Discussions resulting from a link

[franklinmonroe]

http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbonlyblowup.htm

Jordan provided this link in another thread. Since many folks will go to the link now (and in the future) I think a response to some the things asserted there is in order.

I've read the article and listened to Will Kinney speak his argument on YouTube. Since Mr. Kinney has been expelled from the Baptist Board he will be unable to directly respond here. Since Jordan posted the link, maybe he or others will try to defend it.

Since Mr. Kinney's article is rather lengthy I will be dealing with it sections starting at the beginning. I provide the first entire section I will be discussing below; nothing is excluded in order to preserve the context of his comments. I will not necessarily be commenting on each and every assertion with which I agree or disagree, only selections of my choosing. I will not be attacking the KJV or attacking Mr. Kinney personally. I will only be discussing Mr. Kinney's argumentation. His article is entitled Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? --

Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? or Does the King James Bible only position “blow up”?

If you wish, you can now listen to a teaching video about this topic on Youtube. It was recorded in July of 2012 and can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHKTclh8y9w&list=PL16B2149EE5E54979&index=26&feature=plpp_video

“Seek ye out of THE BOOK OF THE LORD, and read” - Isaiah 34:16

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise” - 1 Corinthians 1:19

The one argument the “No Bible is inerrant” crowd continually throws in our face as being unanswerable is this: “Where was the perfect and inerrant Bible before 1611?”

Here are some direct quotes from a seminarian who thinks this question completely destroys our position. He writes: “I must ask you this in return, where was the Word of God prior to the KJV being written? This is where your position blows up at. You MUST claim that God didn't write an infallible Bible until 1611 if you hold to all of this. Can you name where the "complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true wordS of God existed before the KJV was translated?" The answer needs to stay consistent with your position. Don't say they were found here or there. You MUST, to be consistent, say a specific Bible in a specific language that the "complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true wordS of God" were located.”

Keep in mind that these King James Bible critics do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language (including "the" Hebrew and Greek) and they certainly do not believe there exists one NOW. The force of their argument is that since there was no perfect and infallible Bible before the King James Bible, then the King James Bible itself cannot be the perfect words of God anymore than their favorite, multiple choice and contradictory bible versions. They don’t defend any of their modern versions like the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, NKJV or Holman Standard as being the 100% true words of God in contrast to the other versions. Most of them don’t claim to have an infallible Bible but they take offense at our claim that we do.

There are only Four options open to them.

#1. “Only the originals were inspired and infallible.” It should be pointed out that the originals never did form a 66 book Bible and they have not seen a single word of these “originals” a day in their lives. At one Bible club I belong to there was one guy who objected to my King James Bible only position saying that he was against any form of "onlyism" because it was unbiblical and elitist. I then pointed out to him that if he bothered to check almost any Baptist or other Christian site that addressed the issue of their belief about "the Bible" they almost always say: "We believe that ONLY the originals are (were) inspired and inerrant; no translation is inerrant." This most certainly is itself a form of "onlyism" and it is far worse than believing that the King James Bible is the only pure and perfect Book of the LORD. The "originals only" position leaves us without a perfect and inerrant Bible NOW, and it is a profession of faith in something that THEY KNOW does not exist. Now how silly is that?!? (Note: See comments at end of this article regarding a Facebook interchange with an "originals" onlyist)

The first issue I take up results from his statement: Keep in mind that these King James Bible critics do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language (including "the" Hebrew and Greek) and they certainly do not believe there exists one NOW. Note that this statement is completely unnecessary to the building of a logical argument to answer the question asked.

This assertion seems to be contradicted by a later statement he makes: ...almost any Baptist or other Christian site that addressed the issue of their belief about "the Bible" they almost always say: "We believe that ONLY the originals are (were) inspired and inerrant;
I will concur with Mr. Kinney that this a common belief statement among evangelicals.

Thus, it seems to me that a great many of his so-called King James Bible critics must be participants of those Baptist or other Christian organizations. It is also Mr. Kinney's assertion that these Christians do indeed believe in an inspired and infallible Bible when he admits that they confess belief in a perfect and inerrant ancient languages Bible, even if that is the ONLY one they believe in.

I don't read in the article that Mr. Kinney is suggesting that there are any intended substantial differences between the descriptions of perfect and infallible and inspired and inerrant. What we do read in his article is the implication that original autographs are not to be considered "the Bible" by his statement: It should be pointed out that the originals never did form a 66 book Bible...

