Is the King James Bible God's preserved and inerrant words? One on one discussion.

[brandplucked]

Greetings in the precious name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I first want to thank the TOL moderator who contacted me about presenting the case for the King James Bible as being the only complete, inerrant, preserved and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today. This is exactly what I and many thousands of other blood-bought Christians believe it to be.

I believe the doctrine of the existence of an inspired and inerrant Bible is the number one critical issue facing the church today. The simple fact is most Christians today do NOT believe The Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God.

This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examimation, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person's particular version differs from all the others.

God said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

The Lord Jesus Christ also stated in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

The apostle Paul wrote concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST..." 2 Thessalonians 2:3

The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.

As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."

H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."

Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."


George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.

Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, "The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy."

Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.


The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally: 58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"; 45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."

"Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that: 41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches."

"Seminary students, future pastors and leaders in the church, show very little support for the inerrancy of the Bible position. What does that foretell about the future of the church? Undoubtedly, just as the poll results show in the 1996 - 2001 time frame, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BELIEVING THE BIBLE IS INERRANT WILL DROP."

No Absolute Truth

The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

A popular New Age religious site that endorses all religions of the world is called Religious Tolerance. Org. http://www.religioustolerance.org

This site has some interesting comments regarding the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. They ask: Does inerrancy really matter?

"From one standpoint, this doctrine is of great importance, because it determines, at a very fundamental level, how Christians approach Scripture."

"To most conservative theologians Biblical inerrancy and inspiration are fundamental doctrines. Unless the entire Bible is considered to be the authoritative word of God, then the whole foundation of their religious belief crumbles. If the Bible contains some errors, then conservative Christians feel that they would have no firm basis on which to base their doctrines, beliefs, morality and practices. The books of the Bible must be either inerrant, or be devoid of authority."

They continue: "To most liberal theologians, the Bible is not inerrant. They believe that its books were obviously written and edited by human authors: with limited scientific knowledge, who promoted their own specific belief systems, who attributed statements to God that are immoral by today's standards, who freely incorporated material from neighboring Pagan cultures, who freely disagreed with other Biblical authors." (Religious Tolerance.org)

What I personally found of great interest is the following comment in the same article. The people at Religious Tolerance noted: "Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians CONSIDER A PARTICULAR ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO BE INERRANT. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE AMONG LAY MEMBERS IN THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT THE KING JAMES VERSION. But most conservatives believe that inerrancy only applies to the original, autograph copies of the various books of the Bible. None of the latter have survived to the present day. We only have access to a variety of manuscripts which are copies of copies of copies...An unknown number of errors are induced due to Accidental copying errors by ancient scribes or intentional changes and insertions into the text, made in order to match developing theology." (Religious Tolerance.org)

Most Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any other version are now the inerrant, infallible, complete and pure words of God, define Inerrancy in the following manner: “When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible IN ITS ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life sciences.” (P. D. Feinberg, s.v. “inerrancy, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Inerrancy & the autographa.)

The usual tap dance performed by those who deny any Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant, complete and infallible words of God is typified by the following quote: "Inerrancy applies to the autographa, not to copies or translations of Scripture. This qualification is made because we realize that errors have crept into the text during the transmission process. It is not an appeal to a “Bible which no one has ever seen or can see.” Such a charge fails to take into account the nature of textual criticism and the very high degree of certainty we possess concerning the original text of Scripture."

Well, this may sound very pious and good, but the undeniable fact is that this Christian scholar is talking about "a Bible no one has seen or can see".

As for this gentleman's "nature of textual criticism" is concerned, this so called "science" is a giant fraud and a pathetic joke played on the unsuspecting saints who might think these men actually know what they are doing. I have posted a series on the "science of textual criticism" that reveals the true nature of this hocus-pocus methodology of determining what God really said. You can see all parts of this study, starting with: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html

Here are some facts taken directly from the Holy Bible. You do not need to be a scholar or seminary student to get a grasp of what the Bible says about itself. You either believe God or you don't.

The Bible believer first looks to God and His word to determine what the Book says about itself. The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.

God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16

"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of THE BOOK it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." Psalm 40:7-8

"And if any man shall take away from THE WORDS OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK." Revelation 22:19

I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:

#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

See my two articles on how the modern versions all reject the Hebrew texts.

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

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.

#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.

See article Can a Translation Be Inspired? http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.

"Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160

"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5

In contrast, all the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV contain proveable and serious doctrinal errors. See my article on No Doctrines Are Changed?:

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

#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.

"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman) See also John 3:13; Luke 23:42, and 1 Corinthians 15:47.


#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version.

See my article that shows what these two false witnesses actually say:

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

If you mistakenly think that all bibles are basically the same, I recommend you take a look at this site. It is in two parts, but very easy to read. It shows what is missing in most modern New Testaments.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

I recently came across a blog link where a man made an in depth study of what is missing from the NIV New Testament when compared to the Traditional Greek Text of the King James Bible. It appears to be quite complete. Take a look. You will probably be surprised at what you see. Here is the link: http://rockymoore.com/ChristianLife/archive/2006/04/12/694.aspx

For an article showing that the true Historic Confessional position about the inerrancy of the Bible supports the King James Bible view, rather than the recent position of "the originals only". See:

http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/historicposition.html

In and by His grace alone,

Will Kinney

[themuzicman]

Greetings!

I'd like to thank TOL and Will Kinney for this opportunity to discuss this important topic.

I have one request: That we make arguments in this space, and not make arguments by "weblink", referring to other writings, even if our own, to make arguments for us. Citing another source as evidence is, of course, OK if the relevant text is quoted, but to point an opponent to a series of lengthy is simply not in the spirit of debate.

Since Mr. Kinney needs to flesh out his arguments further to present a case for inspiration and inerrnancy, I will just make an opening statement, here.

I'd like to begin by saying that the issues with what the American Church believes about the bible and the nature of the text is one that teachers everywhere need to begin to resolve. Clearly a lot of education is needed in this regard.

However, we also need to deal in truth when representing God's word, not to say that Mr. Kinney is lying, because I do believe He sincerely believes his position to be the truth. However, given the evidence about the KJV and the Greek manuscript that underlies the KJV, we're going to find more than enough reason for doubt with respect to Mr. Kinney's beliefs about the KJV.

I expect a lot of "comparison" to take place, the claim that the KJV is better than other English translations. However, we should keep in mind that "better than" doesn't represent inerrancy.

I also expect a lot of presupposition, reading the text of Scripture where God promises to preserve His Word, and then the presupposition that the KJV is the fulfillment of this promise. I don't see anywhere in Scripture where the promised text would be in English.

Furthermore, I don't see anywhere in Scripture where the promise of preservation will be a translation at all, nor do I see where Scripture promises that seeking God's preserved word would be easy. Even the Masoretic Text, best represented in the Leningrad Codex, has been preserved through the ben Asher dynasty, a family dedicated to the academic pursuit of preserving the Old Testament.

So, I believe what we will see, in the end, is that the KJV, while a good translation, clearly has problems within its pages, and ultimately is not the preserved and inerrant text that Mr. Kinney claims that it is.

Muz

[brandplucked]

Greetings!

I'd like to thank TOL and Will Kinney for this opportunity to discuss this important topic.

I have one request: That we make arguments in this space, and not make arguments by "weblink", referring to other writings, even if our own, to make arguments for us. Citing another source as evidence is, of course, OK if the relevant text is quoted, but to point an opponent to a series of lengthy is simply not in the spirit of debate.

Hi Muz. Thanks for participating in this vital discussion. I will try to refrain from posting lengthy articles from now on, but I wanted to provide enough information to back up the examples I gave as to why I and many others believe the King James Bible to be the complete and inerrant words of God.

Since Mr. Kinney needs to flesh out his arguments further to present a case for inspiration and inerrnancy, I will just make an opening statement, here.

I have no idea what you mean by "flesh out" (interesting term;-). I have presented a whole series of Bible verses that teach God would preserve His words; heaven and earth would pass away but not His words, and the Scripture cannot be broken. I believe I can successfully maintain the position that IF the King James Bible is not the complete and 100% true Bible of God, then no such book exists on this earth. The latter is what you yourself believe, isn't it Muz?

I'd like to begin by saying that the issues with what the American Church believes about the bible and the nature of the text is one that teachers everywhere need to begin to resolve. Clearly a lot of education is needed in this regard.

However, we also need to deal in truth when representing God's word, not to say that Mr. Kinney is lying, because I do believe He sincerely believes his position to be the truth. However, given the evidence about the KJV and the Greek manuscript that underlies the KJV, we're going to find more than enough reason for doubt with respect to Mr. Kinney's beliefs about the KJV.

I expect a lot of "comparison" to take place, the claim that the KJV is better than other English translations. However, we should keep in mind that "better than" doesn't represent inerrancy.

I also expect a lot of presupposition, reading the text of Scripture where God promises to preserve His Word, and then the presupposition that the KJV is the fulfillment of this promise. I don't see anywhere in Scripture where the promised text would be in English.

