Why not admit you have no inspired Bible?

[Will J. Kinney]

Why not just admit you have no inspired Bible?

Those who are not King James Holy Bible onlyists do not have any bible or texts they believe ARE right now, today, the complete, infallible, pure words of God.

Supposedly a poll was taken at Baptist Board and 44% believe ONLY the originals WERE inspired. My, what a bold stand to take for the truth of God. Since it is obvious we do not have the originals and nobody would recognize them if they fell into their laps, this leaves us with no inspired Bible NOW.

Some 13% believe ALL English versions, no matter how much they differ in both texts and meanings, are all the inspired words of God. This fact indicates how loopy modern Christianity has become.

A guy who calls himself Pastor Larry got all upset when I said he had no infallible Bible. He wrote:

Since you have no infallible Bible
------------------------------------------------------------------------"That is an out and out lie. You know it and you should be embarrassed by your disregard for the truth. If you do not tell the truth about little things like this, how will you expect credibility in bigger things like the Scriptures?"

So, when I asked him: "When I said you have no infallible Bible you responded that this is an out an out lie on my part.

OK, Larry, prove me wrong and tell us all exactly what your infallible Bible is. Give it a name, please. Is it the NASB? If it is not any translation, then please tell us exactly which Hebrew and which Greek text is your infallible bible.

I will bet there is no specific Hebrew or specific Greek text which you really believe is the preserved, infallible, complete words of God, but rather your own peculiar, personal, mystical version that exist only in your own mind. Prove me wrong.
Will Kinney"

The answer I got from pastor Larry was.....cricket...cricket....cricket...

I'm still waiting for the title of his infallible Bible.


Brother Scott, over at the Baptist Board answers: "I think that we are still on a quest to find not only the original words that were written in the autographs, but as our language and scholarship changes, so does our ability to effectively translate those manuscripts."

When I asked this same question, a Christian who calls himself Tinytim answers with uncharacteristic honesty: "No one has a complete infallible bible, God seen fit to destroy the originals. If you have a problem with that talk to Him. We do have reliable english translations that give us God's message to humankind, but to say that they are inspired, infallible, or inerrant is a lie. They are merely a translation. God preserved his words in the varying manuscripts. That's why I carry a parallel Bible. There is so much pride in the KJVO beliefs that it is sinful."


So, why don't most of you Whateverists, Originals Onlyists come right out and admit that you do not have RIGHT NOW anywhere on this earth a Holy Bible that you believe to be the complete, infallible, inerrant, inspired, pure and totally accurate words of the living God?

A little more honesty on your part would be greatly appreciated. And if there are any of the 13% who say they believe all the conflicting versions are equally inspired and inerrant, please step forward and explain this nonsense.

Thank you,

Will Kinney

 

[Charles Meadows]

Will,

"Those who are not King James Holy Bible onlyists do not have any bible or texts they believe ARE right now, today, the complete, infallible, pure words of God."

That would depend on your definition of complete, infallible, and pure! Unfortunately we do not have any originals. The manuscripts we do have are slightly different from one another. The English versions are a little different from one another. Even the revisions of the venerable KJB are slightly different. It is thus abundantly clear to me that God did not find in necessary to give us an exact word for word copy. Take Luke 4:18. Jesus quotes from Isaiah - specifically chapter 61. The words in English do not quite line up although they are similar. The Greek TR is a little different meaning wise than is the BHS Isaiah verse. The TR is nearly identical to the LXX except one phrase is omitted. Thus it seems that the facts are staring us in the face! How can one still keep the strict KJBO stance seeing this?

If I were ornry - I say, "why don't you just admit the only reason to hold this position (KJBO) is that you already decided beforehand that you didn't want any change in the old way so you're not going to look at the facts!"

 

[Daniel David]

Why would I admit a lie? We are to be truth-bearers.

The NASB is the inerrant, perfect word of God. So is the NKJV. So is the ESV.

I completely reject all translations that are not of formal equivalence. They are nothing but a commentary. The NIV, Message, Living Translation, Good News, NCV, etc., are all interpretations of God's word. That is a commentary.

I reject the KJV as the inerrant word because of the multiple errors I have posted on here, the mocking of God by referring to Christ as a thing, the Holy Spirit as 'it' and their Anglican influence that I have mentioned time and again.