If Mr. Kinney means that all the original manuscripts were never bound together in one volume, he is correct. That Moses' autograph of the book of Exodus and Paul's autograph of the book of Romans never met in one place should be painfully obvious if only by the sheer expanse of time that passed between them.

But what Mr. Kinney implies here by mentioning this fact is that the 66 books of the Protestant canon is the only characteristic that defines the word "Bible". He implies anything less (or greater) than that particular canon in one volume should not be spoken of as a "Bible".

Really, I suspect that dragging the topic of Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? all the way back to a canon issue is a tactic of misdirection. I think it is even possible that the original questioner may have assumed an established Protestant canon (maybe even speaking specifically about the Bible in English) because before the King James Bible only requires a short period before ~1600 AD.

Of course, the word "Bible" comes from a Greek word merely meaning "books". This Greek term biblia was being applied toward the Christian scriptures as early as the 2nd Century AD (that is well before something identical to the Protestant canon alone was ever bound into one volume). Christians at this time may not have had access to all of the canonical books written to that point, yet would consider what they did have as their "Bible". Additionally, sometimes modern Jews refer to the Hebrew Tanakh as the Jewish "Bible". I'm sure throughout the ages that many early believers that had owned a few scrolls or small codex of holy scripture felt that they had a "Bible". Even the 1611 edition of the King James Bible would contain some apocryphal books. Eastern Orthodox Christians still retain additional books in their biblical canon. And if I were castaway on an island with only the undamaged KJV books of Genesis, Psalms, Luke, and Galatians I would simply tell the natives that it was "the Bible". Mr. Kinney does get to redefine how "Bible" can or cannot be used.

I affirm my trust in the 66 book canon. But, can the Protestant canon alone be the distinctive attribute of a true holy "Bible"? No, and for example it is easily seen in the heretical Jehovah Witness New World Translation that proper canon alone can not establish the veracity of a so-called "Bible". I don't like the fact that the NWT is often identified as a "Bible" but nether do I get to prescribe how "Bible" can or cannot be applied.

Remember, Mr. Kinney previously said that KJV-critics did not EVER believe in an inspired and perfect Bible in ANY language. Mr. Kinney may not have it both ways. It seems that he knew that many Christians profess belief that at least at one point in history there was an inspired and infallible unbound Bible, (a fact he would later use in his argument) but he chose to publish the false accusation that they ... do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language.

Was this an intentional slur or just an error? Were the contradicting statements a sloppy oversight or simply a case of dishonest argumentation hoping that no one would catch on?

 

[Yeshua1]

Jordan provided this link in another thread. Since many folks will go to the link now (and in the future) I think a response to some the things asserted there is in order.

I've read the article and listened to Will Kinney speak his argument on YouTube. Since Mr. Kinney has been expelled from the Baptist Board he will be unable to directly respond here. Since Jordan posted the link, maybe he or others will try to defend it.

Since Mr. Kinney's article is rather lengthy I will be dealing with it sections starting at the beginning. I provide the first entire section I will be discussing below; nothing is excluded in order to preserve the context of his comments. I will not necessarily be commenting on each and every assertion with which I agree or disagree, only selections of my choosing. I will not be attacking the KJV or attacking Mr. Kinney personally. I will only be discussing Mr. Kinney's argumentation. His article is entitled Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? --


The first issue I take up results from his statement: Keep in mind that these King James Bible critics do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language (including "the" Hebrew and Greek) and they certainly do not believe there exists one NOW. Note that this statement is completely unnecessary to the building of a logical argument to answer the question asked.

This assertion seems to be contradicted by a later statement he makes: ...almost any Baptist or other Christian site that addressed the issue of their belief about "the Bible" they almost always say: "We believe that ONLY the originals are (were) inspired and inerrant;
I will concur with Mr. Kinney that this a common belief statement among evangelicals.

Thus, it seems to me that a great many of his so-called King James Bible critics must be participants of those Baptist or other Christian organizations. It is also Mr. Kinney's assertion that these Christians do indeed believe in an inspired and infallible Bible when he admits that they confess belief in a perfect and inerrant ancient languages Bible, even if that is the ONLY one they believe in.

I don't read in the article that Mr. Kinney is suggesting that there are any intended substantial differences between the descriptions of perfect and infallible and inspired and inerrant. What we do read in his article is the implication that original autographs are not to be considered "the Bible" by his statement: It should be pointed out that the originals never did form a 66 book Bible...

If Mr. Kinney means that all the original manuscripts were never bound together in one volume, he is correct. That Moses' autograph of the book of Exodus and Paul's autograph of the book of Romans never met in one place should be painfully obvious if only by the sheer expanse of time that passed between them.