Furthermore, I don't see anywhere in Scripture where the promise of preservation will be a translation at all, nor do I see where Scripture promises that seeking God's preserved word would be easy. Even the Masoretic Text, best represented in the Leningrad Codex, has been preserved through the ben Asher dynasty, a family dedicated to the academic pursuit of preserving the Old Testament.

So, I believe what we will see, in the end, is that the KJV, while a good translation, clearly has problems within its pages, and ultimately is not the preserved and inerrant text that Mr. Kinney claims that it is.

Muz

I look forward to examining the very important topic in the near future with you. I would like to clarify what I perceive as lacking in your response so far. You mention that you do not "see anywhere in Scripture where the promise of preservation will be a translation at all". May I also point out that it is undoubtedly also your position that there is no such thing as an inspired, preserved, complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language, including the ever elusive and unidentified Hebrew and Greek original languages.

The only education I see coming from todays' seminaries is that all Hebrew and all Greek texts have been corrupted and that it is impossible to put the whole puzzle back together again. The situation we now have from your side of things is the Every Man For Himself Multiple-Choice Versionism, with no agreement as to which texts should be used nor how they should be translated.

It seems to me the multi-versionist, "originals only" side of things views God much like the Deists of old - He started things off and then left the scene to chance and the fickle will of man.

I suspect, dear Muz, that your tactics will be very similar to those of James White. He himself has no fixed text and no complete and inerrant Bible to offer anyone, and so he ends up in one vain attempt after another to pick holes the the Book of books - the Authorized King James Bible.

If this then is your tactic as well, I would only ask that you limit your laundry lists to a very few items at a time. I am a high school Spanish teacher by trade and it would be hard for me to address more than a few examples of what you think are "problems".

In closing I would like to ask you one simple question. I do hope you will be kind enough to answer it for us. Do you personally believe there exists such a thing as the preserved, inspired, complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible in any language on the face of the earth today? If yes, then could you please tell us where we too can get a printed copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we might be reading now and see the differences?

Thank you.

Accepted in the Beloved - Eph. 1:6

Will Kinney

[Knight]

FYI: I opened up a companion thread for this debate so that those interested could discuss the debate. The companion thread is located here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1733142#post1733142).

[themuzicman]

I have no idea what you mean by "flesh out" (interesting term;-). I have presented a whole series of Bible verses that teach God would preserve His words; heaven and earth would pass away but not His words, and the Scripture cannot be broken. I believe I can successfully maintain the position that IF the King James Bible is not the complete and 100% true Bible of God, then no such book exists on this earth. The latter is what you yourself believe, isn't it Muz?

Not at all. I believe God has preserved His word for us. However, I don't see anywhere in Scripture where God promises that His word would be preserved in a single translation of the bible. This is your task.

I look forward to examining the very important topic in the near future with you. I would like to clarify what I perceive as lacking in your response so far. You mention that you do not "see anywhere in Scripture where the promise of preservation will be a translation at all". May I also point out that it is undoubtedly also your position that there is no such thing as an inspired, preserved, complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language, including the ever elusive and unidentified Hebrew and Greek original languages.


My position is that God has preserved His Word in the original for us.

The only education I see coming from todays' seminaries is that all Hebrew and all Greek texts have been corrupted and that it is impossible to put the whole puzzle back together again. The situation we now have from your side of things is the Every Man For Himself Multiple-Choice Versionism, with no agreement as to which texts should be used nor how they should be translated.

I think you're presenting an oversimplified view of what seminaries teach. For the Old Testament, the Leningrad Codex is considered the preserved Hebrew text. Among conservative scholars, this is fairly universally held. So, there's the OT.

The New Testament is not quite as simple, and yet I can say the same things about the ongoing work of scholars about the current text as you can about the KJV. There is nothing within Scripture that points us uniquely to the KJV as God's inerrant word.

It seems to me the multi-versionist, "originals only" side of things views God much like the Deists of old - He started things off and then left the scene to chance and the fickle will of man.

Again, I believe that's an oversimplification of that view. However, from the text of Scripture, we can see that the original text is the only text that we can say was created "as the Holy Spirit carried them along." (2 Peter 1:16-21)

That's not to say that God hasn't been at work preserving His word through the voluminous copies of Scripture, none of which are inerrant in and of themselves, but in which God's word is preserved.

I suspect, dear Muz, that your tactics will be very similar to those of James White. He himself has no fixed text and no complete and inerrant Bible to offer anyone, and so he ends up in one vain attempt after another to pick holes the the Book of books - the Authorized King James Bible.

Well, let's pick up the KJV and have a look, then.

If this then is your tactic as well, I would only ask that you limit your laundry lists to a very few items at a time. I am a high school Spanish teacher by trade and it would be hard for me to address more than a few examples of what you think are "problems".

Then I will do my best to stick to the important ones.

In closing I would like to ask you one simple question. I do hope you will be kind enough to answer it for us. Do you personally believe there exists such a thing as the preserved, inspired, complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible in any language on the face of the earth today? If yes, then could you please tell us where we too can get a printed copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we might be reading now and see the differences?
Will Kinney

Well, this is the typical debate tactic, trying to turn the debate around, and rather than building a case for the KJV, as the proposal suggests, the goalposts are shifted, an artificial standard established, and the onus is placed upon the negative to prove otherwise. However. in the spirit of debate, Mr. Kinney will need to make his case.

However, since he presented a case in the opening (I wanted to make sure he didn't have more to say), let's examine the 6 points:

#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

See my two articles on how the modern versions all reject the Hebrew texts.

This is quite interesting, actually. For the last few hundred years, scholarship has taken great interest in the Leningrad Codex, the oldest complete manuscript of the Old Testament, dating from around 1010AD. It is a Masoretic text, and considered to be the faithful transmission of the Old Testament to the church.

Recently, my class undertook doing some scribal comparisons of a piece of a Torah Scroll with the Leningrad Codex, the Qumran material, the Samaritan Pentetuch, the London Polyglot, and the BHS. Now, all but the last of those are various scribal traditions. The last is scholarship's attempt to create a modern, published text, comparable to the Greek New Testament. Interestingly enough, the Torah scroll. the Leningrad Codex, and the BHS were virtually identical. The was no significant difference between the three.

And modern translations are based upon the BHS.

So, if we want to speak directly of the preserved word of God in the original, I would point you directly to the Leningrad Codex for the Old Testament. There is a facsimile copy of that text is my local library, and I can put that into the hands of any Christian, and it is available for purchase.

Why does scholarship consider this text to be preserved? Well, there are a lot of reasons, most are too long to discuss, here. However, the short answer is that Jewish scribes were committed to the exact reproduction of text, as they considered it the inspired Word of God, they used all kinds of means and methods to preserve the text, and from what we know of the "scribal dynasty" that produced the Leningrad Codex, they were just as committed as those who came before.

If the KJV deviates from the Leningrad Codex, upon which modern translations are based, then there is no basis from your own logic, why we couldn't say that the Leningrad Codex, rather than the KJV, is the inspired, preserved text.

#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.

Notice that this is asserted, but not demonstrated, and it is simply presumed that Isaiah 34:16 is referring to the KJV, and not, say, the Torah scrolls of Isaiah's day.

(This is one of the places I was thinking of when I said that things needed to be "fleshed out."

#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.


Again, this is assertion without proof. We're supposed to jump into the presupposition without any evidence.

#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.

"Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160

"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5

You know, that's interesting, because one of the significant errors of the KJV (and this is confirmed by other "majority text" texts actually demotes Christ from being God. In John 1:18, the KJV says:

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

The NASB (and all other modern translations) say:

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

And based upon the structure of John 1:1-18, verse 18 should reflect verses 1-3, where the "Word was God." But in the KJV, John's work is destroyed by a textual variant not picked up by Erasmus when creating the TR, and apparently the KJV translators missed the Holy Spirit's inspiration when translating this verse.

In contrast, all the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV contain proveable and serious doctrinal errors. See my article on No Doctrines Are Changed?:

Well, the KJV makes an error on an important verse regarding trinitarian doctrine, so I'd be careful throwing stones when you live in a glass house.

#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.

As shown above, the KJV debases Christ in reducing Him from being God in John 1:18.

"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman) See also John 3:13; Luke 23:42, and 1 Corinthians 15:47.

This is no different than the slight the KJV places against Christ in John 1:18, except that the original text reads as the NASB and ESV do, rather than the KJV.

#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version.


This is simply incorrect. With respect to the Wescott and Hort New Testament, this may have been true. However, their textual selection has been rejected for almost 100 years now, based upon recent findings of older texts in various discoveries around the world since 1900.

Modern scholars value the Byzantine text far more than Wescott and Hort did, and your modern translations are based upon a far more balanced (and accurate) view of all the texts. If anyone wishes to study this further, Bruce Metzger is the present "alpha geek" of the textual criticism world.


If you mistakenly think that all bibles are basically the same, I recommend you take a look at this site. It is in two parts, but very easy to read. It shows what is missing in most modern New Testaments.

