“Why do you King James only people attack the word of God?”
I have been involved in many Christian internet forums over the years and have discussed whether or not there really is a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language with many Christians.
When people begin to discuss the Bible version issue, many Christians become uncomfortable and then they get angry. Passions are stirred about this single topic more than any other. Some forums will not even allow discussions about the inerrancy of the Scriptures or the King James Bible to be discussed.
I myself have been banned from several Christian clubs just because I brought up the issue of whether or not “The King James Bible” is the inerrant word of God or not. The promoters of the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman Standard etc. are now rocked back on their heels and are scrambling for some kind of answer. There is clear and Undeniable Proof that the ESV, NIV, NASB, and NET versions are nothing more than the "new" Catholic bible versions and even the best of their defenders cannot deny it. Don't believe me? Well, here is the indisputable evidence and you can look up the verses and do the comparisons for yourself:
http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm
The "new" Catholic Connection bible versions are not doing well at all and unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture is at an all time high.
They do not believe that the King James Bible nor any other Bible in any language (including their nebulous and constantly changing “the” Hebrew and Greek) is the infallible words of God, and I see a remarkable deterioration in their thinking processes. Many young Christians are simply unaware of the issues involved in the Bible version discussions, but many others who do have some knowledge are now coming out with some really strange, contradictory, and emotionally charged unbiblical statements.
Before we look at some of the things now commonly being said on the internet, let’s first address this frequent charge I now hear by those who are confronted with the King James Bible issue. I have recently been asked several times: “Why do you King James only people attack the word of God?”
Most of the people asking this question are woefully ignorant of what has been going on for the last 100 years or so, and who started this attack on the Bible. It certainly was not the King James Bible believers. It was the seminaries and the modern versionist themselves who started this attack on not only the King James Bible but on the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture as a whole.
"The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God"
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.
As one liberal theologian pointed out in his review of Harold Lindsell’s, The Battle for the Bible, the only real difference between the conservative and liberal positions on the Bible is that the conservatives say the Bible USED TO BE inspired and inerrant, whereas the liberal says it NEVER WAS inspired or inerrant. BOTH positions agree that the Bible IS NOT NOW inspired or inerrant.
As brother Daryl Coats so aptly says: "If the Bible was inspired only in the original manuscripts, no one in the entire history of the world has ever had an inspired Bible. The original autographs of Job and the books of Moses had disappeared more than a thousand years before the first book of the New Testament was written, so no one has ever owned a complete Bible made up of the “divine originals.” Nor, has anyone ever owned a complete New Testament made up of “inspired originals”, because the originals were distributed among more than a dozen individuals and local churches."
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."
"As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).
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."
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."(end of quotes by Barna)
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.
When the Revised Standard Version came out in 1946 and then was revised three more times till 1973, it did the usual “praise and then blast” syndrome on the King James Bible we see so often today by men like James White, Doug Kutilek, Rick Norris, James Price and D.A. Carson, all of whom have books out there now which say things like “The King James Version is a fine translation”, “I love the King James Bible” and then they proceed page after page to blast away at all the alleged “errors” they think they have found in this Bible they profess to love so much.
In the Preface of the RSV we find them first saying: “The King James Version has with good reason been termed “the noblest monument of English prose.” We owe to it an incalculable debt.” Then in the very next sentence they say: “Yet the King James Version HAS GRAVE DEFECTS....these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation....The KJV of the N.T. was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes.”
The RSV continues attacking the King James Bible by further stating: "The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying....We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the N.T. and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text." (page vii of the RSV Preface.)
And what precisely are these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" these modern versions refer to but never identify? They are primarily two Greek manuscripts that differ not only from the vast Majority of all Greek texts, but also from each other more than 3000 times in the gospels alone! If you want to know the FACTS about what these "oldest and best" texts really contain, then check out my article here:
http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the Bible Critics always pick on the King James Bible, and not the others. Even at the time the RSV came out, there had ALREADY BEEN two revisions of the English translation - the Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901. Why didn’t the RSV editors mention these?
The 1977 NASB edition opens up with glowing praise for the King James Bible saying: “In the history of English Bible translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious.” Then it proceeds to alter the text of the KJB by omitting some 3000 words from the New Testament alone and bracketing another 30 more entire verses, thus indicating doubt as to their authenticity, from the very texts found in “the most prestigious” King James Bible.
We see this typical "praise and then blast" method used by Mr. Edwin Palmer, the chief editor and translator of the NIV. He wrote the booklet called "The NIV - The Making of a Contemporary Translation". In Chapter 14 of his booklet, titled: "Isn’t the King James Version Good Enough? (The KJV and the NIV Compared)", Mr. Palmer says: "I love the King James Version. I was converted under it, my first memory verses were taken from it, and I have been blessed by it. And God still uses the KJV to bring many people to salvation in Christ. This version was translated by godly men who did an excellent job with the tools they had in the language of four centuries ago. Countless millions have been converted, sanctified, and nurtured through it. Thank God for that marvelously used translation. The KJV is not, however, the best translation to use today. This is so for two reasons: (1) it adds to the Word of God and (2) it has now-obscure and misleading renderings of God’s Word."
Mr. Palmer, of the NIV committee, closed with these words: "Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible… For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), p. 156.)
So, do you STILL think the people directly behind the NIV are "neutral", fair and unbiased in their open disparagement and severe criticism of the King James Holy Bible?
