[Will Kinney]

The Inerrancy of Scripture - are you a Bible believer or a Bible agnostic?

It is a fact that most professing Christians today do not believe in an inerrant Bible nor in the inerrancy of Scripture in any language. I have put together an rather extensive article with various quotes and polls from present day Evangelicals which prove that this is the present state of Christianity all over the world. You may see it here if you wish. It is called “The Bible is NOT the inspired and inerrant word of God.”

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

I have been in the Bible version discussion now for several years at many different Christian internet forums. During this time I have talked about the inerrancy of the Bible, and more specifically, the inerrancy of the King James Bible, with many different church pastors, seminarians and every day Christians.

What people really believe about “The Bible” can essentially be broken down into 5 different positions regarding the inspiration, preservation and inerrancy of the Bible. Four of them are complete nonsense, yet normally intelligent people often spout them off as though they were irrefutable facts. Only one of them is Biblically correct and in keeping with the truth and faithfulness of Almighty God.

Five Basic Views on the Inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures.

#1. ONLY the originals were inspired and inerrant.

#2. God’s words are preserved somewhere out there among the 5500+ Greek manuscripts.

#3. ALL “reliable, valid versions” are the inspired, perfect, and inerrant words of God.

#4. NO Bible or translation can be the complete and inerrant words of God because they are all made by man. The originals are lost, and thus, there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible in any language.

#5. God has been faithful to His many promises to give us a preserved and inerrant Bible. The sovereignty of God in history and the internal truth of the English text shows us that this inerrant Bible is the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

I will address each of these principal views concerning the inerrancy of Scripture, and will use actual internet discussions to point out the differences and highlight the logic (or total lack thereof) of each position.

#1 ONLY the originals were inspired and inerrant.

A seminarian named Barry takes the ‘originals only’ point of view and posted a “confession of faith” called the Niagara Creed. It is much like the recent Chicago Confession of Faith signed by a bunch of well known modern day Evangelicals.

MY RESPONSE: Hi Barry, I did see the post. In it you mention that you believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture, and then you immediately put as a qualifier "original manuscripts".

Barry, what this means to anybody who thinks about it and takes language literally, is that you believe in something that you know does not exist.

You also said you believe like the the Niagara Conference. I looked it up. It is basically saying the same thing as the recent Chicago confession of faith, and what you will find on most Christians sites and church confessions. Here it is:

The Niagara Bible Conference also resulted in the fourteen point creed otherwise known as the "Niagara Creed."

1. We believe "that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," by which we understand the whole of the book called the Bible; nor do we take the statement in the sense in which it is sometimes foolishly said that works of human genius are inspired, but in the sense that the Holy Ghost gave the very words of the sacred writings to holy men of old; and that His Divine inspiration is not in different degrees, but extends equally and fully to all parts of these writings, historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical and to the smallest word, and inflection of a word, PROVIDED SUCH WORD IS FOUND IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTES: 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:13; Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Acts 1:16; 2:4."

Now THINK about what these men are actually saying. If they were to be cross examined in a court of law, or even by a high school debating team, their "bold confession" would be found to be an empty show of pious sounding words signifying NOTHING.

They like the philosophical concept of the inspiration of Scripture, but utterly lack the reality of an inspired Scripture they can hold in their hands. Notice these last qualifying words (which are just like your own) - "PROVIDED SUCH WORD IS FOUND IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS.”

They talk about the original manuscripts as though they all had these original manuscripts right there in front of them and were able to simply look over and compare their English (or whatever language) translation to what these non existent and never seen "original manuscripts" say, so they can then see how they line up and compare.

Your confession of faith in the Inerrancy of Scripture "provided such word is found in the original manuscripts" means NOTHING! It is a very poorly thought out piece of nonsense which contradicts itself on the foundational level. You are claiming to believe in something you KNOW you do not have and have no way of proving one way or the other.

In addition, this 'confession of faith' in the inerrancy of Scripture effectively steals the Bible from every common Christian who doesn't have a thorough knowledge of the original languages.

And even if he or she did know these original languages, it would still not do him or her any good, because it is an undeniable fact that we do not have any hope at all of ever seeing one scrap of your "original manuscripts" foundation.

I am somewhat amazed that normally intelligent men can put together such a silly piece of self-evident contradiction and try to pass it off as some kind of pious sounding orthodoxy.

You inevitably end up believing just like you told us earlier. You said you don't believe there is any single text or translation that is the pure, preserved, inspired and 100% true words of God in any language on this earth today. - Will Kinney

Another Cemetarian

Another seminarian who criticized our belief that the King James Bible is the perfect and inerrant words of God, took a similar view. He writes:

“This does not follow logically... God does not inspire versions or translations, He inspired the originals, well this is what the orthodox believe... the King James is a translation into English of God's Word, it is definitely not perfect! How could it be? It is the work of man.” (end of quote)

MY RESPONSE: Hi _____ What I have noticed about every single individual who no longer believes in a complete and inerrant Bible, is that there is a fundamental breakdown in their ability to think straight. And then they call their twisted and unbiblical thinking "logical".