Well, each translations has its own focus. There are a variety of kinds of translations, and it is important to understand each.

The KJV, ESV, and NASB are called "formal translations", in that they read the text, and remain as literally as possible, accounting for the differences in Lexical and Grammatical form between English and the original language. Their motto is "as literal as possible, as free as necessary."

The NIV (and I think the NCV) are called "dynamic equivalence." This means that they translate literally when a literal translation brings out the meaning of the text well, but interpret parts of the text that they translators feel that a literal translation doesn't bring out the meaning properly. One example is that the NIV translates "flesh" as "sinful nature" in Romans, based upon Romans 7:5. I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation in all cases, but if you read the introduction to the NIV, they describe what they've done.

The Message paraphrase, the NLT, and many other versions represent themselves as interpretations. They are rarely literal, and seek to bring meaning, rather than literal translations.


Now, I want everyone to notice that we're back into "comparison" mode, as though the best text from the limited list the Mr. Kinney has chosen must be the inspired Word of God. However, unless Mr. Kinney is willing to do this with every translation of the bible that has ever existed, it would be difficult to make this case, and even if this happened, we'd only conclude that the KJV is the best translation, not that it was inspired.

I recently came across a blog link where a man made an in depth study of what is missing from the NIV New Testament when compared to the Traditional Greek Text of the King James Bible. It appears to be quite complete.

First and foremost, neither the TR nor the Byzantine texts are the "Traditional Greek Text." The Byzantine Text Type is one of five groupings of manuscripts made by various groups of people. The Byzantine (as one might guess) is based in the Eastern Church. The groups labeled "aleph" and "Bet" were the Roman Church's preservation. Sinaticus comes from a Sinai tradition. There is also the Western Text Type, which comes from a variety of western sources.

Each has its strengths and weaknesses. The "Byzantine text" is also called the "Majority text", due to the volume of copies made in this type. There are literally thousands of copies of this type around the world, although most of them are very late copies.

What's interesting is that something happened around 400AD (what, we don't know), but there are very few copies of Scripture that survived from before this date from any tradition. It appears that the church was having problems with poor copies of manuscripts running around, and they wanted to coalesce and come up with an authoritative copy, and it is from this apparent work that all traditions (including the one the KJV is based in) come from. From before 400AD, all we have are small fragments, although one may be dated as early as 130AD, from the book of John.

So, that's enough textual history for now. But I think we can see that the Church definitely had a hand in making textual decisions regarding the original as early as 400AD. (It's interesting to note that the canon of Scripture was established in 325AD, and that might explain the need to consolidate texts.)

So, let's get into the KJV, a bit.

The KJV is based upon a Greek Text assembled by a man named "Erasmus", which was later dubbed "the Textus Receptus" by a marketer trying to pump up sales around 1625.

However, Erasmus' assembly of this Greek Text is somewhat suspect. While the "majority text" contains literally thousands of manuscripts, Erasmus only used about a dozen individual manuscripts dating either from the 12th or 15th century. These are considered very late manuscripts, and, as would be common sense, the more times a manuscript has been copied, the greater the chance for errors.

Modern translators consider literally hundreds (sometimes thousands) of manuscripts, giving consideration to a variety of criterion to discover the original.

But back to our story of Erasmus.

Now, what is most interesting about these manuscripts is that there was only one copy of Revelation, and that was missing the last several verses. That means that the TR version of Revelation contained whatever Scribal errors were committed in that one manuscript, and that Erasmus had to do something else to come up with the ending.

What did Erasmus do? He went to the Latin Vulgate, and translated the Latin back into Greek. Yes, the Greek NT that the supposed inspired KJV is based upon doesn't even have all of its text based in a line of copies based in the original language.

(This is an online source for everyone to read: http://www.theopedia.com/Erasmus)


Now, please don't misunderstand me. The KJV is a good translation of the bible. I have one and use it, along with several other translations. I also have taken the time to learn to read the original language.

However, based upon the history of the KJV, and the obvious errors that we can find within it, we simply cannot conclude that the KJV is the inerrant and inspired Word of God. It is a translation, similar to other formal translations.

Muz

[brandplucked]

Hi Muz. Thanks for getting back to us with another response. Hopefully God will be pleased to use these studies of His precious words to open more eyes to the wondrous things out of His law.



brandplucked May I also point out that it is undoubtedly also your position that there is no such thing as an inspired, preserved, complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language, including the ever elusive and unidentified Hebrew and Greek original languages.

Muz - “My position is that God has preserved His Word in the original for us.”

Hi Muz. I was pretty sure you were an “originals onlyist”. You are aware of the well known fact, I assume, that there ARE no such things as 'the originals' and all present day scholars are in disagreement as to what the originals may or may not have said. The simple and undeniable fact is - you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language, including your Hebrew and Greek. This is not a side issue of relative unimportance; it is the fundamental premise from which you reason your way into criticizing the Book.


There is nothing within Scripture that points us uniquely to the KJV as God's inerrant word.

Nor is there anything within Scripture that tells us the Hebrew nor the Greek, nor a multitude of conflicting partial manuscripts and scraps of papyri, nor the NASB, NIV, ESV,NKJV or NET version would be God’s inerrant word either. You talk about “God’s inerrant word”, yet you do not have it. Can’t you see the inconsistency of such a position? Professing to believe in something you know does not exist is not a sign of mature spiritual growth.


That's not to say that God hasn't been at work preserving His word through the voluminous copies of Scripture, none of which are inerrant in and of themselves, but in which God's word is preserved.

Muz, you have probably heard this before but your statement is much like saying “God’s words are preserved in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary - they are in there somewhere, all mixed up with many words that are not the right ones, and they're all out of order, but Hey, there in there somewhere!”

Let me ask you this, Muz. Do you personally believe God has preserved His words? If so, which verses would you use to support such a belief?


My Previous question to you: In closing I would like to ask you one simple question. I do hope you will be kind enough to answer it for us. Do you personally believe there exists such a thing as the preserved, inspired, complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible in any language on the face of the earth today? If yes, then could you please tell us where we too can get a printed copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we might be reading now and see the differences?


Well, this is the typical debate tactic, trying to turn the debate around, and rather than building a case for the KJV, as the proposal suggests, the goalposts are shifted, an artificial standard established, and the onus is placed upon the negative to prove otherwise. However. in the spirit of debate, Mr. Kinney will need to make his case.

Muz, rather than turning the debate around and shifting goalposts, this vital question is directly related to our ongoing discussion. You have placed yourself in the position of measuring the King James Bible and pronouncing it wanting and deficient. So it is only a reasonable and logical question for me to ask you. By what standard are you sitting in judgment on the Book God has seen fit to use so mightily in history and the only one anyone today actually believes IS the complete and inerrant, preserved words of the living God.

As it turns out, it seems your measuring stick consists of two elements: #1. the non-existent and never seen by you “originals”, and #2. your own mind and present understanding, which by the way, differs from everybody else’s.


For the sake of relative brevity I would like to address the two main points you bring up in the remainder of your response, if you don’t mind. You talk about the Leningrad Codex for the Old Testament, and several of your points had to do with John 1:18.


For the last few hundred years, scholarship has taken great interest in the Leningrad Codex, the oldest complete manuscript of the Old Testament, dating from around 1010AD. It is a Masoretic text, and considered to be the faithful transmission of the Old Testament to the church.

Muz, do you believe this Old Testament text is the complete, inspired and infallible words of God for the O.T.? If so, I want to ask about two simple examples (though I have many more I could ask about).

What does your Leningrad codex say in 2 Chronicles 22:2? Does it say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, or does it say he was 22 years old as the NASB, NIV, ESV have it? 2 Kings 8:26 says he was 22 years old. So, what does your Leningrad codex read in 2 Chron. 22:2 and how do you reconcile these two different numbers?

Secondly, what does your Leningrad codex read in 2 Samuel 15:7, forty years or four years?

In 2 Samuel we read of Absalom's rebellion against his father, king David. Verses 7-8 say: "And it came to pass after FORTY years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go a pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron. For thy servant vowed a vow while I abode at Geshur in Syria, saying, If the LORD shall bring me again indeed to Jerusalem, then I will serve the LORD."

The versions that agree with the King James Bible reading of "after FORTY years" are Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the NKJV, the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew-English versions, the NASB, Revised Version, American Standard Version 1901, Douay, Darby, Spanish Reina Valera, Young's, Webster's, Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard and The Message all read "after FOUR years Absalom...". The footnote in the RSV, NRSV says the number 4 comes from the Greek and Syriac, while the Hebrew says 40. The NIV footnote says SOME LXX, Syriac and Josephus say 4, while the Hebrew says 40. My copy of the LXX says 40. The NKJV also includes a sitting on the fence footnote which says: "Septuagint manuscript, Syriac and Josehpus have 4.".

Daniel Wallace's NET bible version has: "After four (10) years Absalom said to the king, “Let me go and repay my vow that I made to the Lord while I was in Hebron." Then in a footnote Dr. Wallace says: " The MT (Hebrew Masorretic Text) has here “forty,” but this is presumably a scribal error for “four.” The context will not tolerate a period of forty years prior to the rebellion of Absalom."

