[Cody1611]

A guy joined my website the other day and asked if he could debate with us about the King James Bible. I told him that I would rather not because none of us are going to change and I doubt he would change either, so there would be no point in it. Anyways, this is a pm he sent me. I'm wondering how you guys would respond to these statements. They sure didn't change what I believe about the King James Bible. How about you guys?

Also, I found the book he refers to, if you guys want to check it out.

http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-Reso...Vindicated.pdf

Very well, I shall leave with no hard feelings, as i said.

You said y'all wouldn't change, but I know better. You'd be surprised how many "KJVOs" will change if faced with the FACTS. A few of thesr facts are:

1.) There's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO to be found in the KJV itself. Since it's not from GOD, & it's a matter of worship, that leaves only ONE other ultimate source!

2.) KJVO is derived from a 1930 book, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated", by 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson. And W wasn't trying to start a new doctrine; he was writing in response to an internal squabble within the SDA cult. Several authors (Ray, Ruckman, Fuller, to name a few) copied from that book, and, having better media tools than W had in 1930, were able to sell enough boox to start a new doctrine, which you've inherited. A mark of Wilkinson in KJVO boox subsequent to his is the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie", which the AV1611 itself proves wrong. In the AV1611 is this footnote for the 2nd "them" in V7: "Heb. him, I. Euery one of them." So, we see, V7 is about PEOPLE, namely David & friends while they were mfleeing from Saul.

3.) The KJV is NOT perfect. Some of the more glaring of its goofs are "Easter in Acts 12:4(Easter DID NOT YET EXIST when Luke wrote Acts!), "the love of money is *THE* root of *ALL* evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10(an example: we all agree that the suicide bombers in Iraq & palestine are committing evils, but certainly NOT for love of money!), and the omission of "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25.

4.) God did NOT retire in 1611. He goes right on causing His word to be translated in CURRENT language. The KJV was in the most modern English of 1611, but that was almost 400 years ago, & the language has changed considerably since then. Had God updated the translation of His word in English, the following is what we'd be stuck with, from the first-known English Scriptural manuscripts : "“God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."

Recognize that familiar verse? Well, here it is, some 400 years later, from the Wycliffe Bible, the first English version: "for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif,"

Recognize it as John 3:16? How would you like to have no other Bible than this Middle English version? What's what you'd have had God not caused newer translations to have been made to keep up with the changes in the language He was allowing/causing. Well, same with TODAY. While none of those old Bibles has lost its validity, they are not clearly-understood as are versions in OUR English. GOD knows this, and has therefore kept His word available in the language of today.

[bibleprotector]

I wouldn't waste my time with trouble makers.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Cody1611

A guy joined my website the other day

It is likely we know that poster well. (Or his wording is being copied by a clone.) He ignores when arguments are answered patiently and clearly and will repeat the same accusation as if it was never answered, offers very little of substance and is unresponsive to paradigmic and conceptual discussions that will focus on his own boatloads of inconsistencies. And is often taking the position of a classic troll trouble-maker as well with a propensity to untruths. There are other integrity issues. (This is all based on the likely identity, which is based on multiple pet phrases and the belligerent and aggressive approach.)

A simple example is the SDA question (canard) with Benjamin Wilkinson, a good defender. David Cloud (here is one of a couple of pages)

http://www.wayoflife.org/otimothy/tl070002.htm
The Battle for the King James Bible: 1800-1870

and others have shown the historical progressions going back at least into the early 1800's of understanding the authority and perfection of the AV. Benjamin Wilkinson was surely one of dozens of significant contributors towards today's pure understanding, as was Edward Hills, Philip Mauro, Joseph. C. Philpot and many, many others. (In fact neither Hills nor Wilkinson had a clearly fully pure view of the King James Bible, although they both offered tremendous assistance and resources to defenders and filled the historical gap.) Wilkinson was actually eclectic in a sense, since he faced stiff opposition from the SDA General Conference, especially as Ellen White had at times used the corrupt Revision, clearly a difficulty for an SDA pure-KJB understanding. Overall, Wilkinson had good understanding despite his SDA perspective, which would normally be a hindrance. And I believe Benjamin Wilkinson should be given a solid place in the history of King James Bible defenders, where we have ultra-dispensationalists and Pentecostals and this and that.

