Dr. James White: Which Bible translation is the most reliable? Episode 1326

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Daily Clips and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to Dr. James White: Which Bible translation is the most reliable? Episode 1326

  1. willjkinney says:

    James White gave you a LOT of false information and I can prove it. He is in fact promoting the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB. Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new “Vatican Versions”
    http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm
    See the documentation from the Nestle-Aland textbook, the UBS homepage and the Vatican’s own website.

    Why is Wretched unwilling to allow the KJB side to be heard? What are you afraid of? I am willing to discuss/debate this issue with James White or anyone else and present the facts and prove that James White is lying when he says he believes the Bible is the infallible words of God.
    “Truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.” Isaiah 59:14

    • Lance says:

      What is KJB?

      • willjkinney says:

        KJB is simply the King James Bible. Originally when it came out the only title it has printed on it was The Holy Bible. That lasted for many years. But when the perverted versions began to come on the scene like the Revised Version and ASV, then they had to try to distinguish the Holy Bible from the others. So they started to call it the Authorized Version in England and the King James Version here in America.

        The King James Bible the ONLY Bible believed by thousands even today to be the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. NOBODY seriously believes the ESVs, NIVs, NASBs (Yes, they keep on changing from one edition to the next) are the infallible words of God. And with good reason – they aren’t. They are the new Vatican Versions.

        God bless.

      • Tyler Alexander says:

        I invite you willjkenny to explain the contradiction in Gen 22:1 & James 1:13. Most would agree that God’s word is not going to contradict itself, for God is not the author of confusion. His word has no contradictions, the KJV does however.

    • Joe Wisnieski says:

      I live in Southern California, what version of the Bible would you recommend for Spanish speaking Christians?

      • willjkinney says:

        Hi Joe. You post: “I live in Southern California, what version of the Bible would you recommend for Spanish speaking Christians?”

        Good question. I love the Spanish language and was a high school Spanish teacher before I recently retired from teaching. I lived in South America for 6 years and speak Spanish fluently. There are a couple of excellent Spanish Bibles I know of. One is older and one is modern. The best Spanish Bibles are the 1602 Cipriano de Valera and the 2004-2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible. They follow the Hebrew Masoretic texts all the way through (unlike versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and the NIV Spanish and Portuguese versions) and the Traditional Greek text for the New Testament. If you are not familiar with the Reina Valera Gómez bible, here is a link where you can see it. It is starting to become quite popular now. The same type of battle for the Bible is going on among Spanish speakers also – the Traditional Reformation text versus the new Vatican Version Critical text “bibles”.

        The Reina Valera Gómez Bible online

        http://www.reinavaleragomez.com/RVGhtml/index.html

        !Qué Dios te bendiga y que te guarde del mal!

      • Erick A says:

        willjkinney – I grew up with the non-sense ‘King James Version – every other version is a perversion’. You state, for Spanish speakers, there are a ‘couple of good versions’ — but in English, there can be only 1 good version. Don’t you think that is hypocrisy? As for me, I prefer the King James Version myself, because I love and appreciate old English literature. But the Bible gives NO authority to a specific English specific version of the Bible. Period. White just proved that there have been changes even to the KJV centuries before our present day (it is different from the 1500s to the 1700s). The whole ‘It’s a Vatican Conspiracy’ claim is the same old argument I see from my IFB brothers and sisters time and time again. It is a tiresome, baseless claim. But I can only assume in your mind, Todd Friel, me, and others who have no problem with the NKJV or NASV, are co-conspirators with Pope Francis himself. I find that fascinating.

    • Daniel says:

      I I don’t understand how you can claim that the KJB Bible is the ONLY complete, innerrant Bible, when in fact the Bible was originally not written in English, but in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. King James version is indeed a translation, and most probably contains variations from the original language, because not everything can be expressed the same from Hebrew to English for example.

    • Burl Nicholson says:

      Exactly why have you not brought on someone to speak on behalf of the AV? Where does wrethed stand om this do you also believe the King James Bible is flawed?

      • willjkinney says:

        Hi Burl Nicholson. I think both Wretched and James White are afraid that their real position regarding the Bible version will be exposed and they will be shown to be in fact Bible agnostics who do not know for sure what God may or may not have said in hundreds of instances and that when people like James White says “I believe the Bible IS the infallible words of God.”, he is in fact lying about this. James White couldn’t show you a copy of this infallible Bible he SAYS he believes in if his life depended on it. And he is in fact now promoting the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and I can prove it from documentation taken from right out of their own Nestle-Aland critical Greek textbook, the UBS homepage and the Vatican’s own website.

        And Yes, I do believe God has given us an inerrant Bible and it is the King James Bible. You will notice that James White never allows for comments on his videos and Wretched has blocked me from posting on their Facebook site. They apparently do not want the other side to be heard.

        God bless.

      • Burl Nicholson says:

        Willkinney..I have read many of your comments here and wanted to say thank you!! You are helping to educate a number of mislead but well intentioned people. Like Reagan said of liberals.. its not that they are stupid its just that what they know is wrong.

        Thank you Again!
        I have posted many comments on wretcheds fb link to this video giving the facts and history and James Whites groupies are there in full mockery mode.

        Really wish you were in that debate, you have an enormously great grasp on this subject. Thanks for sharing here. Glad i found this page tonight and see far more is being said than I knew about.

      • willjkinney says:

        Hi Burl Nicholson. Thank you for your comments. Yes, I wish they would allow me into the discussion. One has to wonder why they keep me blocked from the Bible version discussion. I am very willing to address the issues they bring up and attempt to actually give an answer to any question they may throw at me regarding why I and thousands of others believe the King James Bible is the only true, complete and 100% inerrant words of God. You are correct – There is a lot of misinformation out there and James White is one of the leading misinformers as he peddles the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET versions.

        The Ever Changing ESVs = just another Vatican Version

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

        “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8

        “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” 1 Corinthians 14:38

        God bless.

    • Matt says:

      here you go buddy.

    • Ding Arling says:

      I have watched debates and lectures given by James white on a number of subjects concerning apologetics and have found him to be logical and level headed.
      I think if you want to make a profound and snarky attacks from the anonymity of the internet you should come up with something better than a straw man argument

    • Brady Hawkins says:

      I’m really shocked you don’t get what Dr. James White is saying… and no you don’t have to just read King James to be saved. That’s an emotional position, and just like the video debate in this comment, The King James only bible says people who don’t read the KJV aren’t saved. Which is ridiculous because your judging people on your own without God ever saying that. I really don’t see how you don’t realize this to be a problem. All Dr. James White is saying is that other bibles explain certain things better, he isn’t even attacking it. Then you go on to flat out call him a liar… so you’ve never lied? Can we actually reason here because it sounds like your not even listening to Dr. James White.

      • Mike Sampat says:

        ‘The King James only bible says people who don’t read the KJV aren’t saved.”

        This is not true. No KJV-Only person believes that people cannot be saved if they read another Bible. The argument is that those Bibles are not correct, that the KJV is superior. That is all.

    • Do you understand that in the Masoretic Text that a large number of prophecies of Jesus vanish?

    • discipleofchrist15 says:

      He would mop the floor with you friend. I can’t believe you are conspiracy theorists on top of blind.

  2. willjkinney says:

    Six Lies Modern Scholarship Tells Us

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

    Compare the quotes from James White’s book about the early manuscripts. Then compare what the NKJV (who are NOT KJB only) say in their version about the textual evidence. It is the exact opposite. Somebody is lying.

    “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8

    Why is Wretched unwilling to let the other side be heard?

    • Mike says:

      What does hath mean?