But what Mr. Kinney implies here by mentioning this fact is that the 66 books of the Protestant canon is the only characteristic that defines the word "Bible". He implies anything less (or greater) than that particular canon in one volume should not be spoken of as a "Bible".

Really, I suspect that dragging the topic of Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? all the way back to a canon issue is a tactic of misdirection. I think it is even possible that the original questioner may have assumed an established Protestant canon (maybe even speaking specifically about the Bible in English) because before the King James Bible only requires a short period before ~1600 AD.

Of course, the word "Bible" comes from a Greek word merely meaning "books". This Greek term biblia was being applied toward the Christian scriptures as early as the 2nd Century AD (that is well before something identical to the Protestant canon alone was ever bound into one volume). Christians at this time may not have had access to all of the canonical books written to that point, yet would consider what they did have as their "Bible". Additionally, sometimes modern Jews refer to the Hebrew Tanakh as the Jewish "Bible". I'm sure throughout the ages that many early believers that had owned a few scrolls or small codex of holy scripture felt that they had a "Bible". Even the 1611 edition of the King James Bible would contain some apocryphal books. Eastern Orthodox Christians still retain additional books in their biblical canon. And if I were castaway on an island with only the undamaged KJV books of Genesis, Psalms, Luke, and Galatians I would simply tell the natives that it was "the Bible". Mr. Kinney does get to redefine how "Bible" can or cannot be used.

I affirm my trust in the 66 book canon. But, can the Protestant canon alone be the distinctive attribute of a true holy "Bible"? No, and for example it is easily seen in the heretical Jehovah Witness New World Translation that proper canon alone can not establish the veracity of a so-called "Bible". I don't like the fact that the NWT is often identified as a "Bible" but nether do I get to prescribe how "Bible" can or cannot be applied.

Remember, Mr. Kinney previously said that KJV-critics did not EVER believe in an inspired and perfect Bible in ANY language. Mr. Kinney may not have it both ways. It seems that he knew that many Christians profess belief that at least at one point in history there was an inspired and infallible unbound Bible, (a fact he would later use in his argument) but he chose to publish the false accusation that they ... do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language.

Was this an intentional slur or just an error? Were the contradicting statements a sloppy oversight or simply a case of dishonest argumentation hoping that no one would catch on?

Some simple questions that those like him seem to never be able to answer!

Was the Vulgate, geneva/Bishops etc also considered and seen as being the wored of god by the Christians using them to read and study from?

Didn't many of the reformation believers reject the KJV tostay with geneva still?

Were tjhe originals ONLY inspired directly from God, or not?

Which copy of the TR is the 'real and only one ?"

Does God have a word when they translated off the greek/Hebew into other languages than Englsish all those years?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Some simple questions that those like him seem to never be able to answer!

Was the Vulgate, geneva/Bishops etc also considered and seen as being the wored of god by the Christians using them to read and study from? ...

Yeshua1, the above question is essentially the same one that Will Kinney was to answer in the linked article. Did you read the article? What did you understand to be Mr. Kinney's final answer to this question? [Hint: if you read closely, he did answer it.]

 

[franklinmonroe]

You don't want to defend the link you posted, Jordan?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Jordan, if you won't defend the link you posted, is it too much to ask you to apologize for posting such a erroneous link here?

 

[jonathan.borland]

Maybe he's waiting for an email from Will? I've already said why I think posting emails from others who can't be members is not in the spirit of the Baptistboard though.

 

[robycop3]

On other boards, I have had more than one discussion with Mr. Kinney. As you know, his big thing is to compare various other Bible versions to the KJV. His knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek is minimal, same as mine, but, unlike him, I consult people fluent in those languages when necessary. Through such experts, and my own uses of concordances, I've proven to him on many occasions that other versions often have a more-accurate translation of a given word or phrase than the KJV does.

I've repeatedly asked him for SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for his KJVO myth, and he simply refuses to acknowledge there ISN'T ANY. I've also pointed out the man-made, cultic, dishonest origin of the current KJVO myth, & he won't comment, as he knows it's absolutely TRUE.

He should apply his "Bible agnostic" mantra to himself, as he usually follows the Wilkinson-Ray-Fuller party line in his "reasoning".

Methinx Mr. Kinney is like "Bibleprotector", that phony "elder" in Australia, trying to become a published author to score some "milk" from the KJVO cash cow.

 

[ktn4eg]

The 1611 edition of the KJB also contained the Apocrypha.