At our Which Version club a fellow Bible believer pointed out the irony of Mr. Palmer's NIV statements when he said: "Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible" and "And God still uses the KJV to bring many people to salvation in Christ." The irony is that Mr. Palmer's "fresh and warm" NIV is no longer being printed, while the King James Bible that "God uses to bring many people to salvation in Christ" is still going strong! The NIV scholars have come out with the NEW New International Version in 2011 in which by their own admission they have changed some 10% of the verses from what the "old" New International Version read, and they have changed the underlying Greek texts in several places. God sure has a sense of humor, doesn't He?
Joel Hoffman, a supposed expert in Bible translation, says the King James Version is the “fool’s gold standard of translation” and claims that it is “monumentally inaccurate” (“Bible Scholar,” Christian Newswire, May 2, 2011). Hoffman, author of And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning, compares the KJV to an undependable ancient map and warns that “those who would navigate the Bible solely with this 400-year-old translation journey in perils.”
Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary and chief editor behind the online NET version, has written an article called “Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available. You can see his entire article here for yourself, if you like.
http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-no...vailable-today Here are a few of his remarks.
“First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life.”
(Note: Well, this sounds very pious and orthodox, but Mr. Wallace uses a present tense verb “IS” when he talks about the inerrant Bible, but he could not tell you were to get a copy of this mystical, invisible Bible he says he believes in if his life depended on it. So, the very first words out of his mouth are deceptive. He wants to give you the impression that he believes in something that he himself does not have. )
Next Mr. Wallace begins his attack on the King James Bible. Here are some of the things he says:
“Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places.”
“The King James Bible is filled with readings which have been created by overly zealous scribes!”
(Note: Proof? Examples? No, just Mr. Wallace's bold assertions. What texts do most modern version promoters recommend instead? The "oldest and best manuscripts" of course. Well, if you want to know what these "oldest and best" really look like, then take a look:
http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm )
“Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?"
(Note: There have been no where near 100,000 changes. They merely changed the text from Gothic print to Roman print and updated spelling like sinne to sin; feare to fear and blinde to blind. By the way, Mr. Wallace hypocritically asks “Which KJB is inspired?” when he himself will NEVER tell you which specific Bible he thinks is inspired and inerrant. He doesn’t have one!
See more on the printing error ploy here:
http://brandplucked.webs.com/printingerrors.htm )
“Fourth, 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (Matt 19:14). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?”
(Note - For such an educated man, Mr. Wallace apparently does not know his own English language very well. Look up the meanings of “suffer” in a dictionary, Mr. Wallace. You might be surprised and learn something. By the way, “study” still means “study”!)
“Fifth, the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.”
(Note - Mr. Wallace again shows his ignorance. It looks like he is just parroting the same stupid example other bible agnostics like James White are putting out there without ever having looked into it for himself. Matthew 23:24 is NOT a printing error. See
http://brandplucked.webs.com/mt23strainat1tim29sha.htm )
I would like to recommend Brandon Stagg’s rebuttal of Mr. Wallace’s ignorant tirade against the King James Bible in his article titled “Why you shouldn't care what Daniel Wallace thinks about the King James Bible
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/staggs-wallace.html
Bruce Metzger (1914-2007) was one of the chief editors of the Neslte-Aland, United Bible Society Critical texts, which are the basis for most modern versions like the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET and Holman Standard versions. Bruce Metzger believed Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy was not written until 700 years before Christ, the Old Testament is a mixture of "myth, legend, and history," the record of the worldwide flood of Noah's day is exaggerated, the book of Job is a folktale, the miracle accounts about Elijah and Elisha contain "legendary elements," Isaiah was written by Isaiah plus two or three unknown men who wrote centuries later, the record of Jonah is a "legend," Daniel does not contain supernatural prophecy, Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, Peter did not write 2 Peter, etc. All of these unbelieving lies can be found in the notes to the Reader's Digest Condensed Bible, which were written by Metzger, and in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, of which Metzger is a co-editor.
Metzger calls the Textus Receptus (which is the textual basis of the King James Bible New Testament" "CORRUPT" (The Text of the N.T., 1968, page 106) and later on called it 'DEBASED" and "DISFIGURED" (A Textual Commentary of the Greek N. T., 1975, pp.xxi, xxii) But when the King James Bible believer shows why the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (upon which most modern versions are based) are in fact among the worst and calls them "corrupt", he is then accused of being mean spirited and unkind!
If you want PROOF of why these "best manuscripts" are in fact among the most corrupt, see this factual study here:
http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm
Even such modern versions as the NIV and the ESV expose their basic unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture by their own prefatory remarks. The 1984 NIV Preface closes with these words on page xx. “Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals.”
Well, they were wrong about two things and right about one. #1.There CAN BE a perfect translation. #2 If God cannot use imperfect man to give us His pure words, then there never would have been any “originals” in the first place! #3. The NIV editors definitely got number 3 right - “This one undoubtedly falls short.”
The recent ESV (English Standard Version of 2001) is a revision of the NRSV which is a revision of the old RSV. It closes out its prefatory remarks saying: “We know that no Bible translation is perfect or final.”
Well, not only do the ESV editors think that NO Bible is perfect or final, their own ESV put out another ESV edition in 2007 and they changed over 350 verses that were in their 2001 ESV, and they continue to reject numerous Hebrew readings. Here is what these ESVs are really like, with concrete examples showing just how corrupt this late$t and greate$t Ver$ion is.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/theesv.htm
So the scholars who put together their own modern versions acknowledge that their own versions are not the perfect words of God. In fact, not one of them really believes that such a thing exists. So who is really attacking the words of God? It’s the modern versionists and seminary scholars themselves. It is not the King James Bible believers.
Will Kinney
Hybrid Mode