      • willjkinney says:

        Hi Mike. You ask “What does “hath” mean? Have these modern Vatican Versions so dulled your senses that you are unaware of the meaning of the word “hath”? I don’t think you actually have been dumbed down this badly yet, have you? No, you are probably just mocking, which is about all the modern Vatican Version users have to resort to in order to try to defend their Bible Babble Buffet versions that nobody seriously believes are God’s infallible words.

        Let me ask you something. You apparently are either ignorant of this or are (more likely) just mocking, but do you know the difference between all those “ye”s and “You” and all those “thee”, “thou” and “thy”s that are found, not only in the King James Bible, but in many others as well? Did you even know there is a difference? They are there for a reason. Most languages in the world have these same distinctions. They are there in the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts. Do you happen to know what the difference in meaning is and why they are far more accurate than the generic “you” and “your”?

        Got any idea? Looking forward to your reply.

  3. willjkinney says:

    To prove to yourselves that James White is a liar, you can simply do this or have him post his own answer here. He SAYS He believes the Bible is the infallible words of God. And he says it in these exact words. I know. I have asked him personally. Then ask him where you can see or get a copy of this infallible Bible he professes (and lies about) to believe in. See what his answer is. He will NEVER tell you. Instead he tries to change the subject and hope you didn’t notice the fact that he did not give you an answer. Why? Because he is lying when he says he believe the Bible IS the infallible words of God. James White’s “infallible bible” is a non-existent, ever evolving, invisible, imaginary, Philosophical concept and a Phantom of his own imagination. He couldn’t show you a copy of it if his life depended on it, and he knows it too.

    Would you trust this man to sell you a used car, much less be some kind of an authority on The Bible?

    See James White – the Protestant Pope of the New Vatican Versions. And take a look at some of the examples of his “scholarship”

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

    “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8

    God bless.

  4. Mike says:

    Of the many KJV translations, which is the most popular? And what sets it apart from the Geneva Bible?

  5. Mark Confer says:

    There is only one KJB “translation”. The only differences between the 1611 and the 2014 KJB is spelling and font changes and any typesetting mistakes by the printers. To be fair, Wretched should allow Will Kinney at least equal time on the subject. Proverbs:18:13: “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”–KJB

    • willjkinney says:

      Hi brother Mark. Thank you for your comments. And Proverbs 18:13 is a perfect verse to quote concerning this most vital issue. God bless.

    • BrianR says:

      You are a kjv onlyist and don’t know the difference between the oxford and Cambridge editions? Amazing yall say things and ACT as is they are facts. There is a huge difference between “ye” and “he”. Look it up.

    • orangesliced says:

      There is more than spelling differences. Every KJV should include ALL the translation marginal notes written by the KJV translator’s. There are just like the ones in all other major English translations of the Bible.

  6. The KJB…. ’cause we all know that Jesus actually spoke the King’s English. Duh.

    The ONLY infallible version would be the John 1:1 version. Period. There will ALWAYS be something lost in the translation.

    • Joanna says:

      Psalm 12:6-7
      “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation for ever.”

      Also, God isn’t intimidated by ‘translation difficulties’.

      Acts 2:4-6
      “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.”

      • willjkinney says:

        Hi sister, Joanna. Very good points. The Bible itself teaches that a translation can be the inspired and inerrant words of God. Those who say “No translation can be perfect” or “Something is always lost in translation” didn’t get these ideas from the Bible itself. Seminary or from some other bible agnostic and unbeliever in the inerrancy of the Scriptures perhaps, but certainly not from the Bible.

        Can a Translation Be Inspired?

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

        God bless.

  7. willjkinney says:

    Hi Wretched moderators. I have a question for you. I notice that on your Facebook site there are lots and lots of comments about the James White video and all kinds of anti-King James Bible things being posted, but I have been blocked from making any responses or comments. Why is this? Why have I been blocked from being able to address the issues and points the anti-KJB people bring up? Could you please unblock me and allow the other side to be heard? Thank you.

    Will Kinney

    • BrianR says:

      Amazing how Will can so easily call James White a liar. You have no basis what so ever to say the kjv is the only English version other than pride or tradition. Psalms 12 IS NOT talking about scripture. Amazing how you can’t read the context. Also just because God preserved His word His way and not the way YOU think He should have you get angry over older manuscripts that differ from the TR? Let me ask you show me 1 Greek manuscript that matches the TR exactly. Just one. You can’t. Instead you proudly beat your chest that we who use the NASB, that even Islam apologist a lot smarter than both of us can’t undermine, are heritics and liars? If you challenged an Islam scholar to a debate about the kjv and the quran you both would have simlar arguments. He would destroy your position. Why would you be so proud and try to destroy young Christians who use the nasb or esv? You have no right to do that. I know for a fact God would not do that. The English bibles before the kjv are they not the word of God? Simple yes or no question. Either they are or they aren’t. I believe they are. You really believe putting an acient English version in peoples hands is better than an accurate edition such as the nkjv or nasb? The God I know wants people to have His word in their language and not a version which actually puts stumbling blocks before them. I fear for men who hold to traditions rather than God alone. It suprises me that people who actually say they know Jesus don’t have the spiritual discernment to know that the kjv is not the only English translation and call the nasb, nkjv and esv perversions. Shocking and oh how the devil must love using unitelligent men to try and cast doubts on young Christians about their bibles.

      I use to be kjv only. Where I live in the south its everywhere. The people are very rude and snobbish about it. Really sad to see. My preacher friends that use to talk to me would think I’m nothing because I believe the nasb is the word of God in English.

      • Will Kinney says:

        BrianR posted: “Amazing how Will can so easily call James White a liar. You have no basis what so ever to say the kjv is the only English version other than pride or tradition.”

        Hi Brian. I call James White a professional Liar for one simple reason. And you can test it out yourself by simply asking him the same question I did and see what he tells you. James White SAYS in no uncertain terms “I believe the Bible IS the infallible words of God.”

        Sounds great! Good for him. BUT simply ask James White to SHOW you a copy of this infallible Bible he PROFESSES to believe in (and lies about) he will NEVER tell you. Instead he tries to change the subject or take you down some rabbit trail.

        As for why I believe the KJB is God’s inerrant Book and Standard of absolute truth, there are many reasons. I have not always been KJB only. There was a time when I was a bible agnostic like you are, who talked glowingly about how the Bible was inspired and infallible. But had you asked me to show you this Bible, I was extremely ignorant of all the thousands of very real differences there are among them, just like I suspect you are now.

        Here are some reasons why the KJB is God’s infallible Book –

        God’s Persistent Witness to the Absolute Standard of Written Truth – The King James Holy Bible

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

      • discipleofchrist15 says:

        Will, you people are like a brain washed cult. Do you realize anyone arguing against each other in this subject is commuting blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
        If someone is saved through Christ by reading any particular translation and you or any one calls those translations of the devil then you did exactly what the Pharisee did to Jesus when he cast out the demons. The asked by who’s authority and He replied, “The Spirit.” They said of Satan.
        Why the need to draw yourself to drama? Why not ignore these brainwashed lies you believe and spread love and unity and not division. You work for Satan when preaching anything different than love.
        I was a KJV onlyist but God gave me the wisdom to see how the Catholic church is all up in that bible.

  8. Steven Avery says:

    Hi,

    When it comes to “facts”, James White has an unusual habit of just making them up.

    At 3:40 James White says the AV learned men had for Greek texts the five editions of Erasmus and one edition of Stephanus (1550) and one of Beza (1598).

    Now, If you doubt this is a typical James White fabrication, simply ask James White what source he used to determine the seven.

    (Sidenote: in his book, 1995 and even 2009 p.112 White blunders and says Stephanus 1555 for a Greek text pic, which was the year of a Latin-only edition,)

    “Those were the seven printed Greek texts that the King James’ translators used between 1604 to 1611” – James White

    Sounds impressive. The early Erasmus at the center (in fact, the Received text received continual refinement through the 1500s). The problem here is that James White simply makes up “facts” for convenience. In order to deceive the listener (it is hard to believe he is as ignorant as the statement above).