What does your Leningrad codex read and how do you account for the number of “after 40 years”?


One of the significant errors of the KJV (and this is confirmed by other "majority text" texts actually demotes Christ from being God. In John 1:18, the KJV says:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
The NASB (and all other modern translations) say:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
And based upon the structure of John 1:1-18, verse 18 should reflect verses 1-3, where the "Word was God." But in the KJV, John's work is destroyed by a textual variant not picked up by Erasmus when creating the TR, and apparently the KJV translators missed the Holy Spirit's inspiration when translating this verse.

Frankly, Muz, I was a bit surprised that you would pick this as being an alleged error or problem in the King James Bible. Rather, it is the NASB reading that is theologically absurd and heretical.

Here is my ‘little’ study on this verse.

JOHN 1:18

"No man hath seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

John 1:18 presents us with a classical case of confusion caused by the modern Bible correctors. The phrase in question is "the only begotten Son." There are two variants here: one with the Greek text and the other with the translation.

The Greek of the Traditional Text reads, "o monogenes huios" (the only begotten Son). The Greek of the Alexandrian Text reads, "o monogenes theos" (the only begotten God). Additionally, the Greek word "monogenes" is no longer looked upon by some as meaning "only begotten" but is now considered better translated as "unique" or "one and only." However there is much disagreement among today's "scholars" as to which text to adopt and how to translate it.

Notice the total confusion that exists in the multitude of modern bible versions today.

1. "The only begotten Son"- King James Bible, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Daniel Mace New Testament 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster's 1833 translation, Darby 1890, Young's, Douay 1950, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Italian Diodati 1602, Rivudeta 1927, Luther's German Bible 1545, German Schlachter 1951, French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, Ostervald 1996, the NKJV 1982, Third Millenium Bible, and KJV 21.

Even the Revised Version 1881 and American Standard Version1901, which introduced thousands of radical changes in the New Testament based on the Alexandrian texts, did not follow Sinaiticus/Vaticanus here but stuck with the Traditional Text. It wasn't till the NASB appeared on the scene that the false reading of "the only begotten God" was introduced
.
2. "The only begotten God" NASB

3. "God the only Son" NIV 1973

4. "God the One and Only" NIV 1984 with a footnote "or only begotten"

5. "but the one and only Son, who is himself God" TNIV 2001 with footnote "some manuscripts - but the only Son".

The 1973 and 1977 NIV's read, "No MAN has ever seen God, but God the only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known". The 1978 and 1984 NIV editions now read, "No ONE has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." Thus, the NIV has been revised and changed " no man" to "no one", altered "only" to "One and Only" and omitted [Son]. Then the TNIV further changes "One and Only" to "one and only" and again adds "Son".

These next three are all related to one another as each is a revision of the last one in line, yet they all three differ from each other. See how consistent modern scholars are.

6. "the only Son" RSV 1952. The liberal RSV was the first major English version to translate monogenes as "only" rather than the traditional and more accurate "only begotten", but yet it retained the word Son rather than God.

7. "God the only Son" NRSV 1989

8. "the only God" English Standard Version 2001

9. "the one and only Son" Hebrew Names Version,

10. "God's only Son" New English Bible 1970

11. "the only conceived Son" World English Bible

12. The Message 2002 - " No one has ever seen God, not so much as a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-Expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day." A "one of a kind God expression"???

Several of these modern version don't follow any Greek text at all but combine divergent readings from different texts, such as the NIV 1973, TNIV, the NRSV, and the New English Bible.

The King James Bible is the correct reading both as to text and meaning. The Alexandrian texts which read "the only begotten GOD, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" teach that there are TWO GODS and one of them is inferior to the other. Read it any way you wish, but the undeniable fact is you end up with TWO GODS. There is the God whom nobody has seen and then there is the only begotten God who has explained the unseen God. The only other version I know of that reads this way, besides the NASB, is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, which says: "the only begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."

One of the newest in the long line of bible revisions, the English Standard Version, reads: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." This is totally absurd. It teaches not only that there are two Gods, the one nobody has ever seen, and the one who has made the unseen God known; but one of them is God and the other is the ONLY God.

Jesus Christ is by nature very God of very God. John 1 says "the Word was God". Notice it does not say the Word was THE God. God is triune yet one. If it had said "the Word was THE God" it would be a theological error. All that God is in the three Persons is not limited to the Word, but the Word (Jesus Christ) is by very nature God.

What the ESV teaches is a confusion of the nature of the Trinity. Jesus Christ is not "THE ONLY GOD" who makes known the God no one has seen. Jesus Christ is God by nature, but He is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost.

We now have two more late$t and greate$t ver$ion$ coming on the scene. The ISV or International Standard Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

The ISV reads: " No one has ever seen God. The UNIQUE God, (Other mss. read Son) who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him." Again, we have two Gods. One nobody has ever seen and then the "unique" God! Does this mean the God no one has seen is just an ordinary, run-of-the- mill, garden variety god, while the other one is totally unique?

But wait, the newest of them all is the 2003 Holman Christian Standard Bible, and it says: "No one has ever seen God. The only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him." Hey, this one went back to the reading of "Son" instead of "God". What gives here? Well, it's the fickle, shifting sands of modern scholarship.

Those versions that teach that Jesus Christ is the "only Son" or "the one and only Son" are also incorrect in that angels are also called sons of God and so are Adam and all of God's other children. In either case, the corrupt and confusing readings found in many modern bible versions diminish the glory of the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity is turned on its head.

The Nicene Creed (344 AD) states:
"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, . . . And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible . . ." (as cited from Athanasius: De Synodis, II:26).

The Old Latin manuscripts of John 1:18, which translation preceded anything we have in the remaining Greek copies, read: "deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius. qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit." The word "unigenitus" means, "only begotten, only; of the same parentage." (Dr. John C. Traupman, Latin Dictionary, 323).

In 202 AD, Irenaeus wrote,
"For 'no man,' he says, 'hath seen God at any time,' unless 'the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].' For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible."(Against Heresies, 3:11:6)

In 324 AD, Alexander of Alexandria wrote:
"Moreover, that the Son of God was not produced out of what did not exist, and that there never was a time when He did not exist, is taught expressly by John the Evangelist, who writes this of Him: 'The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.' The divine teacher, because he intended to show that the Father and the Son are two and inseparable from each other, does in fact specify that He is in the bosom of the Father." (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith Of The Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, p. 300)

Ambrose (397 AD) writes,
"For this reason also the evangelist says, 'No one has at any time seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him.' 'The bosom of the Father,' then, is to be understood in a spiritual sense, as a kind of innermost dwelling of the Father's love and of His nature, in which the Son always dwells. Even so, the Father's womb is the spiritual womb of an inner sanctuary, from which the Son has proceeded just as from a generative womb."(The Patrarches, 11:51).

Finally, Augustine (430 AD) wrote:
"For Himself hath said: No man hath seen God at any time, but the Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. Therefore we know the Father by Him, being they to whom He hath declared Him."(Homilies On The Gospel According To St. John, XLVII:3)

The point is that most of the early Theologians in the Church not only recognized that monogenes means "only begotten," and defined it as such, but that the popular reading was "only begotten Son."

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." Westminster Confession, Chapter III.

In spite of some Greek lexicons, like Thayer's, which insist the meaning of monogenes is "unique" or "one of a kind", there are many others like Kittel's, Liddel and Scott and Vine's that tell us the Greek word monogenes emphatically means "only begotten" and not "one and only". It is significant that Thayer did not believe that Jesus Christ was God.

In Kittel's massive work Volume 4 page 741 the writer says: "In John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9 monogenes denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son. (notice he does not accept the false reading of 'God' in 1:18, and he states this on the previous page). In John monogenes denotes the origin of Jesus as the only begotten."

Even the modern Greek language dictionary, which has nothing to do with the Bible, says that monogenes means "only begotten", and not unique. The Greek word for "unique" or "one and only" is a very different and specific word - monodikos - not monogenes.

The translators of the King James Version were not unaware that monogenes can also be translated as "only" for they did so in Luke 7:12; 8:42; and 9:38, all of which refer to an only child and thus they were the only begotten, not an unique child.

Some who criticize the KJB tell us that the word means "unique" and they refer to Hebrews 11:17 where we are told: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son." They point out that Isaac was not the only son of Abraham at the time, but that Ishmael had already been born of Abraham's union with Hagar. However a look at the text itself in Genesis 22:2,12 and 16 shows that God referred to Isaac as "thine ONLY son Isaac". Ishmael is not even taken into consideration by God since he was not the promised seed with whom God made the covenant of grace. As far as God was concerned, there was only one "only begotten son" of Abraham, and he is the spiritual type of the only begotten Son of God who became the lamb that was sacrificed for the sins of God's people.

The King James Bible is correct as always, and the divergent and contradictory readings in most modern versions are wrong.

