Companion Thread for KJV only debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
It is painfully obvious that you are either off or at least weak on the doctrine of justification by faith or you would see this issue of the "faith of" vs. "faith in"?
You can't do it can you? Don't you find it interesting that in order to avoid answering a direct question you instead attack my faith by questioning what I believe about a doctrine. Karl Rove would be proud of you. I, however, am disappointed. You didn't even try to offer a verse in support.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
CM. You missed a few verses. As for "How" we are not told. He guides through events using sinful, fallen and imperfect men. If you say this is impossible, then who did He use to give us the "originals"?

In any event, the Bible believer believes that God has given us such a Book. The Bible denier is either an "originals only" with no inspired and inerrant Book now, or else he comes out with the absurd and mindless view that "all of them, no matter how different from each other in thousands of ways, are all somehow inspired and inerrant":dead:


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


In and by His grace alone,

Will Kinney
As for how we are not told. So this gives you the right or authority to claim that the KJV is the one standard by which all others are measured? Pathetic. You even mucked up the interpretation of Rev 22:19 by taking a statement that plainly says it refers to the book of prophecy and applying it to the whole bible.

You claim God's words are in a book but God didn't make this claim, you did. Gods words stand but they need no one single book to do so.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Show me where only the originals can be inspired.

Show me where the originals are inspired.

Finally, show me your scriptural support for bathrooms in your church building. :hammer:
You realize, of course, that this is a two edged sword. The KJV and the modern translations use many of the same originals to translate from. If the originals were not inspired, the none of the modern translation including the 1611KJV were inspired.

As to their inspiration, Matthew Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels and they walked with Christ. What ever language they wrote in, they were inspired. Paul had a unique experience with Christ and wrote many of the letters that comprise most of the New Testament. I would say Paul was inspired as well.

Oh yes, the originals are inspired because the authors had all met Christ directly.

Now, why, exactly, is the KJV the only inspired translation since all the translation use a great deal of the same inspired originals?
 

brandplucked

New member
Sound Doctrine

Sound Doctrine

Thank you for outlining your rationale.

What is sound doctrine in your view? Arminianism? Open Theism? etc? What is your view on key doctrines that you would claim to be part of the "sound doctrine" corpus of the Scriptures e.g.,

1. Once saved always saved/perseverance of the saints?
2. Trinity (one God with three personal subsistences-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)?
3. Incarnation - Christ was fully man (including a human soul) and fully God, both joined in a mystical union that cannot be divided, separated, confused, or mixed.?
4. Original sin - all are condemned from birth due to Adam's fall unless regenerated by the Holy Spirit?
5. God is omniscient, exhaustively knowing past, present, and future?
6. God is atemporal, i.e., "outside of time"?
7. Salvation is by grace alone, by faith alone (not works), and by Christ alone?
8. The Scriptures and only the Scriptures (sola scriptura)?
9. Echatology - pre-millennial, amillennial, preterism?
10. Gifts of the Holy Spirit that have ceased since the Apostolic era? Tongues? Cessationism.
11. Dispensationalism or Covenantalism?

In other words, is there an agreed to common position among those that believe the KJV preserves all sound doctrines?If so, what is that position.

What do you mean by the Traditional Greek Text? The UBS4/NA27?


Thank you.
AMR

Hi Mr. Religion. Just give me the name of the English bible version you happen to think is the closest to those lost and never seen by you originals and I will be glad to show you some false doctrine in it.

Will K
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Oh yes, very much so.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So, we agree that the Word of God existed long before creation, before any man wrote anything.

We also know that the Word of God will never pass away.

So, in the eternal state, do you think God's Word will be available to everyone?
Will it be in 30-40 conflicting versions?
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hi Mr. Religion. Just give me the name of the English bible version you happen to think is the closest to those lost and never seen by you originals and I will be glad to show you some false doctrine in it.

Will K
I don't follow you. I am wondering what doctrines you personally hold to from your study of the Scriptures. I am also asking if there is a consensus among those who believe the KJV to be the inspired and inerrant Scriptures as to the nature of sound doctrine that is preserved in the KJV. I listed some representative examples. Can you provide answers? For the sake of this discussion you may assume I believe all your rationale that the KJV is the exactly true word of God. So what are your positions on the items I addressed here?
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Hi Mr. Religion. Just give me the name of the English bible version you happen to think is the closest to those lost and never seen by you originals and I will be glad to show you some false doctrine in it.

Will K

What an answer! You say nothing, but try to make it look as if you know something special.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
So, we agree that the Word of God existed long before creation, before any man wrote anything.

We also know that the Word of God will never pass away.

So, in the eternal state, do you think God's Word will be available to everyone?
Will it be in 30-40 conflicting versions?
It will be available to everyone in 30 or 40 imperfect translations. Such is the nature of men. Our languages do not always lend themselves to easy and accurate translations.