    Let’s allow that maybe the learned me had the five major editions of Erasmus (1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535).in the Oxford and Cambridge libraries. They would likely use Erasmus 5 in the translation work, since it had the most advanced annotations and had corrected many errors. The texts of 3-4-5 did not change very much. Clearly they would not use all five editions on any sort of daily basis.

    Stephanus (Robert Estienne) similarly had four Greek editions (1546, 1549, 1550, in Paris and 1551 in Geneva with verse numbering). Theodore Beza is considered to have had four distinct Greek editions (1565 1582 1588 1598).

    Just like the Erasmus five, those 8, with their annotations, would be available, although the 1550 and 1551 of Stephanus and the Beza 1598 would likely be the ones most used.

    Does James White really think the early Eramsus 1-2-3-4 editions were used, and Beza 1588 and Stephanus 1551 were not? Please. Or does he simply make up facts for convenience.

    In addition the Complutensian Polyglot (1521) is a Greek Received Text edition that would be available. Also the Antwerp Polyglot (1571), which built upon the Complutensian. And the NT triglot of Tremellius (1569), published by Beza. These were special because they showed the Greek side-by-side with the Latin and, with Tremellius and Antwerp, the Syriac.

    Some other editions available to the learned men were those of Gerbelius, Cephalaeus and Colinaeus. Let’s stop there, although it is a fascinating study.

    All told the Erasmus editions would get minor use, and would be maybe the fourth most significant Greek contributor to the analysis of the learned men. The Eramus Annotationes would be checked continually in the superb committee structure of the 50 learned men, as would those of Theodore Beza and numerous other commentators.

    We see that James White goes out of his way to deceive his listeners with fabricated scholarship. I just took this one example because it was early in the audio, what James White said was so brazenly wrong, and it gave me an opportunity to tweak my own understanding.

    Caveat emptor.

    Steven Avery

    • willjkinney says:

      Hi Steven. Thank you for this additional information. Here is some more that dovetails with what you just posted. It is by Laurence Vance.

      What Texts did the King James Bible translators use?

      When the AV translators sat down to do their work, they had four Hebrew texts, four Greek texts (Erasmus, Colinaeus, Stephanus and Beza), three polyglots, two Syian texts and at least eleven European translations (several of them Waldensian Bibles), six Latin texts, and six earlier English translations (Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible,Matthew’s Bible, the Bishops’ Bible and the Geneva Bible. See “The King James Translators at Work”, King James, His Bible, and its Translators, Laurence Vance 2006,page 41.

      In addition to all of that, they had the Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582 (English translation of the New Testament) and Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which means they had all the readings found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, and ESV.

  9. Mark Confer says:

    Wretched Moderators: Please note the polite conversation used by the KJB advocates. Although we have called out Mr. White as a dissembler, we have not resorted to vulgarity nor childish arguments. . KJB advocates are often denigrated with words not printed in polite publications. The posts on this board show we are sincere and learned Christians and deserve equal time in any intellectually honest discussion. Please allow Mr. Will Kinney equal video time on this issue.

    Thank you.

    Proverbs:18:13: “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”

  10. Human tradition and comfortableness. KJV was a tool used by God long time ago, times change. It is as simply as that, languages evolve and new manuscripts are discovered. We don’t want the more old English version we want the most accurate TRANSLATION. The fanaticism of the KJV comes at the point to think it was as inspired as the original text.

    We look to communicate the Word loyalty to a 21st century English speaker world. We do not preach “thees and thous and thys” and we do not live in the past. That’s one of the problems that are presented commonly in countries like Japan 70 years old pastors preaching a colloquial version of the Bible that has a 18th century Japanese with an audience of 43-70 years old and converted in America.

    Our purpose is to renew the translations with a new language and new manuscripts.

    • Alives By Grace,
      The main line of reasoning you’re given works great as a reason to update the language of the KJV to something like the NKJV or vocabulary-updated editions of the Scofield Edition of the KJV. Not so much as a reason to replace the base-text. When you are replacing the base-text, you’re not “renewing” anything. Right or wrong, you are replacing the KJV’s base-text with something else. And over 99% of the time, it is not because of any new discovery of papyrus; it is because you adopt the 1881 revision of Westcott & Hort.

  11. willjkinney says:

    Hi Wretched on Facebook Moderators. I see that the interesting discussion is still going on at your Facebook site about the James White video. Here is the Wretched site

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wretched/92465456191

    If you are really concerned about the truth of the Bible version issue and are willing to hear both sides in the name of fairness, then why am I still blocked from being able to make any posts or even just to “like” a comment? I do not use profanity or threaten people with going to hell just because they happen to disagree with me. If you guys are going to let James White and those who think he is right post there, why not allow me to respond to his arguments and present the opposing view in favor of the King James Bible? Is there any particular reason you have blocked me? I would ask that you would reconsider your decision and allow me back in so that I can take part in the Bible version discussion. Thank you.

  12. Carl Copsey says:

    Sounds like there is a lot of bias here and no objectionable listening. Hmmm. I have read and researched through this issue, from advocates on both sides, with an objective mind, looking from the outside in to see what the answer would be, and I have concluded, after my own research the following: If I want a beautiful translation I will go to the King James. But if I want an accurate translation I must go elsewhere. It is really that simple. I am convinced of it from my own research.

    • willjkinney says:

      Hi Carl. I am convinced, along with thousands of others, that after having examined the Bible version issue that not only is the King James Bible a beautiful translation, as you say, but it is the only Bible in any language that is the 100% complete, inspired and inerrant Bible on this earth.

      Now, you say there is a more accurate translation, but you don’t mention which one it is – Just like James White. So, my question to you is this. Do you believe that ANY Bible in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God? If Yes, then which one is it? Be very specific please. If you do not believe that ANY Bible is the inerrant words of God, then are you willing to be honest enough to admit it? Looking forward to your answer.

      By the way, the Wretched Facebook forum still has me blocked. Why is this? What are they afraid of? If you have the truth in your modern Vatican Versions, then you should be able to totally refute the King James Bible only arguments, right?

      Thank you, and God bless.

      • BrianR says:

        How in the world can you say the kjv is the only inerant bible on earth in any language? How so? You call James White a liar? Seriously? That’s an amazing statement. Are you really Sam Gipp? Maybe GA Rip? You just lost all credibility with that statement. I thought you were going to speak intelligently. My mistake.

  13. mvshannon says:

    willjkinney, how in the world can can any translation be more the word of God than the original manuscripts? Were the KJV translators more inspired by God than the writers who penned the scripture as they received it? That is what you just said. It is just not possible. And which revision are you talking about? The 1611 version, or one of the later ones? One of them must be more correct than the rest, right, since it has undergone more than a few?

    • willjkinney says:

      Hi mvshannon. You ask: “how in the world can can any translation be more the word of God than the original manuscripts?”

      Hint – THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. Neither you nor James White nor Dan Wallace nor Hal Lindsey has ever seen a single word of “the original manuscripts” a day in their lives. They do not exist. There are literally thousands of variant readings in the copies we do have today, and only God knows for sure which ones are the ones He originally inspired. Only God can work through a group of men to put the correct readings all together and preserve His words. I and many thousands of other King James Bible believers maintain that God has worked in history to give us a perfect and inerrant Bible.

      The bible agnostics, unbelievers in the inerrancy of the Bible and all modern version users do NOT believe that ANY Bible in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God. They think they are still working on piecing together a perfect and inerrant bible and they are getting further away from the truth. All the people behind versions like the ESV, NIV,NASB, NET, Holman, etc. think the Hebrew texts are often wrong and they change them and even add hundreds of words to them, especially the ESV and NIV.

