They Dare Call This Science!

Yeah, what Will said.

 

Hi Will:

Why do you keep pontificating about what
the majority of greek witnesses say? Does
that really matter to you?

KJO are the ultimate minority advocates. From what I've seen and read, it really doesn't matter to them if the text is in the majority of greek witnesses, the minority, or has no greek witness support. They only care that ONE manuscript supports their reading: the King James Bible.

If its there..then they'll defend it to the death
regardless of the textual support for or against a reading.

If I'm mistaken about this..please show me where/how?

-kman

 

Dear Will,

I am personally pleased (FWIW) that you are meeting us on the one ground that we all share, the evidences concerning the manuscripts which underlie the various Bible versions.

However all your arguments are those which can be turned back to you for your own consideration.

Briefly and the most important : You do not have a “perfect” English Bible and as many times as you say so, you have been reminded of the several revisions to the original edition of the 1611 KJV, the earliest of which was 1613. To simply ignore this fact shows the viewing public of this forum that you have no rebuttal except to simply repeat the KJV “inspired” shibboleth without being able to “form the words” of the explanation of the historically proven fact that the Church of England corrected the text of the 1611KJV of the Bible. So, we ask which revision is the "perfect" Word(s) of God since according to the KJVO definiton of "perfect" "things which are different are not the same".

According to McClintock-Strong Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol 1, pg. 562 (1871) The translators archetype of the 1611KJV was lost in 1655.

Welcome to the club Will, we do not possess the “original autograph” of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible as well as the original Greek and Hebrew autographs.

Another matter:
In spite of the fact that the koine Greek text of the NT cites the LXX over and over again the KJVO simply deny without conclusive evidence the reality of that provable fact.

Somehow some unknown Alexandrians revised all the LXX manuscripts all over the world to agree with the koine Greek of the NT in the several places in which the LXX was used (This is why the KJVO must believe that the LXX is post NT BTW since this would be difficult even for those sneaky Alexandrians to change what did not yet exist).

While you admit that there is Scriptural evidence that a translation is accepted by God and in fact embedded in the NT Word of God (the LXX no less), you have opened a proverbial “can of worms” Which ones and what is the criteria?

You say “Will the real Bible please stand up!” because of a difference of one word in translation, and we are told that our “scholars are stumbling all over themselves and can't seem to make up their minds about what God really said”.

But when we point out a one word difference (Ruth 3:15) between two editions of the KJV (and there are hundreds) and we ask the very same question we are told “both” are true in spite of the “things which are different are not the same” hammer we get bludgeoned with.

Will, the Bible has somewhat to say concerning a double standard:

Deuteronomy 25
13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

There are several more arguments derived from the KJVO claims against the MVs which I would like to turn around and ask you, but they can wait until you answer this question: Which edition of the King James Version of the Bible became the “perfect” Word(s) of God?

A-A answered a similar question with “Yes”. I believe those viewing this on-going KJVO debate here at the BB understand the validity of that kind of a double standard dodge or silence.

HankD

 

These are either my words or words verys similar to mine. They are true whether you believe them or not and whether you can waste bandwidth by posting cute little songs that fosters a lie by mis-stating the position of KJVO opponents.

I believe the Bible is true as much if not more so than you. I believe in the divine inspiration of both words and message in the originals and in the providential preservation of the inspired message through an abundance of imperfect, man-made copies and translations. My belief is consistent with the Bible's teachings on scripture, it is consistent with the Bible versions we possess, it is consistent with the history of the Bible, and it is consistent with the evidence we have for the originals. It is beyond me how someone who seems to be intelligent like you cannot understand this and to the contrary can believe something that stands in contradiction to all of the things I wrote above.

Perhaps it is modernism, deeply engrained into your mind... that you cannot accept "the Word of God" unless you can subject it to a word count program or some type of measurable exemplar. In any event, God's Word is God's message. His revelation to mankind... not a single set of English words chosen by Anglican scholars.

 

Hypocrisy. On the one hand you can believe that parallel passages that are the same in every regard except for the numbers "42" and "22" somehow do not mean something different then attempt to lecture me on the meanings of words.

This all goes back to the core of your false premises. I don't accept nor expect translators or textual scholars to be infallible. I expect them to be honest and knowledgable and to have reasons for why they chose as they did. My view of the KJV translators with regard to their scholarship is no different than my view of the Lockman translators.