(To be clear and fair, there is a legitimate side-issue as to David Otis Fuller not making clear the Benjamin Wilkinson sources, so in this sense we see today the negative fruit of some unscholarly work by a KJB proponent.)

Similarly George McReady Price, SDA, was a major influence for the Creationary movement, preceding Henry Morris and John Whitcomb (in fact his influence in the Creationary movement was far greater than Wilkinson on the Bible issues) yet few would fall so headlong into a genetic fallacy as to reject Creationary views because of McReady's SDA-ness. When you deal with modern versionists, the hardened and calloused no-pure-Bible "any valid version" anti-pure-KJB crew, consistency is not their forté -- it is an unknown jewel.

While often you can invite a challenger or a questioner to dialog (and sometimes learn in the process, I have had many on the Messianic forum) in many cases it is simply a time-waster and distraction. If you do invite him on, be very aware of the history and baggage.

Shalom,
Steven

[Manny Rodriguez]

1.) There's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO to be found in the KJV itself. Since it's not from GOD, & it's a matter of worship, that leaves only ONE other ultimate source!

There is absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the Critical Text-only crowd. But THERE IS for those of us who defend the KJV. Our entire position is rooted in the scriptures.

The Doctrine of Scripture Preservation (as presented in Ps. 12:6-7, Ps. 78:1-8, 105:8, 119:89, 119:97-99, 119:111, 119:152, 119:160, Isa. 40:8 & 59:21, Mat. 5:17-18 & 24:35, Jn. 10:35, and I Pet. 1:23-25) ensures for us that actually believe what the Bible says about itself that the scriptures have always been around since they were breathed by God and always will be. Therefore, simple God-given common sense tells us that if God’s pure words have been promised to be preserved forever, there must be a copy of it somewhere TODAY. We believe we have God’s preserved words in the KJV and its underlying texts.

History of Bible manuscripts demonstrates for us that the type of text represented in the Traditional Text (or Received Text) family can be traced from the KJV and other faithful TR-based translations in existence today all the way back to the Apostolic age (in the Old Latin and Syrian Peshitto). In other words, there is an unbroken chain of manuscript evidence from the Apostolic age to today supporting the type of text that underlies the KJV. Dr. D.A.Waite demonstrates this evidence on pgs 44-48 of his book Defending the King James Bible under the heading The Thirty-Seven Historical Evidences Supporting the Textus Receptus. This evidence demonstrates the type of text that represents the fulfillment of God’s promises to preserve his pure words forever. Therefore, our whole position on the Textual issue is rooted in the Doctrine of Preservation as found in the word of God.

On the other hand, the position that the Westcott & Hort, Alexandrian, Critical Text-only crowd espouses is NOT rooted in the word of God. For they claim that the Critical Text should be the proper basis for Bible translations. The problem with that position, however, is where were the pure words of God between the 4th century and the 19th century if the Critical Text position be true? For even Hort, according to his own writings, recognized that the Traditional Texts were the prominent text of God’s word being used by orthodox Christianity from the 4th to the 19th century. All throughout these ages, orthodox Christianity unanimously rejected the Alexandrian type manuscripts such as Vaticanus. It wasn’t until Tishendorf discovered Sinaiticus in the early 1800s that any significant amount of attention (outside of the Catholic church) was ever directed toward the Alexandrian manuscripts. And it wasn’t really until 1881 that the Critical Text began to develop a following through Westcott and Hort’s Critical Greek NT. You mean to say that for all these centuries orthodox Christianity was without the true and pure words of God? Is it to be believed that Westcott and Hort were the “saviours” that restored for us the true representation of the original words of God? My Bible does not promise for us Bible Restoration, but rather Bible Preservation! The position of the Critical Text crowd is completely contrary to what the Scriptures say about themselves concerning Preservation.

