. The KJV says they do. Therefore, the KJV is in
error.
Many verses in the KJV claim that unicorns exist. Here is one. Psalm 92:10
reads, But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be
anointed with fresh oil.
Do unicorns exist, Will? No, they dont. The KJV is in error. We have an
answer from the Hebrew text, but you cannot use the Hebrew text if you want
to say the KJV is inerrant."

quote:

Jason, I already gave you my response to this alleged error.

What I said is that many Bible translators have considered "unicorn" to be
an accurate translation of this Hebrew word.

Perhaps these numerous Bible translators also believe in gremlins, fairies,
Odin, and Thor, but this doesnt make unicorns exist.

Just so were clear, here is the one and only definition of unicorn in
Merriam-Websters Dictionary:

A mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the
hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of
the forehead.

I ask you, again. Do you believe in unicorns?

quote:

I think it was either a unicorn in much the same way we think of unicorns
today,

Really? Today we obviously recognize unicorns as the mythical creature
defined by Merriam-Websters Dictionary. Are you so crazy about the KJV that
you would prefer to reject actual, animal possibilities that the Hebrew
gives us in favor of a mythical being with the body and head of a horse, the
hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of
the forehead?

quote:

or maybe it was one-horned dinosaur, or possibly a rhino. I don't really
know, but it is obvious that the NKJV, NIV, NASB etc. have gotten it wrong
with "a wild ox".

Its only obvious because you have an irrational, a priori bias against any
Bible translation that doesnt start with a K and end with a V.

quote:

You could give us your personal opinion as to what this animal was, but that
is all it would be - your opinion. Many Bible translators both ancient and
modern and in foreign languages too have considered "unicorn" - a one horned
animal- to be a perfectly good translation.

Ill save my personal opinion, but you can guess where I derive it. Not from
the English text that was translated a few hundred years ago, but from the
scriptures that preceded your idolized translation by about 3000 years.

quote:

There seem to be quite a few people interested in our discussion and I hope
we can cover some new ground.

I know you do, Will. Youd like me to avoid mentioning how you cannot stick
to or support the resolution of the debate: The KJV is inerrant. If I didnt
have a handful of airtight, completely obvious KJV errors, then maybe Id
labor to dig up some more. However, at this point, and at every other point
in this debate, youve failed to support the resolution of this debate, so
you are the loser.

Im looking forward to your Round 7 post and making mine.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
http://jcsm.org/

By Will

Round 7

Hi saints and sinners, Bible believers and those who wish they had one. I
want to thank Jason Gastrich for asking me to debate him about the King
James Bible , and I thank Baptist Board for allowing us to openly discuss
this issue here.

My closing remarks will be relatively brief.

It seems Jason's last primary objection was to the use of unicorns in the
King James Bible and many other versions both ancient and modern.

I had said: "I think it was either a unicorn in much the same way we think
of unicorns today, or maybe it was one-horned dinosaur, or possibly a rhino.
I don't really know, but it is obvious that the NKJV, NIV, NASB etc. have
gotten it wrong with "a wild ox".

To which Jason replied: "Its only obvious because you have an irrational, a
priori bias against any Bible translation that doesnt start with a K and end
with a V.

Just so were clear, here is the one and only definition of unicorn in
Merriam-Websters Dictionary:A mythical animal generally depicted with the
body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a
single horn in the middle of the forehead.
I ask you, again. Do you believe in unicorns?
Are you so crazy about the KJV that you would prefer to reject actual,
animal possibilities that the Hebrew gives us in favor of a mythical being
with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a
lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead?"

My final response.

Jason, What I said was a unicorn COULD HAVE BEEN an animal much like what
people think a unicorn looks like, or it could have been a type of dinosaur,
or possibly the rhinoceros unicornus. I said I do not know and neither do
you nor other scholars.

Do you believe in the Devil? Do you think such an entity exists? When most
people hear the word "devil" they think of a tiny red man with horns and a
tail. I doubt he really looks like this, but I do believe in a devil. Yet
most people who are not Christians, and unfortunately more and more
professing Christians today, do not really believe the Devil exists - he is
just a myth or a symbol of evil.