I have not read all of your long.... long... dissertations on these various texts where you say doctrine or meaning is changed. If you were arguing for KJV or majority text or even TR superiority then I would probably be more interested. However, so long as you are unable or unwilling to a establish a logical, biblical, sound premise from which to operate, I am not interested in your "proof".

You can blather on as long as you like. I will continue to go back to your false premises until you establish them in fact. I do not accept your personal biases and assumptions which eminate from your mind as a sound foundation for belief.

To paraphrase the KJV translators: If the word of the king is translated into any other language, it remains the word of the king. Howbeit, not all translators will do their work with like skill or accuracy.

The same goes for the 1000's of copyists that recorded the text of the Bible for over 1300 years.

Yet you did not take into account one of the great blessings of God's Word... redundancy. No biblical Christian establishes doctrine from a single text in a single version. If you want to show me something, show me a doctrine that is taught in the KJV and not taught in the NASB or NKJV.

You guess wrong. Doctrine is very important to me including the orthodox, historical, fundamental doctrine of the Bible... Doctrine is so important to me that I left a church a few months ago after the pastor reneged on his claim of being "only KJV" and affirmed KJVOnlyism... so much so that I led my family away from a church that we liked very much because the pastor preached from the pulpit that blacks and whites shouldn't worship together... so much so that I am pondering a 50 minute drive to church because of the doctrinal weakness of the 20-30 Baptist churches that are closer.

You ask the wrong question based on false premises. Your logic is flawed. You have no proof nor supporting facts... therefore your conclusion is meaningless.

You most certainly can. Establish a sound set of premises that do not contradict scripture nor history then build a case. I have said before and will say again, it would be far more convenient for me to believe KJVOnlyism. The 3 closest independent Baptist churches are KJVO. At least one of them appears to be fairly sound otherwise. However this is a major core doctrinal issue and error begets error.

I think that the "others" can probably see quite plainly that you are not clarifying my position but rather twisting and distorting it.... so please continue. Every opportunity you give me to disprove your disingenuous efforts further weakens your credibility and by extension KJVOnlyism.

Will K [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

This is your mindset. If you do not understand something, and it doesn't make sense to you, then it must be an error. So, as it stands now, you do not have any inspired Bible anywhere on this earth, neither in Hebrew, Greek, English or any other language. Your "Bible" is a mystical one that exists only in your own mind, and is different from everybody else's.

Will, you've said the same thing for several years now, but you've failed to provide the first shred of EVIDENCE to show this is anything but guesswork.

On the other hand, a King James Bible believer like myself, will come to the text, believe it is true even if I don't understand it, and ask God to open my understanding. I do not change the text in any way. I have the preserved, inerrant words of God, and you do not.

Once again, this is more of your guesswork. Your mindset is, "if it aint the KJV, it's wrong". This is something you simply cannot prove. Do you really think you're fooling anybody with your unprovable statements?


I have seen this many times. I have an answer for this apparent contradiction. It may be correct and it may not be. (I think it is) But it provides a very possible explanation that does not change the Hebrew text. You however, will refuse to accept the possible explanation which maintains the integrity of God's inerrant word, because you are operating from a position of unbelief and have already decided that the oracles of God committed to the Jews has a universal "scribal error", and if YOU can't seem to understand something, then you conclude it must be wrong. You see, you have exalted your own mind above the word of God and you now are the final authority.

Yes, you have a whole book of excuses and "possible explanations" that carry no more weight than does the most obvious explanation-somebody goofed. To you onlyists, your MAIN excuse is that anyone who disagrees with the Onlyist myth is operating from a position of unbelief, that such people are some kind of "second-class Christian" because they don't swallow your codwallop. You're echoing the party line of Dr. Herb Evans & his toady "John Henry", who also spout a lot of opinion and guesswork which they cannot prove correct.

I believe it's time we held your feet to the fire, Will, and ask you to *PROVE* that we MV users are something less than Christians in good standing with Jesus, and if you cannot provide such proof, to admit you were wrong & find another line to try to promote the Onlyist myth.

 

The Ethiopian eunuch used a different version of Isaiah, and this fact is clearly recorded in the Scriptures. This demonstrates that any form of "One Version Onlyism" is unscriptural."


No, Archy, it demonstrates only that you have no inspired Bible and haven't considered other possible explanations.

