No Doctrines Are Changed?

[Will J. Kinney]

Larry, your hypocricy slip is showing. You piously post: "It is very disappointing and even disgusting to see. I don't understand why people who profess to love God's word spend so much time attacking it. It just doesn't make sense."


Yet, Larry, we have seen you time and again accuse the King James Bible of being in error, following the wrong texts, adding to the words of God, and having the wrong meanings.

I thought you said there were no conflicting bibles. Isn't the King James Bible a bible? Isn't it the word of God? If it is the word of God and you are so piously distressed to see people attack it, they why do you spend so much time doing this very thing?


I do not attack the true word of God. I try to defend it and show people where it is. I do attack what I am convinced are corruptions, imposters, and pretenders to the true words of God and openly admit this.

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Larry posts: " God's wisdom says "auton." That is all we needed to know. The TR changed the reading to autes. The Majority text agrees that "their" is the correct reading. Are you really telling us that the Majority Text reading is wrong here?
If you think the Majority text is right here, then why do you argue that the KJV followed the correct reading? It seems you are a bit inconsistent, or perhaps not fully informed."

Larry, you are such a pious fraud. You sit there and defend such versions as the nasb, niv, esv, etc. ALL of which have a hundred times more "minority readings" in them than does the King James Bible, and now you profess a belief in the Majority texts. What a laugh.

You yourself are willing to "correct" ALL Hebrew texts whenever you feel you personally have greater insight.

The reading of "her" purification is the only correct one, even though it is not in the so called Majority text. It is not found only in one little manuscript. It is in several Greek copies and some uncials as well. It is found in at least 9 copies of the Old Latin, which version predates anything we have in Greek.

Even the Catholic Douay version reads "her purification according to the Law", but then later Catholic version changed it to follow Sinaiticus and Vaticanus like your nasb.

You don't give a fig about the Majority readings. Your proven allegiance is to the minority readings of Vaticanus and if they happen once in a blue moon to agree with the "majority" then you tout the superiority of the Majority text.

If "there are no contradictory bibles" as you say, then is there no contradiction between "her" purification and "their" purification, which does contradict the Law mentioned in this very context?

Is this the same type of stuff we have seen from you in the past where there is no difference between "things he hath NOT seen" and "things he HAS seen"?

Seminary did marvels for your thinking process. Thank God I never got sucked into that mess.

Cordially yours,

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi Bill, I asked you if you would post from that looooong article by Mr. Rudd your best shot at the KJB. I hope you will do so and I will try to answer it. But I need to know from you first which Bible version you personally consider your Final Authority. Do you have one or are you another bible rummager?

By the way, so far I like your general spirit and think you are perhaps more open to hearing our side and why many of us believe God really has preserved His inerrant words and given them to us in the King James Bible.

Here I will post a reply to just one of Mr. Rudd's silly criticisms of the KJB. Your comments are welcome.

Will Kinney


James 2:19 "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and TREMBLE."

I am often amazed at the knit picking ability of some critics of the Authorized King James Holy Bible. They think they have found some error in the King James Bible and others rush off to joyfully paste this same nonsense on the internet, believing that Dr. So and So actually knows what he is talking about. Such an example of this silliness is written by a man named Steve Rudd. His complete article can be seen at an anti-KJV only site titled Irrefutable Proof the KJV Translators Were Not Inspired.
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#proof


Mr. Rudd asks: "Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (James 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. It is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples."

In answer to Mr. Rudd's deep insights we should point out a few things. First of all, Mr. Rudd implies by the phrase "the original Greek language manuscripts" that such an animal actually exists. They don't. There are no "THE ORIGINAL manuscripts" that Mr. Rudd nor anyone else has to examine. There are presently over 25 very different Greek texts available, and thousands of manuscripts that often differ from one another in thousands of words.

Secondly, Mr. Rudd will find great variety and differences even among the Greek dictionaries he alludes to, and I hardly think the English word "to tremble" is archaic. Mr. Rudd seems a bit too eager to overstate his case.