If you push me into a corner, I will say, Yes, I believe in unicorns because
they are found in the Holy Bible. I also believe that Balaam's ass actually
spoke to him and I believe a whale swallowed Jonah and vomited him back up.
I believe God became a man, and that He was born of a virgen. I believe He
died for my sins and rose from the dead after three days.

I personally have never witnessed any of these things and the world mocks
that these things ever occurred. I guess I am just gullible enough to
believe God has given us a Book that is inerrant and true in every detail,
even though much of the world thinks the whole thing is a myth.

It appears that to your way of thinking the idea that God Himself would
providentially provide us with a tangible Book that is now the complete,
infallible, inerrant, inspired and pure words of the living God is itself a
myth.

You do not have such a Book. You don't know where it is or what it looks
like. You can't tell us where to get one. You talk about the inerrant Bible,
but you cannot pick it up in your hands and show it to us. The only inerrant
"bible" that exists in your world is the mystical invention of your own
mind, and your particular version of it differs from every other bible out
there, whether in print or in someone else's mind. And you think I am the
one who believes in something that doesn't exist!

You ask me if I am so crazy as to believe in unicorns because they are found
in the King James Bible. Well, I guess I am. I'm not sure what they were
exactly, but I believe in them because they are in the Book that I really
believe is the word of God.

Apparently a whole bunch of other Christians who were far more educated in
ancient languages and English than I am also believed in unicorns and put
them in their Bible versions.

What should be obvious to anyone who has been following our discussion and
reading the other link you provided for comments, is that all those who are
not King James Bible believers do not have nor believe in any single Book
that is the inerrant and complete word of God.

Here is a quote from one of them when I asked him these simple questions.

Will>>>>Do you personally believe there is any Bible or any single Hebrew
and/or Greek text that is now the complete, inerrant, inspired words of God?
Or do you believe there is any text in any language that is now the
inerrant, complete words of God. If so, what is it called?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian>>>>"No, I do not. I believe that each manuscript or fragment is
reliant upon others for support, but we will never have anything conclusive
until we see God in Glory (1Corinthians 13:12). To believe that any human or
group of humans could perfectly preserve the original text, as well as the
true intention of the text, is to elevate these men to the status of God."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will>>>>Do you believe that all Hebrew texts have been corrupted or
miscopied in some places, as in Judges 14:15 for example?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian>>>>"I believe that they all contain errors of various sorts, but
they do not neccessarily occur in the same places. We are left with
examining "majorities" of "agreements."
---------------------------------------------------------------

There are many others who likewise have posted what they think are errors in
the King James Bible, yet invariably what they allege to be errors are also
found in other Bible translations that agree with the King James readings.

You will find widespread disagreement among each of those who presume, as
you do, to be able to put together a perfect Bible. But in every case, there
is not one of them who is able to point to any specific "bible" that they
believe is now the inerrant word of God. Each one of them thinks he is an
expert and knows what the text should be and how to translate it, and yet
they all differ from everybody else's views, and I am sure they do not agree
100% with you either.

"In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was
right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25

All of you who are not King James Bible believers focus on man and his
inability to put together a perfect Bible. You say no translation can be
inspired or perfect. You also affirm that all the Hebrew and Greek texts
have been corrupted and are uncertain. Yet, ironically, each of you think
YOU can do it. You all seem to have either forgotten or explain away all the
promises of God Himself to preserve His words in this world in a Book till
heaven and earth pass away. "Seek ye out of THE BOOK OF THE LORD, and read"
Isaiah 34:16

Isaiah 59:21: "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My
Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall
not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of
the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Jason, I am sorry you do not have an inerrant Bible. You say the words, but
lack the reality.

For those who I'm sure have breathlessly been waiting for the answer to the
riddle within the riddle found in Judges 14 about the 7th day, I have now
put the article on my website.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/riddle.html

I will close with this Scripture I was reading the other day. Apply it to
His promises to preserve His words on this earth.

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he
should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and
shall he not make it good?"
Numbers 23:19

In and by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,

Will Kinney

By Jason

Round 7

Dear Readers and Will,

Thanks to Baptist Board for hosting this debate. I appreciate their
moderation and I also appreciate how they provided us two threads: one for
debate and one for commentary. Plus, thanks to Will for debating.