Using the KJB Only-ists form of reasoning, it would logically follow that the Aprocrypha MUST also be Divinely inspired, and therefore all of its contents are to be considered as worthy standards by which all true doctrine(s) and practice(s) must be measured.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The 1611 edition of the KJB also contained the Apocrypha. ...

Yes, and I am unclear as to why it doesn't disqualify the 1611 AV according to Mr. Kinney's standards. Read below to see what his standard is.

This is the next section of Will Kinney's article I will be discussing. He claims that There are only Four options open to them. I'm not sure why he writes "them" and not "us" (does he have other options not available to KJV-critics?). I'm not interested in discussing points #2 and #3 right now, so I'm only showing point #4 below (refer back to the OP to see point #1) --

#4 There really is a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible and history and the internal evidence points to the Authorized King James Bible as being the Final Written Authority - the true words of the living God. You only have these four options. There is no other alternative left for you to go with.

I'm pretty sure that this #4 is Mr. Kinney's position. And so, after explaining at length these four options he still has not straightforwardly answered the question originally set before him: Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? It seems he doesn't want to just come confess clearly that he does not; but according to Mr. Kinney there was no perfect Bible before the KJV.

As show previously, his conclusion is predicated upon the idea that a perfect Bible must be the 66 books bound into one volume (but the 1611 had more than 66). What I can infer from this position is that although Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph may have had the book of Job and parts of Genesis, that according to Mr. Kinney they didn't have a "Bible"; every perfect and infallible writing they were entrusted with would probably ultimately be include in our "Bible", but unfortunately they didn't actually have one. What I can infer from this position is that although Joshua, Samuel, David and their generations may have preserved the Pentateuch and some psalms they didn't actually have a "Bible". Esther didn't have a "Bible"; Solomon didn't have one. Ezekiel didn't have a "Bible"; John the Baptist didn't have one either. What I can infer from this position is that Mary, Paul, Peter, Barnabas, Philip, Apollos, Aquilla, Timothy, and Silas didn't have a perfect "Bible" because all the books that would become the New Testament had not yet been written. But certainly, what they did have was inspired and inerrant writings but according to Mr. Kinney that isn't good enough to be called a "Bible". Were all these believers (and millions of others) not supposed to seek ye out the book of the Lord, and read? Apparently, they weren't able to obey Isaiah 34:16.

The two proofs Mr. Kinney offers are: history and the internal evidence. Not scriptural proof; just historical accounts and deductive reasoning. He continues the article attempting to show how only the KJV meets his requirements from these two proofs. Most of Mr. Kinney's effort here seems to be to convince readers that the KJV is the only perfect "Bible", and rather little to answer the question he was asked.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, and I am unclear as to why it doesn't disqualify the 1611 AV according to Mr. Kinney's standards. Read below to see what his standard is.

This is the next section of Will Kinney's article I will be discussing. He claims that There are only Four options open to them. I'm not sure why he writes "them" and not "us" (does he have other options not available to KJV-critics?). I'm not interested in discussing points #2 and #3 right now, so I'm only showing point #4 below (refer back to the OP to see point #1) --



I'm pretty sure that this #4 is Mr. Kinney's position. And so, after explaining at length these four options he still has not straightforwardly answered the question originally set before him: Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? It seems he doesn't want to just come confess clearly that he does not; but according to Mr. Kinney there was no perfect Bible before the KJV.

As show previously, his conclusion is predicated upon the idea that a perfect Bible must be the 66 books bound into one volume (but the 1611 had more than 66). What I can infer from this position is that although Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph may have had the book of Job and parts of Genesis, that according to Mr. Kinney they didn't have a "Bible"; every perfect and infallible writing they were entrusted with would probably ultimately be include in our "Bible", but unfortunately they didn't actually have one. What I can infer from this position is that although Joshua, Samuel, David and their generations may have preserved the Pentateuch and some psalms they didn't actually have a "Bible". Esther didn't have a "Bible"; Solomon didn't have one. Ezekiel didn't have a "Bible"; John the Baptist didn't have one either. What I can infer from this position is that Mary, Paul, Peter, Barnabas, Philip, Apollos, Aquilla, Timothy, and Silas didn't have a perfect "Bible" because all the books that would become the New Testament had not yet been written. But certainly, what they did have was inspired and inerrant writings but according to Mr. Kinney that isn't good enough to be called a "Bible". Were all these believers (and millions of others) not supposed to seek ye out the book of the Lord, and read? Apparently, they weren't able to obey Isaiah 34:16.