First,when you say "God does not inspire translations", you didn't get this from the Bible. Seminary maybe, or from some other pastor who likewise does not believe in an inerrant Bible, but certainly not from the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches that a translation CAN BE the inspired words of God.

“Can a Translation be the Inspired words of God?” http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

Secondly, when you say God only inspired the originals, and the originals no longer exist, then the ONLY logical conclusion is: THERE IS NO INSPIRED BIBLE NOW. But, of course, this is what you really believe isn't it?

Thirdly, If God cannot use "the work of man" to bring forth His perfect words, then there NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN the “originals" in the first place. DUH.

See what I mean? (I doubt it). Once you reject the King James Bible as being the only true words of God, your thinking becomes absurdly illogical and anti-biblical.

#2. God’s words are preserved somewhere out there among the 5500+ Greek manuscripts.

Another well educated Christian (jbh) writes: “Hey, this is what I believe now. That there is no one particular manuscript that is the perfect complete nor is there a translation that is perfectly translated. There is nothing in the Bible that speaks of the perfecting of the Bible."

jbh continues: “The problem is that you equate Bible with book. The bible is made of many books. The Bible was written at different times. The Word of God was promised by God to be preserved. We trust that He has done this. And guess what, He has. we have over 5000 Greek Manuscripts of the Word of God. Some have parts, some have the whole. The issue isn't' that i don't believe the Bible, the issue is that you have made up this fictions idea and used "Bible Believer" for your fictions idea.”

jbh later adds: “My answer, if there is somewhere a perfect copy of the Bible, complete (Gen - Rev) all together in one "Book" we don't know which one it is.

MY RESPONSE: Hi jhb. Like I have been saying all along jbh, you are a Bible agnostic, and every day more and more professing Christians are taking the same position of unbelief you have taken regarding the inerrancy of Scripture.

The word "Bible" means "book". This Bible is composed of 66 individual books now that it is complete. I and many thousands of other Christians believe we have the sure and pure words of God in a single book called the King James Bible (Holy Bible).

Now, let's look at your theory, shall we. You tell us that what we now have are 5000 pieces (mostly scraps and small sections of diverse verses), and not a single one of these is a complete Bible - not one. Not the goofy Sinaiticus nor the Vaticanus mss. are complete Bibles or even New Testaments, and they disagree with each other some 4000 significant times in the New Testament alone.

You do not accept all the conflicting readings found in these 5000 + manuscripts, and will not take a stand on anything for sure as being the complete and 100% true words of God.

You have already told us: "This is what I believe now. That there is no one particular manuscript that is the perfect complete nor is there a translation that is perfectly translated. There is nothing in the Bible that speaks of the perfecting of the Bible."

I have told you where I believe the perfect Bible is now and has been for almost 400 years now - the Authorized King James Holy Bible. You yourself have admitted that you do not know nor even believe that such a thing exists.

God calls us to faith in His words and promises. I believe The Book. You do not. You don't even have "the book" to believe in. Instead you now have 5000+ scraps of wildly conflicting readings and you do not know which ones are right and which are not.

Your view of Preservation is like saying God's words are preserved in Webster's unabridged dictionary - "they're in there SOMEWHERE, all mixed up with thousands that are not right and all out of order, but Hey, they're "preserved" somewhere in there."

Now, you can dispute all this as much as you please, but the end result is that I and thousands of other Christians believe we have the perfect Bible (all present 66 books in a single volume), and You do not have nor believe in any bible in any language as the pure and complete words of God.

jbh then comes back with this response:”He is saying Faith in having a pure and perfect Bible being in our hands knowing that every English word is pure and perfect. this is not Faith in God. If it is, then tell me where this "BOOK" was prior to 1611. Tell me where these promises of the perfect "BOOK" are. Remember, Paul didn't have a "BOOK."

I have faith in what the Bible teaches. I believe that Jesus died, was buried and rose again. It is in the Bible This is faith in the Word of God. I believe that Salvation by grace and not works. It is in the Bible. This is faith in the Word of God. I believe in the trinity. it is in the Bible. This is faith in the Word of God. I do not believe that the KJV is THE perfect Bible. It is NOT in the Bible. To still believe this is faith in man.” (end of quotes)

MY RESPONSE: Hi jbh. As I read the Scriptures (and by the Scriptures I mean the King James Bible) it gives me a lot of promises about the true words of God.

You keep telling us you have faith in what "the Bible" teaches, yet it is abundantly obvious that you have no such tangible thing as "the Bible"; instead you have 5000+ scraps of conflicting partial readings.

What I think is a more honest evaluation of your position is that you have faith in SOME PARTS of what WOULD make up a bible IF there WERE such a thing.

You say there is no such "Book" and tell us that the Bible never promises there would be a perfect book. However the Scripture definitely seems to teach that there is "the book of the LORD" somewhere in existence on this planet, and it definitely would not be in those 5000+ wildly divergent readings found in these confused and contradictory scraps. That is not a book nor are they "The Bible" you say you have faith in.

(By the way, I DID answer jbh’s question about where the words of God were before 1611. He just didn’t like the answer. Here it is for those who wish to see it.)

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html

The Bible says in Psalm 19:7 "The law of the LORD is PERFECT, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is SURE, making wise the simple." God says His word (same as law) is perfect.

There are a multitude of verses that teach there will be a tangible Book. Sure, the revelation of God's words was a continuing process carried out over centuries, and even a silence of more than 400 years between testaments, but "the Scripture cannot be broken". Your "scripture" is all broken up into 5000+ conflicting and partial manuscripts, and that is not even considering the Hebrew texts that are so often rejected by such modern versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and even the NKJV, and not even in the same places.

You accuse me of using circular reasoning, and yet your reasoning has left you with no sure or perfect words of God. I see my reasoning as the logic of faith. God said there would be "the book of the Lord" and I assume He really meant what He promised. I then look for the evidence of where this book is found NOW, and all the evidence clearly points to the King James Bible as being the providentially approved true Bible.

I also look at what has been the result of your side of things with your 5000 + yada, yadas, and "nobody knows for sure" philosophy, and clearly see an abandoning of the doctrine of the Inerrancy of Scripture and people read and believe the multitude of conflicting and watered down modern versions less and less. The Bible itself says that GOD Himself will send a famine of hearing His words, and this is happening right now. (Amos 8:8)

THE SO CALLED “SCIENCE OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM”

Another seminarian named Barry wrote this: “The best thing for you to do is to stop reading KJV Only historical revisionism and to learn Greek, how to translate and the process of textual criticism.”

MY RESPONSE: "The best thing we can do is learn Greek and textual criticism". Yeah, right. Then we can become just as confused and uncertain about our Bibles as you guys are.

Your so called "science" of textual criticism is a hugh and pathetic joke. It will probably lead most of you Textual Scholars off into Agnostic Land just like it did with Bart Ehrman.

Bart Ehrman was a “born again” Evangelical who started studying textual criticism in seminary and sat under Bruce Metzger, chief editor of the UBS critical text, which forms the basis of such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman Standard versions. Bart is now going around the country giving seminars on how The Bible is a man made book filled with contradictions. He even refers to himself as “a happy agnostic”.

I have read his book, Misquoting Jesus, and have written a response to it that can be seen here:

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

If anybody wants to see what the whole buffoonery of "Textual Criticism" is, I have studied it for a few years now and can document what this farce is all about. I have five of my own articles documenting the fickleness and foolishness of this so called "$cience". It starts here:

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

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

#3. ALL “reliable, valid versions” are the inspired, perfect, and inerrant words of God.

Once in awhile I have run into a professing Christians who tries to tell us that all “valid versions” (they usually list 5 or 6 like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, KJV, and Holman Standard) are the inspired, perfect and inerrant words of God.

A man who goes by 1611ED posts the following: “God's word as found in the HCSB is inerrant, inspired by God, and FLAWLESS in all matters in what it means. I believe in All English Bibles are the complete, perfect, preserved, inspired and inerrant words of God. That includes the three different KJVs, the TNIV, the HCSB, the two Geneva Bibles that I have (1560 & 1599), that includes NLT I have.

MY RESPONSE: Hi Ed. I guess that only among present day Christian circles could somebody make the statement that "ALL English Bibles are the complete, perfect, preserved, inspired and inerrant words of God.", and still be thought of as a "deeply spiritual" and rational person.

In spite of the FACTS that all your English bibles differ from each other by as many as 5000 words, 45 entire verses omitted in the texts of some but not in other, scores of different Old Testament texts affecting numerous names, numbers, and entire verses, and literally hundreds of very different meanings in hundreds of verses, many of them affecting essential Christian doctrine, yet these are "all perfect and inerrant".

This is the level to which modern day Christiandumb has now sunk. Try taking your totally illogical and obviously absurd position that all these contradictory and confused versions are all perfect and inerrant before any court of law or even a high school debate team and see how long your silliness would last before they shot it down in flames.

We have enough opposition from the world because we believe in the living God and the gospel of redemption through our Lord Jesus Christ. But when professing Christians come out with the nonsense you just gave us, small wonder that they think Christians are idiots.