The first part of your above reply is typical Onlyist doggerel, completely unprovable. Let's look at your excuses now:

Isaiah 53:7-8 with Acts 8:32-33

This is another example that is frequently brought up to disprove an inerrant Bible and promote the multiplicity of conflicting versions in use today. In this instance an Ethiopian eunuch refers to a Messianic passage found in Isaiah and his quotation seems to match the so called Greek Septuagint version rather than the Hebrew text.

A careful comparison of these two quotes show various shades of differences.

Isaiah - "he is brought as a lamb"

Acts - "he was led as a sheep"

Isaiah - "and as a sheep before HER shearerS is dumb"

Acts - "and like a lamb dumb before HIS shearer"

Isaiah - "he was taken from prison and from judgment"

Acts - "in his humiliation his judgment was taken away"

Isaiah - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living"

Acts - "for his life is taken from the earth"

A simple explanation of these apparent discrepancies is that the Ethiopian was giving Philip a Greek paraphrase of the Hebrew text, and Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, recorded the conversation. The meaning is basically the same whether in Hebrew or Greek.

So the Holy Ghost did it, eh? And the Holy Ghost didn't influence any other writings?? And it's OK for the KJV to have two versions of the same message recorded within its pages, but NOT OK for another version to have the same messages worded a little differently? Nothing like the good ole KJVO double standard, huh?

The Ethiopian had come to Jerusalem to worship. He could most likely read Hebrew but not speak it very well. Most adults who learn a foreign language can read it long before they can speak it well. I doubt Philip spoke the Ethiopian's native tongue, so the only common spoken language between them was Greek.

Ethiopia has quite a long history of Hebrew usage, so your premise is only a possibility, but we won't discount it entirely. Seeing as how the Ethiopian was CLEARLY READING, this language-barrier thing doesn't sound too credible. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it's completely true, and that the two men conversed in Greek, and were reading from a Greek copy of Isaiah. THE WORDING IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE MASORETIC TEXT, but the MESSAGE is still the same. So much for your EXACT WORDS concept. By your own words, it appears that the concepts of God's passing down MESSAGES AND IDEAS, rather than EXACT WORDS has more merit than you wanna admit!

Another possibility was suggested to me by brother Schmuel. He says: "It is also very possible that the Ethiopian's Scripture version was in Geez (Ethiopic)not Greek. Remember we have "Beta Israel" (aka Falasha), Jews from Ethiopia from early times who read only Geez, and it seems not any Hebrew, although determining their language skills in 30 AD would be largely conjectural.

The same premises for my last answer above, apply here-the inescapable fact is that, even if what the Ethiopian was reading was written in Slobbovian, THE WORDING IS DIFFERENT FROM THE OLDER HEBREW TEXTS!

==================================
Jewish Enclyclopedia 1911 about the Ethiopian Jews.
http://82.1911encyclopedia.org/F/FA/FALCK.htm
They possess not in Hebrew, of which they are altogether ignorant, but in Ethiopic (or Geez) the canonical and apocryphal books of the Old Testament.

See above.

A third likely explanation is that Luke, who himself was a Greek and was used by the Holy Ghost to record these things, translated the entire event into his own language. Luke may have learned of the conversion of the Ethiopian through Philip himself, and then translated the narrative into inspired Greek. Regardless of which language or tongues were originally used, God used Luke to record these events in his native tongue. We see this same thing in Acts 21:40 - 22:21, where Paul preached a whole sermon in the Hebrew tongue, yet the sermon is translated by Luke into Greek and thus it stands in the New Testament. This one example of many found in the Holy Bible proves that a translation can be the inspired words of God.

Once again, this is an EXCUSE, not a PROOF. The cold, hard fact is, the narrative in Acts records the Ethiopian reading from a version of Isaiah DIFFERENT from the Hebrew text of Isaiah translated into the KJV. We don't see ONE WORD within Scripture indicating the Ethiopian's version was not a correct one.

The whole Onlyism myth consists of trying to drive a square peg into a round hole. The Scriptures provide us with clear examples of different versions of OT Scripture being used in NT times, but the Onlyist still insists upon using the "exact words as God spoke them". Seems as if GOD HIMSELF doesn't agree with this premise.