The two proofs Mr. Kinney offers are: history and the internal evidence. Not scriptural proof; just historical accounts and deductive reasoning. He continues the article attempting to show how only the KJV meets his requirements from these two proofs. Most of Mr. Kinney's effort here seems to be to convince readers that the KJV is the only perfect "Bible", and rather little to answer the question he was asked.

problems with that rake is that the catholic chuch used same reasoning for their Vulgate, as being the 'accepted/received" version, and also the Geneva version was seen even by many of the reformers superior to the KJV itself!

 

[robycop3]

The very foundation of our faith now called "Baptist" is obedience only to those doctrines & instructions GOD has set forth in His word. Very early in the history of Christianity, there were false doctrines being injected into God's body of true doctrines GOD placed into His word, doctrines such as regenerational baptism and baby-sprinkling, which persist to this day. And Jesus Himself mentions the Nicolaitans, which were self-proclaimed nabobs who ruled over churches, making them their own little domains, same as is done today.

But perhaps the WORST change in many churches is that they became LEGISLATIVE bodies, making rules, doctrines, beliefs, & ordinances for their members, rather than EXECUTIVE bodies which carry out the laws given to us by GOD, either thru His prophets & apostles, or by JESUS CHRIST Himself.

God gave us very simple rules-belief in & worship of His Son Jesus as Lord & Savior, sins to be avoided such as worshipping any other "god", theft, deception or dishonesty in any form, lying, murder & unwarranted physical assault, sexual sin, etc. And JESUS added only three ordinances-baptism of believers, the "Lord's Supper", and the foot-washing rite. Now, while I see nothing wrong with observing Christmas, Easter, etc. in the right manner, I respect the opinions of others who don't believe they're OK...for the RIGHT REASONS.(The JWs don't observe holidays, don't vote, etc. for WRONG reasons.) But I absitively, posilutely believe in following the observances JESUS told us to follow. (Some Christians observe passover, but it's not a requirement from GOD except for Jews or other Israelis.)

The KJVO myth falls among the host of MAN-MADE false doctrines that Satan causes men to attempt to add to GOD'S doctrines. That's what Mr. Kinney fails to understand. There's simply NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO; therefore it CANNOT be true! As for his "history", there's at least as much historical support for the LATIN VULGATE as there is for any Bible translation ever made. No man can validate nor invalidate GOD'S word.

I hope more of you do as I have done and pressure Mr. Kinney about the lacka SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for his KJVO myth. Just don't hold your breath waiting for a straight answer!

 

[franklinmonroe]

Lacking Scriptural support, I find it selfish and arrogant to suggest that millions of Christian in all ages up to 1611 did not have a 'perfect' Bible. Why would God bless the English-speaking believers of only the past 400 years with a 'perfect' Bible while believers in all parts of the world didn't have one for over 1500 years?

Did God not keep His promise to them for 1500 years? I thought the interpretation of Psalm 12:7 as preservation of 'the Bible' would literally mean going forward "from this generation" (David's) which would have certainly covered this period.

Christians did very well without any 'Bible' of 66 books bound into one volume from about 90AD to about 350AD; they continued to live faithfully while complete 'Bibles' were extremely rare from 350AD to about 1450AD; and Mr. Kinney's view would be that the early Reformers didn't have a 'perfect Bible' either. Some great testimonies in the past for not having access to a 'perfect Bible'.

 

[robycop3]

Lacking Scriptural support, I find it selfish and arrogant to suggest that millions of Christian in all ages up to 1611 did not have a 'perfect' Bible. Why would God bless the English-speaking believers of only the past 400 years with a 'perfect' Bible while believers in all parts of the world didn't have one for over 1500 years?

Did God not keep His promise to them for 1500 years? I thought the interpretation of Psalm 12:7 as preservation of 'the Bible' would literally mean going forward "from this generation" (David's) which would have certainly covered this period.

Christians did very well without any 'Bible' of 66 books bound into one volume from about 90AD to about 350AD; they continued to live faithfully while complete 'Bibles' were extremely rare from 350AD to about 1450AD; and Mr. Kinney's view would be that the early Reformers didn't have a 'perfect Bible' either. Some great testimonies in the past for not having access to a 'perfect Bible'.

I believe all valid versions & translations are perfect-FOR GOD'S INTENDED USE! "Technically-perfect" is another matter.

 

[ktn4eg]

I believe all valid versions & translations are perfect-FOR GOD'S INTENDED USE! "Technically-perfect" is another matter.

Question: What precisely does one mean by "Technically-perfect" when referring to a Bible version/translation?

(Note: I'm only asking this simply because I've never heard of the expression "Technically-perfect" being applied to any Bible version/translation.)