So before we set any one translation above all the rest, we had better be awfully darn sure we are setting the right one in that position. As it stands now, there is not enough information available to set any translation, including the KJV, in that position.
 

dreadknought

New member
Good Lord's day evening thread,

I see there are still no direct tangible answers being given to questions asked of the KJonlies. Did Mr. R's question about which King James Version is inspired ever get answered? As far as modern translation's and unsound doctrine, I almost fear for others who would read some of the interpretation of Scripture on this thread from the KJonlies bunch. Taking Scripture out of context proves absolutely zilch. :doh:

Here's a quote for ya: "A man can always maintain his convictions in the face of apparently hostile evidence if he is prepared to make the necessary ad hoc assumptions. But although any particular instance in which a cherished hypothesis appears to be refuted can always be explained away, there must still remain the possibility that the hypothesis will ultimately be abandoned. Otherwise it is not a genuine hypothesis. For a proposition whose validity we are resolved to maintain in the face of any experience is not a hypothesis at all, but a definition" (Language, Truth, and Logic, p. 95). A.J. Ayers ( an unbeliever who grew up a Swiss Calvinist)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Thank you for outlining your rationale.

What is sound doctrine in your view? Arminianism? Open Theism? etc? What is your view on key doctrines that you would claim to be part of the "sound doctrine" corpus of the Scriptures e.g.,

1. Once saved always saved/perseverance of the saints?
2. Trinity (one God with three personal subsistences-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)?
3. Incarnation - Christ was fully man (including a human soul) and fully God, both joined in a mystical union that cannot be divided, separated, confused, or mixed.?
4. Original sin - all are condemned from birth due to Adam's fall unless regenerated by the Holy Spirit?
5. God is omniscient, exhaustively knowing past, present, and future?
6. God is atemporal, i.e., "outside of time"?
7. Salvation is by grace alone, by faith alone (not works), and by Christ alone?
8. The Scriptures and only the Scriptures (sola scriptura)?
9. Echatology - pre-millennial, amillennial, preterism?
10. Gifts of the Holy Spirit that have ceased since the Apostolic era? Tongues? Cessationism.
11. Dispensationalism or Covenantalism?

In other words, is there an agreed to common position among those that believe the KJV preserves all sound doctrines?If so, what is that position.

What do you mean by the Traditional Greek Text? The UBS4/NA27?

Feel free to answer these since unsound doctrine was brought up by the KJonlies folk. One a day if you'd like. Inquiring minds would appreciate this insight... a direct answer instead of proclaimation and deflection would also be nice. Bible babble... ROFL





Where fanaticism and mania meet, paranoia and delusional thinking is manifest.
 

brandplucked

New member
False Doctrine in the modern versions

False Doctrine in the modern versions

I don't follow you. I am wondering what doctrines you personally hold to from your study of the Scriptures. I am also asking if there is a consensus among those who believe the KJV to be the inspired and inerrant Scriptures as to the nature of sound doctrine that is preserved in the KJV. I listed some representative examples. Can you provide answers? For the sake of this discussion you may assume I believe all your rationale that the KJV is the exactly true word of God. So what are your positions on the items I addressed here?



In other words, is there an agreed to common position among those that believe the KJV preserves all sound doctrines?If so, what is that position.

What do you mean by the Traditional Greek Text? The UBS4/NA27?


Thank you.
AMR
Hi Mr. Religion. Just give me the name of the English bible version you happen to think is the closest to those lost and never seen by you originals and I will be glad to show you some false doctrine in it.

Will K

Mr. Religion. The doctrines you mention are held or not held by both King James Bible believers and by the any modern versionists alike. That is not the type of doctrine I was talking about in my post about why I believe the KJB is God's true word.

The types of doctrinal perversion I am referring to are those found in your modern versions where almost any Fundamental or Evangelical Christian can see that his particular modern version messes up what even he professes to believe.

Give me the name of your favorite English version and I will give you an example of the kind of false teaching or false doctrine I was referring to.

Will K
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What do you mean by the Traditional Greek Text? The UBS4/NA27?
What is your answer?

Hi Mr. Religion. Just give me the name of the English bible version you happen to think is the closest to those lost and never seen by you originals and I will be glad to show you some false doctrine in it.
If you can identify false doctrine, you can articulate true doctrine, correct? I asked about several? How does the KJV rendering support your answers to the doctrines I listed and have also been repeated in berancam's post?

Mr. Religion. The doctrines you mention are held or not held by both King James Bible believers and by the any modern versionists alike. That is not the type of doctrine I was talking about in my post about why I believe the KJB is God's true word.

The types of doctrinal perversion I am referring to are those found in your modern versions where almost any Fundamental or Evangelical Christian can see that his particular modern version messes up what even he professes to believe.
Again, which of the doctrines you believe among the list I gave are supported by the KJV and corrupted by other translations? Pick a version, ESV will do.

Why are you so reluctant to identify your own beliefs among the 11 doctrines I listed?

If you possess the true inerrant words of God,in English, as you contend, then we can eliminate the usual discussions of the original languages versus the English. According to you, the English rendering will be the priority and should be taken as infallibly correct. Debates between the Hebrew and Greek experts (like me) and others would end, and we can just deal with the English. Knowing what you believe about the 11 items I listed will move the discussion forward.

I believe that the true words of God would lead to irrevocable and indisputable truth of any doctrine contained therein. Persons holding the true words of God in their hands (the KJV for you) would be compelled toward these irrevocable truths using just the English words. There should be no dispute about these words as the true words of God would contain no contradictions, errors, etc., and no truths would be beyond the grasp of the indwelt believer.