NICENE CREED 325 A.D. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER BEFORE ALL WORLD, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

CHALCEDON CREED 451 A.D. Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER BEFORE THE AGES.

ATHANASIA CREED 500 A.D. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, NOT MADE NOR CREATED BUT BEGOTTEN. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal.
The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father, BEGTOTTEN BEFORE THE WORLDS, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.

The BELGIC CONFESSION 1561 We believe that Jesus Christ, according to his divine nature, is the only Son of God-- ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE NOR CREATED, for then he would be a creature. He is one in essence with the Father; coeternal; the exact image of the person of the Father.

The 39 ARTICLES OF RELIGION 1571 Article II The Son, which is the Word of the Father, BEGOTTEN FROM EVERLASTING OF THE FATHER, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father.


WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 1646 In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION 1689 In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Will Kinney

Here is a very well done article on John 1:18 and the heretical reading of the NASB, NIV versions done by a man who is not even a KJB onlyist. Tim Warner has written an excellent refutation of the NASB, NIV reading. See it here:

http://studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/john1n18.html

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

[themuzicman]

Hi Muz. I was pretty sure you were an “originals onlyist”. You are aware of the well known fact, I assume, that there ARE no such things as 'the originals' and all present day scholars are in disagreement as to what the originals may or may not have said. The simple and undeniable fact is - you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language, including your Hebrew and Greek. This is not a side issue of relative unimportance; it is the fundamental premise from which you reason your way into criticizing the Book.

However, this is not the point of this debate. This debate is about your demonstrating for us that the KJV is the inerrant word of God. Whether this "originals only" view is right or wrong isn't horribly relevant, as one could make similar claims about any number of bible translations, assuming it to be the inerrant word, and pointing out the errors in the KJV.

Nor is there anything within Scripture that tells us the Hebrew nor the Greek, nor a multitude of conflicting partial manuscripts and scraps of papyri, nor the NASB, NIV, ESV,NKJV or NET version would be God’s inerrant word either.

This is incorrect. The bible does tell us that the original writing in inspired by God. However, that's not the point of this debate.

You talk about “God’s inerrant word”, yet you do not have it. Can’t you see the inconsistency of such a position? Professing to believe in something you know does not exist is not a sign of mature spiritual growth.

Did I say that we don't have it? I don't recall saying that.

However, once again, you're shifting away from your burden to prove that the KJV is the inerrant word of God. If you wish to discuss "How did God preserve His Word," we can open another thread at a later time. However, you've not demonstrated that the KJV is the inerrant Word of God, yet.

Muz, you have probably heard this before but your statement is much like saying “God’s words are preserved in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary - they are in there somewhere, all mixed up with many words that are not the right ones, and they're all out of order, but Hey, there in there somewhere!”


In fact, that's a very poor analogy, and a further attempt to avoid the debate at hand.

Let me ask you this, Muz. Do you personally believe God has preserved His words? If so, which verses would you use to support such a belief?


Again, off topic. What I believe about preservation isn't at issue, here. What's at issue is your burden to prove to us that the KJV is the inerrant word of God.

My Previous question to you: In closing I would like to ask you one simple question. I do hope you will be kind enough to answer it for us. Do you personally believe there exists such a thing as the preserved, inspired, complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible in any language on the face of the earth today? If yes, then could you please tell us where we too can get a printed copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we might be reading now and see the differences?


And the reader will notice that Mt. Kinney continues to attempt to change the standard of the debate away from his burden of proving an inerrant text, to having me prove that something else is.

The fact is that, if this debate provides no evidence of any inerrant text, then Mr. Kinney has lost the debate.

In another context, I may provide a more comprehensive answer, but this is a derailment of this thread from its purpose.

Muz, rather than turning the debate around and shifting goalposts, this vital question is directly related to our ongoing discussion. You have placed yourself in the position of measuring the King James Bible and pronouncing it wanting and deficient.

And that is my ONLY task.

So it is only a reasonable and logical question for me to ask you. By what standard are you sitting in judgment on the Book God has seen fit to use so mightily in history and the only one anyone today actually believes IS the complete and inerrant, preserved words of the living God.

In a subsequent debate, this might be a question to address. However, this debate isn't about my beliefs regarding preservation, but your assertion that the KJV is the inerrant word of God. So far, you've not provide any evidence that the KJV is, in fact, this text.

As it turns out, it seems your measuring stick consists of two elements: #1. the non-existent and never seen by you “originals”, and #2. your own mind and present understanding, which by the way, differs from everybody else’s.


I've not articulated my view. That has been intentional. I have stated that I believe in a preserved text. However, again, this debate isn't about my view of preservation. It's about YOUR view of the KJV being inerrant, which you seem unable to demonstrate, and you seem insistent on denigrating what you perceive to be my view, in lieu of real evidence.

For the sake of relative brevity I would like to address the two main points you bring up in the remainder of your response, if you don’t mind. You talk about the Leningrad Codex for the Old Testament, and several of your points had to do with John 1:18.

You missed the more important (and last) point, which I will reiterate at the end.

Muz, do you believe this Old Testament text is the complete, inspired and infallible words of God for the O.T.? If so, I want to ask about two simple examples (though I have many more I could ask about).

What does your Leningrad codex say in 2 Chronicles 22:2? Does it say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, or does it say he was 22 years old as the NASB, NIV, ESV have it? 2 Kings 8:26 says he was 22 years old. So, what does your Leningrad codex read in 2 Chron. 22:2 and how do you reconcile these two different numbers?

Quite honestly, if this is the standard then the KJV has the same issue:

Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:

The mustard seed is not the smallest seed, in spite of what the KJV says, here. So, if the standard of inerrancy is the picky details of the text, then you've denied everyone any opportunity to claim inerrancy.

Secondly, what does your Leningrad codex read in 2 Samuel 15:7, forty years or four years?

In 2 Samuel we read of Absalom's rebellion against his father, king David. Verses 7-8 say: "And it came to pass after FORTY years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go a pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron. For thy servant vowed a vow while I abode at Geshur in Syria, saying, If the LORD shall bring me again indeed to Jerusalem, then I will serve the LORD."

The versions that agree with the King James Bible reading of "after FORTY years" are Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the NKJV, the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew-English versions, the NASB, Revised Version, American Standard Version 1901, Douay, Darby, Spanish Reina Valera, Young's, Webster's, Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard and The Message all read "after FOUR years Absalom...". The footnote in the RSV, NRSV says the number 4 comes from the Greek and Syriac, while the Hebrew says 40. The NIV footnote says SOME LXX, Syriac and Josephus say 4, while the Hebrew says 40. My copy of the LXX says 40. The NKJV also includes a sitting on the fence footnote which says: "Septuagint manuscript, Syriac and Josehpus have 4.".

Daniel Wallace's NET bible version has: "After four (10) years Absalom said to the king, “Let me go and repay my vow that I made to the Lord while I was in Hebron." Then in a footnote Dr. Wallace says: " The MT (Hebrew Masorretic Text) has here “forty,” but this is presumably a scribal error for “four.” The context will not tolerate a period of forty years prior to the rebellion of Absalom."

What does your Leningrad codex read and how do you account for the number of “after 40 years”?

Again, if this is your standard, then you've defeated yourself. Remember that the point, here, isn't to compare the KJV to other translations or texts, but for you to prove that the KJV is inerrant.

The problem you have now is that you've set up a standard that causes the KJV to fail, as I've demonstrated.

Frankly, Muz, I was a bit surprised that you would pick this as being an alleged error or problem in the King James Bible. Rather, it is the NASB reading that is theologically absurd and heretical.

Let's examine your case.

Here is my ‘little’ study on this verse.

JOHN 1:18

"No man hath seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

John 1:18 presents us with a classical case of confusion caused by the modern Bible correctors. The phrase in question is "the only begotten Son." There are two variants here: one with the Greek text and the other with the translation.

The Greek of the Traditional Text reads, "o monogenes huios" (the only begotten Son). The Greek of the Alexandrian Text reads, "o monogenes theos" (the only begotten God). Additionally, the Greek word "monogenes" is no longer looked upon by some as meaning "only begotten" but is now considered better translated as "unique" or "one and only." However there is much disagreement among today's "scholars" as to which text to adopt and how to translate it.

Notice the total confusion that exists in the multitude of modern bible versions today.

1. "The only begotten Son"- King James Bible, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Daniel Mace New Testament 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster's 1833 translation, Darby 1890, Young's, Douay 1950, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Italian Diodati 1602, Rivudeta 1927, Luther's German Bible 1545, German Schlachter 1951, French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, Ostervald 1996, the NKJV 1982, Third Millenium Bible, and KJV 21.

Even the Revised Version 1881 and American Standard Version1901, which introduced thousands of radical changes in the New Testament based on the Alexandrian texts, did not follow Sinaiticus/Vaticanus here but stuck with the Traditional Text. It wasn't till the NASB appeared on the scene that the false reading of "the only begotten God" was introduced
.
2. "The only begotten God" NASB

3. "God the only Son" NIV 1973

4. "God the One and Only" NIV 1984 with a footnote "or only begotten"

5. "but the one and only Son, who is himself God" TNIV 2001 with footnote "some manuscripts - but the only Son".