      Do you believe that any Bible in any language is or ever was the complete (66 books in a single volume), inspired and inerrant words of God? Yes or No? If Yes, can you show us a copy or give us a link to where we can see it and compare the differences and similarities to our King James Bile or any bible out there? If No, then are you willing to be honest enough to admit that you do not believe that any Bible is God’s complete and inerrant words? Most Christians today do not believe “the Bible” (any Bible) is the inerrant words of God. The polls show this to be what is the reality of the modern church.

  14. I, like Carl, have done my research and have come to the same conclusion as he.

    Also, from what I have seen so far, perhaps if willjkinney would exemplify willingness to listen, recognize when others have good information and valid information, take turns and not make a habit of monopolizing the conversation through multiple massive “post replies” (verbal equivalent would be “talking over”/interrupting people, shouting them down, getting in their face, not taking turns nicely, emoting rather than conversing, etc) he would not be blocked. It would seem he feels God needs his help.

    “And the LORD said unto Moses, Is the LORD’S hand waxed short? thou shalt see now whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not.” Numbers 11:23

    I would like to politely suggest people read “A Visual History of the English Bible” and “A Visual History of the King James Bible,” both by Donald L Brake. Just for starters.

    And KJV 1611 and 1769 are different in more than spelling and printing. It makes us look ignorant and unbelievers can easily punch holes in that, and don’t need to go very far to do so. Let us at least be well-informed. See: http://www.rickbeckman.org/kjv-1611-vs-kjv-1769/

    • willjkinney says:

      Hi Lloyd’s of Rochester. Are you aware that this Rick Beckman is now a professing atheist? And it is a fact that neither you nor James White, nor Dan Wallace, nor John MacArthur could show of a copy of this “infallible Bible” these guys SAY they believe in if their lives depended on it.

      They are Bible agnostics who do not believe in the inerrancy of ANY Bible, and so are you.

      As for the printing errors, that is all they are and they were mostly caught and corrected within the first 30 years. The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the KJB have never changed.

      The Printing Error Ploy – the last ditch effort of the Bible agnostics to convince us there IS no inerrant Bible.

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

      Even the American Bible Society, no friend to the King James Bible, had this to say about the “revisions” of the King James Bible. The American Bible Society wrote, “The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text…” They further stated, “With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators” (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

      • Of course he is, that is exactly why I chose him. That doesn’t change the difference between the versions. Did you read his post? Now go back and re-read mine. Slowly.

        Then take a deep breath and take your blood pressure medicine.

        James 1:20 “For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.”

        And since you have defended the original languages, may I suggest sticking with them for true accuracy.

      • willjkinney says:

        Lloyd posts: “And since you have defended the original languages, may I suggest sticking with them for true accuracy.”

        Hi Lloyd. Are you aware of the fact that your ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman etc. frequently reject the clear Hebrew readings? Did you know that?

        Here are numerous examples.

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

        Then, what exactly do you have in the way of an inerrant Greek New Testament? Got one? There are about 25 to 30 different Greek texts out there and many of them are very different from the others. Is it the ever changing UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical Greek text that is your referenced “true accuracy”. The 1st or 5th or 27th or 28th edition, and already working on the 29th? The various editions of the Textus Receptus or that of Beza, Stephanus, Erasmus, or perhaps one of the three “Majority” texts?

        Face it, Lloyd, you really have NO complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language to believe in yourself or to give to anyone else, right? Prove me wrong and SHOW us your “inerrant Bible”. Will you do that for us? Thanks.

      • Sorry:
        ΙΑΚΩΒΟΣ 1:20 “ὀργὴ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ οὐ κατεργάζεται”

      • BrianR says:

        So Will which was the first English inerrant bible? Tyndale new testament? Bishops bible? The Geneva bible? How can you say the kjv translators were inspired when they did not think they were? See the way you think you back yourself into a corner to defend the TR in which NO GREEK manuscript before 1611 exactly matches its content exactly.

      • Will Kinney says:

        Hi BrianR. Sir, it is obvious that you have not bothered to actually READ any of the responses I have given to the same questions you keep bringing up again and again. May I suggest you actually take the time to READ my article on this question – Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible?

        It is a great question, but it has been brought up before and you didn’t bother to read it. Here it is. It is my own article, not some copy and paste from some body else. There are only 4 Options open to you as a professing Christian and your beliefs about the Bible. Which one are you in right now?

        Was there a Perfect Bible Before the King James Bible?

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

        “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8

        “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” 1 Cor. 14:38

  15. Reblogged this on Lloyd's of Rochester – an Eclectic blog and commented:
    I offer, for your edification, this video about this most heated topic.

    My readers haven’t, so far, been inclined to vehement argument, but just in case, (before you doing so) for your outside reading on paper, I would like to politely suggest “A Visual History of the English Bible” and “A Visual History of the King James Bible,” both by Donald L Brake. Just for starters. Then come back for discussion.

  16. Willjkinney, I can see why you were blocked on youtube. It is gracious of them not to block you here, as well, as they are well able.

    ΙΑΚΩΒΟΣ 1:20 “ὀργὴ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ οὐ κατεργάζεται”

    ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΣ Ζʹ:Αʹ – Εʹ
    μη κρινετε ινα μη κριθητε εν ω γαρ κριματι κρινετε κριθησεσθε και εν ω μετρω μετρειτε αντιμετρηθησεται υμιν τι δε βλεπεις το καρφος το εν τω οφθαλμω του αδελφου σου την δε εν τω σω οφθαλμω δοκον ου κατανοεις η πως ερεις τω αδελφω σου αφες εκβαλω το καρφος απο του οφθαλμου σου και ιδου η δοκος εν τω οφθαλμω σου υποκριτα εκβαλε πρωτον την δοκον εκ του οφθαλμου σου και τοτε διαβλεψεις εκβαλειν το καρφος εκ του οφθαλμου του αδελφου σου

    • willjkinney says:

      The reason I get blocked is because you CANNOT refute the truth of what I say and you know you can’t. It makes you very uncomfortable to have to admit that you do not believe in an inerrant Bible, and rather than deal with it, you choose instead to dodge giving clear answers to my questions, or to just kick me out. YOU aren’t answering my questions, are you. No big mystery why I get kicked out of some of your forums.

      And, Yes, I have read all your books and know very well what you bible agnostics believe – or rather, what you don’t believe.

      Can you show us your Number One provable error you think you have found in the King James Bible? I can show you lots of them in your fake bibles. Don’t give us the usual laundry lists I have seen many times over. Just give us your Number One all time boo boo in the King James Bible and we can take a look at it to see if the error is in the Book or in your own understanding.

      By the way, I will need to know exactly what your Standard of Absolute Truth is whereby you sit in judgment on the King James Bible. But I know you will never tell us what this is, simply because you don’t have one, do you.

      • BrianR says:

        What Greek text do you use to compare the nasb to? Don’t tell me you use the kjv English version as your standard?

      • Will Kinney says:

        BrianR asks: “What Greek text do you use to compare the nasb to? Don’t tell me you use the kjv English version as your standard?”

        The King James Bible English text IS my standard. I look at all kinds of different Greek texts. I DO read N.T.Greek. Do you? I seriously doubt you do or you would know more about this subject than you have shown so far. The Greek text that underlies the King James Bible is Scrivener’s. You can get a copy from the Trinitarian Bible Society or see it online. But that is not my final authority. It is the English text of the King James Bible.

        What is your final authority? The ever changing UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical Greek texts that are directly controlled by the Vatican to create an “inter confessional” text to unite the separated brethren? Now in it’s 28 edition and working on the 29th? Is THAT your “final authority”?