Here are my answers to eleven doctrines:

1. Once saved always saved/perseverance of the saints? Perseverance of the saints
2. Trinity (one God with three personal subsistences-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)? True as stated
3. Incarnation - Christ was fully man (including a human soul) and fully God, both joined in a mystical union that cannot be divided, separated, confused, or mixed? True as stated
4. Original sin - all are condemned from birth due to Adam's fall unless regenerated by the Holy Spirit? True as stated
5. God is omniscient, exhaustively knowing past, present, and future? True as stated
6. God is atemporal, i.e., "outside of time"? True as stated
7. Salvation is by grace alone, by faith alone (not works), and by Christ alone?
8. The Scriptures and only the Scriptures (sola scriptura)?
9. Echatology - pre-millennial, amillennial, preterism? Preterism (partial)
10. Gifts of the Holy Spirit that have ceased since the Apostolic era? Tongues? Cessationism
11. Dispensationalism or Covenantalism? Covenantalism

What are your answers?
 
Last edited:

Psalmist

Blessed is the man that......
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I now take my leave of this thread.

I now take my leave of this thread.

It will be available to everyone in 30 or 40 imperfect translations. Such is the nature of men. Our languages do not always lend themselves to easy and accurate translations.

So before we set any one translation above all the rest, we had better be awfully darn sure we are setting the right one in that position. As it stands now, there is not enough information available to set any translation, including the KJV, in that position.

Yes, I agree.

Please, bear with me for a moment . . .

Some people and their version/translation absolutes . . .

At our nephew's church we attended while we were in Ohio, our brother-in-law also attended, brother-in-law is our nephew's father-in-law.

Anyway, we were gathered together for our Thursday night Bible study that we received a real revelation from this brother-in-law, it was his turn to present lesson, he came prepared with his notes, but forgot his Bible. So he asked somebody for their Bible to use, someone in the front row handed him their Bible, when he saw what version/translation was he went off like a roman candle saying, "This is the NIV, you need to rid yourself of this thing, this vile piece of trash, you need to get it out of your home, if you are not using the KJV you all aren't very bright. You need to get the real word of God into your hands and heart, you need to get a King James Version of the Bible."

Needless to say we were a aghast at what this brother-in-law said, the lady who handed him her NIV, left the meeting very tearful to say the least. And he proceeded with his lesson, and soap boxed about the KJV-only, and cable TV in our homes. When he was done we prayed and went home. Within a week the church lost 30 members of a 100+ congregation, and it wasn't because of cable either. The church closed about six months later.​

As I recount this story, this is what I observe . . .

  • At times the creature is thought of more than the Creator
  • Man has a higher regard for the Book than the Author
  • Jot's and tittle's become more than The Lamb of God. Jot, a very small part of anything; Tittle, the least.
  • I sometimes think in these types of debates, that when two ends meet together God moves one of them, not for the sake of confusion, but the sake of the message of the Bible, to get our attention back to "Christ and him Crucified" and to keep us from telling the story of Jesus by our testimony in our words for the understanding of the hear.

Can "Has" ever replace hath, I trow not, nor wist not.

What was used before the KJV, had they no influence, no bearing on eternal life and salvation.

I do not think that any version/translation since the KJV and it's four revisions has ever referenced John 3:16 or Romans 10:8-13 to see the KJV for the God’s official real meaning of these passages.

Can the KJV match word-for-word any know language of the world word-for-word.

If others are reading the NIV, NASB, RSV, NJKV, KJV, Praise the Lord they are reading the Word of God, especially those who are not saved, does it make that much difference about the words concerning salvation when they come to again Romans 10:8-13. Time is short, the days are evil, and souls are at stake.

Maybe one of these days the Lord will register at TOL and post stating the facts clearly about His word. Until then the debate over KJV over all others will continue, I take my leave of this thread, I leave it to the scholar's.


That’s
- 30 -​
:scripto:. . Psalmist
 

brandplucked

New member
Mr. Religion has no 'historically true' and inerrant Bible

Mr. Religion has no 'historically true' and inerrant Bible

What is your answer?

If you can identify false doctrine, you can articulate true doctrine, correct? I asked about several? How does the KJV rendering support your answers to the doctrines I listed and have also been repeated in berancam's post?

Again, which of the doctrines you believe among the list I gave are supported by the KJV and corrupted by other translations? Pick a version, ESV will do.

Why are you so reluctant to identify your own beliefs among the 11 doctrines I listed?

If you possess the true inerrant words of God,in English, as you contend, then we can eliminate the usual discussions of the original languages versus the English. According to you, the English rendering will be the priority and should be taken as infallibly correct. Debates between the Hebrew and Greek experts (like me) and others would end, and we can just deal with the English. Knowing what you believe about the 11 items I listed will move the discussion forward.

I believe that the true words of God would lead to irrevocable and indisputable truth of any doctrine contained therein. Persons holding the true words of God in their hands (the KJV for you) would be compelled toward these irrevocable truths using just the English words. There should be no dispute about these words as the true words of God would contain no contradictions, errors, etc., and no truths would be beyond the grasp of the indwelt believer.

Hi Mr. R. What happened to your "historically true" bible? You still end up with no inerrant and complete Bible. This is the point. However I will address your doctrinal statements.



