The Bible Agnostic Test - Are you a Bible believer or a Bible Agnostic?

[brandplucked]

The Bible Agnostic Test.

Just pick two of the examples listed below and let us know if you know which are the 100% true historic facts of Scripture. Most Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language they can show us is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. But I do and so do thousands of others.


The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy affirms the following -

“We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of ASSERTIONS IN THE FIELD OF HISTORY AND SCIENCE."

Well, as a King James Bible believer (with a real Bible to give to anyone who wants to read it for himself) I agree that the true and INFALLIBLE WORDS OF GOD MUST ALSO BE 100% HISTORICALLY TRUE." IF IT IS NOT, THEN WE SHOULD ASK AT WHAT POINT AND WHEN DOES GOD START TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS FOUND IN HIS BOOK."

So, let’s take the following few examples and ask our “originals only” brethren to tell us what their “inerrant Bible” actually says in these following places. I have basically limited this list to different historical events regarding the names of the people or the numbers of the things or people involved in these historical events.


The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples.

I hear from many unbelievers in the existence of a complete and infallible Bible when they say: "I'm not a bible agnostic! You don't know my heart. How can you say I am a bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the inerrancy of the Bible? How dare you? You are being judgmental."

So I ask them if they are willing to take The Bible Agnostic Test. A bible agnostic is someone who does not know (a = not + gnostic = to know) for sure what God said in many instances. Just go through this first part where you will find about 20 examples of completely different names and numbers in todays Bible Babble Buffet Versions and tell us if you know which readings are the ones God inspired in His Book. Just pick two examples if you like and let us know. OK? Most bible agnostics simply dodge the whole test and refuse to answer it. What about you? Willing to take the Test?

The Bible Babble Buffet Versions

Among these “historic details” are the following examples:

Judges 18:30 Manasseh or Moses?

KJB - "And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of MANASSEH, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land."

ESV (NIV, NET, Holman Standard, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "And the people of Dan set up the carved image for themselves, and Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of MOSES, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land."

http://brandplucked.webs.com/juds1830manassehmoses.htm

whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam218michalmerab.htm


or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

http://brandplucked.webs.com/jud1415samsonsriddle.htm

Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

1 Samuel 6:19 - 50,070 men slain or only 70 or 75 or 70 men 50 chief men or 50 oxen of a man? Why we cannot trust the Bible commentators or the modern versions.

1 Samuel 6:19 King James Bible (NASB, NET, NKJV, ISV) - "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: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

ESV 2016 (NIV 2011, Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985) - "He struck SEVENTY men of them, and the people mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great blow."

Young’s "literal" translation reads: “He smiteth among the people SEVENTY MEN - FIFTY CHIEF MEN”.

The Voice of 2012, one of the new Critical Text versions, actually says: “God struck down 75 men”

The Holman Christian Standard Bible 2009 has come up with a reading that is different from them all. The HCSB now says: "He struck down 70 men out of 50,000 men."

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1sam61950070or70.htm

or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Look at the new "revision" of the ESV 2011. It came out in 2001 and they revised and changed about 300 verses in 2007 and then they revised it again in 2011. Take a look at what they have done with 1 Samuel 13:1. The ESVs have TWO different readings and they are BOTH wrong.

A similar thing happens with the constantly changing NASB. Notice it has TWO different readings depending on which edition you get and neither one agrees with any of the ESVs. From 1972 to 1977 they had 40/32 years, but now in the 1995 edition it reads 30/42 years, and BOTH ARE WRONG.

1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years."!

But wait. There's even more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel...". Think about it. "Saul lived for one year and then became king". They just get loopier and loopier, don't they?

Can you guess which other bible version reads like the latest ESV? You got it. The Catholic Douay-Rheims and the Douay Version 1950 - "Saul WAS A CHILD OF ONE YEAR WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned two years over Israel."

By the way, here is a more in depth study showing why the King James Bible got it right, as it ALWAYS does.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1samuel131wordslost.htm


1 Samuel 17:4 How Tall Was Goliath?

In 1 Samuel 17:4 the Hebrew texts tell us that the height of Goliath was SIX cubits and a span, which would make him about 9 feet 6 inches tall. That indeed is a giant. However the LXX tells us that Goliath was a mere FOUR cubits and a span - "ὕψος αὐτοῦ τεσσάρων πήχεων καὶ σπιθαμῆς" - which would make him only 6 feet 6 inches tall, which would hardly be much among NBA players today. King Saul himself was head and shoulders taller than the other Israelites, and yet he was afraid of this giant. If he were only 6ft. 6 inches, this would not make much sense.