The 1973 and 1977 NIV's read, "No MAN has ever seen God, but God the only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known". The 1978 and 1984 NIV editions now read, "No ONE has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." Thus, the NIV has been revised and changed " no man" to "no one", altered "only" to "One and Only" and omitted [Son]. Then the TNIV further changes "One and Only" to "one and only" and again adds "Son".

These next three are all related to one another as each is a revision of the last one in line, yet they all three differ from each other. See how consistent modern scholars are.

6. "the only Son" RSV 1952. The liberal RSV was the first major English version to translate monogenes as "only" rather than the traditional and more accurate "only begotten", but yet it retained the word Son rather than God.

7. "God the only Son" NRSV 1989

8. "the only God" English Standard Version 2001

9. "the one and only Son" Hebrew Names Version,

10. "God's only Son" New English Bible 1970

11. "the only conceived Son" World English Bible

12. The Message 2002 - " No one has ever seen God, not so much as a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-Expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day." A "one of a kind God expression"???

Several of these modern version don't follow any Greek text at all but combine divergent readings from different texts, such as the NIV 1973, TNIV, the NRSV, and the New English Bible.

The King James Bible is the correct reading both as to text and meaning. The Alexandrian texts which read "the only begotten GOD, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" teach that there are TWO GODS and one of them is inferior to the other. Read it any way you wish, but the undeniable fact is you end up with TWO GODS. There is the God whom nobody has seen and then there is the only begotten God who has explained the unseen God. The only other version I know of that reads this way, besides the NASB, is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, which says: "the only begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."

Well, here's your first error. And it's as plain as the nose of your face.

How is that "the one and only God" can be two gods? Your conclusion isn't just wrong. It's absurd. You're trying to cover an error in the KJV, and you've blinded yourself to what the English translators have actually said.

Of course, you also engage in "guilt by association", an invalid debate tactic, as well. It seems you are so desperate to make this argument that you've not applied any critical thought to it.

One of the newest in the long line of bible revisions, the English Standard Version, reads: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." This is totally absurd. It teaches not only that there are two Gods, the one nobody has ever seen, and the one who has made the unseen God known; but one of them is God and the other is the ONLY God.

Again, "the only God" cannot mean two gods.

Jesus Christ is by nature very God of very God. John 1 says "the Word was God". Notice it does not say the Word was THE God. God is triune yet one. If it had said "the Word was THE God" it would be a theological error. All that God is in the three Persons is not limited to the Word, but the Word (Jesus Christ) is by very nature God.

What the ESV teaches is a confusion of the nature of the Trinity. Jesus Christ is not "THE ONLY GOD" who makes known the God no one has seen. Jesus Christ is God by nature, but He is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost.

We now have two more late$t and greate$t ver$ion$ coming on the scene. The ISV or International Standard Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

The ISV reads: " No one has ever seen God. The UNIQUE God, (Other mss. read Son) who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him." Again, we have two Gods. One nobody has ever seen and then the "unique" God! Does this mean the God no one has seen is just an ordinary, run-of-the- mill, garden variety god, while the other one is totally unique?

But wait, the newest of them all is the 2003 Holman Christian Standard Bible, and it says: "No one has ever seen God. The only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him." Hey, this one went back to the reading of "Son" instead of "God". What gives here? Well, it's the fickle, shifting sands of modern scholarship.

As opposed to the wrong scholarship of the KJV? Again, you're back to comparing texts. You've not furthered your case, here.

Those versions that teach that Jesus Christ is the "only Son" or "the one and only Son" are also incorrect in that angels are also called sons of God and so are Adam and all of God's other children. In either case, the corrupt and confusing readings found in many modern bible versions diminish the glory of the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity is turned on its head.

The Nicene Creed (344 AD) states:
"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, . . . And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible . . ." (as cited from Athanasius: De Synodis, II:26).

The Old Latin manuscripts of John 1:18, which translation preceded anything we have in the remaining Greek copies, read: "deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius. qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit." The word "unigenitus" means, "only begotten, only; of the same parentage." (Dr. John C. Traupman, Latin Dictionary, 323).

In 202 AD, Irenaeus wrote,
"For 'no man,' he says, 'hath seen God at any time,' unless 'the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].' For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible."(Against Heresies, 3:11:6)

In 324 AD, Alexander of Alexandria wrote:
"Moreover, that the Son of God was not produced out of what did not exist, and that there never was a time when He did not exist, is taught expressly by John the Evangelist, who writes this of Him: 'The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.' The divine teacher, because he intended to show that the Father and the Son are two and inseparable from each other, does in fact specify that He is in the bosom of the Father." (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith Of The Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, p. 300)

Ambrose (397 AD) writes,
"For this reason also the evangelist says, 'No one has at any time seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him.' 'The bosom of the Father,' then, is to be understood in a spiritual sense, as a kind of innermost dwelling of the Father's love and of His nature, in which the Son always dwells. Even so, the Father's womb is the spiritual womb of an inner sanctuary, from which the Son has proceeded just as from a generative womb."(The Patrarches, 11:51).

Finally, Augustine (430 AD) wrote:
"For Himself hath said: No man hath seen God at any time, but the Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. Therefore we know the Father by Him, being they to whom He hath declared Him."(Homilies On The Gospel According To St. John, XLVII:3)

The point is that most of the early Theologians in the Church not only recognized that monogenes means "only begotten," and defined it as such, but that the popular reading was "only begotten Son."

LOL... None of these men wrote in English or even lived when English was a language. How can you claim that they recognize that "monogenes" translates into "only begotten" in English? That's an absurd assertion.

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." Westminster Confession, Chapter III.

In spite of some Greek lexicons, like Thayer's, which insist the meaning of monogenes is "unique" or "one of a kind", there are many others like Kittel's, Liddel and Scott and Vine's that tell us the Greek word monogenes emphatically means "only begotten" and not "one and only". It is significant that Thayer did not believe that Jesus Christ was God.

So, you're in league with the liberal theologian? (Or does guilt by association only work one way?)

In Kittel's massive work Volume 4 page 741 the writer says: "In John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9 monogenes denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son. (notice he does not accept the false reading of 'God' in 1:18, and he states this on the previous page). In John monogenes denotes the origin of Jesus as the only begotten."

Even the modern Greek language dictionary, which has nothing to do with the Bible, says that monogenes means "only begotten", and not unique. The Greek word for "unique" or "one and only" is a very different and specific word - monodikos - not monogenes.

The translators of the King James Version were not unaware that monogenes can also be translated as "only" for they did so in Luke 7:12; 8:42; and 9:38, all of which refer to an only child and thus they were the only begotten, not an unique child.

Some who criticize the KJB tell us that the word means "unique" and they refer to Hebrews 11:17 where we are told: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son." They point out that Isaac was not the only son of Abraham at the time, but that Ishmael had already been born of Abraham's union with Hagar. However a look at the text itself in Genesis 22:2,12 and 16 shows that God referred to Isaac as "thine ONLY son Isaac". Ishmael is not even taken into consideration by God since he was not the promised seed with whom God made the covenant of grace. As far as God was concerned, there was only one "only begotten son" of Abraham, and he is the spiritual type of the only begotten Son of God who became the lamb that was sacrificed for the sins of God's people.

The King James Bible is correct as always, and the divergent and contradictory readings in most modern versions are wrong.

NICENE CREED 325 A.D. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER BEFORE ALL WORLD, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

CHALCEDON CREED 451 A.D. Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER BEFORE THE AGES.

ATHANASIA CREED 500 A.D. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, NOT MADE NOR CREATED BUT BEGOTTEN. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal.
The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father, BEGTOTTEN BEFORE THE WORLDS, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.

The BELGIC CONFESSION 1561 We believe that Jesus Christ, according to his divine nature, is the only Son of God-- ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE NOR CREATED, for then he would be a creature. He is one in essence with the Father; coeternal; the exact image of the person of the Father.

The 39 ARTICLES OF RELIGION 1571 Article II The Son, which is the Word of the Father, BEGOTTEN FROM EVERLASTING OF THE FATHER, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father.


WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 1646 In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION 1689 In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.

And all of this we can get from John 3:16. The point isn't whether Jesus is the begotten Son or not. The point is that the text of the KJV is wrong, and destroys John's writing.

I'm not going to flesh out the entire chiasm, here, but there is a clear parallel between John 1:1-3 and John 1:18

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

In fact, John does a chiasm withing a chiasm, as we see, here. 1:1a parallels verse 3 (creation), 1:1b parallels verse 2, word with God, and 1:1c is the heart, the point of the chiasm, where the Word is God.

We can follow the larger chiasm through John 1:1-1:18, with the conclusion being:

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [Him].

Now, since the the opening Chiasm, we both discussed the word being with God and the Word WAS God, the close would have to emphasize that the Word was God, as well, and that's what happens, here.