Here are my answers to eleven doctrines:

1. Once saved always saved/perseverance of the saints? Perseverance of the saints - I agree.
2. Trinity (one God with three personal subsistences-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)? True as stated I agree.
3. Incarnation - Christ was fully man (including a human soul) and fully God, both joined in a mystical union that cannot be divided, separated, confused, or mixed? True as stated I agree. But was Christ "from everlasting" or did He have an "origin" ESV?
4. Original sin - all are condemned from birth due to Adam's fall unless regenerated by the Holy Spirit? True as stated I agree.
5. God is omniscient, exhaustively knowing past, present, and future? True as stated I agree.
6. God is atemporal, i.e., "outside of time"? True as stated I'm not sure about this one. Eternity apparently has "time" according to several passages I know of.
7. Salvation is by grace alone, by faith alone (not works), and by Christ alone? I agree. You missed this one.
8. The Scriptures and only the Scriptures (sola scriptura)? Why didn't you answer this one? Because you don't have any inspired and inerrant Scriptures? I believe I do and it's called the King James Bible. Where can we get a copy of yours so we can see how it differs from everything else that's out there today? By the way, I agree - Scripture only. Nothing else is from God.
9. Echatology - pre-millennial, amillennial, preterism? Preterism I definitely disagree. I strongly lean towards the pre-millennial second coming of Christ.
10. Gifts of the Holy Spirit that have ceased since the Apostolic era? Tongues? Cessationism. Cessationism I tend to agree but I don't know of any verse that clearly says they have ceased.
11. Dispensationalism or Covenantalism? Covenantalism I have a modified view of this, but lean more towards the Covenants view. The covenant of grace has always been operative. It is rather the law that was added and then taken away, but grace has always been God's way of salvation.

Will K
 

brandplucked

New member
The ESV - English Standard Version- liberal RSV in new garb

The ESV - English Standard Version- liberal RSV in new garb

The ESV

The 2001 English Standard Version is now heavily being promoted by many churches. It is a revision of the old Revised Standard Version, which earlier met with almost universal condemnation by evangelicals as being "liberal". Yet in the last few decades the church has been "softened up" by numerous conflicting bible versions like the NASB and NIV to now be ready to accept with open arms what it once rejected.

John Piper of Desiring God Ministries says: "When I turned 15 my parents gave me a beautiful, leather-bound King James Bible. I loved it....God met me in this book day after day when I was a teenager...Three and a half years later as a freshman at Wheaton I picked up the first Bible I ever bought for myself, a Revised Standard Version. It was close enough to the King James so that I felt at home, but its English was not Elizabethan; it was my English. This became my reading, meditating, memorizing Bible for the next 37 years... I would be happy to see the NIV sail into the sunset if it could be replaced by the ESV as the standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the English-speaking church... I have longed that there be something more readable than the NASB and more literal than the NIV. The NIV is a paraphrase with so much unnecessary rewording and so much interpretation that I could not preach from it...I am simply arguing that the ESV is the best balance available of readability and literalness. I hope that it becomes the standard for the church."

(Comment: There are numerous and profound differences between the KJB and the RSV. After studying this issue for several years now, I certainly am not of the opinion that the RSV is "close enough")

Doug Kutilek said in a recent "As I See It", that he'll probably make the ESV his version of choice replacing the NIV.

Alan Jacobs, professor of English at Wheaton College, writing in the December 2003 edition of First Things magazine says: "It is the ESV’s balance of thorough, up-to-date scholarship and deference to the elders’ wisdom that makes it the best available English Bible. What this means, further, is that the ESV is the best candidate yet for the long-hoped-for “replacement” of the KJV, the translation that bridges denominational gaps and strikes the right balance among the virtues of clarity, correctness, and grace."

Some other big name Christians listed on the ESV website as giving glowing recommendations of this version include: R.C. Sproul, Max Lucado, Joni Eareckson Tada, John F. Walvoord, and Erin Lutzer.

The ESV New Testament is based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text which differs from the Traditional Greek text that underlies the King James Bible; it omits some 5000 words, including 18 entire verses in the New Testament alone. The Old Testament is a random mixture of texts from the Hebrew Masoretic tradition, readings from the alleged pre-Christian Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, and Vulgate. It is the old RSV in a new garb.

I firmly believe God has preserved His infallible, inspired, pure and complete words in the King James Bible. Without exception, I have never met a modern version promoter who believes that any text, be it Hebrew or Greek, or any Bible in any language is the infallible words of God that he would not change, alter or correct according to his own understanding. My personal belief is that when it comes to the issue of the Final Authority of God's words today, if a Christian is not a King James Bible believer, then he can be described as those of whom God said: - "every man did that which is right in his own eyes". Each one then becomes his own scholar and makes up his personalized bible version as he goes along.

As you read through these few examples, keep in mind what God Himself says of His words. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it." Deut. 4:2; "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6; "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35.

The examples in this study are just a small portion of all that could be given of where the ESV departs from the Hebrew Masoretic texts and follows the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, Vulgate, or Dead Sea Scrolls. Often this same ESV will footnote the readings of the Septuagint, Syriac, or Dead Sea Scrolls but not follow them. The inevitable result is confusion and uncertainty regarding what God has said to us.

To avoid writing a 40 page essay on this subject, I will only cover some of the more blatant examples found in the 2001 English Standard Version from Genesis through Second Samuel. This should be enough to show there are very real and substantial textual differences between the King James Bible and the ESV.