The Most Important Thing

The doctrine of salvation reveals to us that we are saved by repenting from
our sins and believing, trusting, and accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and
Savior. Whether we agree on non-essential doctrines should be secondary in
importance. Our salvation is the most important thing.

This debate covered some of the KJV’s errors. By the tone of the emails I
received from KJV-Onlyists, it would seem that they have forgotten the most
important thing. I hope and pray that neither side forgets the doctrine of
salvation and that we all strive to be like Christ as we take His message
into the world.

The Inerrancy of the Scriptures

God is perfect. The Word that He breathed through the original Bible authors
was inerrant. Glory to God. Furthermore, He has preserved His Word through
the manuscripts that are copies of the originals. This can be confirmed.

I’ve studied hundreds and hundreds of the "very best, alleged Bible errors."
I have also found answers to every one of them. Therefore, I have informed
faith that the scriptures are inerrant. Glory to God.

During my studies, I found that I had to return to the original languages in
order to understand the answers to some of the alleged errors. Was this
wrong? Well, for someone who does not claim that an English translation is
inerrant, it was not wrong. It was perfectly right and normal. Would you
really think that there would be no problems in translating the Bible from
Greek and Hebrew into English? As small as they may be, there were some
issues.

It has been my pleasure to invest thousands of hours of research on alleged
Bible errors. My faith in God and His Word has increased a great deal.
Wouldn’t yours if you found all of the answers to the tough questions about
the scriptures?

I cannot honestly say that the KJV is inerrant. There are some obvious
contradictions that I will summarize in a minute. In my humble opinion,
those that have read the obvious errors in the KJV and still say there are
no errors are lying and are dangerous people. They have let their pet belief
dominate their intelligence and their life. They have exchanged diligent
study and rational thinking with blind faith and foolishness.

These people that ignore the obvious KJV errors can resemble cult members.
The cults make extreme statements like people need to be baptized in their
church in order to go to Heaven. The cults use impertinent scriptures (as
Will has done) when they feel like they need to control thought and
conversation. They apply these scriptures to whatever they feel like; even
when these scriptures say nothing about the topic. In this case, the topic
is the inerrancy of the English translation called the King James Version.

Now, I’m not saying that Will is a cult member. I’m also not saying that all
KJV-Onlyists are cultists. However, I am saying that the ones I have met
share qualities with the zealous cult members.

Baffling

It’s baffling how Will can proclaim the KJV is inerrant. We have firmly
established that this is a faith-belief and not one based on facts. Perhaps
the KJV was read to him as a child. Perhaps it was always used in his
family. Nonetheless, it is absurd and irrational to blindly proclaim that
the KJV is inerrant; especially after all of the evidence to the contrary.

Will likes to talk about preservation and how God must have preserved His
Word for English speaking people. This is fine and good. However, Will was
never able to tell us why this preserved Word had to be the KJV. Why
couldn’t it be another, existing translation? Why couldn’t it be another
yet-to-be-written translation? This will always be a problem for people who
believe like Will.

Will expects us to believe with him that there was no inerrant English Bible
for over 1600 years, then God gave us the KJV as His inerrant Word. This
seems a bit arbitrary. Doesn’t it? Why the KJV? Why then? Why not a
different translation and why not later? If God could wait 1600 years to
reveal His preserved Word to the English speaking people, then why not wait
400 more years?

Obvious Errors

During this debate, a number of obvious errors were revealed from the KJV.
Will never had any legitimate answers. If you can recall, you will remember
that Will ran to and fro using external books, translations, and even
ancient scriptures to try and defend the English translation called the King
James Version. Of course, this was an inappropriate defense. If the KJV -
and English Bible translation - is inerrant, then Will should not need to
consult any external books, translations, or ancient scriptures in order to
prove his case. The fact that Will had to leave the KJV on the shelf while
trying to defend its inerrancy is to his detriment and significantly
tarnishes his credibility.

Here is a summary of the handful of errors that were discussed in this
debate.