        Can you show us a copy of this complete and inerrant Bible (66 books in one volume) you apparently want us all to think you actually believe in? Maybe brother Todd Friel can help you out. Or James White. Ya think?

  17. BrianR says:

    I’ve preached in Mexico before. A translator was used. Did those people hear my message even though I don’t speak Spanish? Of course they did because A TRANSLATOR was used. The same applies to Greek into English. Greek is Gods ordained way of giving His word in the new testament not English. To hear a christian say we don’t have the originals so we don’t what they said sounds more like a Muslim than a christian. Its a shame they would say that because their translation isn’t as accurate as newer ones are. So illogical to think that way. If anyone really thinks that about the bible then they can’t know anything at all about history.

    • Will Kinney says:

      BrianR posts: “Greek is Gods ordained way of giving His word in the new testament not English.”

      Hi Brian. Sir, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Chapter and verse for what you just affirmed would be………? When you talk about “the” Greek, are you aware that there is no such animal in existence? There is no THE Greek. There are at least some 25 different Greek texts out there in Bible Babble Land, and they are all different. Apparently you did not pay attention to what I posted before about Kurt Aland’s own study of “the” Greek when he compared just 7 of these 25 or so different Greek texts out there. Kurt Aland is the main guy behind the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, not in its 28th edition and they are already working on the 29.

      This is “the” Greek critical text that your Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, and most modern versions are based on.

      Here is his own study about your referenced “the” Greek.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

      In The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland compare the total number of variant-free verses, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors), among the seven major editions of the Greek NT (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, and Nestle-Aland) concluding 62.9%, or 4999/7947, agreement.[10] They concluded, “Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text, the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (e.g., the spelling of names, etc.). Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted. This result is quite amazing, demonstrating a far greater agreement among the Greek texts of the New Testament during the past century than textual scholars would have suspected […]. In the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation the agreement is less, while in the letters it is much greater”[10]

      This is just 7 of the 25 or so different a”the” Greek versions and he didn’t even include the Traditional Reformation Text that is behind all Reformation bibles like the Geneva bible, King James Bible, Luther’s German bible, French Olivetan, Spanish Cipriano de Valera, Italian Diodati and Portuguese Almeida. Had he included this “the” Greek text, the differences would have been far more than the 63% Kurt Aland came up with.

      The issue is simply this. Has God worked in history go give us a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible (not just the N.T.) in ANY language? Yes or No?

      None of you guys here at Wretched believe He has, except those who are King James Bible believers. Not one of can or ever will SHOW of a copy of this complete and inerrant Bible you try to make us think you actually believe in. Prove me wrong. SHOW us this inerrant Bible, or give us a link to where we can see it, or tell us which one it is. But you won’t. You just give us shallow and meaningless platitudes like “Greek is Gods ordained way of giving His word in the new testament not English.”

      “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8

      • Codex B says:

        Which TR is right since they all disagree with each other? Don’t say Scrivener’s because his is based of an English translation. Textual differences are very small considering the thousands of manuscripts that we have. That is the way God chose to preserved his word.

        There are no doubts about what He said. The majority of differences between the NASB, ESV and NIV are a result of translation philosophy and translator’s choice of english words used to translate the same greek words. They say the exact same thing. They’re basically synonym’s of each other. There is no teaching in the KJV that isnt in any of those three.

        For someone who doesn’t know about how the bible came to us and Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek you speak as if you’re an authority. Why do you speak about such things? I don’t want to be rude or anything. You act as if you are a scholar.( FYI there are many scholars that believe the bible is infallible and inerrant. It is not a sin to be a scholar. After all the KJV translator’s were “Anglican” scholar’s.)

        Reading your replies is alarming and troubling. You don’t even realize that to say that a person who doesn’t believe in KJVO is a bible agnostic is utterly ridiculous. If you asked me which translation contains God’s innerant and infallible word I would say that all the translations that are honest and accurately translated are and the KJV translator’s believed the same thing. It is entirely wrong to say that anyone who believes what I just said is liberal.
        If you understood you would see how absurd it sounds to say those kinds of things. The way you speak you seem very narrow minded and opposed to the truth because it doesn’t fit your beliefs.

      • Scholastic 1 says:

        NASB, ESV and HCSB are all trustworthy and you can stand on them. Any translation that is true to the manuscripts are worthy to be stood on. I wish you could see that. The manuscripts behind those three say the exact same things. The only differences are style and English words chosen to translate the old and new testaments.

        The critical isn’t based only on the W & H Greek text. It involves many that are much closer to the time the Holy Spirit wrote them. The TR is essentially an eclectic text too. There are quit a few places in the new testament where the Nestle Alland text and the so called “majority” text agree with each other against the textus receptus.

        Just because we have to deal with minor textual variants doesn’t mean that we don’t have an infallible innerant bible. We absolutely do and may God grant you grace to see that fact. I hope you will stop calling believers in Christ liberals and agnostics just because we stand on all the manuscripts that we have.

        You know the main reason why I do t use the KJV is because so many words have changed their meaning and because the 1611 sentence structure has caused me to greatly misunderstand the bible. God has blessed us with clear reliable trustworthy translations and I don’t believe that He wants me to read an outdated translation and misunderstand what He is saying. He doesn’t speak in Elizabethan English to me. I think that a lot if pastors add to the confusion by not studying the history of the manuscripts and how they came to us. They encourage people to read a bible that is not In clear English and cause a lot of harm to the body of the Lord Jesus Christ. I think most do not do it on purpose. I think they are just not educated enough. This attitude encourages people like you to look at your brothers and sisters in Christ and judge them. I truly believe God does not like anyone discouraging His children from hearing him in their language. The English of the KJV is not how we speak today.

        The KJV translator’s said that “the meanest translation in the vulgare tongue contains the word of God nay is the word of God.” There will be some people surprised when they stand before Him and He shows them that throwing the NIV and other translations in the trash was wrong.

      • Sinner saved by grace says:

        NASB, ESV and HCSB are all trustworthy and you can stand on them. Any translation that is true to the manuscripts are worthy to be stood on. I wish you could see that. The manuscripts behind those three say the exact same things. The only differences are style and English words chosen to translate the old and new testaments.

        The critical isn’t based only on the W & H Greek text. It involves many that are much closer to the time the Holy Spirit wrote them. The TR is essentially an eclectic text too. There are quit a few places in the new testament where the Nestle Alland text and the so called “majority” text agree with each other against the textus receptus.

        Just because we have to deal with minor textual variants doesn’t mean that we don’t have an infallible innerant bible. We absolutely do and may God grant you grace to see that fact. I hope you will stop calling believers in Christ liberals and agnostics just because we stand on all the manuscripts that we have.

        You know the main reason why I do t use the KJV is because so many words have changed their meaning and because the 1611 sentence structure has caused me to greatly misunderstand the bible. God has blessed us with clear reliable trustworthy translations and I don’t believe that He wants me to read an outdated translation and misunderstand what He is saying. He doesn’t speak in Elizabethan English to me. I think that a lot if pastors add to the confusion by not studying the history of the manuscripts and how they came to us. They encourage people to read a bible that is not In clear English and cause a lot of harm to the body of the Lord Jesus Christ. I think most do not do it on purpose. I think they are just not educated enough. This attitude encourages people like you to look at your brothers and sisters in Christ and judge them. I truly believe God does not like anyone discouraging His children from hearing him in their language. The English of the KJV is not how we speak today.

        The KJV translator’s said that “the meanest translation in the vulgare tongue contains the word of God nay is the word of God.” There will be some people surprised when they stand before Him and He shows them that throwing the NIV and other translations in the trash was wrong.