Genesis 47:21 "And as for the people, HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof." So read the Hebrew text, the NKJV, and NASB.

The NIV, ESV, RSV read: "As for the people, HE MADE SERVANTS OF THEM from one end of Egypt to the other." Footnote: Samaritan, Septuagint, Vulgate; Hebrew "he removed them to the cities".

Genesis 49:10 "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, UNTIL SHILOH COME: and unto him shall the gathering of the people be."

The ESV reads: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, UNTIL TRIBUTE COMES TO HIM, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples." Footnote tells us to compare the Syriac, and Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads: "until Shiloh comes". "Shiloh" is found in the NASB, NKJV, but the NIV also omits the word and reads as the old RSV: "until he comes to whom it belongs".

Exodus 14:25 Speaking of the Egyptians pursuing the Israelites as they crossed the Red Sea, the KJB and the Hebrew text says that the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians: "And TOOK OFF their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily."

So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, and even the NIV, but the RSV, ESV say God was "CLOGGING their chariot wheels". The NASB also rejects the Hebrew reading and says "He caused their chariot wheels TO SWERVE". Now, I have had my car wheels swerve on ice, but not yet have they come off. The ESV at least informs us in a footnote (the NASB never does), that "clogging" comes from the Samaritan, Syriac and LXX, but that the Hebrew reads "removed the wheels". Actually they are fibbing just a bit when they refer to what the so called Septuagint (LXX) says. The copy I have reads: "The Lord looked forth on the camp of the Egyptians....AND BOUND THE AXLE-TREES of their chariots."

Deuteronomy 11:14, 15. Here Moses is speaking for God and he says: "... I will give you the rain of your land...And I will send grass in thy fields...". So read the NKJV, ASV, RV, and even the NIV. The NASB at least up through the 1972 edition also followed the Hebrew texts and read this way, but in 1977, and again in 1995 the NASB decided to follow the Samaritan, Vulgate and LXX, and reads as do the RSV, and ESV with: "HE will give you the rain...and HE will send grass...". ESV footnote: "He - Samaritan, Septuagint, Vulgate" ; Hebrew "I".

Deuteronomy 30:16 The KJB, NASB, NIV, and Hebrew texts read: "In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God..." However the RSV, and ESV add a bunch of words not found in any Hebrew text. The RSV, ESV say: "IF YOU OBEY THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD YOUR GOD that I command you today by loving the LORD your God..." Footnote: LXX; Hebrew lacks "if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God".

Deuteronomy 32:8 "When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children OF ISRAEL."

So read the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RV, ASV. But the RSV and ESV say: "he fixed the borders of the people according to the number of the SONS OF GOD." Then footnotes: Compare Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint; Masoretic Hebrew text "Israel". I don't know how the Dead Sea Scrolls read, but the ESV doesn't even read like the Septuagint. The LXX (Septuagint) reads "angels of God", not "sons of God".

Deuteronomy 32:43 "Rejoice, O YE NATIONS, WITH HIS PEOPLE." So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV. However the ESV is really messed up. Keep in mind that the ESV is a revision of the older liberal RSV, and the RSV says: "PRAISE HIS PEOPLE, O YOU NATIONS." Then the NEW RSV came out in 1989 and it says: "PRAISE, O HEAVENS, HIS PEOPLE, WORSHIP HIM ALL YOU GODS." And finally the ESV comes out in 2001 and it says: "REJOICE WITH HIM, O HEAVENS; BOW DOWN TO HIM ALL GODS." As you can see, neither the RSV, NRSV, nor ESV agree even among themselves, let alone with the King James Bible and all the others that follow the Hebrew texts.

The ESV now has a footnote that tells us their reading of "Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him all gods" comes from "Dead Sea Scroll, Septuagint", but that the Hebrew reads as does the King James Bible. The Septuagint copy I have does not agree with the ESV reading but says: "Rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him."

Deuteronomy 32:43 part 2 :"For he will avenge the blood of his SERVANTS, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people." This is basically the reading found in the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, and even the RSV. However beginning with the NRSV, and continuing with the ESV we now read: "For he avenges the blood of his CHILDREN, and takes vengeance on his adversaries. HE REPAYS THOSE WHO HATE HIM and cleanses his people's land."

Then the ESV, NRSV footnote that the word "children" comes from the Dead Sea Scroll and Septuagint, but the Hebrew Masoretic text reads "servants"; and that the Masoretic text lacks "He repays those who hate him".

Judges 14:15 "And it came to pass ON THE SEVENTH DAY, that they said unto Samson's wife..." So read all Hebrew texts and the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Geneva, Spanish, Diodati, and many others, but the RSV, ESV, NASB, and NIV all say: "on THE FOURTH DAY". Footnote: 4th day comes from Syriac and LXX, but the Hebrew says "the 7th day".

For an explanation of this apparent contradiction see http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/riddle.html

While there, be sure to read the excellent article by Marty Shue titled A Response to Gary R. Hudson - where Mr. Hudson severely criticizes those who are KJB only. Marty did an excellent job of refuting Hudson's claims.

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

Judges 16:13 Here the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV all unite in adding these 17 words "and fasten it with a pin. Then I shall become weak and be like any other man." This reading comes from the Septuagint, but is not found in any Hebrew manuscript nor in the RV, ASV, NKJV, Syriac, Young's, Geneva or Darby.