So it is not us whose position is unscriptural. It is the pro-Alexandrian, pro-Westcott & Hort, and pro Critical Text crowd whose position is totally unfounded in Scriptural support.

(continued)

[Manny Rodriguez]

2.) KJVO is derived from a 1930 book, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated", by 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson. And W wasn't trying to start a new doctrine; he was writing in response to an internal squabble within the SDA cult. Several authors (Ray, Ruckman, Fuller, to name a few) copied from that book, and, having better media tools than W had in 1930, were able to sell enough boox to start a new doctrine, which you've inherited.

Absolutely false! The position that Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson espoused was being promoted well before his writings. For example, Dr. Thomas Cassidy has an excellent article in which he reveals a source of an early Fundamentalist named Dr. W.B.Riley who was complaining about a crowd in his day that were standing for the “inerrancy of the King James Bible”. Sound familiar? I’ll let Dr. Cassidy’s information speak for itself:

From Textual Criticism: Fact of Fiction by Thomas Cassidy

W. B. Riley stated in his book "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance, 1917), the Modernist believes the Bible's "inspiration exists only in its ability to inspire...its interpretation is a matter of mental conscience." Dr. Riley goes on to say there were a group of men whom he describes as the "old conception," who believed the Authorized Version or King James Bible (hereafter AV) was inerrant. He states on page 11, "On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained." He then ascribes this belief to ignorance, and says, "I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand." Actually there are quite a few of us, and I for one am feeling just fine, thank you. Dr. Riley then erroneously states the AV inerrancy position by saying on page 13, "To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the King James Version...is to claim inerrancy for men who never professed it for themselves..." No one, that I am aware of, is claiming inerrancy for men, but only for the words of God. This position is, I believe, a straw man, attempting to ascribe to us something we do not believe, and then condemn us for believing what they claim we believe….

So then, it seems clear to me that Dr. Riley believed there were still a few of the "old conception" men in his day that still believed in an inerrant AV, that they were mostly old men, and were soon to pass away. If these men were old men when Riley wrote his book, they must have dated to at least the latter part of the 19th century. Over one hundred years ago, a group of "old conception" men existed who still believed in the inerrancy of the AV. This appears to indicate the "King James Only" position is not of recent origin.
Thus we can see, in Riley's day, a group of men still existed who believed, "(1) the Bible was finished in heaven and handed down, (2) the King James Version was absolutely inerrant, and (3) its literal acceptance was alone correct." (Page nine of Riley's book as quoted by Dr. George W. Dollar in his book "History of Fundamentalism in America", Page 114) We can easily see that W. B. Riley (1861 - 1947), understood this group of men to believe exactly as the "King James Only" crowd does today, and believed it long before any of the contemporary antagonists were born! The challenge of one scoffer to "Name one person who believed in the inspiration or inerrancy of the King James Version prior to 1950 and I'll send you $1000", has just been answered (please send the money to me at the address in the front of this book!).”

Notice that Dr. Riley’s complaint against those claiming inerrancy for the AV was published in his book in 1917! His information indicates that there was crowd of “the old conception” that espoused this “KJVOnly” position in the late 1800s. This is INDISPUTABLE evidence that the position that KJV defenders possess DID NOT originate with a 7th Day Adventist, much to our opponents disappointment I’m sure.

Besides, I’m not so sure if our opponents really want to compare whose position is more associated with the 7th Day Aventists because if we really wanted to play that “guilt-by-association” game, the truth is that the general position of the 7th Day Adventists today concerning Bible texts is the same as the Critical Text crowd. Benjamin Wilkinson’s position was not the norm amongst his peers.

[Manny Rodriguez]

A mark of Wilkinson in KJVO boox subsequent to his is the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie", which the AV1611 itself proves wrong. In the AV1611 is this footnote for the 2nd "them" in V7: "Heb. him, I. Euery one of them." So, we see, V7 is about PEOPLE, namely David & friends while they were mfleeing from Saul.

In this matter, the footnote in the AV1611 is wrong and so is everyone who agrees with it.

You don’t have to be a linguistic expert to know that sometimes there are exceptions in grammar. In most cases, a masculine plural would not modify a feminine gender. But in the case of Ps. 12:6-7 the masculine plural "them" does in fact modify the feminine noun "words", BECAUSE THE CONTEXT DEMANDS IT! Check it out.

First off, let's look at the context. The entire chapter shows a contrast between the evil words of men and the pure words of the Lord. Here are the preceding verses themselves in the context of vs. 6-7:

1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. 2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. 3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: 4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? 5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him." (emphasis in bold and underline mine)

The hebrew word for "puffeth" is puwach, pronounced poo'akh, which according to Strong's is: a primitive root; to puff, i.e. blow with the breath or air; hence, to fan (as a breeze), to utter, to kindle (a fire), to scoff:--blow (upon), break, puff, bring into a snare, speak, utter.

Verse 4 is the key to the context. The context is evil men who persecute with their tongue against the righteous.

Now look at the contrast:

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

This chapter is discussing the contrast of the evil words of men as opposed to the pure words of the Lord. God is showing that the effect of man's evil words are temporal, whereas God's pure words are eternal.

If that isn't enough for you, consider the following.

Go to any Hebrew expert and ask them if the following point is not true. And when I say a Hebrew expert, I'm not talking about a Gentile professor in a Christian seminary somewhere. Go straight to the source. Go to an orthodox Jewish Rabbi, who knows the language of the Tanakh from his youth, and who's whole life's duty is to know and understand Hebrew and the Hebrew scriptures. Who can be more authoritative on the Hebrew language than a Hebrew rabbi himself who has mastered the language from his youth up?

My Pastor has the testimony of an orthodox Jewish Rabbi named Rabbi Slater in Savannah, GA who says that sometimes a masculine word can modify a feminine word. To prove this point, he gives the example of Exo. 15:20-21 which says:

“And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.

21And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.”

Notice the words in bold type. We already know the word “them” is masculine. Here’s a really deep question for you. Do you think the word “women” is feminine? The Hebrew word for “women” is “is shah“, a feminine gender according to Strong‘s Hebrew definition. Here you have the case of the masculine plural word “them” modifying the feminine word “women”, BECAUSE THE CONTEXT AND COMMON SENSE DEMANDS FOR IT. There are always exceptions to the rule. (Jack Moorman has an article giving more statements from Hebrew grammar books supporting this same point. Go to http://www.feasite.org/Foundation/fbcpresv.htm.)

More examples of masculine words modifying feminine words can be found are found in the following verses:

Ps 119:111 ¶ Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart.

Ps 119:129 ¶ Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them.

Ps 119:152 ¶ Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

Ps 119:167 ¶ My soul hath kept thy testimonies; and I love them exceedingly.

There are many other examples that can be found throughout the scriptures but these should be enough to suffice for any reasonable person.

In conclusion, Ps. 12:6-7 is indeed a reference to the preservation of God's words, NOT the "poor and needy". Besides, as a Preacher said one time, “I wouldn’t want to be preserved poor and needy forever anyways.” Neither would I. Would you?

[Manny Rodriguez]

3.) The KJV is NOT perfect. Some of the more glaring of its goofs are "Easter in Acts 12:4(Easter DID NOT YET EXIST when Luke wrote Acts!),

This assertion is a demonstration of ignorance concerning the etymological history of the word Easter.

First off, the KJV translators did not come up with the word "Easter". William Tyndale did. In his day, the word Easter was an acceptable translation for the Greek word Pascua and the Hebrew word Pesach. The proof of this is the fact that the word Passover wasn't even in existence in the English language until Tyndale coined it back in the early 1500s. Tyndale invented both these words. Prior to the 1611 KJV, Tyndale’s translation of the English Bible used the words ester or easter, ester-lambe, esterfest, and paschall lambe in the places where we now have the word Passover. Tyndale later revised his English translation and changed these renderings to Passover. But the point here is to show that before the word Passover was introduced to the English language, variations of the word Easter were acceptable.