So keep your ridiculous demands amongst your little back-slapping friends, because I don't care for revising history and sensationalism.

 

[Jim1999]

Oh, I have my "infallible" King James and it is full of correctional notations on every page.

I have no problem with that. Not one doctrine has changed because of those mistakes or changes in the language.

I should imagine, even if we had the orignal manuscripts, we would find some errors in science or even history. God did not dictate the Bible, but allowed holy men of God to write as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Truth is there and it is infallible. The gospel is there, and it is infallible. The knowledge of God, though incomplete, is there, and it is infallible...So, whether the KJ translators, Wycliffe,or even Phillips, when they speak on these things they are true to God's word.

Yes, I have the infallible truth in my hands and in my heart; Jesus, the Christ, who IS the Word.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Orvie]

Will,
What you actually believe in is that God just couldn't get it right till that **magic year** of 1611, when *poof*, the Anglican Translators, who couldn't stand Baptists became prophets instead of interpreters. Your perhaps well intentioned myth breaks down b/c in spite all your yahoo, before 1611 there was no single text that all agreed upon as Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible, etc, except the language God Almighty chose to write in, namely the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Of course some wrongly believed the Latin corrected the Originals as well. If your myth is followed logically, then God failed before 1611, b/c it's pure conjecture and nonsense to say that God 'waited' till 1611 to get the matter straight in the KJV. I know you wrote where you said, God allegedly preserved His Word before 1611, but those versions do not agree w/ the KJV, even as much as our MV's agree w/ it

 

[HankD]

Will, how often have we been down this road, and keep coming back.

The KJV fails your own criteria Will. The original archetype manuscript has been lost since about 1650. Since that time several hundred corrections have been made to the First Edition.

Neither the quality nor the quantity of the "errors" is the issue but that there errors at all of any kind. If the 1611 AV English were "inspired" of the Holy Spirit, then to say that the 1611 AV First Edition "only" contained type-setting and spelling errors would be an insult to God.

All "errors" of ANY KIND in the Word of God were introduced by MEN whether TR, Majority text or Alexandrian. We do not have the originals of these families of MSS just as we do not have the KJV 1611 original MSS. A reconstruction of the text is necessary.

The KJV translators knowing their fallibility issued several revisions to the original work to their credit as every other translation before it.
No doubt after the original had been lost they went back to one of the copies.

History has a way of repeating itself both for good and for bad. IMO, You have resurrected the error of the Church of Rome and the Vulgate written in the "language of heaven" superior to the original language texts.

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Will Kinney:Why not just admit you have no inspired Bible?

Because that would be a lie. I have several equally-inspired Bibles, including the AV 1611, 1769 KJv, NKJV, NASB, & NIV, to name a few. Why don't YOU admit that we non-Onlyists DO?

Those who are not King James Holy Bible onlyists do not have any bible or texts they believe ARE right now, today, the complete, infallible, pure words of God.

Know what "Codwallop" means?

Supposedly a poll was taken at Baptist Board and 44% believe ONLY the originals WERE inspired. My, what a bold stand to take for the truth of God. Since it is obvious we do not have the originals and nobody would recognize them if they fell into their laps, this leaves us with no inspired Bible NOW.

Know what the difference between "inspiration" and "influence" is?

Some 13% believe ALL English versions, no matter how much they differ in both texts and meanings, are all the inspired words of God. This fact indicates how loopy modern Christianity has become.

Now, you believe God has preserved His word, right? And you KNOW each & every English Bible translation is different from any other, right? Are you afraid to put two(God's preservation) and two(Differences between versions) together, aren't you? You're afraid to see that God preserved, presented, and provided His word in English HIS WAY, aren't you? if you'd just let go of the man-made myth of KJVO and see what God has made available for you and the other English-speaking Christians, you'd be a much-more-effective worker in Christ's behalf, wouldn't you? But if you think more of a myth than you do of what you could do in Christ's name if you were free of the myth......

 

[tinytim]

Will I read this post on online baptist.com a while back. I want to clarify what you quoted me as saying.

A Version (which is what the KJV is) cannot be inspired. Derived inspiration yes. But just saying it is inspired makes the translators equal with Paul, Luke, etc.