1 Samuel 1:24 "And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, WITH THREE BULLOCKS, and one ephah of flour..." So read all Hebrew texts as well as the RV, ASV, Geneva Bible, NKJV, Young's, and others. But the NASB, NIV, RSV, and ESV unite in reading: "she took him up with her, along with A THREE-YEAR-OLD BULL". Footnote tells us this comes from the Syriac and LXX, but the Hebrew reads "three bullocks".

1 Samuel 2:33 "And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume THINE eyes, and to grieve THINE heart." So read the NKJV, NASB, NIV, but the RSV, ESV say: "to weep HIS eyes out to grieve HIS heart", then tell us in a footnote that this reading comes from the LXX, but that the Hebrew reads "your" (thine).

I Samuel 6:19 "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people FIFTY THOUSAND AND THREESCORE AND TEN MEN (50,070): and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

Agreeing with the KJB reading of 50,070 men slain are the RV, ASV, NKJV, Geneva Bible, the Jewish translations, Spanish, and even the NASB AND the Septuagint! However the NIV, RSV, and ESV tell us that the LORD "struck 70 men of them". They just made up this number because they think the texts have been corrupted. Not even the Syriac agrees with the ESV because it says 5000 and 70.

I have written an article which I think explains this verse. Here is the site.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/50070.html

1 Samuel 9:25 When Saul went to Samuel and he was anointed king of Israel we read: "And when they were come down from the high place into the city, SAMUEL COMMUNED WITH SAUL UPON THE TOP OF THE HOUSE."

So read the Hebrew texts, and even the NASB, NIV, NKJV. However the RSV, ESV say: "And when they came down from the high place into the city, A BED WAS SPREAD FOR SAUL ON THE ROOF, AND HE LAY DOWN TO SLEEP." Then in a footnote the ESV tells us this reading comes from the Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads like the KJB, NASB, NIV, and NKJV. The meaning is not at all the same. The RSV, ESV also change the Hebrew texts in verse 24 where the Hebrew says: "I have invited the people", but the LXX says "that you might eat with the guests".

Then just two verses later in 1 Samuel 10:1 the RSV, ESV add a whole bunch of words not found in the Hebrew texts nor in the NASB, NIV, NKJV. The KJB, as well as the NASB, NIV, says: "Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the LORD hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?" BUT, the RSV, ESV say: "Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on his head and kissed him and said, Has not the LORD anointed you to be prince over HIS PEOPLE ISRAEL? AND YOU SHALL REIGN OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE LORD AND YOU WILL SAVE THEM FROM THE HAND OF THEIR SURROUNDING ENEMIES. AND THIS SHALL BE THE SIGN TO YOU THAT THE LORD HAS ANOINTED YOU TO BE PRINCE OVER his heritage."

All the words in capital letters are not found in the Hebrew, but they are brought in from the Septuagint version which is wildly different than the Hebrew texts in hundreds and hundreds of passages.

In 1 Samuel 13:1 the KJB says: "Saul reigned ONE year: and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel...." Agreeing with the KJB reading are the RV, ASV, Geneva Bible, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, Hebrew Names Version, Young's, NKJV, Diodati, Webster's, and the Third Millenium Bible.

However the RSV, ESV say: "Saul was ....years old when he began to reign, and he reigned ....and two years over Israel." The NASBs from the 1960s through 1972 and 1977 said: "Saul was 40 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 32 years"; but the 1995 NASB Update now agrees with the NIV and says: Saul was 30 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 42 years." Hey, they all mean the same thing, right? "He was .....years old = he was 40 years old = he was 30 years old = he reigned one year".

I also have written an article about this verse found at:

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

1 Samuel 13:15 "And Samuel arose, and gat him up from Gilgal unto Gibeah of Benjamin. And Saul numbered the people that were present with him, about six hundred men."

So read the Hebrew texts as well as the NASB, NIV. However the RSV, and ESV add a whole bunch of words from the LXX. The RSV, ESV read: "And Samuel arose and went up FROM GILGAL. THE REST OF THE PEOPLE WENT UP AFTER SAUL TO MEET THE ARMY; THEY WENT UP from Gilgal to Gibeah of Benjamin."

1 Samuel 14:41 Again, in this verse all the words in capital letters have been added to the RSV, ESV from the LXX (so they say) but they are not found in the NASB, NIV, NKJV.

The KJB, as well as the NASB, NIV, says: "Therefore Saul said unto the LORD God of Israel, Give a perfect lot. And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but the people escaped."

The RSV, ESV read, adding all these words, "Therefore Saul said, O LORD God of Israel, WHY HAVE YOU NOT ANSWERED YOUR SERVANT THIS DAY? IF THIS GUILT IS IN ME OR IN JONATHAN MY SON, O LORD, GOD OF ISRAEL, GIVE URIM. BUT IF THIS GUILT IS IN YOUR PEOPLE ISRAEL, GIVE THUMMIN. And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped."

Then in a footnote the ESV says these additional words come from the Septuagint. However my copy of the Septuagint does not read like the ESV says it does. It says instead "Lord God of Israel, give clear manifestations; and if the lot should declare this, give, I pray thee, to thy people Israel, give, I pray, holiness. And Jonathan and Saul are taken..." Quite different from them all, isn't it?

2 Samuel 7:16 Here God is speaking to David and He says: "And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before THEE: thy throne shall be established for ever."

"Before THEE" is the reading of all Hebrew texts, as well as the Jewish translations, the RV, ASV, NKJV, Darby, Young's, Geneva and others, but the NASB, NIV, RSV, and ESV follow the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew and say: "your kingdom shall be made sure before ME".

2 Samuel 15:7 "And it came to pass after FORTY years, that Absalom said unto the king..."

There is no question that the Hebrew texts all read FORTY years and so do the Jewish translations, the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, Young's, Darby, Geneva, Douay, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, and the Third Millenium Bible.

I know of at least three explanations as to what the "40 years" may be referring. Number One - the 40 years refers to the time since David was originally anointed to be king, as recorded in 1 Samuel 16:13, which occured several years before he actually began to reign as king. Number Two - it could refer to the age of Absalom at this time. Number Three - Absalom's mother was Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur. Years before, David had invaded the Geshurites and killed many of their people, perhaps 40 years had passed, and now Absalom sought vengeance on behalf of his mother and her people.

In any case, the NIV, RSV, ESV all change this number to "after FOUR years", and the ESV says this reading comes from the Septuagint and Syriac, but that the Hebrew reads 40 years. Again, this is misleading. The copy of the Septuagint that I have says 40 years, and the NIV footnote says "SOME Septuagint copies say 4 years".

2 Samuel 21:8-9 "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah...and the five sons of MICHAL the daughter of Saul, whom she BROUGHT UP FOR Adriel...and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD; and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest..."

MICHAL is the reading of all Hebrew texts and the reading of the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Geneva, Spanish, and Third Millenium Bibles. But the RSV, NASB, NIV, and ESV all change this to MERAB the daughter of Saul, instead of MICHAL, based they say on two Hebrew manuscripts, the Syriac and the Septuagint, but that most Hebrew manuscripts read Michal. However, again, the copy of the Septuagint I have says Michal, as does the KJB. The NIV footnotes says "SOME LXX mss. read Merab".

The simple explanation is that though Michal had no children of her own, she did bring up these five children, possibly as a step-mother after her sister had died. Always give the benefit of the doubt to the truth of Scripture rather than altering the text just because you don't understand its truth.

2 Samuel 23:18, 19 "And Abishai, the brother of Joab...was chief among THREE...Was he not most honourable of THREE?"

So read the KJB, NKJV, NIV, RV, ASV, Geneva, Young's, Darby, AND the Septuagint. However the RSV, NASB, and ESV say "THIRTY", based on two Hebrew manuscripts and the Syriac. The simple explanation is that the "three" refers back to verse 13 where we read that "three of the thirty chief went down, and came to David in the harvest time unto the cave of Adullam."

2 Samuel 24:13 "So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall SEVEN years of famine come unto thee in thy land?"

So read all Hebrew texts as well as the RV, ASV, NASB, Jewish translations, Geneva, Darby, Young's, and even the Syriac. However the NIV, RSV, and ESV change this number to THREE years, based on the Septuagint versions. In 1 Chronicles 21:12 the number recorded is three years, yet there is a simple way to explain this apparent contradiction. Instead of believing the infallible word of God and asking Him to open our understanding, these modern version editors prefer to assume there is a scribal error in all the Hebrew texts because "they" don't understand how to reconcile the apparent discrepancy. For my article which offers a logical explanation see:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/7or3.html

Proverbs 30:1-2 "The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: THE MAN SPAKE UNTO ITHIEL, EVEN UNTO ITHIEL AND UCAL, surely I am more bruthish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man."

The words "the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal" are found in the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936 and 1998. This is also the reading of the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, Darby, Spanish Reina Valera, the Catholic Jerusalem and New Jerusalem versions, THE RSV, NKJV, NASB, NIV and the Holman Standard.

HOWEVER, even though the RSV of 1952 reads the same as the King James Bible, the NIV, NASB and the 2003 Holman Standard, the brand new ESV (English Standard Version of 2001) actually says: "The words of Agur son of Jakeh. The oracle. THE MAN DECLARES, I AM WEARY, O GOD; I AM WEARY, O GOD, AND WORN OUT. Surely I am too stupid to be a man. I have not the understanding of a man." (Not quite the same meaning, is it?)

Song of Solomon 7:9 KJB ( NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV) "And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, CAUSING THE LIPS OF THOSE THAT ARE ASLEEP TO SPEAK."

However the ESV, like the NIV, reads: "It goes down smoothly for my beloved, GLIDING OVER LIPS AND TEETH", and then in a footnote tells us this reading comes from the Septuagint, Syriac and the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew reads: "causing the lips of sleepers to speak", just as the KJB has it!

Actually, the ESV footnote doesn't quite tell us the whole truth either. The Septuagint version reads: "And thy throat as good wine, going well with my kinsman, suiting my lips and teeth" (Say what?), and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac reads: "And your palate is like the best wine for my beloved, that goes down in the mouth of my beloved and makes me move my lips and my teeth." What we see in the ESV is that they have just arbitrarily picked out a small part of these confused versions and placed it in their "bible".