When you translate "Son", you destroy what John has created, and you denigrate one of the clear places where Jesus is God.


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

I also find it disturbing that you align your words with the words of Christ.

Now, here's the point you missed:

Now, what is most interesting about these manuscripts is that there was only one copy of Revelation, and that was missing the last several verses. That means that the TR version of Revelation contained whatever Scribal errors were committed in that one manuscript, and that Erasmus had to do something else to come up with the ending.

What did Erasmus do? He went to the Latin Vulgate, and translated the Latin back into Greek. Yes, the Greek NT that the supposed inspired KJV is based upon doesn't even have all of its text based in a line of copies based in the original language.


How is it that you can claim that the KJV is the inerrant word of God, when the Greek text is is based upon isn't entirely sourced in your vaunted "traditional text"?


I'd also like to point out that you've yet to actually make a case on its own merits that the KJV is inerrant. You've pointed out where you think the KJV is right and other translations are wrong, but that doesn't establish inerrancy. You claim that the KJV is God's preserved Word, and have yet to provide a single link that uniquely points from Scripture to KJV. You've presented no logic that suggests that the KJV is what you claim it is.

At best, you've shown that you have a particular view of preservation, one not entirely supported in Scripture, and made claims that the KJV fulfills this view, even though there are a number of ways that it does not.

Are we coming to a point?

Muz

[brandplucked]

Hi Muz. Thanks for your response.

Originally Posted by brandplucked
Hi Muz. I was pretty sure you were an “originals onlyist”. You are aware of the well known fact, I assume, that there ARE no such things as 'the originals' and all present day scholars are in disagreement as to what the originals may or may not have said. The simple and undeniable fact is - you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language, including your Hebrew and Greek. This is not a side issue of relative unimportance; it is the fundamental premise from which you reason your way into criticizing the Book.

However, this is not the point of this debate. This debate is about your demonstrating for us that the KJV is the inerrant word of God. Whether this "originals only" view is right or wrong isn't horribly relevant, as one could make similar claims about any number of bible translations, assuming it to be the inerrant word, and pointing out the errors in the KJV.

Muz. It is impossible for me to “prove” the King James Bible is the only true, inspired, preserved and 100% true words of God, just as it is impossible to prove that God exists or that Christ died to save His people from their sins. Some have ears to hear and some do not and only God can open our hearts to the precious truths about His word.

There are numerous and very logical reasons we can list for believing the King James Bible to be the true words of God, but no one can “prove” it one way or the other. I listed many of these reasons in my original post. Some will see the reasonableness of these answers and others will think them foolish.

But I can guarantee you that every person who thinks them foolish is a person like yourself who does not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language is today the preserved and infallible words of God.


You have the very definite problem of not being able to “prove” that the King James Bible is NOT the true and inspired words of God. In order for you to be able to do this, you would have to have a God given Standard by which you measure the King James Bible and find it to be wanting. You have no such standard and no such Holy Bible in any language by which you can compare the King James Bible and point out its ‘problems’.

All you have to offer us is selected portions of different parts of what you happen to think at the moment are “Scripture”, and you piece them together in no discernible fashion all according to your own whims and highly personalized understanding. You, sir, are a prime example of a card carrying Bible Rummager. You pick a little bit from here and perhaps some from over there, and make up your own bible version as go along, and yet you don’t believe there is such a thing as the preserved Book of the Lord anywhere on this earth.

You are very much like James White. He himself has no inerrant Bible to offer to anyone, and neither do you. James also avoids answering direct questions and then accuses us Bible believers of not answering his questions. Apparently both you and he think you are the only ones who get to ask the questions. I asked you about your Leningrad codex which YOU brought up as though it were some kind of final written authority, and what do you do to my two simple questions? You slip right by and avoid answering them.

I merely asked you about what your codex says in 2 Chronicles 22:2 and how you reconcile it with 2 Kings 8:26, and then about the one in 2 Samuel 15:7 and whether it says 40 or 4 years. And what do you do? Instead of giving us a straight answer you side step the whole issue and refer instead to Mark 4:31 and the mustard seed being the smallest seed or not, and then make statements that I don’t think anybody can understand.

Quite honestly, if this is the standard then the KJV has the same issue: Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
The mustard seed is not the smallest seed, in spite of what the KJV says, here. So, if the standard of inerrancy is the picky details of the text, then you've denied everyone any opportunity to claim inerrancy.





Huh?!? Are you now saying that the Lord Jesus Christ was a liar or that He was mistaken about what He said? I’m afraid Muz that you have revealed a little too much about the way your mind works by asking about the mustard seed in this way, and that last part with your conclusion is unintelligible. YOU don’t claim inerrancy, so what was that last comment all about?

My guess as to why you won’t tell us what your Leningrad codex says is this - If you did, then you would probably tell us that it too has “scribal errors” and does not fit YOUR understanding of what God’s ‘infallible’ word should say.

At the risk (and I’ll gladly take it) of being accused of using those nasty ad hominens or whatever, I believe you and most Christians today fit the description given in the time of apostasy during the days of the judges - “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 21:25


Now, regarding the whole post on John 1:18. I listed numerous Bible versions both old and new that all agree with the King James reading:
"No man hath seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

There never was a bible version in history that I am aware of that ever read like your NASB with its two Gods theory. Not even the RV, ASV nor RSV went that far. If you can’t see the absurdity of what the NASB teaches in that rendering, then there is little point in discussing it further than all that I have already presented.

Your endless series of modern versions don’t even agree with each other. I also presented a whole list of Orthodox confessions regarding the nature of the Son of God being the only begotten Son (and NEVER the only begotten GOD), and you scoffed at the idea that all their writings would be translated as “only begotten”, all the while ignoring the very clear fact that all those quotes referred to the SON and not to the only begotten GOD.

So what if they didn’t write in English? Every English Bible since Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, etc. all the way up to the RSV used the texts that say SON and translated it as “the only begotten Son” in John 1:18. That is what the word means. It does not mean “unique” or”only”, and not even your NASB does so.

(Ignore the links if you wish. Just provided for those who would like to learn more)

Scott Jones has written a good article showing the true meaning of the Greek word is “only begotten” and not “unique” or “only”. There is a very different Greek word for this.

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/monogenes.htm

And for Scott's article showing the assault on the Only Begotten Son of God in John 1:18 please go to this site.

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/begotten_son.htm

By the way, since you quote the NASB here in John 1:18 do you happen to believe the NASB is the complete and perfect words of God? Of course you don’t; you’re a Bible Rummager ;-)

Revelation 22 - the point I missed.

Now, here's the point you missed:
Originally Posted by me
Now, what is most interesting about these manuscripts is that there was only one copy of Revelation, and that was missing the last several verses. That means that the TR version of Revelation contained whatever Scribal errors were committed in that one manuscript, and that Erasmus had to do something else to come up with the ending.

What did Erasmus do? He went to the Latin Vulgate, and translated the Latin back into Greek. Yes, the Greek NT that the supposed inspired KJV is based upon doesn't even have all of its text based in a line of copies based in the original language.
How is it that you can claim that the KJV is the inerrant word of God, when the Greek text is is based upon isn't entirely sourced in your vaunted "traditional text"?

Muz, again you are misinformed about several things here. Erasmus had traveled all over Europe reading, collating and comparing many Greek manuscripts before he put together his printed Greek text. He was recognized as one of the greatest scholars of his day. However, the King James Bible translators did not always follow Erasmus’s texts. They also had access to other Greek copies, many foreign language Bibles, and the Greek texts of both Stephanus and Beza.

Stephanus and Beza both had access to Greek texts that Erasmus did not, and what we find in the last few verses of Revelation is that both Stephanus and Beza’s reading agree with what Erasmus knew about.

Not even your modern versions agree among themselves in the last few verses of Revelation and you are no doubt jumping all over trying to make a big stink about there being an ‘error’ in the KJB over just ONE word - the “book” of life. Am I right?

Here is what I have on these verses.

Revelation 22:19 Book of Life or Tree of Life?

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the BOOK of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Rather than saying "book of life", versions like the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Christian Standard, Jehovah Witness New World Translation, and the Catholic versions read: "God will take away his share in the TREE of life."

It should be noted that there are several textual differences found in just the last few verses of Revelation, and that not even the modern versions agree among themselves.

For instance, in verses 20 and 21, the King James Bible as well as the Majority of all texts reads: "EVEN SO, come, Lord Jesus." However Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus omit the word for "even so", and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman Standard.

Again, in verse 21 in the KJB we read: "The grace of our Lord Jesus CHRIST be with YOU ALL. AMEN." Here the word CHRIST is found in the Majority of all texts, but again Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus omit it, and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman Standard.

Then in the very last part of the last verse of Revelation, where the KJB says: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with YOU ALL, AMEN", here Sinaiticus is different from all other texts, reading "with THE SAINTS". The Revised Version, the American Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version all read "with the SAINTS" (following Sinaiticus) while the NIV paraphrases the Sinaiticus reading as "with GOD'S PEOPLE".