A Version that has things in it that is not in the original cannot be inerrant. Even if you want to call them "printing errors", they are still errors, therefore it can't be *IN*Errant.

As for infallible, I may have shot off my mouth before I thought. (I admit, I am capable) If we are talking about the truth, or message a version transmits. There are a lot that are "infallible" as none destroys any doctrine that can be taught from the KJV.

The Bible (original manuscripts) is Inerrant, infallible, and inspired.
Our challenge is to correctly translate the Bible into English.

 

[Rosell]

Actually, the Greek and Hebrew texts, which note the few variants in the Alexandrian and Textus Receptus would be inspired and infallible by any reasonable standard. Any English translation that, as one brother here mentioned, uses a standard of accuracy to the original languages rather than a "readability" standard, would carry the same degree of infallibility as the original language text from which it was translated. That would include the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version as well as the New American Standard Bible. It would not include the NIV or the ESV, which are both centered more on readability than accuracy to the original language. It also would not include the King James Version, which, in many places during its translation was verified using the Latin Vulgate rather than an original language text.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Jim1999:
Oh, I have my "infallible" King James and it is full of correctional notations on every page.

I have no problem with that. Not one doctrine has changed because of those mistakes or changes in the language.

I should imagine, even if we had the orignal manuscripts, we would find some errors in science or even history. God did not dictate the Bible, but allowed holy men of God to write as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Truth is there and it is infallible. The gospel is there, and it is infallible. The knowledge of God, though incomplete, is there, and it is infallible...So, whether the KJ translators, Wycliffe,or even Phillips, when they speak on these things they are true to God's word.

Yes, I have the infallible truth in my hands and in my heart; Jesus, the Christ, who IS the Word.

Cheers,

Jim

Thank you, Brother Jim, your wisdom far exceeds my ability to have posted that, but my understanding EXACTLY.

All these mv advocates should do well to listen, but they just like to argue. I wonder why they haven't railed on your post and tried to make it look like some sort of KJVO labeled hype? I know why they haven't, they know what you said is perfectly true.

I'm going to copy your remarks as a document, being sure to give you the credit for being the author of it.

Thanks, God Bless.

Brother Ricky

 

[tinytim]

Amazing!!!?

I agree with Jim too. And precepts you are right, his wisdom far exceeds your ability to have posted that.
Precepts are you sure you read that right?

I may be just tired, i'm going to bed.

 

[Alcott]

Why not admit you have no inspired Bible?

Alright. I hereby admit that you have no inspired Bible.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Will,"Those who are not King James Holy Bible onlyists do not have any bible or texts they believe ARE right now, today, the complete, infallible, pure words of God."

Hi Charles, you posted:That would depend on your definition of complete, infallible, and pure! Unfortunately we do not have any originals. The manuscripts we do have are slightly different from one another. The English versions are a little different from one another. Even the revisions of the venerable KJB are slightly different. It is thus abundantly clear to me that God did not find in necessary to give us an exact word for word copy. Take Luke 4:18. Jesus quotes from Isaiah - specifically chapter 61.

Charles, the manuscripts are VERY different. Some 3000 words difference just in the New Testament. We are not talking about 10 or 20 words here. There are 17 entire verses omitted in the N.T. in the NIV and even more in the RSV, ESV. The NASB keeps changing from one edition to the next.

And in the O.T. the NASB frequently departs from the Hebrew texts, and the NIV, ESV even moreso.

The editions of the KJB were printing errors, not intentional textual changes. As for your Luke 4 with Isaiah 61, God has the right to quote Himself by way of explanation, amplification, application, as He sees fit.

Charles, you are attempting to minimize the differences, and yet tacitly admit you do not believe we have a complete, inspired, inerrant Bible today.

Luke 4:16-19 compared with Isaiah 61:1-2


Luke 4:16-19

"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."


Isaiah 61:1-2

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; "


Some Bible critics like to tell us that Jesus was quoting the Greek Septuagint version rather than expounding the Hebrew Scriptures. There are several problems with this view. There is no historical proof that there ever was such a thing as a widely accepted, authoritative, pre-Christian Septuagint version that Jesus could have been reading at this time. The Jews still spoke and read the Hebrew language.

Secondly, it was the post Christian Septuagint versions that were written to bring them in line with many New Testament quotes, not the other way around.

Thirdly, if Jesus were quoting the Septuagint, He didn't do a very good job of it, because the LXX version also differs not only from the Hebrew texts, but also from the quote as it is found in the Greek New Testament.

In Luke 4:18 and 19, after "recovering of sight to the blind" the Greek N.T. reads "TO SET AT LIBERTY THEM THAT ARE BRUISED, To PREACH the acceptable year of the Lord." In Greek this is: "aposteilai tethrausmenous en aphesei, keeruxai eniauton kuriou dekton".

However the Septuagint version reads: "to CALL FOR an acceptable year of the Lord, AND A DAY OF RECOMPENSE, to comfort all that mourn." In Greek this is: "KALESAI eniauton kuriou dekton, KAI HEMERAN ANTAPODOSEOS, parakalesai pantas tous penthountas."

We can clearly see that the "quotes" from the so called Septuagint, do not match what is written in the New Testament. The so called Septuagint completely omits "to set at liberty them that are bruised", changes "to preach" into "to call for", and changes "day of VENGEANCE OF OUR GOD" to "and a day of recompense " This is hardly what is recorded in the gospel of Luke chapter four, nor does it match the Hebrew text of Isaiah 61.

In addition to this, the words found in Luke 4:18 "TO HEAL THE BROKEN-HEARTED" are missing from versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NWT, but are found in both the KJB and the Septuagint version. Those who insist on the use of the LXX have departed from it in this verse more so than the KJB.

The words "to heal the broken-hearted" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts and many uncial copies including Alexandrinus of the 5th century. The reading is also found in many ancient versions such as the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, the Georgian, Slavonic, and some Coptic Boharic manuscripts. It is also quoted by early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Hipplytus, Cyril, Theodoret, and Hillary.

However the usual suspects of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these precious words from Holy Writ, and so the NASB, NIV and ESV also omit them.

Any man or author is able to freely quote HIMSELF if he
wants to. But no one has the right to freely quote another and put words into his mouth; this is bearing false witness. God can freely-quote or explain further what He means if He wants to, but we do not have the right to change His words.


The Lord Jesus is merely explaining in further detail the sense of the passage as found in the Hebrew Scriptures, just like any good Jewish teacher would do for the sake of the congregation.

It should be obvious that Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is not quoting some LXX version. Rather, he is restating the same truths found in the Hebrew text by placing the same ideas in different terms. God has the right to do this, because He is refering to what He Himself has inspired. We, on the other hand, do not have the right to alter God's words or thoughts.


Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Daniel David posts: Why would I admit a lie? We are to be truth-bearers.
The NASB is the inerrant, perfect word of God. So is the NKJV. So is the ESV."

Ok, Daniel, then let me ask you a couple things. Are the words in Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." part of the inerrant, perfect word or God or not? They are found in the NKJV, but not in the NASB, ESV.

Then in the NASB and the NKJV and KJB we read in Matthew 12:47 "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee."

However this whole verse is missing from the ESV. So which one is the true word of God here?

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Orvie " Your perhaps well intentioned myth breaks down b/c in spite all your yahoo, before 1611 there was no single text that all agreed upon as Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible, etc, except the language God Almighty chose to write in, namely the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Of course some wrongly believed the Latin corrected the Originals as well. If your myth is followed logically, then God failed before 1611, b/c it's pure conjecture and nonsense to say that God 'waited' till 1611 to get the matter straight in the KJV."

So Orvie, do we now have an inspired, inerrant Bible or not? Yes or No? If Yes, then what is it called, the nasb, niv, esv, rsv, nkjv, or what?

Just admit it. You do not believe we have or have ever had a complete Bible of 66 books all together at one time in one place that is the inerrant words of God. This should not be too hard for you to say, is it?

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hank: "All "errors" of ANY KIND in the Word of God were introduced by MEN whether TR, Majority text or Alexandrian. We do not have the originals of these families of MSS just as we do not have the KJV 1611 original MSS. A reconstruction of the text is necessary."

Same for you Hank. Are you then saying that we do not have an inerrant Bible now?