  18. Eric says:

    Dont try to make sense of kjvonliest and their nutty belief only God can reveal their miss guided false man made bible worship. I Have a family member who has enabled their daughter for years, to the point of insanity. If she walked into a room and found her over a dead body and holding a bloody knife she would believe it wasn’t her daughter. When people have been blinded for so long there is nothing that will ever change their minds.You can present facts all you want they will just call you decieved or corrupted because their minds were made up before the conversation even began.Cult mentality they will see everyone as evil working for satan its crazy but true yet there is hope cause I was one of them and Jesus pulled me out.Its sad though cause they just see that as me falling from truth and corrupted by new age bibles.

    • willjkinney says:

      So, Eric. Let me see if I have this straight. According to your view, we King James Bible believers who maintain that God has sovereignly acted in history to give us a real, tangible, hold it in your hands, read and believe is the complete and inerrant words of God are (in your humble view) a “Cult”, but you guys who promote and use the whore’s bible versions like the ever changing ESVs, NASBs, NIVs, etc. that reject numerous Hebrew readings, and add hundreds of words to the Hebrew Old Testament, and that NOBODY seriously believes are the inerrant words of God are…”Orthodox”! Do I have this about right, Eric?

      Is King James Bible Onlyism “a Cult” or “Idolatry”? – Notes from the Internet

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

      • orangesliced says:

        To say that people who use the NASB believe they can’t stand on the old testament is not true. We don’t demand that God inspire every scribe down through the centuries so that they copied the manuscripts perfectly. We know that people make mistakes. The authors that penned the bible did not because they were inspired by God. We have enough information that we know that we have a translation of God’s infallible and inerrant word. Do you understand what a translation is? I don’t think you grasp what a translation is. Do you not see how remarkable it is that the 20,000 plus manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek that we have from different areas of the world all agree with what they say? The percentage of the variations that effect translation is very small. You should watch Daniel Wallace video about the reliability of the new testament. He gives the percentages of agreement and it is very very high considering the wealth of manuscripts we have. I see God’s hand in that. That is super natural.

  19. Wesley says:

    Dr James White does debates on the “Dividing Line”. You should contact him and set one up

  20. Wesley says:

    That was for willkinney

  21. willjkinney says:

    Hi Wesley. I have already been on his Dividing Line program, but I didn’t really get a chance to “debate” James White because you are on his ground and he controls everything. He refused to answer my question and he changes the subject. He directs the whole conversation and kept interrupting me. It was hard to get a word in edgewise. I will gladly discuss the Bible version issue with James White on a neutral field at any forum. But he has to ANSWER THE QUESTION he refused to answer.

    James White SAYS he believes the Bible IS the infallible words of God. But when you ask him to show us a copy, or tell us where to get one, of this infallible Bible he PROFESSES TO (and lies about) believe in, he will NEVER do it. Why? Because the man is lying. He does NOT believe that ANY Bible in any language in print anywhere on this earth is the infallible words of God, and he knows he doesn’t.

    Neither does Todd Friel, Dan Wallace or John MacArthur. All these men are bible agnostics and unbelievers in the inerrancy of ANY Bible. Don’t believe it? Ask any of them to SHOW you this infallible Bible they seem to want you to think they actually believe in. They simply won’t do it.

    Here is my response to the points James White brought up on his Dividing Line program with me.

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

    • Carl Copsey says:

      That’s absurd! He has debated many, well known and respected KJV-only men. C’mon man! Keep it real!! You can even watch some of these debates for free on youtube. There should be no debate here.

      • willjkinney says:

        Hi Carl. Sir, you are being deceived by James White. The man simply has NO infallible Bible to give you. He SAYS he believes the Bible IS the infallible words of God, but when you ask him to show us a copy of this infallible Bible he professes to believe in, he will NEVER do it.

        James White is the equivalent of the Protestant Pope of the new Vatican Versions, whether you choose to remain in darkness about this or not.

        James White – the Protestant Pope of the New Vatican Versions

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

  22. Wesley says:

    When did you do the debate? I enjoy the Dividing Line and I would like to look it up in the archives and listen to the discourse.. I will read your answers as well via the link

    • willjkinney says:

      Hi Wesley. As I said, it wasn’t really a “debate”. Being interrupted by James White and having him direct the whole program and refusing to answer my questions can hardly be considered a debate. But I am willing to discuss or debate the issue with him or Todd Friel or any other Vatican Versionist (ESV, NIV, NASB) at any neutral site or where at least both sides have to actually answer the other person’s questions.

      As for what my stance on the Gospel is, that is a little vague. The gospel is that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead according to the Scriptures. I believe the Lord Jesus Christ is the ONLY Saviour from sin, condemnation and hell. There is no other way to God the Father except through the Lord Jesus Christ.

      If you mean, where am I coming from theologically, I am a convinced 5 point Calvinist, just like the vast majority of the King James Bible translators and king James himself were. I have not always believed this way, but God began to open my eyes to the truth of His sovereign election unto salvation about 30 years ago.

      “To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.” Eph. 1:6
      God bless.

  23. Wesley says:

    Nevermind, you put the date in your response

  24. Wesley says:

    One last question, Mr Kinney. What is your stance on the Gospel?

  25. Wesley says:

    That did answer my question, and I am in agreement on both your stance on what the gospel is as well your Calvinistic theology. My concern that prompted the question was the lack of the gospel in your writings and seeming overall focus. The issue of Biblical inerrancy and preservation are extremely important in our goal to proclaim the God of Scripture and His Gospel, and must be discussed. However, whatever position you take on Biblical manuscripts, your view must not degenerate to becoming the PRIMARY thing you are known for, sending a message to unbelievers and new believers that your position is an end in and of itself rather than a means to an end in knowing God and His glorious Gospel. I encourage your further study on the subject, yet I pray (as I have been for you the last several days) that you stop being at odds with most your brothers and sisters in Christ. If you feel that holding a different position on Biblical manuscripts either disqualifies the one holding the differing view of being a brother or sister in Christ or grounds for not having fellowship, then I would like to further discuss this with you. If this not the case, then I encourage you to use your talents,energy and King James Bible to be known as one who loves the Gospel, proclaims it, and seeks to edify believers with the full counsel of God that is contained within the Scriptures. May God bless you and use you for His glory and the furtherance of His kingdom.

    • willjkinney says:

      Hi Wesley. First of all, I do not think nor claim that those like you and James White, and John MacArthur and Todd Friel are not Christians just because none of you believe that ANY Bible in ANY language (including “the” Hebrew and Greek) IS or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God.

      The reason you are so concerned about my priorities is because you yourself do not believe in the inerrancy of ANY Bible and so you do not take this issue very seriously. People are beginning to see that the inerrancy of the Bible is under attack today like at no other time in history. The polls show that the majority of present day Christians no longer believe the Bible is the infallible words of God. Among seminarians the percentage is in the 90’s.

      The polls also show widespread and growing ignorance of the Bible. I personally believe the inerrancy of the Bible is the most important issue facing the church today. You obviously do not.

      John MacArthur is concerned about the inerrancy of the Bible issue and is going to soon have a conference all about this. Yet having John MacArthur defend the inerrancy of the Bible is like having Hugh Hefner extol the virtues of celibacy. John MacArthur, nor James White – who SAYS he believes the Bible IS the infallible words of God, and lies about it – nor Dan Wallace nor Todd Friel could show you a copy of what they honestly believe IS the complete and inerrant words of God if their lives depended on it, and they know they can’t. But some of these men will LIE about it and say they believe in something that they do not have and can’t show you.

      I am very much against this lying hypocrisy, and I believe God is too.

      God said He would send a famine of hearing His words into the land, and this is happening now. Not from having NO Bibles, but from having too many contradictory ones that nobody seriously believes are the inerrant words of God.