1. Did Saul inquire of the Lord? In the KJV, one scripture says he did, but
another scripture says he doesn’t. This is called an error, Will. Be honest.
1 Samuel 28:6 reads, ""And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered
him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets."" 1 Chronicles
10:13 and 14 read, "So Saul died for his transgression which he committed
against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and
also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it;
14And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the
kingdom unto David the son of Jesse." Those verses say two different things
in the KJV. If you say they don’t, then you are a liar. If you want to lie
to us and say that these two verses don’’t contradict in the KJV, then
nothing you say can be trusted. In a court of law, this would be as perjury.
The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you cannot use the Hebrew. You say the
KJV is inerrant. If you have to go to the Hebrew to clear up an error in the
KJV, then you lose the debate.

–

Will’s answer:

–

2. The KJV is in error regarding Jehu. Jehu was the grandson of Nimshi; not
the son. However, we find passages in the KJV that say both. 1 Kings 19:16
reads, "And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel
. . ." 2 Kings 9:2 reads, "And when thou comest thither, look out there Jehu
the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in . . ." Will, these two
verses say two different things in the KJV. This means there is an error. As
before, the answer is in the Hebrew. However, you are arguing that the KJV
is inerrant. Therefore, you cannot refer to the Hebrew. These two verses
plainly say two different things. If you claim they do not, then you are a
liar. If you want to lie about this, then we cannot trust anything you say.
Do the KJV-onlyists really want to lie and support liars? Take this to heart
and stop making yourself look foolish. Agree with the simple truth of God’’s
Word. There are errors that you cannot reconcile in and within the KJV. You
can only reconcile them by going to the Hebrew and Greek and this is
impossible for a KJV-Onlyist to do. This is what normal people do; normal
people who understand there are some errors in the KJV. You cannot have it
both ways. If you have to look to another text to help the KJV be correct,
then you have lost the debate and admitted error.

–

Will’s answer:

–

3. Hares don’’t chew the cud. The KJV says they do. This is an error. If you
say it’’s correct, then you are ignorant of science. Leviticus 11:6 reads,
"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud . . ." The answer is in the
Hebrew. However, you don’’t have the liberty of looking in the Hebrew. You
claim the KJV (KING JAMES VERSION) is inerrant. So, prove it. Prove the KJV
is inerrant with the KJV. Hint: You can’’t. Do rabbits chew the cud, Will?
Yes or no? No, they don’’t. If you say they do, then you are a liar.

–

Will’s answer:

–

4. Unicorns don’t exist. The KJV says they do. Therefore, the KJV is in
error. Many verses in the KJV claim that unicorns exist. Here is one. Psalm
92:10 reads, "But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I
shall be anointed with fresh oil." Do unicorns exist, Will? No, they don’t.
The KJV is in error. We have an answer from the Hebrew text, but you cannot
use the Hebrew text if you want to say the KJV is inerrant.

–

Other Arguments and KJV- Onlyists

There are plenty of other arguments against the KJV’s inerrancy. It’s
unfortunate that the handful of KJV-Onlyists who have been posting in this
thread and the commentary thread will not see that the original autographs
were inerrant, but the KJV is not.

Throughout the debate, Will mocked me and told me I had no inerrant Bible.
Do you think this was appropriate? If Will has an inerrant KJV, then it came
from inerrant manuscripts that came from inerrant autographs. I affirm the
inerrant autographs. I even affirm the fact that we have enough inerrant
manuscripts to compose a single, inerrant Bible. However, I will not be
intellectually dishonest like Will and turn a blind eye to the obvious, KJV
errors.

I encourage the KJV-Onlyists to join the other inerrantists. We know that
God’s Word is inerrant. However, we also know that the KJV is not. This is
obviously a valid and tenable belief. In fact, I tell people that I have
"informed faith" because my belief stems from both my faith and what I have
discovered by reading the Bible.

It must be a fearful thing for a KJV-Onlyist to consider leaving their
doctrine. Pride is obviously a factor. It must also worry them that they
will be seen as less faithful to God. However, it is quite normal and right
for people to change their minds and have a more informed viewpoint as they
grow older and increase in knowledge. Don’t you think?