The more I see how you fellas reason the truer this saying seems - "If you mess with The Book, God will mess with your minds." Will K

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++

There is another man out there on the internet who is well known on many Christian forums. He goes by the screen name of Robycop, and we King James Bible believers have been dealing with his wacko ways for years now. I like to refer to him as the Elmer Fudd of the internet. He is always tripping over his own tongue and speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Brother Brent Riggs, a strong King James Bible believer and missionary to Poland, had this very well expressed response to Robycop’s double-speak:

Brent writes: Dear Robycop, I do not believe a myth - any myth. I do not promote any myth. I do believe the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures in the English language is clearly the word of God. You have made the same profession. The difference between our professions is simple: I'm honest and consistent with my profession. You, however, waver in the wind. One moment in a gallant attempt to prove that you believe the word of God you say: "Valid versions are the word of God", "The AV is a valid version" and "Every valid version is equally inspired". And to press your point further you have said: "The AV (along with other valid versions) is perfect, inerrant, 100% God's word." But then the wind shifts and you proclaim: "The KJV is NOT perfect", "The KJV has undeniable errors in it" and "The KJV has boo-boos". This type of behavior is normally found in younger people who are unsure of their profession. By your own profession you are not a young man, so I must ask: What is your excuse?

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Make up your mind! Do you want to stand with the skeptics of the world or believe the word of God? Make up your mind and then stick with it. Honesty and sincerity demands it of you.

God's word is not limited by your unbelief, doubt and skepticism, note what God's word says as opposed to your shifting opinion:

Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Ps 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Ps 106:12 Then believed they his words; they sang his praise.

Pr 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. In Jesus' Name, Brent Riggs

#4. NO Bible or translation can be the complete and inerrant words of God because they are all made by man.

This is the claim constantly made by the liberals, atheists, Muslims, and Bible bashers all over the world. Unfortunately, this claim is now also being made by many professing Christians.

One such seminarian who calls himself Budding Theologian even gave us three contradictory views over the course of just 2 to 3 weeks. He actually listed these three views concering the preserved and inerrant words of God as being his own.

#1. "In the 5500+ manuscripts" (but he don't know which ones are right)

#2. "There is no one particular manuscript that is the perfect complete nor is there a translation that is perfectly translated." And lastly...

#3. "More than one English translation. We also believe every word found within them.”

MY RESPONSE to BT. - This is typical of the double or even triple speak we hear from today's seminarians and evangelical leaders when they begin to address the issue of the Inerrancy of the Scriptures, along with their "originals only" nonsense.

You guys have nothing to stand on and your case is getting worse and worse with every newly perverted bible version that comes down the pike. This is why fewer and fewer professing Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture every day. In my view, it is all part of prophecy being fulfilled. There will come a falling away from the faith first, before the return of the Lord Jesus Christ in power and glory. It is happening and nobody is going to stop it.

I and many thousand of other Bible believers are simply telling people that God has not left the scene; He has kept His promises to preserve His words in a real and tangible Book where you can in truth believe every word, and find a refuge for your soul.

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

THE NIV

Let’s for a moment take a look at what we find in the Introduction of the popular NIV. You may be surprised.

Some versions like the RSV omit some 45 entire verses from the N.T. plus another 2000-3000 words. ALL modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard believe the Hebrew texts have been lost or corrupted in numerous places, and all of these versions omit anywhere from 17 to 45 whole verses from the N.T. Yet God can use them because the gospel is still found in them, though mixed with other errors.

NOBODY who knows the minimum about the textual differences defends any of them as being the complete and inerrant Bible. Surely not the people who put them out.

What do the NIV editors think about their own version? They tell us in the NIV Introduction -"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect men, this one UNDOUBTEDLY FALLS SHORT of its goals."

They got two things wrong and only one right. By their saying all translations fall short, they have effectively stripped the inerrant Bible out of the hands of the common man, and imply that no translation can be the pure words of God. They sure didn't get this unbelief from the Bible itself. The Bible clearly teaches that a translation CAN BE the inspired and pure words of God.

They also reveal their unbiblical stand and deep ignorance by their stupid statement "made by imperfect men". If God cannot use "imperfect men" to give us His words, then we would never have had "the originals" to begin with!

The only thing they got right was " this one UNDOUBTEDLY FALLS SHORT."

You can get saved using versions like the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV and Holman, but your faith will be weakened and you will be more open to the fiery darts of the wicked concerning the truth of your faith in the gospel of Christ. Why? Because this gospel is only found in a Book than none of them believe is 100% true. At what point does God start to tell them the truth?

The church began to formulate their formal confessions of faith in the inerrancy of Scripture only after the King James Bible came on the scene. People believed in the Inerrancy of Scripture for 300 years or more. But now the majority belief is that "only" the lost and never seen originals "were" (past tense) inspired and inerrant.

It is well documented that the vast majority of seminarians and pastors no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

God is sovereign in history and it is my belief that He directed the bringing forth of the greatest Bible in history and put it in the universal end-times language of English. It is the Bible God uses and Satan hates. It is the only Bible believed by multiplied thousands to be the preserved words of the living God. It is the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

#5. God has been faithful to His many promises to give us a preserved and inerrant Bible. The sovereignty of God in history and the internal truth of the English text shows us that this inerrant Bible is the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

Answering the Bible Agnostics in their attacks on The Inerrancy of Scripture

There is another seminary educated man who posted at the Fighting Fundamental Forum when I began defending the doctrine of the Inerrant Scriptures as found in the King James Bible. Here is our dialogue:

Originally Posted by xtreme_devotion_120: “I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the non-KJV only believers aren't arguing against the bibles innerancy as the word of God, but rather your (and those in agreement with you) naive claims that the KJV is the ONLY inspired bible in the English language, besides all the other ones in the English language before it, of course.” (end of quotes)

MY RESPONSE: Hi xd. It is a simple fact that the vast majority of non-King James Bible believers, and all those who "use" such versions as the NASB, ESV, NIV, NKJV, NET, Holman Standard or anything else DO NOT BELIEVE that ANY Bible or ANY text in ANY language IS NOW the inerrant words of God.

This should be a very easy statement to disprove if you in fact do believe in the Inerrancy of the Scriptures. All you have to do to prove otherwise is to tell us what the Inerrant Bible is called and where we can get a copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we are using now. Will you do that for us? Not a chance.

Quote from xtreme_devotion: “Now if you believe the translation differences change doctrine, then we should talk. But don't state, for instance, that the NIV takes "Lord" out of the bible x amount of times. That is a two edged statement as it can easily be reversed, yet is only essentially thought to be valid based on the core text (KJV), which is the issue at hand.” (end of quote)

MY RESPONSE: Brother, there are LOTS of serious doctrinal errors in the new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman junk.

Here are some concrete examples. Problem is, most Christians today do not care for and are not interested in doctrine. Are you willing to actually take the time and interest in looking at how the modern versions have perverted sound doctrine?

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

Quote by xtreme_devotion: “Let me ask you, do you believe God smiles upon you when you accuse other Christians of not taking a stand on the KJV? Do you think God believe you "have His back?" If not, why do you do it?” (end of quote)

MY RESPONSE: XD, Most Christians no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture or of ANY Bible. This is a fact. This is why people like Barry P. won't tell you where you can find the inerrant Bible. This is why some post the incredibly idiotic affirmation that 5 or 6 "valid versions" like the NKJV, NIV, KJV, NASB, ESV and Holman Standard are "all the perfect and inerrant words of God", even though these versions differ among themselves by literally THOUSANDS of words in the very texts, numerous different names and numbers in the same verses, and radically change the meanings of hundreds of verses. That is how loopy modern Christianity has become.

I don't think God is smiling on me because I accuse other Christians of not using the KJV. You missed the point. I am merely pointing out the fact that most Christians today do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture as a reality now. They do not have any bible or texts that they believe ARE the inerrant words of God. The polls show this. Even the modern version advocates are now deeply worried that something is wrong in Christiandumb, because only about 10% of professing Christians even read their 'bibles' from one Sunday to the next.

When the spiritual flavor of these perverted bibles tastes more like cardboard than "the honeycomb" of the pure words of God as found only in the King James Bible, I am not surprised.

However I do believe God is pleased that I take Him at His word and believe the HOLY BIBLE IS the inspired and inerrant words of the living God. It should be pointed out, that I have not come to the conviction that the Authorized King James Bible is the only true, preserved, inspired and 100% true words of God by my own intelligence, prayers, or personal righteousness. It is all by the sovereign grace of God that I DO believe the Book. Faith is a gift from God. To those who do not believe, God Himself sends strong delusion that they should believe a lie.

Quote by xtreme_devotion: “Would you say worshipping the KJV as a "god" is in fact putting a "god" before the true God? If not, please explain.”

MY RESPONSE: XD, Why do you fellas keep bringing up this really silly and totally unfounded accusation? Don't you pay attention to our answers? Do you just hear what you want to hear?

I know of no King James Bible believer who worships the King James Bible as his god. I have no altars or candles or burning incense dedicated to my Holy Bible. I often write in the margins, underline passages, and have spilled coffee on it. I toss it in the back of my car and sometimes forget where I put it.

Don't try this childish tactic of trying to discredit the messenger just because you don't like his message.

Now, about that inerrant Bible you seem to be claiming you believe in. Will you be so kind as to tell us where we can get a copy of it so we too can find out what God REALLY said? (end of dialogue with xd)

Getting most seminarians and Bible of the Month Club pastors to admit the fact that they do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture is like trying to nail jello to a tree. They will sqirm, and fudge and try to misdirect our attention off into the usual “Well, what about before 1611?”, or “What about the printing errors”, or “What about other languages?”, but even their questions imply what they REALLY believe, that is, that there is no inerrant Bible in any language on this earth today.

The King James Bible believer DOES take God at His word and believes The Book. There are a multitude of reasons to do so. You will find many of these listed here under the article titled: “Is King James Onlyism Scriptural?”

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

The all important question to ask yourself is this: Are you a Bible Believer or a Bible Agnostic?

May God be pleased to open the blind eyes and grant His gift of faith to believe the greatest Book on the earth, the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

Accepted in the Beloved, - Ephesians 1:6,

Will Kinney

[George]

Aloha brother Will,

As usual, another excellent article. Keep em coming!

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by George

Aloha brother Will,

As usual, another excellent article. Keep em coming!

Hi George. Thanks for the encouragement. However it is obvious that not all have ears to hear. Here are the first two responses I got from this article over at the Fighting Fundamental Forum.

First replies over at FFF

RabbiKnife
Regular Contributor
Are you a Christian?:*Yes, I am a Christian.
***
*
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 177


Guess that all depends on how you describe Bible.

I guess -- in your paradigm -- I am one of those silly, misguided heretics that believes in the absolute inerrancy of the original autographs.

Not interested in your KJVO propaganda, although you are of course, welcome to it.

The KJV is a fine translation of a select group of texts, but it is not perfect.

* #4 * * *
Today, 03:20 PM
Joey Porter
Regular Contributor
Are you a Christian?:*Yes, I am a Christian.
***
*
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 121


Common sense tells us that there is no such thing as an "inerrant bible" in this day and age. Sure, the original scriptures were inerrant, but any decent bible should be full of footnotes on every page saying things like "Original meaning of Hebrew word is uncertain" or "Text does not appear in earliest manuscripts," etc. Just the fact alone that those footnotes exist shows us that the bibles of today are not completely inerrant.

All of this on top of the fact that many publishers have a page at the front of the bible saying that the translation (whatever translation it may be) is not perfect.

The King James may be the worst of all modern translations. Not only is it outdated wording, but there have been literally thousands of corrections made to it over the years since 1611. The Apocrypha was included in the original King James bible. If the KJ is inerrant and inspired, should those books still be in it?

Again, it is common sense that we have no "inerrant bibles."(end of quotes)

So, as you can see, there is a lot of unbelief out there,just like God's word says there will be in the last days.

Thank God for His precious words of truth - the Holy Bible.

Will K

Will, I have read your work for years, and have found your articles the most articulated available and have a very difficult time with so called believers who in the face of the truth continue in the deception of perversion versions. What will be there end?

I am a Protestant. Protestants establish the canon by scriptural principles. According to those principles, no translation is canon (meaning in the context of this post -- the precise equivalent of the Word of God). (Of course quotes of a translation within Scripture are canon, but only as much as is quoted, not the entire translated work. The
Catholics use NT quotations of the Septuagint as proof this entire ancient Greek translation is canon -- but Protestants reject this quotation principle for establishing canonicity, as it is not established within Scripture). But you do not address the main issue by Protestants on rejecting a translation as canon because it does not meet Scriptural criterion.

Where in Scripture are principles established for upholding a translation as the Word of God. Or are you using the Catholic argument? Then, do you hold to the Catholic canon? Do you believe the canon is established not by principles of Scripture, but by the Roman Catholic Church? In what way do you believe the KJV is confirmed by Scriptural principles as being the equivalent of the original writings? Or are you saying we must reject the principle of Sola Scriptura in establishing what is Scripture?

I'm not looking for an argument, but only for a more complete explanation of your position. I only browsed your article. It is quite long. So I was hoping you would concisely comment on these questions.

M Paul

I wonder -- did I post with you once years ago in the Jesus Christ Saves Ministries forum run by a Jason someone? The software there was impossible.

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by Scott Simons

Will, I have read your work for years, and have found your articles the most articulated available and have a very difficult time with so called believers who in the face of the truth continue in the deception of perversion versions. What will be there end?

Hi brother Scott. It is always good to hear from other Bible believers. I know there are many who resist and fight against the truth of the Book, but I do not believe this necessarily makes them children of the devil nor on their way to hell. Of course there are many who are not Christians who hate the Book too, but I believe a big part of God's dealing with His people is to humble us and show us just how wrong we can be without His leading in our lives.

Every mouth will be stopped on that great day. We will all recognize that if we have seen anything of truth or been conformed to the image of Christ to any degree, it was all by the grace of God and not our own doing.

I know of many Christians who love the Lord and yet do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in a real and tangible book now. It almost seems like a contradiction to me, but that is how they think.

God bless,

Will K

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by M Paul

I am a Protestant. Protestants establish the canon by scriptural principles. According to those principles, no translation is canon (meaning in the context of this post -- the precise equivalent of the Word of God). ...

Where in Scripture are principles established for upholding a translation as the Word of God. ... In what way do you believe the KJV is confirmed by Scriptural principles as being the equivalent of the original writings? Or are you saying we must reject the principle of Sola Scriptura in establishing what is Scripture?

I'm not looking for an argument, but only for a more complete explanation of your position. I only browsed your article. It is quite long. So I was hoping you would concisely comment on these questions.

M Paul

I wonder -- did I post with you once years ago in the Jesus Christ Saves Ministries forum run by a Jason someone? The software there was impossible.

Hi M Paul. I do believe a translation CAN BE the true words of God and I believe it is a biblical principle. And, Yes, I did debate Jason on the Bible version issue.

Here is the link to an article I wrote about how a translation can be the true words of God.

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

Blessings,

Will K

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

Here is the link to an article I wrote about how a translation can be the true words of God.

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

Blessings,

Will K

OK, this seems to be the essence of your position from the linked article.
<<<If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God...The point is that a translation CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating. >>>

We know that specific passages of translation found in the NT have a God given meaning, because an apostle inspired by God, as verified by the Christian community according to principles of Scripture, upheld that particular translated meaning. (But that is not to say the NT translation is the total range of meaning of the OT passage).

But how is the KJV verified by principles of Scripture as being the equivalent of canon?? Are you saying that the translators were prophets or apostles, as verified by miraculous signs and predicting the future, and that they had Jewish lineage?? Particular passages of Scripture in large part verifies other scripture as Scripture (meaning the Scriptural principles of canonicity were confirmed by the people of God at the time of writing), but not the KJV. And Scripture at times relies on non-canonical works, not because these are inspired, but because they touch upon concepts that a prophet or apostle wanted to address under divine inspiration.

M Paul

Yes, I remember you from JCSM. I did not see the debate with Jason, but we had some exchanges. We disagreed then on things, but now I only seek that you set out your position more fully.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

MPaul, sometimes you write a bit cryptically and strangely, so let's give a go.

Originally Posted by M Paul

Protestants establish the canon by scriptural principles.

The canon being the books of the Bible (possibly also the chapters and sections, such as the resurrection accounts of Jesus given by Mark). Presumably you are referring to apostolic authorship, consistency, sense of inspiration, acceptance by the body of believers, early authorship and recognition.

Originally Posted by M Paul

According to those principles, no translation is canon (meaning in the context of this post -- the precise equivalent of the Word of God).

However that is not the definition of the canon at all. The definition of the canon says nothing at all about what languages texts are originally written in (sometimes unknown or conjectural) nor what languages a text is being read in today.

Originally Posted by M Paul

(Of course quotes of a translation within Scripture are canon, but only as much as is quoted, not the entire translated work. The Catholics use NT quotations of the Septuagint as proof this entire ancient Greek translation is canon

That is not exactly accurate either, and it is far afield. Plus the theory of NT quotations of the Greek OT is basically fallacious, as the later Greek OT was smoothed to be closer to the NT (see Psalm 14 and Romans 3 as the textbook example). Plus the RCC does not use the Greek Septuagint (you are actually trying to discuss the Apocrypha) they have used the 400 AD Latin translation from the Hebrew-Aramaic by Jerome, which is quite close to the Hebrew-Aramaic Masoretic Text. While they now accept the Hebrew as an alternate translation base to the Latin Vulgate. The fundamental Greek OT has never been an RCC staple, even while taking in books as deutero-canonical (or whatever terms they have used) in whatever languages those books are available, which varies over Greek, Latin and Hebrew.

Originally Posted by M Paul

-- but Protestants reject this quotation principle for establishing canonicity, as it is not established within Scripture). But you do not address the main issue by Protestants on rejecting a translation as canon because it does not meet Scriptural criterion.

There is no need to address a 'principle' that does not historically exist and has been expressed or defended in a consistent manner. The historic Reformation view never considered translations as anything less than 100% canon-accurate.

Originally Posted by M Paul

Where in Scripture are principles established for upholding a translation as the Word of God.

Many places. e.g. Timothy read the Scriptures and there is no indication that this was dependent on his reading original languages or dialects.

Originally Posted by M Paul

Or are you using the Catholic argument?

Since you do not even know the Catholic position on the Greek OT, which you used as your argumentation base, I think we can pass by this section.

Originally Posted by M Paul

.... Or are you saying we must reject the principle of Sola Scriptura in establishing what is Scripture?

Yet another confusion in your writing. There is nothing in the principle of Sola Scriptura that is language-dependent. Same situation as with canon.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven,

OK, for people who have not studied how Protestants determine the canon, I'll copy here how I have posted on it in the past.