      By the way, James White puts out a lot of false information that you modern version users are not aware of. In general but accurate terms, his “eclectic text” is in fact mainly the Vatican manuscript against the vast majority of all known manuscripts out there. He gives a very false impression by trying to make people think that the KJB is based on just a handful of mss. when the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of all manuscripts through history are far more in agreement with the KJB than they are with your new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB whose textual basis is directly controlled by the Vatican.

      If that sounds outrageous to you, then you don’t know the facts.

      Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new “Vatican Versions”

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

      Just a small part of the documentation you will find here if you actually read it is this –

      I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

      If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:

      “The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament.”

      There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not “definitive” – it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely “a stimulus to further efforts”.

      Thank you for your concern about my “priorities”, but by the grace of God I will try to do what I believe he has called me to do, and you can do what you think He wants you to do. But keep firmly in mind, you yourself do NOT believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and 100% true words of God, and the Bible is the foundation of everything we believe and do.

      If you think I am bearing false witness against you, then prove me wrong and simply SHOW us a copy of this infallible Bible you seem to want us to think you actually believe in. James White won’t do it. Nor will Dan Wallace nor John MacArthur nor Todd Friel.

      “If the foundation be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3

      • Carl Copsey says:

        So…let me get this straight….we should trust you and not our own objective study and the evangelical scholars that spend their lives studying this for the edification of the church? MacArthur is more than capable of such a conference and shame on you to downplay such godly men. Honestly, if there is one verse in the Bible that CLEARLY refutes your KJV only position it is this. I ask you to think and meditate on this. If you would like, I will give you a clear exposition. That verse is the following:

        Hebrews 1:1-2. (Just think about it.)

  26. willjkinney says:

    The true character of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts – the so called “Oldest and Best Manuscripts” upon which the new Vatican Versions are really based.

    See what they are REALLY like. This is my own study, not some copy and paste from some other site.

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

  27. willjkinney says:

    And if you want to see the depth of the “scholarship” of James White in action, check out this one that he brings up in his book and again on his Dividing Line program.

    Godhead or Deity in Colossians 2:9 – Is James White right?

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

    “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8

  28. Magnolia says:

    I read a lot of interesting posts here. Probably you spend a lot
    of time writing, i know how to save you a lot of
    work, there is an online tool that creates unique, google
    friendly posts in minutes, just type in google – laranita free content source

  29. Peter Rock says:

    The KJV Bible has for 1 John 4:3:
    1 John 4:3 King James Version (KJV)

    3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

    The NIV text has:
    1 John 4:3 New International Version (NIV)

    3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

    I am so glad the KJV Bible and the apostle John through the Holy Ghost gave us this warning about the antichrist and their NIV (and other modern translation) texts.

    • Marcus says:

      If your belief in Christ is based on definitively having the actual correct Bible, based on seeing and not believing by faith alone, your ground is already sand.

      God has authorized His providence in believers’ lives. One of His children may use several Bibles, another only holding one such as the NIV and He will still edifying them, bring them to a saving knowledge of Christ and correct them. Such arguments limit God’s majesty, His sovereignty, by focusing on works.

      I believe the Word of God is inerrant, but your focusing on a particular version limits your usefulness for God, as you’ve lifted up worship of pages rather than the Living Word.

      2 Timothy 2:23-24 instructs us to avoid quarreling and if you are able to teach, to be kind-which is serviceable. This is not the way to exercise truth, for it does not argue for itself.

      Pages and books themselves aren’t anointed, people are. God can and does use His anointed in many ways. He can send them through 17 Bible versions and the Gospel will still be proclaimed, the sinner will be made a saint and revelation given. It’s all according to God’s grace.

      If we truly know the Living Word, He will lead and guide us into all truth. If so, God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick. Don’t think God is subject to man, or that man can block God’s advances.

      And just because one understands facts, doesn’t mean we know the truth. Because if one did, he would tell the truth in love, which isn’t being used in these comments nor in opening the subject by the creator of the video.

      You can do all of this quarreling, but if you don’t have love, you are nothing. Holding fast to one Bible as supreme is like giving oneself to hold to a denomination, which God rebukes (Romans 16:17, 1 Cor. 1:10, 12-13). The focus must be on the glory of God and that alone.

      Be careful when sharing what you have, that you not be used to discourage others’ faith and become a stumbling block. So, I have not one Bible to show you that is THE inerrant Bible, because Jesus is the Word and I hold Him out to all who will receive Him in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. Even David was not in love with mere pages, rather his affection climbed even higher to Him who breathed them.

      The Word, whichever you have, God has allowed for a lifetime, a season or in conjunction with others. And you are in no way cast out. His sheep know His voice and will not follow a stranger. If we read the Bible line upon line, precept upon precept, there is nothing that God cannot use for His glory. I thank God my Father and my Lord Jesus Christ even now for so many different versions. He is revealing the wheat from the weeds, even with this.

      And in the end, Jesus said this is how they will know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another.

      • Peter Rock says:

        Marcus, you have missed the point.

        1 John 4:3 is a test for false teachers/prophets, and it is clear that the text can be used to determine if the NIV is a false teacher. Since the NIV here does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, therefore the NIV is not of God.

        Marcus, you have written a great deal of conjecture about me from those five very short paragraphs that I gave in my initial comment. Everything that you have written about me thus far, has been a product of pure speculation and therefore bears a great deal of false witness against me. You were not even right (and indeed you are so wrong that you were not even wrong), not even about one single thing.

        Jesus Christ is God and He came in the flesh.

      • Marcus says:

        1 John 4:2 actually says what you’re saying by rolling into verse three as a positive assertion, negative denial. Some of those scholars don’t see the repetitiveness as being of the original text and you’ll them see that either bracketed or in footnotes. There are plenty of other Bibles that render v.3 differently.

        The message isn’t lost. It can easily be followed that if those who believe Christ came in the flesh is of God, then the opposite it also true, that one who does not acknowledge Christ is not of God. The Bible is saying He came in flesh and that’s it. The rendering isn’t Gmostic. The Bible is either/or. Two paths, two choices, to end results. The Holy Spirit shows us those things. The NIV even heads the passage as”On Denying the Incarnation.”

        John 1:14, written in the NIV, also attests that Jesus became flesh. So you see, that isn’t enough to determine apostasy or not at just first glance. You still must be led by the Spirit of truth. Now, perhaps the latest rendering of the NIV is to be left alone, as it has a specific gender-neutral agenda, but there are plenty with an older copy who still use it and enjoy it and the Holy Spirit nurtures them with it.

        God’s message is clear, at least in older versions. To that end, be specific as it can harm brothers and sisters in the faith. When we take it as a whole, reading line upon line and precept upon precept, we’ll know.

        Leave your trust in God and he’ll free you from thinking one version is error free as far as translation goes. Even the AV or KJV as it is also called has footnotes in the original manuscript as they didn’t always know how to render something. Is God’s word inerrant: yes.
        And we can only read and understand by the Holy Spirit.

      • willjkinney says:

        Hi Marcus. You posted – “Leave your trust in God and he’ll free you from thinking one version is error free as far as translation goes. Even the AV or KJV as it is also called has footnotes in the original manuscript as they didn’t always know how to render something. Is God’s word inerrant: yes. And we can only read and understand by the Holy Spirit.”

        Sir, once again you tell us you believe God’s word IS inerrant. Yet you are totally unable to actually show us a copy of this Book you refer to as being inerrant. You will not tell us which one it is? You, like James White, can piously affirm that you believe “The Bible IS the infallible and inerrant words of God.”, but when we ask you fellas to show us a copy of this inerrant Bible you supposedly believe in, you will never do it.