Thirdly, Mr. Rudd reveals much about his position by the question he asks: "Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an archaic English dictionary?" Here he shows that he considers "Bible students" to be those who can read Greek, which is much more difficult than our native English language. What about all those who have never been to seminary and don't know Greek? Can't they also be Bible students? Is learning a few "archaic words" in English more difficult than learning the new alphabet and foreign language of New Testament Greek, which is itself "archaic" and no longer the spoken form among Greeks today?

Fourthly, Mr. Rudd's "word picture" is merely his own personal interpretation and, unfortunately for him, many other "scholars" who have equal access to Mr. Rudd's Greek dictionaries fail to see the same word picture he insists we see.

I have consulted a large number of Bible translations and so far have failed to find a single one that translates James 2:19 as "the devils also believe and ARE SO TERRIFIED THEY GET GOOSE PIMPLES."

Looking at just one of the Greek dictionaries Mr. Rudd alludes to we find the following information. I refer to the large volume of Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon 9th edition 1940 on page 1955. There they state that this word phrisso has many different meanings depending on the context. In regards to hair - to bristle, to stand on end; of a surface - to be rough or uneven; of cold - to shiver; of teeth - to chatter; of fear - to shudder; to feel a holy awe at or to fear; of water - to ripple; of love - to thrill or quiver with delight.

Thayer's Lexicon likewise gives the definition: "to be struck with extreme fear or to be horrified".

Many modern versions like the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV say the demons believe and SHUDDER.

However among those that say the devils "also believe and TREMBLE" are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the NKJV 1982, Green's interlinear 1980, Webster's 1833, Wesley's 1755, Darby, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Douay version 1950, Spanish Reina Valera 1960(tiemblan), the KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Many other modern versions give a similar rendering.

New Century Version 1988, Contemporary English Version 1991 - shake with fear

Living Bible, New Living Bible - tremble in terror

New English Bible 1970 - it makes them tremble

Bible in Basic English 1961 - shaking in fear

Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Today's English Version - they tremble with fear

What we find with people like Mr. Rudd who sit in judgment on the King James Bible and make this kind of criticism are the following characteristics:

1. They themselves have no single Bible translation, or single Hebrew or Greek text anywhere on this earth they consider to be the infallible, complete words of God.

2. They feel they belong to a superior class of Christians who are in authority to tell others what God REALLY said.

3. They place their own personal opinions above any single Bible translation and, as a result, make themselves the Final Authority.

4. Their personal opinions and preferences are at odds with others who have placed themselves in a similar position of being Bible critics.

5. They leave the common Christians with no infallible, inerrant, complete Holy Bible in which to trust and believe with all their heart.

I and many other believers in the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ have come to the firm conviction that God has indeed kept His promises to preserve His inspired words till heaven and earth pass away, and that they are found in all their fullness and purity in the Authorized King James Holy Bible. This alone is our Final Authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Will Kinney

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Will ,
Thankyou for the thoughtful reply.Truthfully I use mostly the KJV and the New Scofield Study Bible as that text is closest to the KJV that I know of.Then I use Vincent's Word studies on the OT&NT,after that I go to ISBE,Nave Topical Bible, & R.A. Torreys Topical Bible. I also like Gill & Heny .
My background is Southern Baptist & IFB if that gives you a better picture.
The extreme length of the original entry was not meant to be mean spirited at all. It is as I said, after ready on this BB for a little over 2 months I really noticed a lot of your entries. They were lenthly and detailed. I did not see a lot of answers to some of the questions it seems you have been in a verbal wrestling match for some time. My thought was simple , to gather all of the questions in one place and let you go at it. I did not doubt your sincerity or your energy.I really thought you were up to it and would welcome a chance to once and for all answer these questions so nobody could say you were dancing around or trying to avoid anything.Plain and simple that is all I had in mind.
By the way it would help me to know a little of your background, that give me a little insight.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Br. Will,
Let me also add that I have read the NIV from cover to cover and found that there is plenty of God's Word in it .A person could read it and get saved. I would trust an NIV Bible More than I would a Dakes study Bible although it is in the KJV. The reason being people tend to read the notes.
I have also read portions of the NASB and ESV Bibles and find enough Gospel for a person to get saved. Since I have'nt read them cover to cover or done an in depth study or comparison of them I would not speak to condemn or recommend either. Although I am interested enough to look into both of them further.After I read them I will make my own decision.I have instrucyions to "study to show myself approved unto God,a workman that needeth not be ashamed,rightly dividing the word of truth". Pardon me putting myself instead of thyself,I just take it personally.
Now I would'nt even take the time to bother with a paraphrase Bible, they just don't make sense to me. I have some slight exposure to the living and the good news "Bibles".Also I like the Amplified Bible although I look at it as more of a semi-commentary.That should round out the picture.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Does anyone else find this absolutely hilarious???? To listen to Will spew at the mouth without even addressing the real issues. It would be funny were it not so sad. I don't have time to respond to this nonsense this morning. Perhaps later I will address it. It shows the glaring errors in the thinking of Will. It shows that he has set his own mind up as the authority ... and then wonders why we find his arguments less than compelling to be nice. Faulty thinking usually leads to a faulty position.

Glad to know that the text of the KJV is the only inspired word of God. Sorry to see that Will didn't provide anything but his own authority for that. Even more sorry to see that he didn't tell us which of the conflicting KJV texts he was talking about. It is simply more evidence that Will doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[Jim Ward]

Looks like English, but reads like mumbo-jumbo Larry. Wanna see if you can find someone to translate your ramblings into something comprehensible.


WAIT!!!! I'll see if my 18 month old can make it out as it reads a lot like the way she talks.


Jim

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Will ,
I jusr spent the last hour on your web site. I printed out about 10 of your articles.I now have another question to ask.Are you a Calvinist?I read your article on Calvinism and the KJB.
You have many articles on your site, I find it quite interesting.I am getting to know you better by looking into the site.
I am now convinced that the lengthy info I sent to you should be veiwed by you as a blessing and not an attack. It should be regarded as a resource for you .You have in one place hundereds of ideas for new articles.I hope you print out my very lenthly post to you and use it as a resource.Then when people ask you a question you can refer them to article such and such at your site. Thus answering all of the questions and not having to repeat yourself except for saying please go to my site. You can get to my site with little effort by going to my bio and just clicking on the site.Please go to article such and such.This should in the end save you much energy.By doing this you will acomplish several things , save time effort, frustration,emotion.People may not always agree with you but will at least have your view on many questions they ask because you will have anticipated them already.

Yours in Christ's Love
Plain Old Bill

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
The TEXT of the King James Bible only is the inspired word of God.

God overode the opinions of some KJB translators and had the correct meaning put into the TEXT.

Will

So you are saying that a translation is exactly equivalent to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts?

It is clear that you have never done any translation. If you had done any foreign language work and any kind of translation you would not make such a statement. So I will give you one very simple challenge just to prove a small point. Sometimes ask a Spanish speaking friend to translate the two questions. Come estas? and Como esta? Just a hint: They translate exactly the same but have very different meanings.

God overode the opinions of some KJB translators and had the correct meaning put into the TEXT.

Could you give some supporting evidence for this statement?

So you are saying that the KJV clearly addresses the differences between the two tpes of love used in John 21:15-17? If the KJV is inspired, it must because the Greek text does.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I want to address just a little of nonsense of Will. It is very apparent that he is unfamiliar with what he is talking about.

Larry, this is such a mindblower that you would even say such a thing. You must REALLY have a huge reading comprehension problem.

Judging from what you have put forth as the result of your “thinking,” it does not take much to blow your mind. You consistently show that you are not familiar with the issues, you are not willing to apply simple logic and thought to your positions, and that you are inconsistent in your standards.

You think different words constitute a “conflict.” By that definition the KJV is filled with numerous conflicts. Different Greek text do not even create a “conflict” per se. There is no doctrine changed, as you yourself have demonstrated. For all your ramblings, you cannot even produce one changed doctrine. You simply attack God’s word.

You want to claim that anything different from the KJV in your hands is a conflicting Bible. That leads us to the inescapable position that the KJV itself is conflicting since, as we have shown, the text has changed over the years. Of course you know that … but you are not willing to actually think about what that means with respect to your position.

Larry, "to hasten unto" means we are speeding towards something.

"to earnestly desire" has nothing to do one way or another with either "hasting unto" nor with "hasten, or speed"

And to "speed" something to make it come to us quicker is not the same thing as desiring something nor with "speeding towards something".

My comments dealt with what Peter wrote, not with what a particular translation has. You asked for an explanation. I gave one. Now accept the truth and move on. Your failure to study does not mean that I am wrong. You can find out the truth simply by putting aside your own mind as the authority and looking at what the word Peter used means.

You are continually asking questions that have easy answers, all because you will not study the text. Your study, if we can abuse the meaning of that word for a moment, is all geared towards defending your own position. We have shown many many places where you distort the facts or ignore other facts to hold onto your position. What you consistently show us is that you have no authority but yourself.

As for the references in Acts, where do you get the idea that they in any way teach that the day of the Lord may be hastened by anything man may do?

Acts 3:19-21 clearly teach that when Israel repents, then the Lord will return to “restore all things.” From our human perspective, we don’t know when that is. It will happen after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in (Rom 11). Therefore, evangelism from our human perception might appear to “hasten the day.” Additionally, the word Peter used may mean “eagerly desire.” Why is this confusing to you? Do you not study?

This is not a compromise of God’s sovereignty in the least. That is a laughable suggestion.

Larry, this fine explanation has only one major problem. It is contrary to the only reference in the Holy Bible where this specific sacrifice is mentioned under O.T. law, where only the woman was to offer the sacrifice and make an atonement for her sins.

IF your guys believe in inerrancy, then are we to conclude that the KJB, and the NKJV are flawed and in error at this point? They are not therefore inerrant? There are no contradictory Bibles?

Speaking of a slip of ignorance … have you read the Law where anyone who comes in contact with blood is to be purified? Did that really slip your amazing intellectual powers??? Will, people with far more knowledge that you long ago settled this issue. There are not errors, and Mary and Joseph both went to offer a sacrifice. Is it really so unconceivable that the Bible just might be right?? Do you really have to attack it all the time??

I do not attack the true word of God. I try to defend it and show people where it is. I do attack what I am convinced are corruptions, imposters, and pretenders to the true words of God and openly admit this.

Virtually every single post in this forum by you contains an attack on God’s word. You try to excuse yourself by appealing to what you are convinced of. That is yet another illustration that your own mind is your authority. The fact that you are convinced by something is irrelevant. It just doesn’t matter.

Larry, you are such a pious fraud. You sit there and defend such versions as the nasb, niv, esv, etc. ALL of which have a hundred times more "minority readings" in them than does the King James Bible, and now you profess a belief in the Majority texts. What a laugh.

And I am pointing out the utter inconsistency that you and your side practice. You love to cite the Majority text until it disagrees with the KJV. It shows that you are inconsistent and unable to grapple with the reality that the KJV does not always follow the Majority text.

If “autes” is the right reading, then God preserved his word in a vast minority of the manuscripts. If you acknowledge that, then you have no basis on which to criticize Westcott and Hort, or anyone else who puts stock in relatively untestified reading. If you do, you show that you are inconsistent. (Of course, that is not news to us, we have seen it all before).

The only contradiction is from you and your method of argumentation. “Her” does not contradict “their.” “Their does not contradict “her.” If both were defiled by blood, then both had to be purified. At least that is what the Law says … and since you like to appeal to the Law, then you should have no problem with this.

Seminary did marvels for your thinking process. Thank God I never got sucked into that mess.