The Hebrew word for "prison" in Isaiah 53 is # 6115 and is used only three times in the entire Old Testament. Once it is translated as "prison", another time in Psalms 107: 39 "they are brought low THROUGH OPPRESSION, affliction, and sorrow."; and the other time in Proverbs 30:16 as "the BARREN womb."

When Christ was accused before Pilate and unfairly sentenced to death, this was indeed the hour of His humiliation and true justice was removed far off. The same general idea is expressed in both the Hebrew and the Greek translation given by the eunuch.

Well, so much for your "exact words" assertion. Here you are, caught in a dilemma, so you waffle like Bisquick. You insist upon "exact words" quite often, saying that versions not worded like the KJV are incorrect because "they aren't God's exact words rendered into English". Caught with unassailable evidence of the use of another version, with no dissenting word from an apostle who was sent by the HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF to explain those scriptures to the reader, you now embrace the concept that the differing versions of Scripture CONVEY THE SAME GENERAL IDEA.Those are YOUR words, above.

Those who deny that the Ethiopian is translating a loose paraphrase of the Hebrew insist that he was using the Greek Septuagint translation. There is no historical evidence to prove this, but the assertion is frequently made in the strongest of terms.

One of the problems faced by those who assert the apostles and other Jews used a LXX version, is that the LXX frequently matches neither the Hebrew nor the Greek of the New Testament.

One of the problems faced by the Onlyist is that the Ethiopian and Philip used another version of Isaiah besides the "traditional" Hebrew text, and he's trying to skate around this FACT because it shows his doctrine to be false.

Even in this passage the present form of the Septuagint rendition of Isaiah 53:7-8 does not perfectly match the New Testament Greek, and is quite different from the Hebrew text.

So, which do you say is correct? The Hebrew text, which the Ethiopian clearly wasn't using? The LXX, which you say he wasn't using? Whatever version he WAS using? The King Ezana version, perhaps?

There are frequent examples of a free quotation being given in the New Testament that does not match either the Hebrew or the Septuagint. See for example Acts 2:16-21 where Peter says: "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy..." There is a lengthy "quote" given by Peter, yet many words and whole phrases in the New Testament are not found in either the Hebrew or the Greek Septuagint versions.

Do you KNOW that Peter was freequoting? Could he have either been reading or quoting an exact reading from memory? And although Peter was given material from Jesus which he wrote and which became Scripture, was he given authority to change existing Scripture? And if he were indeed freequoting, could he not have been expressing the IDEA, rather than the EXACT WORDS?

The same is true in the first "quote" found in the book of Acts in chapter 1:20 where Peter again refers to the death of Judas as says: "For it is written in the book of the Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take."

Yet if you look up these references in either the Hebrew or the Greek LXX, they do not perfectly match but give the same general sense either by typical fulfillment or expansion of thought.

We also have the case in Acts 20:35 where Paul is addressing the elders of Ephesus and tells them "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."
You will search in vain for these exact words of the Lord Jesus in any of His discourses, yet several of the things He taught can rightly be summed up in this way.

Even we lowly humans have the right to refer to what we have previously said by using different words. If I tell my child: "I don't want you to play with that boy anymore; he is too rough." and later, after I saw my child again with that other boy I tell him: "I told you not to see that kid anymore at all because he is a bully.", could I then be justly accused of contradicting myself?

God, Who inspired every word of the Holy Bible, has every right to quote Himself by way of expansion, explanation, summation or variety of form; but you and I do not have the right to "correct, edit, or call into question" what He has said.

Once again, Will, you evade the whole premise! Now, you're DEFENDING the use of different phraseology for the same idea! Yet, just yesterday, you were insisting that only the EXACT WORDS would do! You just won't let go of that man-made, unprovable myth known as KJVO, no matter how foolish your attempts to justify it make you look. Just face it, you cannot prove a SINGLE ARGUMENT for Onlyism. You lash out at us who can see through your facade and KNOW KJVoism is false, calling us "Christianettes" in so many words. You're STUCK, Will, & you know it. I know you'll go right on spouting your invective against those who don't believe your myth, but that's typical of the Onlyist who, lacking any evidence to support his/her myth, hopes to distract the reader from this truth by attacking the opponent. Sorry, Charlie, your bluff has been called, and you gotta face the music.