        If you DO have and believe in an inerrant words of God Bible, then tell us which one it is. Or, try being honest about it, and just admit that you do not believe there is such a thing.

        I have compiled about 25 specific examples of how your new Vatican Versions and the corrupt NKJV are ALL perverting sound doctrines of the Christian faith. Are you and others willing to actually LOOK at them and see if I am right on this or not? It is the TEXT itself that them are messing with in most cases, not the textual variants, but the way they translate the same texts.

        Fake Bibles DO Teach False Doctrines – Over 25 examples.

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

        God bless.

      • Marcus says:

        In the end, I trust the Holy Spirit in whatever He places in my hand that delivers me the Gospel message, threaded from Genesis to Revelation. The message has always been the key. Heb. 4:2, 1 Cor. 2:4, 1 Cor. 15:2, Rom. 10:8, Acts 17:11 and so many more. It’s always been about the message. Abraham, Moses, Joseph, Isaiah, Elijah, Jesus and others didn’t walk around with a Bible, they trusted the Word of God as was given to them directly or via copies of copies even in their time. They know it’s God’s word as the Holy Spirit has always borne witness. Without faith, it is impossible to please God, including Bibles.

        All of my Bibles can be burned and I’ll still walk with Him, because His word I’ve hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against Him. Even Daniel was still able to worship, because the Word was in him.

        Even those before the AV was a thought, they still had God’s word and they had embedded in them eternal life. Even the original 1611 preface stated that the translators hoped others would be done to bring more clarity to Scripture and their prayer was answered. What is being made clear is a worship of a translation and not even of the original documents themselves. Love God and you’ll love His word.
        I have an AV Bible. My first one. I thank God for it, for He blessed me with it to learn of Him. Thereafter, He blessed me with NJKV, HCSB, ASV, AMP and others. I study and do word studies. He’s allowed me to learn from each, as I know I have God’s word when I see it, because it isn’t with natural eyes only that I see Scripture. Neither should it be for any brother or sister of mine. I’m not a worshipper of man or of man’s accomplishments. I worship the Living God. If He so chose, He could drop every hot and tittle in your spirit and compel you to write and the word would be rendered as it originally was. But He hasn’t. And that’s ok. He wants our faith.

        I’ve heard it stated that if we were working with half of the Bible as it is, we’d still be okay as it contains God’s message of salvation from start to finish. But as it stands, we have His full counsel. My test of any Biblw is if it seeks God’s maximum glory. That’s His focus; and it’s ours. In that way, you try a spirit by the Spirit.

        You should know that no one is questioning your love of Christ, as is the reason of such defense that keeps being weeks out here. This admonishment is simply to show that God’s sovereignty is greater than we could ever imagine. God speakers with one voice, one message. That’s it. Whichever version I have that does so, confirmed by the Holy Spirit, is His word.

        Have love one toward another. That’s how the world will know that each are His disciples. I love you all. Grace to each of you, in Jesus’s name.

      • Peter Rock says:

        You wrote: “1 John 4:2 actually says what you’re saying by rolling into verse three as a positive assertion, negative denial. Some of those scholars don’t see the repetitiveness as being of the original text and you’ll them see that either bracketed or in footnotes. There are plenty of other Bibles that render v.3 differently.”

        I don’t really care for your argument Marcus, because a liar speaks with a forked tongue. The liar says one thing and then obfuscates it with another, just as the NIV does between 1 John 4:2 and 1 John 4:3.

        You wrote: “It can easily be followed that if those who believe Christ came in the flesh is of God, then the opposite it also true, that one who does not acknowledge Christ is not of God.”

        Why do you write, “…that if those who believe Christ came in the flesh… “? Are you or are you not able to make this confession yourself? Even the a third-person usage in your statement is strangely awkward.

        Furthermore Marcus, in what spirit do you write?

        You wrote: “Such arguments limit God’s majesty, His sovereignty, by focusing on works.”

        If you had indeed believed in God’s sovereignty then you would know that God’s majesty cannot be limited.

        You wrote: “2 Timothy 2:23-24 instructs us to avoid quarreling and if you are able to teach, to be kind-which is serviceable.”

        Marcus, you came to my post for the soul purpose of quarrelling. How dare you quote God’s words just so that you can flaunt your disobedience to it.

        You wrote: “Pages and books themselves aren’t anointed, people are.” Marcus, your red-herring here is an attempt to avoid saying that the scripture is anointed.

        In Matthew 4:1-11, satan came three times to tempt Jesus and three times Jesus responded beginning with, “it is written…”.

        Have you read Marcus, “Get thee hence satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”

        You wrote, “You can do all of this quarreling, but if you don’t have love, you are nothing…”

        Marcus, I wrote my post with no quarrel.
        If you even knew what love was you would not be a sinner, but you are. You assign to some humanistic moral codes of sentimentalities the word “love”, because you think that some socially constructed systems of niceties, is this “love” spoken of in the Bible. I tell you, if none are righteous, no not one, then you have never loved no not one day, not one instance of it, in your entire life. Unless you understand this fundamental truth then you have never truly come before God in repentance of your sins.

        You wrote, “Be careful when sharing what you have, that you not be used to discourage others’ faith and become a stumbling block.”

        Marcus, those elected by God for salvation can never be discouraged and no man can stand as a stumbling block to an elected son of God.

        You wrote, ” And you are in no way cast out. His sheep know His voice and will not follow a stranger.”

        That’s right Marcus. You are a stranger and by no means nor under any circumstance will I be following you. You are a false teacher and you come with a false gospel and a false Jesus.

        But I tell you Marcus, you have no ability to determine for me or any other if or if not they will be cast out. You absolutely have no idea who God will throw into the lake of fire and who God will forgive. The Pope is anti-christ, and all bishops who act like a pope are also anti-christ. How can the bleached bones of a dead man claim to know the attaining of life?

  30. Peter Rock says:

    Just so that you understand my statement concerning the NIV between verses: 1 John 4:2 and 1 John 4:3.

    The KJV specifies an exclusive set to those who precisely state that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and none other.

    The NIV specifies a set who don’t necessarily state that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and can include those who just say there was a Jesus.

    This is the liberalised heresy of the NIV.

    • Brady Hawkins says:

      1 John 4King James Version (KJV)

      4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

      2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

      Now for the NIV

      Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

      I mean you can 100 percent understand both, but the NIV is more detailed… I really don’t see your position on KING JAMES ONLY.
      THE KJV is a translation.. just like the ones today and we have new translations to get a better grasp on things and correct errors. BUT what about this…

      The fact that the KJV uses the word “unicorn” nine times (see here and here), and “satyr” twice (Isa. 13:21KJV; Isa. 34:14KJV), is also problematic, as unicorns and satyrs are regarded as a mythological creatures rather than the real animals which are mentioned in the original Hebrew Scriptures and in more contemporary translations.

      I do not have anything against the KJV I can only say the more we know and collect and can translate better you will have better version with less errors… IS this still really a debate? I mean your going to let your emotions about this specific translation say that I’m going to hell because i Read NIV? I believe in God and i beg for mercy and know he is leading me to him? But I’m not reading KJV? I’m just saying i really don’t see any logic in this debate.

    • Codex B says:

      I use to be KJVO. Partly because of where I live. There are many preachers here that say that the KJV is the only God ordained bible in English. My faith got challenged and I wanted to know how we got the bible. During my studies I saw that from the time of the apostles (originals) and down through the centuries copies were made by hand. They were made by men. We as humans make mistakes. So naturally scribes would sometimes misspell words etc. I don’t think it’s right for anyone to blame God for the minor differences between all the copies that we have. Acknowledging those scribal errors does not make a person a bible agnostic. God’s word can be found In any honestly and accurately translated bible. The key is understanding how we received the bible. I do see God’s hand in the manuscripts that we have.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s