Re: Canonicity

Actually, there are entire books from Protestantism which review how the canon is established. You will find these consistent in principle. Two of the most recent popularly quoted works are The Canon of Scripture by F. F. Bruce and A General Introduction to the Bible, part two, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix. In this post I will try to present merely the essence of the line of reasoning.

God promised the Hebrews that he would raise up prophets in the manner of Moses to act as his spokesman. Their writings were placed in the ark of covenant to indicate their sacred status. These prophets (and in the NT, an apostle is the equivalent of a prophet) were verified by their ability to perform signs and wonders, to foretell the future (that would have to be near future for the purpose of satisfying the biblical test), while having a message consistent with prior Scripture. See -- Deuteronomy 13:1-3; 18:15-22; 31:9.

The question for determining canon is how to verify the biblical test for a prophet or apostle for succeeding generations, at least for performing miracles and predicting the future. This can be established by -- 1. internal evidence of a book of Scripture; 2. the testimony of other Scripture; 3. the testimony of the Jewish or early Christian community.

Note the Old and New Testaments often use the words "thus saith the Lord, or "it is written: Exodus 24:12; II Samuel 23:1-3; II kings 20:1,5; Jeremiah 1:19; 5:14; 7:27; Mark 1:2; Acts 1:20; Romans:17; I Corinthians 1:19, and the Bible represents itself as the Word of God. However, the prophets or apostles may have used secretaries; for example, Baruch for Jeremiah, 36:4, or Tertius for the apostle Paul, Romans 16:22.

“Paul affirmed his writings as the Word God, I Corinthians 2:12, 13; 14:37; Galatians 1:11-12," and “Peter placed Paul's writings on the level of Scripture, II Peter 3:15, 16. " (I'm quoting myself from "What is the Bible?"). "Jesus upheld the authority and inerrancy of Scripture in his teachings, Matthew 5:18; Mark 7:13; Luke 16:31; 24:27; John 10:35... Jesus authenticated in advance the writing of the New Testament, John 14:26."

We know what constituted the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) in Christ’s time, as the council of Jamnia (if it was a council, rather than just a review session by Rabbis), around 90 A. D., confirmed as authoritative the books already upheld by tradition. It is not known when the canon was established by the Jews, but usually scriptures were recognized quickly. Josephus notes, in Against Apion—again around 90 A.D., the succession of prophecy ceased in the time of Artaxerxes. He also reports a closed canon, designating books corresponding to the traditional text.

The Apocrypha does not uphold itself as the Word of God. In fact, I Maccabees 9:27, written around 120-100 B.C., alludes to the prior cessation of the prophets. The Apocrypha was never recognized as canon by the Jews. There is no evidence of authorship by a prophet either internally, through confirmation by other Scripture, or by the witness of the Jewish community.

Greek speaking Christians used a translation of the OT made in the mid-third century B.C., the Septuagint, the Greek word for 70, represented by the symbol LXX, for a large Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt, and this work contains the Apocrypha. The letter of Aristeas, around 130-100 B.C., notes that 72 translators came from Jerusalem and worked in isolation for 72 days, creating 72 identical texts. A curse was pronounced on anyone who would dare add to or take away from this text. Thus, from the earliest times, Greek speaking Jews regarded the LXX as having the same status as the original Hebrew. The Christians also accepted the translation as inspired. Note this quote from Augustine’s City of God.

"For the same Spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke of these things was also in the seventy men when they translated them... If, then, as it behooves us, we behold nothing else in these Scriptures than what the Spirit of God has spoken through men, if anything is in the Hebrew copies and is not in the version of the Seventy, the Spirit of God did not choose to say it through them, but only through the prophets. But whatever is in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew copies, the same Spirit chose rather to say through the latter, thus showing that both were prophets." ( Book XVIII, Ch. XLIII, as translated by Marcus Dods, D.D., Random House's Modern Library, 1950).

However, it is not even known what constitutes the original text of the LXX, how many translations or revisions were involved, or even what Hebrew text was used. The current version is from a late manuscript. Because the Christians used the LXX so much, the Jews denounced it and made a new translation. They especially did not like the reference to a “virgin” at Isaiah 7:14, which could be translated “young woman.”

When a need for a Latin Bible arose in northern Africa, translations appeared based on the LXX, which included the Apocrypha, without distinction of status, but Anthanasius, a fourth century bishop of Alexandria, noted the works as having a lower canonical status, not suitable for doctrine, in a letter with the first use of the word “canon.“ The regional councils of Hippo and Carthage in the fourth and fifth centuries recognized the Apocrypha as canon without distinction on status, under the influence of Augustine. The council of Rome, 382, also included the Apocrypha, and at this time, Jerome was asked to create a revision of the Latin Bible.

In debate with Catholics, Luther questioned the authority of the Apocrypha, which led to Protestants questioning its divine inspiration, and its official rejection by the mid 17th century.