Tyndale only began incorporating his new word Passover when he realized that a distinction needed to be made between the Jewish feast day and the Gentile Pagan observances that fell upon the same time of the year. During the early development of the English language, the word Easter was used in reference to both observances.

Secondly, Easter is not only acceptable, it's the proper translation for Acts 12:4. The KJV translators left the passage in Acts 12 as Easter because the Passover feast was already past when Herod intended to kill Peter after a certain observance. That observance couldn't have been the Passover since the Passover was already over with and the scriptures clearly stated that "then were the days of unleavened bread". The Passover took place BEFORE the days of unleavened bread, not during or afterwards.

Le 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover. v.6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.

Those who insist the KJV is in error are quick to point out the fact that there are times in the scriptures when the days of unleavened bread were inclusive under the Passover reference such as in Mark 14:1. They would almost have a point if it wasn’t for the fact that in Acts 12:3 the Holy Spirit made a specific distinction between the two events by laying out the following words as plain as day, "then were the days of unleavened bread".

If anything, the fact that the KJV translators recognized the distinction that the Holy Spirit made here only demonstrates the superiority of their scholarship over that of the modern versions.

The word Easter is in no way, shape, or form an error in the KJV. It is the proper translation.

[Manny Rodriguez]

"the love of money is *THE* root of *ALL* evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10(an example: we all agree that the suicide bombers in Iraq & palestine are committing evils, but certainly NOT for love of money!)

Again, more ignorance is demonstrated, this time it is an ignorance in knowing how to read and study your Bible. One of the basic rules of Bible interpretation is to KEEP THINGS IN ITS CONTEXT.

The context of I Tim. 6:10 reveals that the “evil” being spoken of is not “evil” in general, but rather a specific type of evil. It is the type of evil that foolish rich men fall into through their lusts. The “goof” here is on the opponent’s behalf in regards to his inability to understand the context of what he is reading in his Bible.

[Manny Rodriguez]

and the omission of "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25.

This is simply an interpolation of the Critical Text (see Nestle/Alands 26th & 27th editions as opposed to Scriviners edition of Beza’s Greek TR). Since we believe that the Received Texts are the proper representation of the Original Autographs, we do not believe this Alexandrian interpolation to have been part of the Original Writings. Therefore, it does not belong in our Bible. Plain and simple.

[Manny Rodriguez]

4.) God did NOT retire in 1611. He goes right on causing His word to be translated in CURRENT language. The KJV was in the most modern English of 1611, but that was almost 400 years ago, & the language has changed considerably since then. Had God updated the translation of His word in English, the following is what we'd be stuck with, from the first-known English Scriptural manuscripts : "“God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."

Recognize that familiar verse? Well, here it is, some 400 years later, from the Wycliffe Bible, the first English version: "for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif,"

Recognize it as John 3:16? How would you like to have no other Bible than this Middle English version? What's what you'd have had God not caused newer translations to have been made to keep up with the changes in the language He was allowing/causing. Well, same with TODAY. While none of those old Bibles has lost its validity, they are not clearly-understood as are versions in OUR English. GOD knows this, and has therefore kept His word available in the language of today.

I agree. God did not retire in 1611, which is why I think the Critical Text crowd is missing the mark by supporting so many updated bibles in English when there are over 3000 languages in the world today that do not have one verse of scripture translated in that language. If the KJV critics would put as much energy into producing God’s word for the rest of the world rather than tearing the KJV down perhaps we’d see some revival around the world.

If the KJV English is so obsolete and unnecessary, why is it that as a Missionary on deputation that travels all over the country, I see so many thriving KJV preaching churches that are flourishing with souls saved, saints growing, and missionaries being sent out throughout the world. The KJV seems to be getting the job done despite being “so hard to understand”. It wasn’t so hard for me to understand when I got saved as a 10 year old little boy who was raised in the Catholic church but got his eyes opened to the truth after reading John 3 in a King James Bible! If it wasn’t so hard for a 10 year old little boy, WHAT’S YOUR PROBLEM?

The deluded opponent said that we “KJVO” people would change once we were presented with “the facts”. Tell him that when he actually HAS SOME, to let us know about it.