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Tim posts: "A Version (which is what the KJV is) cannot be inspired. Derived inspiration yes."

Tim, this is all I am arguing for. Derived inspiration is still inspiration. Otherwise there is no such thing as an inspired Bible on this earth today, right?

There are a lot that are "infallible" as none destroys any doctrine that can be taught from the KJV."


Tim, I disagree with this. There are several doctrinal issues that are perverted in the new versions. One is the example of 2 Peter 3:12 where the niv, nkjv, esv, nasb all teach that we can hasten or speed the coming of the day of God. This is impossible and contradicts many other clear Scriptures. What do you do with this example?


Tim: "The Bible (original manuscripts) is Inerrant, infallible, and inspired.
Our challenge is to correctly translate the Bible into English. "

Tim, how do you know the originals were inerrant? How do you know they did not have spelling errors in them?

If our challenge is to correctly translate the Bible into English (which origianl Bible we no longer have), then why do the scholars keep contradicting one another both in text and meaning?

What happens to all the promises God made about His words never passing away?

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Daniel David, "I reject the KJV as the inerrant word because of the multiple errors I have posted on here, the mocking of God by referring to Christ as a thing, the Holy Spirit as 'it' and their Anglican influence that I have mentioned time and again."

Daniel, you are seeing an error and a "mocking of God" where none exists.

Rather than posting the whole article again, here is the site that clearly explains the use of IT when referring to the Holy Ghost and Christ. Your argument is against God Himself, not the KJB. Check out your other versions on this too. You do not know whereof you speak regarding this matter.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/rom8.html

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

Luke 4:16-19 compared with Isaiah 61:1-2

Some Bible critics like to tell us that Jesus was quoting the Greek Septuagint version rather than expounding the Hebrew Scriptures.

Whether or not Jesus was quoting the LXX may be debatable, but what is not debatable is that Jesus was reading from an actual copy of Isaiah containing a different version of the passage.

The Lord Jesus is merely explaining in further detail the sense of the passage as found in the Hebrew Scriptures, just like any good Jewish teacher would do for the sake of the congregation.

That's not what Luke says. Luke clearly and plainly gives an exact description of what Jesus did: he stood up to read, was handed a copy of Isaiah, opened it to one specific place where the words were written, read those words aloud to the assembled congregation, closed the copy of Isaiah when he had finished, handed it back, sat down, and taught the congregation that the one specific Scripture he just read had been fulfilled in their hearing.
The plain fact that Jesus Himself saw nothing wrong with using a different version of Isaiah should put to rest once and for all the unscriptural notion that God wants us to use one version only.

 

[robycop3]

Something you've often choked on before, Will-the fact that there are apparent contradictions in Scripture within the KJV or any other valid version, such as Mark saying both thieves reviled Jesus while Luke has one thief asking Him for remembrance. One of the few things we agree on is the explanation that each book was written by a different writer or writers in different times & places.

What you fail to do is to apply that same explanation to different mss or different BVs. Given the glaring differences between the narrations of the same events within one "set" of mss, it would be unreasonable to not expect such differences between this "set" of mss and another "set" written centuries earlier in a different locale.

Given this double standard of yours, do you really expect anyone to BELIEVE you? Do you think everyone else is really that gullible, to believe a man-made myth for which you cannot even tell by whose authority you advocate this myth?

You avoid the BASICS which would establish a foundation for you to build your myth on. You cannot deal with the fact that your myth has absolutely NO Scriptural support. You cannot handle the fact that no two English BVs are alike, in the face of the fact that God HAS preserved His word and provided it as HE chose, not how you WISHED. You keep saying to those who disagree with your myth, which is 99% of the readership, that "you have no final authority", but you CANNOT provide the SOURCE of YOUR supposed authority.

Your KJVO myth is based upon nothing but guesswork, propaganda, & opinion, & is fueled by a great PROVEN double standard. You CANNOT prove that GOD inspired ONLY the KJV. You keep saying that "this rendering is wrong because it's different from that of the KJV." That's comparing apples & oranges, shooting at straw men, because you CANNOT prove that ONLY THE KJV is correct.

Just face it, Will-you're stuck in this false doctrine as well as the other one we've discussed, and YOU CAN'T WIN.