Yes, God forbid that you should actually have to know what you are talking about before you open your mouth.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Looks like English, but reads like mumbo-jumbo Larry. Wanna see if you can find someone to translate your ramblings into something comprehensible.

Don't need any translation. It makes perfect sense to those who will have an authority other than their own mind. Your difficulty is that your authority is only your own mind. Therefore, any that contradicts your own thinking is wrong. I do not share that view. My view is that God's word is the authority. What it says is what I will believe and defend. I will not buy into your idea of authority.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Looks like English, but reads like mumbo-jumbo Larry. Wanna see if you can find someone to translate your ramblings into something comprehensible.


WAIT!!!! I'll see if my 18 month old can make it out as it reads a lot like the way she talks.


Jim

blah,blah,blah,blah....

 

[Ed Edwards]

Will: " ... They leave the common Christians with no
infallible, inerrant, complete Holy Bible in which
to trust and believe with all their heart. ... "

I'm sorry, i must call this idolotry.
To trust anything more than Jesus is idolotry.
To belive with all your heart something other than
Jesus is idolotry.

This form of bible worship is idolotry.

I'm still waiting for a KJVO or KJVO-symp to
agree:

God has two Words:
1. the Written Word of God: the Holy Bible
2. the Living Word of God: Messiah Iesus*

* - spelling is from the real KJB,
the KJV1611 edition

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:


* - spelling is from the real KJB,
the KJV1611 edition

Has Will ever answered what happened to the "jots and tittles" of the "real KJB, the KJV1611 edition" when updated in 1769? Just where are those jots and tittles? where O where could they be?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Orvie - it's "iote and title", please.

And EVERYONE knows the "title" is Holy Bible. It's still on the cover of mine!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

They themselves were not inspired, as many accuse us of believing. It is God's true words that are inspired and He has preserved these in the KJB.

And for about the millionth time... please prove that the words of the KJV were/are words divinely chosen by God Himself.

Did Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, Jude and James know they were inspired? (to use your terminology) Nowhere do they claim to be, yet God used them to give us His inspired words.

Sometimes there appear to be indications that they knew God was speaking to and through them.

However, the more important point is that they were qualified to write scripture. They all operated under apostolic authority. The KJV translators were not.

 

[Phillip]

Jim, I'll make a few changes to a few lines to see if it helps you. I'm not too good at your version of English so if I get it wrong don't blame me.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Does anyone whosoever findeth this absolutely hilarious???? To listen to Will spew from thou mouth without even addressing thus real issues. It would be funny, wherefore it were therefore, not so sad. I don't have time to respond to thou nonsense this fourth hour. Perhaps at a later hour, I shall therefore address it. It shows thus glaring errors in thou thoughts Will. It shows that he has thus set his own mind up as the authority ... and then wonders why we find his arguments lessor than compelling to be nice. Faulty thinking usually leads thus to a faulty position.

I am thus, Glad to have knowledge that the text of the KJV is thus the only inspired word of God. Sorry to see that thou (Will) didn't provide anything but thou own authority for thus. Even more sorry to see that thou didn't tell us which of the conflicting KJV texts thou were subscribing thusly to. It is simply more evidence that thou doesn't know what thou art talking about.

I told you I wasn't very good at that language, but maybe that is closer so that ye may hath better understanding.

 

[tinytim]

Not enough "e"s on the end of the words. And all your "s"s still look like "s"s instead of "f"s.

Good trye though!!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by tinytim:
Not enough "e"s on the end of the words. And all your "s"s still look like "s"s instead of "f"s.

Good trye though!!

You're absolutely right. I keep telling everybody that ancient English is not my native language and therefore like a translation in my native tongue. It makes it SOOOOOO much easier to read.

 

[riverwalker]

How many of the KJVOnly crowd actually read the 1611 Authorized Bible? I do not know one. They read the latest revision. The 1611 has been revised a few times, and itself is a revision of the Bishops Bible, isn't it?