How does it feel to be mocked by people who tell you that unicorns don’t
exist? How does it feel to use poor and illogical arguments to atheists who
show you KJV errors? Don’t think that you are suffering for the cause of
Christ. Your irrational belief in the KJV-Onlyism doctrine has nothing to do
with the cause of Christ. Countless educated and faithful people are making
great strides for the kingdom of God and we know without any doubt that
there are some errors in the King James Version. You should repent from your
unbiblical belief that this one, English Bible translation is inerrant and
consider that the ancient autographs were inerrant; revealed by the inerrant
manuscripts we have today.

The inerrant autographs are not evidenced by the KJV. The KJV contradicts
itself. Who can two opposing things be true? Saul inquired of the Lord. Saul
didn’t inquire of the Lord. In the KJV, THAT IS AN ERROR. It is talking
about the exact same event.

The KJV-Onlyists are handcuffed and cannot use one of the greatest weapons
that we have available to us. This weapon, of course, is the ancient
scriptures. The KJV-Onlyist has no right whatsoever to avoid using the KJV
to prove that the KJV is inerrant. Only a fool would try and use ancient
Hebrew and Greek to prove that a modern, English translation is inerrant. If
you want to be a KJV-Onlyist, at least do not be a fool.

Uneducated?

There are good educational institutions and there are poor ones. There are
people who go to learn and there are people who go to get by. However, I’m
very concerned about the KJV-Onlyists who have been posting at the Baptist
Board. If you have read their posts, then you probably share the same
concern.

We can all cite multiple spelling and grammatical errors from all of the
KJV-Onlyists. Why is this so? Why do they all have this in common?

It is of no surprise to me that the KJV-Onlyists seem uneducated. Look at
the belief that they’re trying to defend! Look at they way they are trying
to defend it! There are some scriptures in Revelation that speak to people
like the KJV-Onlyists. They read:

Revelation 3:15-20 "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I
could wish you were cold or hot. 16So then, because you are lukewarm, and
neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17Because you say,
‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know
that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked—18I counsel you to
buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white
garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not
be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19As
many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.
20Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens
the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me."

My Experience With Bible Translations

When I was 7 years old, I repented from my sins and believed, accepted, and
trusted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. I attended church with
my parents and began growing spiritually.

Unfortunately, between the ages of 16-20, I faced some hard times. I wasn’t
overly interested in kingdom things and I sort of went my own way. However,
God helped me become devoted to Him after that period and I have been very
blessed ever since.

When I was 20 (the year God helped me turn my life around), my Mom gave me a
Bible. This Bible was in the Living translation. I could not put it down. I
read it all of the time. It was my favorite Bible and I really liked it.

In the years shortly after my repentance, I studied the Greek and Hebrew
texts and found that it was convenient to use the KJV to do so. I also found
that some of the translations had some changes and word choices that I
didn’t like. Frankly, some translations I’ve studied use poor and misleading
words.

The following two web pages illustrate some of my research. Please visit
them when you have some time.

Modern Translations of the Bible vs. the KJV

http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/KJV.htm

The Best Bible Versions (and the Worst)

http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/BBV.htm

Those web pages simply take scriptures from various translations and show
how things have been changed or omitted. They are also very pro-KJV. In
fact, the only Bible that is directly linked from every one of JCSM’s 60,000
web pages is the KJV. It is an excellent translation. See
http://bible.jcsm.org for this Bible.

My ministry sells a CD-ROM with an apologetics book in it. This book gives
nearly 4,000 answers to the tough questions about the Bible. Many of the
answers come from the Hebrew and Greek.

In this CD-ROM, we include one Bible and a Strong’s Hebrew and Greek
Concordance and Dictionary. This Bible is a KJV Bible. See
http://sab.jcsm.org for more.

Kingdom Work

Another common thread among the KJV-Onlyists seems to be their lack of
kingdom work. It would seem that their zealous adherence to the doctrine of
KJV-Onlyism has caused them to be paralyzed for the cause of Christ. We do
not see them leading people to Christ. We do not see them prioritizing the
gospel message. We do not see them zealously serving the Lord.