In the New Testament, the RSV and the ESV are missing the following whole verses. Matthew 12:47 (though the NASB, NIV have it, but omit or bracket the others) Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:18; most of Luke 9:55-56; all of Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4, Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24, and most of 1 John 5:7. So, yeah, we can see that the RSV and ESV is "close enough" to the King James Bible, right?

Luke 10:1 "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come."

Here Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the so called oldest and best manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based, differ from each other. These two manuscripts differ in significant ways from each other more than 3000 times in the gospels alone. The reading of SEVENTY is found in the majority of all texts including, A, C and Sinaiticus. The NASB, NKJV, ASV, Holman Standard, RSV and NRSV all read 70 but the NIV, TNIV and the 2001 ESV (English Standard Version) read seventy TWO, which is the reading of Vaticanus.

It is of interest to see the fickleness of the scholars in that the previous RSV and NRSV both read "70", but then the revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV - has now adopted the reading of "72", but the newest version to come down the pike, the Holman Standard, has retained the reading of "70". Their only consistency is their inconsistency.

The NIV, ESV say: "The Lord appointed seventy TWO others". The number 72 is the reading of Vaticanus, but most manuscripts including Sianaiticus read 70. So, was it 70 or 72 men whom Christ sent out? Is your Bible the inerrant word of God or do you prefer one of the multiple-choice Probably Close Enuf Versions?

None of these Bible versions agree with each other in both texts and meaning in literally hundreds of verses. Did God really preserve His words as He promised, or do we no longer have any Bible that we can call the complete, infallible, inspired words of God? I know where I stand, by God's sovereign grace, on this most important issue. How about you?

"Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way." Psalm 119:128

Will Kinney
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
3. Incarnation - Christ was fully man (including a human soul) and fully God, both joined in a mystical union that cannot be divided, separated, confused, or mixed? True as stated I agree. But was Christ "from everlasting" or did He have an "origin" ESV?
No origin of course.

7. Salvation is by grace alone, by faith alone (not works), and by Christ alone? I agree. You missed this one.
No I did not. Just was listing some items not exhaustive list. And I agree here, as well.

8. The Scriptures and only the Scriptures (sola scriptura)? Why didn't you answer this one? ...By the way, I agree - Scripture only. Nothing else is from God.
It was an oversight. I had already posted when I noted the omission and this thread allows no edits of posts. I agree with Sola Scriptura.

Why would STP, another person who believes the KJV to be the true words of God, claim dispensationalism to be a key teaching of the KJV, yet you see it differently? You both cannot be correct,right? How is it that the very exact words of God would lead two believers in completely different directions? I don't believe the English word dispensation even appears in the Old Testament in the KJV. Moreover, the word dispensation is only used 3 or 4 times in the New Testament. Of course covenant appears numerously in both the Testaments.

Why would God's very exact words be so wrongly construed by anyone who believes they hold in their hands these very words. It would seem an easy matter for all to converge all such believers to a single system of beliefs based on these very words. What accounts for these differences? Is it that some are less illuminated by the Spirit, thus, less discerning? It cannot be that God was imprecise in His inspired, inerrant, exact words, right?

Your answers also hint that you deny an Arminian view. Why are so many opposed to your view then? Many of these same persons would be among those that believe the KJV to be the inspired exact words of God, too.

How do you account for these disparities? I do not believe that if we had the exact words of God in our hands that there would be so many varying interpretations of His words. Do you?
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
7. Salvation is by grace alone, by faith alone (not works), and by Christ alone?
I agree that salvation is by faith alone.

8. The Scriptures and only the Scriptures (sola scriptura)? I disagree, believing the teachings of the Church is paramount.

9. Echatology - pre-millennial, amillennial, preterism? Preterism you say. I am certian it is amillennial, but is not preterism that belief that this ended in 70AD? If so, I might agree, but is that not also amillennial?
 

dreadknought

New member

Afternoon folks,

First to Mr. R's list:

1. Once saved always saved/perseverance of the saints? Perseverance of the saints (With that, I don't believe that a "true believer" can reject that which Dwell's within)
2. Trinity (one God with three personal subsistences-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)? One God whose nature is understood in a triune identity
3. Incarnation - Christ was fully man (including a human soul) and fully God, both joined in a mystical union that cannot be divided, separated, confused, or mixed.? Yes
4. Original sin - all are condemned from birth due to Adam's fall unless regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Yes
5. God is omniscient, exhaustively knowing past, present, and future? YES
6. God is atemporal, i.e., "outside of time"? Yes
7. Salvation is by grace alone, by faith alone (not works), and by Christ alone? The only Way.
8. The Scriptures and only the Scriptures (sola scriptura)? Yes
9. Echatology - pre-millennial, amillennial, preterism? Amill / partial preterest
10. Gifts of the Holy Spirit that have ceased since the Apostolic era? Tongues? Cessationism. Tongues - I agree
11. Dispensationalism or Covenantalism? Covenant

After all of the differences you pointed out in post #337 Will, you have still assumed that the KJV is the standard. By definition a bias.

Since Mr. R suggested the ESV as a point of discussion & dialogue:
As a student for the Word of God, here's a verse that jumps out as to what I would objectively consider a more appropriate issue of translation that is questionable.

ESV:
Jude 5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
KJV:
Jude 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Here's a thought for all: When did the Lord remove the His lampstand from the "Catholic church"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top