 

First of all, the two different versions are *not* "basically the same." Being "brought" somewhere is not the same as being "led" somewhere. A male lamb is not the same thing as a female sheep. One shearer is not the same as many shearers. "He was taken from prison and from judgment" is not the same as "in his humiliation his judgment was taken away." If these sorts of differences appeared in any modern version, KJV-Onlyists would be hauling them out ad nauseam as examples of "corruptions" and "perversions" that "change God's words." But when they appear in the KJV, all sorts of mental gymnastics are used to avoid the plain and obvious fact that the KJV itself gives us two different versions of the same passage.

Secondly, from what I've seen of KJV-Onlyist argumentation, even "basically the same" doesn't cut it. In order for it to be the "pure, perfect, infallible, inerrant word of God in English" it would have to be *exactly* the same. Any change, any deviation, no matter how small, makes it different -- and as some KJV-Onlyists are fond of saying, "things that are different are not the same."

What does it matter *what* the original languages were? The only thing that matters is that God's exact words are correctly translated into English, right? But if "God only gave one Bible," then the English translations of Isa. 53:7-8 and Ac. 8:32-33 should be absolutely identical, word-for-word the same, regardless of what original languages they were translated from. So why does the KJV record two *different* versions of the *same* written words of God?

But what Luke explicitly says he is recording in Ac. 8:32-33 are the exact words of the copy of Isaiah which the Ethiopian eunuch was reading aloud. And these exact words are different from the exact words of Isa. 53:7-8. The Ethiopian eunuch used a different version of Isaiah.

God has given us not one, but *two* recorded examples of individuals reading aloud from different versions -- the different version of Isa. 53:7-8 used by the Ethiopian eunuch in Ac. 8:32-33, and the different version of Isa. 61:1-2 used by Jesus himself in Lk. 4:18-19. How anybody can read the testimony of these two witnesses to the use of different Bible versions in their own KJV's and then turn around and claim that "One-Version-Onlyism" is Scriptural is completely beyond me.

 

I usually don't play along with you but just to show you how ridiculous these "proofs" are, we'll give it a shot. Remember though, that even if these "differences" were of real substance and not your vain imaginings, they do nothing to prove your conclusion.

Are you saying that these versions or mss do not use the title "Lord Jesus Christ"? Are you saying that they deny Him this title? That seems to be what you are inferring... so if we can cite other passages where the complete title is used of Christ your argument will be shown false. Will you accept such proof? Will you acknowledge the fact that MV's call Jesus God at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 while the KJV does not?

Do you have an Adonai who is not Theos? Exactly what doctrine or meaning do you think this effects?

They appear to be in error. Of course this does not prove that they deny Christ's sovereignty.

That was pretty easy.

"Hebrews 3
6but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope. (ESV)"

Please explain which biblical doctrine is put at risk by this translation and textual choice. Especially when the scripture is taken in its complete context (taking things out of context seems to be a favorite KJVO tactic):

"14For we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. (ESV)"

Hebrews 9:14 "How much more shall the blood of Christ...purge YOUR conscience from dead works..."

Again, what doctrine do you think this undermines? I have no problem associating myself with the object of the writer of Hebrews whether he said "your" or "our". In either case, I recognize that it means "me".

Again, it appears like these translations are in error... and again, what core Christian doctrine do you think is at stake with this omission?

"22 Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,
23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. (NASB)"

I am not confused by the meaning of this passage nor its teaching that we are to love the brethren with a pure, sincere heart. Maybe your problem isn't so much with versions as it is with recognizing equality of substance. Again, what doctrine or truth or teaching do you think is at stake here?

When these say He suffered, we infer that He died. When the others say He died, we recognize from cross reference that He suffered. Once again, what doctrine or truth are you saying is put at risk by this variant and the resulting differences in versions?

So earlier you objected because some versions said "our" instead of "your" but now you object because some versions say "you" rather than "us". Once again, you assume your conclusion then declare anything contrary to your conclusion to be false without reason.

Which of the versions follows Vaticanus at 1 Peter 5:3?

So you think the command to "shepherd" does not carry the unavoidable connotation of "taking the oversight"? If so, please give us an accurate definition of a shepherd that does not take oversight.

The only thing ridiculous here is your obvious bias. This verse has to do with the revelation of judgment against the physical world and the works therein.

Of course the next phrase in verse 11 provides the context for the works being "laid bare", "11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be?"

Destroyed? Yes. In what way? See verse 10 and verse 12, by fire and heat.