On the contrary, we see the KJV-Onlyists acting like cult members. They are
desperately trying to get people to see things their way. Look at Will’s web
site. He posted enough links for us, so surely you visited at least once.
His entire internet presence, his entire web site is devoted to the defense
of the King James Version Bible! If this isn’t misdirected and if this isn’t
paralyzing him regarding the important things, then I do not know what is.

Here are the first words on Will’s main web page. They read:

"Hello and welcome to my website. Several years ago I became interested in
the Bible version issue. After much study and prayer I am convinced God's
pure, perfect and preserved words in English are found only in the
Authorized King James Bible."

Is this really what Christian ministry is all about? Are these really the
words of a person who has his priorities in order?

Here is the remainder of the words on Will’s main web page:

"Feel free to read any of these articles which defend the Holy Bible as
being the inspired, inerrant words of the living God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ.

I welcome any comments, questions or suggestions you might have concerning
this most vital matter. Just e-mail me and I will get back to you as soon as
I can.

By His grace -the only way to get there from here, Will Kinney"

Of course, we see some sleight of hand from Will. He calls the KJV the "Holy
Bible" while obviously excluding any other scriptures from that title. Is
this healthy? Is this the sign of someone who is well?

Will makes it sound like he is defending the Word of God, when in actuality,
he is defending his personal, pet-belief that the King James Version is the
only inerrant Bible on the Earth. This endeavor is more important to him
than the gospel. It’s more important than posting Bible lessons about love.
It’s more important to him than sharing about Bible prophecy and its
fulfillment. It’s more important to him than revealing miracles and his
relationship with Jesus Christ.

Where is the gospel, Will? Why isn’t it on your site? Isn’t it important to
you?

Conclusion

All throughout this debate, Will had an incredibly difficult time staying on
topic. He continually wanted to bash other translations. He continually
wanted to try and defend the KJV with ancient scriptures. These things did
him no good.

Until Will and people like him repent from their short-sightedness and
radical, zealous faith in KJV-Onlyism, they should be approached with
caution. They are dangerous people who call black white. They ignore sound
arguments and the ancient scriptures until they are convenient for them.
Their arguments do not support their premise and they use scriptures like
daggers to promote their opinions; regardless of whether or not the biblical
authors had KJV-Onlyism in mind.

The errors in the KJV are so obvious that only someone with an a priori
belief in them that willfully and continually tried to do damage control
could think otherwise.

Who are the great defenders of KJV-Onlyism? Why didn’t Will quote from them?
Where did these people go to school? Where are they now?

Perhaps Will didn’t quote from Peter S. Ruckman - a primary defender of
KJV-Onlyism - because his stance is so absurd. In "A Christian's Handbook of
Manuscript Evidence", Ruckman has a chapter entitled, "Correcting the Greek
with the English." He claims, "Where the majority of Greek manuscripts stand
against the A.V. 1611, put them in file

13" (p. 130). "When the Greek says one thing and the A.V. says another,

throw out the Greek" (p. 137). Citation:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5951/KJVOnly.html

As you know, there aren’t any institutions that say the KJV is inerrant. If
there are, I have never heard of them and no KJV-Onlyist has ever revealed
them to me. The blind faith belief in the KJV’s inerrancy is an extreme
minority viewpoint held by uneducated zealots. Why? Because most people will
be honest and because most educated Christians will agree that the original
autographs were inerrant, but the KJV is not.

Dr. Daniel B. Wallace summarized this controversy as follows, "So, is there
a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I believe there
is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern translations. Rather, I
believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to
deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to elevate an
anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created,
and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was
in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and
difficult to understand. ... It takes little thought to see who is behind
such a conspiracy." Citation: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=706

Bob L. Ross summarizes KJV-Onlyism as well. He says, "This bias is contrary
to the views of the King James Translators themselves and ALL professing
Christian denominations, including all Baptist Confessions of Faith, and is
plainly a modern innovation — except, of course, for old_line Roman
Catholicism which taught that the Latin Vulgate was the "one_and_only"
Bible." Citation: http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/whatkjvo.htm

Thanks again to the readers of this debate. I pray that God richly blesses
you.

Sincerely,

Jason Gastrich