The Bible Agnostic Test.

[SovereignGrace]

Only one version got this verse WRONG.

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.[KJV]

The King James translation is in error. Jesus was not slain, then hanged on a tree. He was slain by hanging Him on a tree.

Yeah, I caught my faux pas too late and couldn’t correct it. I stated it in a later post.

 

[SovereignGrace]

There is no other Bible for me or to me! I truly believe I have lying here on my desk exactly what God intended for me to have at this time in history.

I can say the exact same thing about my NASB.

 

[Charlie24]

I can say the exact same thing about my NASB.

If that's what you feel comfortable with that is what you should use.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

I don't think there is any bible in any language that is free from error, so no, there are no perfect translations, imo. The autographs are the ones who are error free, not the copies of copies, of copies, of copies...

I notice you put the King James Version on a pedestal by calling it the King James Bible. The King James is a version of the bible, not the bible itself. Notice all the revisions done down through time. If the KJV is perfect, then why all the revisions.

Here's another place the KJV greatly errs:

And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.[KJV]

And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.[NASB 1995]

More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.[ESV]

And not only that, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received this reconciliation.[CSB]

So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God because our Lord Jesus Christ has made us friends of God.[NLT] I don't like this take very well at all.

And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.[NKJV; it had to clean up the mess made by the KJV]


None of us receives the atonement, but we do reap the benefit(s) of the atonement, i.e. reconciliation. So here is another place the KJV dropped the ball.

Hi SG. Then you admit that you do not believe that any Bible you can show us is the complete and inerrant words of God. And of course even though you use a present tense verb - ARE - when you tell us " The autographs ARE the ones who are error free", when you have never seen or read a single word of the autographs (which never even came close to making up an entire Bible in the first place) and you cannot show them to anybody simply because the DO NOT EXIST (present tense verb).

You are expressing your faith in something that does not exist.

And since you are your own authority you then ignorantly claim that the King James Bible is in error in Romans 5:11 where the KJB and many others correctly reads "atonement". For those who have ears to hear, here is why the KJB got it right, as it always does.

Romans 5:11 Atonement or Reconciliation?

Another King James Bible Believer

KJB - "And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the ATONEMENT."

NKJV (ESV, NIV, NASB, LSB) - "And not only that, but we rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the RECONCILIATION."

Here is just a part of the whole article. Click on the link to see the whole Biblical explanation as to why "atonement" is the best word to use in this context and what several well known Bible commentators say about it.

Bibles that say ATONEMENT.

Not only has the King James Bible translated Romans 5:11 as "by whom we have now received the ATONEMENT" but so also do the following Bible versions: Tyndale 1525 - "by whom we have receavyd the ATTONMENT.", Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible (Cranmer) 1540 - "by whom we haue now optayned the ATTONMENT.", Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557 to 1602 "by whom we haue nowe receiued the ATONEMENT.", The Beza New Testament 1599, The Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, the Clarke N.T. 1795, Webster's 1833 translation, The Morgan New Testament 1848, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Dillard N.T. 1885, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible "by whom we have now received THE ATONEMENT.", God's First Truth 1999, Tomson New Testament 2002, The Evidence Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life New Testament 2005 (Vince Garcia), The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Conservative Bible 2010, The BRG Bible 2012, and the Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 - "through whom we now received THE ATONEMENT."


The King James reading of ATONEMENT is totally accurate and it, unlike the modern versions that render this as "reconciliation", shows the final sacrifice of the Lamb of God as the fulfillment of all the Old Testament sacrifices which atoned for the sins of God's people.

I and many others will stick with the Book God has honored far above all others - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

Whole article here -
Romans 5:11 Atonement or Reconciliation?

Another King James Bible Believer

God bless.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

I can say the exact same thing about my NASB.

Ohh.... You mean the constantly changing Vatican supervised text NASBs that teach that the children of Israel DECEIVED God in Psalms 78:36? That one? The one that keeps changing both its Hebrew and Greek texts from one edition to the next? That NASB?
The Ever Changing NASBs - 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 and 2020 editions.

Another King James Bible Believer

Can God be deceived? In Psalms 78:36 The NASB 1972-1995 editions, NET and the Legacy Standard Bible tell us that the children of Israel deceived God. Not just "tried to deceive" or "thought they had deceived" but deceived Him. Is God gullible? Is that even possible? Not even the ASV, ESV, NIV, NKJV read that way.


Another King James Bible Believer

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

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

God bless.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

The translators of the KJV certainly didn't consider their version to be uniquely excellent.
An extract from The Translators to the Readers (written by the translators, this appeared in full in the original 1611 printing):

'..... We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession [i.e. linguists M.M.] (for we have seen none of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.'


Hi Martin. Two things. First, are you willing to just be honest (as some here actually are) and admit the fact that you really do not believe that any Bible in any language you can show us is now or ever was the complete and 100% true words of God? Yes or No?
IF you think you do have one, can you give us a link to where we can see it and read what it says?

Second thing. Like James White and other bible agnostics and Vatican Version promoters, you rip a quote out of the Preface to the Reader and totally take it out of context. The KJB Preface is making a contrast between men of our profession (the previous English Bible translators) and the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims version. And this is the same thing that is going on today. Are you willing to find out the truth of this?

"the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

Another King James Bible Believer

Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

To all Bible agnostics and Vatican Version promoters. Like James White, you completely rip this quote from the KJB Preface completely out of context, when the simple FACT is, they were condemning the Vatican's versions which most of you are using. It doesn't get much more ironic than this.

Find out Why their statement does not mean what you think it means.

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

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

God bless.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

The translators of the KJV certainly didn't consider their version to be uniquely excellent.
An extract from The Translators to the Readers (written by the translators, this appeared in full in the original 1611 printing):

'..... We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession [i.e. linguists M.M.] (for we have seen none of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.'




"the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?


Another King James Bible Believer


Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

To all Bible agnostics and Vatican Version promoters. Like James White, you completely rip this quote from the KJB Preface completely out of context, when the simple FACT is, they were condemning the Vatican's versions which most of you are using. It doesn't get much more ironic than this.


Find out Why their statement does not mean what you think it means.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

"the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?



Another King James Bible Believer



Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?



To all Bible agnostics and Vatican Version promoters. Like James White, you completely rip this quote from the KJB Preface completely out of context, when the simple FACT is, they were condemning the Vatican's versions which most of you are using. It doesn't get much more ironic than this.



Find out Why their statement does not mean what you think it means.