Boy this is tiresome.... Will, what doctrine is at stake with this variant?

Yes indeed. You have cited Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, NIV, NASB, ISV, and a whole bunch of other things as authoritative... when they agree with your conclusion.

And in all of your meaningless rambling, you have yet to show a doctrinal difference or in reality even a significant difference in a single passage of scripture.

 

Will, you've done umpteen of these comparisons lists, and all they prove is that the various English bvs differ among themselves. They DO NOT prove one wrong and the other right.

We all know that different translators made different choices when wording their works, that many Greek and Hebrew words have multiple meanings, same as many English words do, and without any help from the context, nor having any help from other uses of the same word in other passages, the translator must make his/her selection based upon what best fits the overall flow of the words in English. Just because some translator made such a choice different from that of the KJV does NOT make his/her work corrupt.An example: the KJV renders the Hebrew "re'em" as "unicorn", while several modern versions render it "wild bull".

We cannot simply dismiss the AV's saying "unicorn" because the people of that time believed unicorns existed. But in the light of these times, it would be fallacious for any translator to use "unicorn" since no proof of its existence has been found.

As for manuscript differences, the argument over which ones are authentic or "official" has been going on for over a hundred years, and is nowhere close to being solved. Since God has apparently chosen not to have preserved the originals, one must stop and think WHY He has allowed these differing mss to exist. I believe He means for us to use them ALL. I know it's a matter of pure conjecture, but I believe that, had the AV translators had access to all the mss available today, and had use of the high-speed copiers and comminications networks we now have, they would have given equal weight to those mss which today's Onlyists claim are corrupt. Their work would've been much more eclectic than it was. As you know, they made use of all materials available to them, including the earlier English versions.

Once again, we see no EVIDENCE to lend any credence to the Onlyism myth.

 

Will,keep Proverbs 27:22 in mind...

 

You said a mouth full A-A. Will should definitely take heed to this verse. We keep braying (pounding, grounding) KJVOnlyism with the pestle of truth in the mortar of factual scripture and history... yet he maintains the foolishness of KJVOnlyism.

Good verse.

 

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Roby, you posted: "Will, you've done umpteen of these comparisons lists, and all they prove is that the various English bvs differ among themselves. They DO NOT prove one wrong and the other right."

Roby, you are correct in that they do not prove one is right and one is wrong. What they do prove is that obviously they can't ALL be right at the same time. God did not inspire two or three different texts which contradict each other at the same time. One of them is true and the other is false, or we are left with your position that nobody knows for sure and that is where Satan want you to be. "Yea, hath God said...?"

So you arbitrarily choose the most archaic one of the bunch, without one blip of evidence proving it right and/or the others wrong, placing you in the position of, "Yea, hath Will said...". And, given as how many accounts of the same events each differ from one another IN THE SAME VERSION(Remember the differences between Kings & Chronicles about Jehoiachim and Jehoiachin, and the four differing accounts among the Four Gospels. This can be found right within the KJV!)I believe God does SO allow differing texts to exist. Again, you fail to take into account that if God wanted all the Scriptures to be in one rigid version, HE WOULD'VE PRESERVED THE AUTOGRAPHS! The work of God id right before your eyes, but you choose to ignore it in favor of a half-baked man-made false doctrine that originated from a book by a leader of a known false church.

We know that you personally do not believe any Bible is the inspired word of God. Do you deny this? Remember, Roby, I have saved several of your past statements from other clubs.

I'm not about to deny it. I believe God's word as He gave it was perfect; man's handling of it is not. Several others here have PROVEN some errors and poor translations in the KJV as have I also. And I've readily admitted to having seen errors in some MVs, for example where the NIV says "sinful nature" while the KJV and some others say, "flesh", the Greek word here is 'sarx', which indeed means, "flesh".

You're STILL trying to drive square pegs into round holes by making excuses for the goofs in the KJV. All you've put forth are POSSIBILITIES, which are rather far-fetched when measured against the most likely cause: someone made a human error.

And you've admitted yourself that you believe the KJV right & the others wrong by FAITH.(Remember, I can bring up many of YOUR posts from the last 3 years.) We non-Onlyists believe as we do by faith also-faith in an ALMIGHTY God who can present His word AS HE CHOOSES, completely independent from any silly notions of man as to how man thinks He should present it.

Once again, Will, you present statements with absolutely no PROOF of their veracity.