However the NASB 1995 and the new 2001 ESV (English Standard Version) now reject Sinaiticus and go with Alexandrinus instead, which says: "with ALL" and omits the word "you". But wait. The even newer ISV (International Standard Version), and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard have once again gone back to the Sinaiticus reading of "with the saints". The modern versions don't even agree among themselves.

It is more than a tad hypocritical of Bible correctors to criticize the King James reading "book of life", when the two other variant readings adopted by the conflicting modern versions of "with all" and "with the saints" are found ONLY in ONE manuscript each and, according to the UBS textual apparatus, not in any other ancient version or quoted by any church father.

Regarding the final word AMEN, manuscript Alexandrinus omits this word, but it is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus, but this time the NASB, ESV chose to reject the Alexandrinus manuscript they had just followed, and went back to the Sinaiticus they had previously rejected and now include the word Amen!

Do the modern versions always follow the Majority reading? Not at all. In fact they reject the Majority readings literally thousands of times. Do they always follow Sinaiticus? No, not at all. They continually pick and choose among the various readings; do not always agree with each other, and their own printed Greek texts found in Nestle-Aland or the United Bible Society editions are constantly changing every few years.

Many anti-King James Bible critics bring up "the book of life" as found in Revelation 22:19 as an error. One well known such critic is Doug Kutilek.

Men like Mr. Kutilek have no inspired, complete, inerrant Bible and they often resort to personal opinion presented as fact, and outright falsehood as though it were irrefutable evidence. Let's read some of what he has to say and then we will respond to his criticisms.

In Mr. Kutilek's article he says there are "a number of unique readings in Erasmus' texts, that is, readings which are found in no known Greek manuscript but which are nevertheless found in the editions of Erasmus. One of these is the reading "book of life" in Revelation 22:19. All known Greek manuscripts here read "tree of life" instead of "book of life" as in the textus receptus. Where did the reading "book of life" come from? When Erasmus was compiling his text, he had access to only one manuscript of Revelation, and it lacked the last six verses, so he took the Latin Vulgate and back-translated from Latin to Greek. Unfortunately, the copy of the Vulgate he used read "book of life," unlike any Greek manuscript of the passage, and so Erasmus introduced a "unique" Greek reading into his text."

First of all, Mr. Kutilek says there are no Greek manuscripts that read "book of life". He is flat out wrong about this. Dr. Thomas Holland, Jack Moorman, Dr. H.C. Hoskier and many others have documented the textual evidence that exists for the reading of "book of life" as found in Revelation 22:19.

Dr. Holland responds to this charge at his website -
http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/advanc01.htm

There this question is posed and Dr. Holland responds:
Question: "If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last six verses of Revelation absent from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into English - a translation of a translation?

Dr. Holland replies: "The "TR" has the last six verses of Revelation in it. It is found in the editions of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the Elzevir brothers.

Codex 1r, which was used by Erasmus, was missing Revelation 22:16-21. The standard teaching is that Erasmus went back to the Latin Vulgate for these verses and re-translated them into Greek. However, Dr. H. C. Hoskier disagreed by demonstrating that Erasmus used the Greek manuscript 141 which contained the verses. (Concerning The Text Of The Apocalypse, London: Quaritch, 1929, vol. 1, pp. 474-77, vol. 2, pp. 454,635.)

Regardless, the textual support for these verses is not limited to the Latin Vulgate. They are also found in the Old Latin manuscripts, additional early translations such as the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic, and some later Greek manuscripts.

Regarding the Greek, it should be pointed out that even today there is not a great deal of textual support for the verses in question. For example, of the early papyri there are no manuscripts of Revelation 22, or for that matter of Revelation chapters 18-22. Further, among the uncials, only five have Revelation chapter 22, and only four of these contain the last six verses (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, 046, and 051). There are several minuscules which have been discovered which contain these verses (94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2042, and 2138 to name a few).

Of course, the biggest "change" comes in verse 19. Dr. Hoskier has shown that Greek manuscripts 57 and 141 read with the Latin in stating "book of life" and not "tree of life" as found in Sinaiticus and most other Greek mss. There are, of course, other witnesses to the reading found in the KJV here. For example, the Old Bohairic Coptic version also reads "book of life." Additionally, we have patristic citations from Ambrose (340-397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), and Primasius in his commentary on Revelation in 552 AD. Thus, we have evidence of the KJV reading dating from before the Vulgate and maintained throughout Church history in a variety of geographical locations and various languages."
Dr. Thomas Holland

Mr. Jack Moorman, in his book "When the KJV Departs from the 'Majority' Text", says the reading of "book of life" is also found in the Coptic Boharic, the Arabic, the Speculum, Pseudo-Agustine and written as such in the Latin of Adrumentum 552, Andreas of Cappadocia, 614 Haaymo, Halberstadt, Latin 841. "Book of life" is found in the Greek manuscripts of # 296, 2049, and in the margin of 2067.

Libro (book) is the reading of the Latin mss. Codex Fuldensis (sixth century); Codex Karolinus (ninth century); Codex Oxoniensis (twelfth to thirteenth century); Codex Ulmensis (ninth century); Codex Uallicellanus (ninth century); Codex Sarisburiensis (thirteenth century); and the corrector of Codex Parisinus (ninth century)."

Secondly, Mr. Kutilek is very misleading when he says that Erasmus had no Greek texts to consult for the ending of Revelation and so he copied from the Latin Vulgate. It is well documented that Erasmus was exceedingly well acquainted with hundreds of Greek manuscripts from his extensive travels and studies. You can read more about this in a very informative article dealing with the question of Is the Received Text Based on A Few Late Manuscripts?

(The links I provide are just for those who may be interested in learning more about defending the King James Bible as being the pure words of God. Those who don’t care to read them can just ignore them)

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/isthereceived.htm

Thirdly, in his article Mr. Kutilek also states as fact what is really unfounded conjecture when he says: "The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read "tree of life."

This is pure guesswork on his part. Stephanus had access to many Greek manuscripts that Erasmus did not possess, as well as Beza. For example, Stephanus mentions and John Gill confirms that the three heavenly witnesses of "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" of 1 John 5:7 was the reading found in 9 of the 16 Greek manuscripts Stephanus used, yet we do not have any of these Greek texts today. Earlier writers like Stephanus, Calvin, Beza often make referrences to the readings of old Greek manuscripts which we no longer possess.
Fourthly, when Mr. Kutilek argues in favor of the Westcott-Hort text being based on "the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers", it seems than many "scholars" of equal learning have come to the exact opposite conclusion.

This is a direct quote from the Preface of the New King James Version by people who have attended the same seminaries and have access to the same information. Here is what they say on page vii: "The manuscript preferences cited in many contemporary translations are due to recent reliance on a relatively few manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts, especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, is due to the greater age of these documents.

However, in spite of their age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the autographs, since they often disagree with one another and show other signs of unreliability.

On the other hand, the great majority of existing manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none are earlier than the fifth century, MOST OF THEIR READINGS ARE VERIFIED BY ANCIENT PAPYRI, ANCIENT VERSIONS, AND QUOTATIONS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. This large body of manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. It is the Greek text used by Greek-speaking churches for many centuries, presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, of the New Testament."


Even Dr. Hort of the famed Westcott Hort text said: "The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92)


The Providence of God has seen fit to place this reading in most Bibles that have been used throughout history to reach millions for Christ. These include Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1587. "Book of life" is found in Young's, Webster's, Third Millenium Bible, and the New KJV.

It is also the reading of the 1569 Sagradas Escrituras, and the Spanish Reina Valera versions from 1602, 1909, 1960 and 1995 used throughout the Spanish speaking world, as well as the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996, and the Modern Greek N.T. used by the Greek Orthodox churches throughout the world today.

Martin Luther's translation of 1545, using Greek texts before Stephanus' 1550 edition, also reads "book of life". I met a Russian pastor a couple years ago and asked him what his Russian Bible said here. He told me it reads book of life too.

Besides all these English, Spanish, French, German and Greek bibles, I have been able to confirm that the following Bible versions also read "book of life": The Afrikaans Bible of 1953, the Albanian, the Basque New Testament (Navarro-Labourdin), the Dutch Staten Vertaling, the Hungarian Karoli, the Icelandic Bible version, the Italian New Diodati, and the Douay-Rheims.

The Catholic versions and the Latin Vulgate also disagree among themselves, with Jerome's Vulgate and the 1950 Douay, and the Jerusalem Bible all reading "tree of life", while the older Douay-Rheims and the Clementine Vulgate both read "book of life".

As a side note, the number 7 is highly significant in the book of Revelation and in the texts that underlie the King James Bible, and the phrase "the book of life" is found 7 times. This is the number of divine perfection. In the NIV, ESV, Holman Standard and NASB it is only found 6 times. Six is the number man, who is weak and prone to fail.

Mr. Kutilek closes his article by saying: "Some writers calculate the differences between the two texts at something over 5,000, though in truth a large number of these are so insignificant as to make no difference in the resulting English translation.* Without making an actual count, I would estimate the really substantial