Agreeing with the Hebrew text the he was 6 cubits and a span tall are the RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and all Jewish translations.

However there are a few loonies out there like Daniel Wallace and gang's NET version that says: "His name was Goliath; he was from Gath. He was CLOSE TO SEVEN FEET TALL."

Dan Wallace's group chose the reading found in SOME LXX copies of FOUR and a half cubits tall. Other LXX copies have FIVE and others still have SIX cubits and a span. Also reading this way are the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Catholic St. Josepeh New American bible 1970. So, which one is right? Was he 4 or 5 or 6 cubits and a span tall?

For more information on this see Scatterbrained Septuagint Silliness -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/scatterbrainseptuagint.htm

2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (KJB, Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV, Douay-Rheims) OR “four years” (NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam15740or4year.htm

or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

http://brandplucked.webs.com/7or3yearsoffamine.htm

or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, Douay-Rheims) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

http://brandplucked.webs.com/4000or40000.htm



Again, notice that in 2 Chronicles 36:9 the ESVs have come out with TWO different textual editions. The first one followed the Hebrew text while the second edition rejected the Hebrew text as well as both the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus LXX readings and went with the Alexandrinus LXX reading. Not even the so called Greek Septuagint versions agree among themselves.

or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, Douay-Rheims) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007, 2016 editions!!! and once again the Catholic New Jerusalem)


http://brandplucked.webs.com/jehoiachin8or18.htm

Jeremiah 27:1 JEHOIAKIM or ZEDEKIAH? Has the Hebrew text been corrupted?

Jeremiah 27:1 - Is there a scribal error in the King James Bible and in the Hebrew Masoretic text?

Jeremiah 27:1 KJB - "In the beginning of the reign of JEHOIAKIM the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying...."

ESV, RSV, NIV, NASB, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "In the beginning of the reign of ZEDEKIAH the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD."

The King James Bible is right, as always. And here is why -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/jer271jehoiakimzedekiah.htm

Luke 10:42 How many things are needed? "ONE THING" or "A FEW THINGS"? Bible Babble Buffet at its Best.

King James Bible (ESV, NKJV, ASV) - Luke 10:42 - But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

NASB 1963-1977 editions - “But ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

NASB 1995 edition - “But ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions - "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."

NIV 2011 edition - "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."

Did you notice that both the NASB and the NIV changed THE TEXT from one edition to another, AND that they REVERSED THEIR CHOICES? What is going on here in Bible Babble Buffet Land?

http://brandplucked.webs.com/luke1042onethingneedfl.htm

Luke 10:1,17 were there 70 sent out to preach (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) or 72 sent out? (NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Notice again in Matthew 18:22 the TWO different ESV translations of the same verse. The first 2 ESV editions followed the Greek text. The second 2 ESV just made up a number.

or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV 2001, 2007 editions, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times? (NRSV, NIV, ESV 2011, 2016 editions, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness New World Translation)


or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims) or “today I have become your Father”? (NIV, Holman, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem).

http://brandplucked.webs.com/acts1333thisdaybegotte.htm

If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions, ask yourself Which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

So, try to honestly answer the basic question here. Do you or do you not believe there IS (or ever was) a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language that IS the inerrant and infallible words of God? Are you a Bible believer or a Bible “agnostic” who doesn’t know if such a Bible exists or not and what it might look like if it did?

ALL of grace, believing the Book - the King James Holy Bible.

Will Kinney

 

[chair]

Oh! Welcome back.
You should always use the original. In the case of the Old Testament, that is the Hebrew.
Have a nice day!

 

[brandplucked]

Chair posts: "Oh! Welcome back.
You should always use the original. In the case of the Old Testament, that is the Hebrew.
Have a nice day!"

Hi Chair. Thank you for the welcome back. So, do you happen to have a copy of "the original" you can show us? Not just the Hebrew but the Greek as well? My bet is that you do not.

Also, are you aware of the fact that the modern Vatican Versions often reject and add to "the" Hebrew Scriptures (especially the ESVs), and not even in the same places? I have LOTS of examples of this.

The NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman Standard and other Vatican Versions reject the Hebrew Texts

Part One - Genesis through Psalms

https://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew.htm

God bless.

 

[chair]

About once a year you show up here, pushing your site.
The KJV is a translation. Unless you can prove beyond a doubt that God dictated it word for word to somebody, then it is a translation, one of many. And outdated to boot. There is nothing magic or holy about it.

Wake up.

 

[chair]

or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Will, your ignorance of Biblical Hebrew shows here. And your unwillingness to actually read the texts.
Here is the KJV on this:

14 And he said unto them, Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness. And they could not in three days expound the riddle.

15 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson's wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father's house with fire: have ye called us to take that we have? is it not so?​

The KJV follows the Hebrew here. You'll have to take my word for it, since you you've been studying the Bible for decades and never bothered to learn Hebrew. There is a real problem in the text.

And they could not in three days expound the riddle.... And it came to pass on the seventh day​

.
If three days passed, we should be talking about the fourth day, not the seventh. Some of the translations tried to fix this . I think it is a mistake- they should let the reader see the text with all of its problems.

and yes, there is no perfect copy of the Bible, in any language. sorry. You insist on fooling yourself that there is.

wake up.

 

[brandplucked]

About once a year you show up here, pushing your site.
The KJV is a translation. Unless you can prove beyond a doubt that God dictated it word for word to somebody, then it is a translation, one of many. And outdated to boot. There is nothing magic or holy about it.

Wake up.

Well, Chair, I see you are still trying to justify your unbelief in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in any language you can show us. You refer to the language of the KJB as "outdated" and yet you refer us to "the Hebrew and Greek" thingies that hardly anybody can read and both of which are "outdated" and archaic when compared to modern Hebrew and Greek. And you still have no complete and inerrant Bible to show us, not even in "the Hebrew and the Greek". Why keep pretending that you do?

 

[brandplucked]

Will, your ignorance of Biblical Hebrew shows here. And your unwillingness to actually read the texts.
Here is the KJV on this:

14 And he said unto them, Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness. And they could not in three days expound the riddle.

15 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson's wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father's house with fire: have ye called us to take that we have? is it not so?​

The KJV follows the Hebrew here. You'll have to take my word for it, since you you've been studying the Bible for decades and never bothered to learn Hebrew. There is a real problem in the text.

And they could not in three days expound the riddle.... And it came to pass on the seventh day​

.
If three days passed, we should be talking about the fourth day, not the seventh. Some of the translations tried to fix this . I think it is a mistake- they should let the reader see the text with all of its problems.

and yes, there is no perfect copy of the Bible, in any language. sorry. You insist on fooling yourself that there is.

wake up.

Well, Chair, thank you at least for finally being honest about what you really think about "the Hebrew". You tell us that there is a problem in the Hebrew text itself. So, in plain words, you (like all the other self appointed authorities and Bible correctors) don't even believe your own Hebrew Scriptures you previously told us we need to consult. Again, you are your own authority.

I do not believe there is an error in the Hebrew text at all. Did you actually read my article on this or did you just give us your knee jerk reaction?



or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

http://brandplucked.webs.com/jud1415samsonsriddle.htm

 

[chair]

I am not going to read any of your articles.
There is not basis for thinking there is a perfect text out there. And absolutely no reason to believe that the KJV is anything special.

 

[brandplucked]

I am not going to read any of your articles.
There is not basis for thinking there is a perfect text out there. And absolutely no reason to believe that the KJV is anything special.

Hi Chair. You are a pretty amazing guy. You supposedly have all this knowledge and deep insights into the Scriptures, and yet you would prefer to think that the Hebrew texts themselves are wrong and corrupted rather than read my article which shows not only a multitude of Bibles, including many modern Jewish translations, that stick with the Hebrew text and people like John Gill, Jarchi and Rashi - both Jewish scholars - offer a very reasonable way of explaining this apparent contradiction.

Pretty amazing, chair. I see not much has changed here over the years.

You LIKE being your own authority, don't you.

Happy Trails.

 

[User Name]

double post

 

[User Name]

double post

 

[brandplucked]

I am not going to read any of your articles.
There is not basis for thinking there is a perfect text out there. And absolutely no reason to believe that the KJV is anything special.

Hi Chair. You are a pretty amazing guy. You supposedly have all this knowledge and deep insights into the Scriptures, and yet you would prefer to think that the Hebrew texts themselves are wrong and corrupted rather than read my article which shows not only a multitude of Bibles, including many modern Jewish translations, that stick with the Hebrew text and people like John Gill, Jarchi and Rashi - both Jewish scholars - offer a very reasonable way of explaining this apparent contradiction.

Pretty amazing, chair. I see not much has changed here over the years.

You LIKE being your own authority, don't you.

Happy Trails.

 

[User Name]

Hi Chair. Thank you for the welcome back. So, do you happen to have a copy of "the original" you can show us? Not just the Hebrew but the Greek as well? My bet is that you do not.

If the KJV is inerrant, and the KJV is a translation of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, then it stands to reason that those Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts from which the KJV was translated must also have been inerrant.

No?

 

[User Name]

You LIKE being your own authority, don't you.

If I asserted that the NIV was inerrant, I would be doing so on my own authority.

Likewise, if you assert that the KJV is inerrant, you are doing so on your own authority.

You LIKE being your own authority, don't you.

 

[User Name]

The proof text for KJV-Onlyism is found in Romans 4:17.

"...and calleth those things which be not as though they were."

:chuckle:

 

[chair]

Hi Chair. You are a pretty amazing guy. You supposedly have all this knowledge and deep insights into the Scriptures, and yet you would prefer to think that the Hebrew texts themselves are wrong and corrupted rather than read my article which shows not only a multitude of Bibles, including many modern Jewish translations, that stick with the Hebrew text and people like John Gill, Jarchi and Rashi - both Jewish scholars - offer a very reasonable way of explaining this apparent contradiction.

Pretty amazing, chair. I see not much has changed here over the years.

You LIKE being your own authority, don't you.

Happy Trails.

Oh, I won't read your articles because I've discussed this repeatedly with you, so I know your ideas are worthless. You are the Biblical equivalent of a Flat Earther.

 

[chair]

Will, let's try this:
What argument do you have for the KJV that couldn't easily be applied to the Vulgate, Tyndale, JPS or any other translation?
Your basic argument is:
1. There has to be an inerrant version of the Bible. (an unproven assumption on your part)
2. English is currently the most common language on Earth (This is just plain old false)
3. Therefore one of the English Translations must be the inerrant one.
4. The KJV is the best candidate for the inerrant one because (?)

 

[chair]

Will, let's try this:
What argument do you have for the KJV that couldn't easily be applied to the Vulgate, Tyndale, JPS or any other translation?
Your basic argument is:
1. There has to be an inerrant version of the Bible. (an unproven assumption on your part)
2. English is currently the most common language on Earth (This is just plain old false)
3. Therefore one of the English Translations must be the inerrant one.
4. The KJV is the best candidate for the inerrant one because (?)

 

[brandplucked]

If the KJV is inerrant, and the KJV is a translation of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, then it stands to reason that those Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts from which the KJV was translated must also have been inerrant.

No?

Hi User Name. Interesting question. There is no specific Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek text that the King James Bible is based on 100% of the time. Neither is there any specific Hebrew and Greek text that any other bible translation follows 100% of the time. The Vatican supervised text versions like the ESVs, NASBs, NIVs, Holman Standard versions, etc. do not follow any specific Hebrew or Greek text either.

My bet is that you cannot show us any specific Hebrew or Greek text or Bible translation in any language that you really believe is the complete and inerrant words of God. If you think I am wrong about this, then all you have to do is give us a link to where we can see this inerrant Bible you supposedly believe in. But that is not going to happen, is it.

I believe God led the KJB translators to both the correct textual readings taken from the various Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (all of which have differences in them and do not match the others 100% of the time)and he guided them to the correct translation of those textual readings.

Most multiple version rummagers and unbelievers in an inerrant Bible think God is still in the process of putting one together for us and can't agree with each other on which one might be the best or closest to getting it right so far.

God bless.

 

[brandplucked]

Will, let's try this:
What argument do you have for the KJV that couldn't easily be applied to the Vulgate, Tyndale, JPS or any other translation?
Your basic argument is:
1. There has to be an inerrant version of the Bible. (an unproven assumption on your part)
2. English is currently the most common language on Earth (This is just plain old false)
3. Therefore one of the English Translations must be the inerrant one.
4. The KJV is the best candidate for the inerrant one because (?)

Hi chair. I have one specific article I put together that basically addresses all these questions you ask, but since you refuse to read them, I guess you will just have to wonder if I can actually answer your questions or not.

But for those who are at least willing to find out what I believe are some solid arguments as to why the King James Bible is God's perfect and inerrant Book, here it is.

Reasons Why The King James Bible Is The Absolute Standard - God's Historic Witness to the Truth.

https://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm