next »

[brandplucked]

A Bible Believer’s Response to the book 'King James Onlyism: A New Sect'.

As many of you know, Dr. James D. Price, chairman and Old Testament editor of the New King James Version, and O.T. professor at Temple Baptist theological seminary in Chattanooga, Tennessee has written a 658 page book called 'King James Onlyism: A New Sect' in which he tries to prove that the King James Holy Bible is not the complete, preserved, inspired and infallible word of God.

In his opening page he correctly defines what he calls "this new doctrine" as the belief that "the King James Bible is the providentially preserved Word of God, and is actually the only and final authority in all matters of faith and practice for the English-speaking world today." He then goes on to say that during the early 1970's when he first heard of the King James Only idea that "I could not believe that anyone would advocate such a teaching."

Let it be clearly stated from the very beginning of my response to his book that Mr. Price's belief is that there does not exist today, nor has there ever existed anywhere on this earth, a complete Book containing all the inspired, infallible, providentially preserved and 100% true words of God. Mr. Price has no such Book to recommend to anyone and he knows it.

This is not to say nor to even imply that Mr. Price is therefore not a Christian. From what I know of him, I believe he is a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ as being his only Lord God and Saviour from sin and hell. The Bible version issue is not a salvation issue. God can and obviously does save His people by means of hearing the gospel of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ, who died on the cross as our Substitute and rose again from the dead to give us eternal life. This central truth is found even in the poorest of bible translations. I do not deny this, but affirm it to be true.

However it is an undeniable fact that Mr. Price and multitudes like him do not believe that God has fulfilled His promises to preserve all His words of truth in any single "book of the LORD" here on this earth today. This is the central issue discussed in his book and addressed by my response to it.

Throughout his book he presents what he thinks is the conservative, traditional view that ONLY the originals were inspired. He continually refers in a nebulous and undefined manner to "THE Hebrew and THE Greek" IN THE PRESENT TENSE as the only inspired word of God, apparently hoping that no one will notice that there is no such animal on the face of this earth, and there is wide and intense disagreement as to what "the originals" may or may not have said.

On page 2 he affirms the position he was taught at seminary by favorably referring to a quote from Henry C. Thiessen, a man he calls "a well-known conservative theologian" who wrote concerning the divine inspiration of Scripture: "Inspiration is affirmed ONLY of the autographs (the originals) of the Scriptures, not of any of the versions, whether ancient or modern, nor of any Hebrew or Greek manuscripts in existence, nor of any critical text known."

The logic and consistency of Mr. Price's arguments break down at every point and leave us with no complete and infallible Bible TODAY. He himself doesn’t follow nor believe the formal Westminster Confession he quotes from regarding the Inspiration and Preseration of Scripture. Yet he inconsistenly holds this up as his view regarding the Scriptures.

He quotes with approval the London Confession which is derived from the Westminster Confession of 1649 which says: “The Old Testament IN HEBREW, and the New Testament IN GREEK, being immediately inspired by God AND BY HIS CARE AND PROVIDENCE KEPT PURE IN ALL AGES, ARE therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of Religion, the Church is finally to appeal to them.”

It should be asked at this point that if Mr. Price really believes this great statement of faith, then why does he himself not believe that the true Old Testament text has been providentially preserved in the Hebrew? As we shall see, Mr. Price often sides with versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard where these editors believe the Hebrew texts have been either corrupted or lost, and he instead supports the wildly variant readings taken from either the alleged Greek Septuagint, the Syriac, the Vulgate or just plain made up by men?

All these modern versions are put out by men who believe the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted in numerous places, and yet they don’t agree among themselves as to where nor how. You can see proof of this by consulting my articles on this subject at my website here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html and here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

Mr. Price further reveals his obfuscation and poorly thought out position by continually saying things like he does on page five: “No translation is granted authority over THE Hebrew and Greek”. Mr. Price, WHICH Hebrew and WHICH “the” Greek are you referring to? Anyone can go to the footnotes of such modern versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard and see for themselves that they constantly refer to “Some Hebrew manuscripts read”, “two Hebrew mss. read”; “A few Hebrew mss. read”, “Dead Sea Scrolls read”, “Some Septuagint mss. read”; “a few late manuscripts of the Septuagint read”, “Many other Hebrew mss. read” etc.

As for “THE” Greek, anybody who has a rudimentary knowledge about the so called “science” of textual criticism, knows that there are at least 25 different printed Greek texts in existence, and many of these differ from the others anywhere from 3000 to over 7000 words for the New Testament alone, as documented by men like Dr. Donald Waite and Jack Moorman.

Following such Greek editions as Westcott and Hort, and the constantly changing Nestle-Aland critical texts, versions like the RSV have omitted some 40 entire verses from the N.T. text plus another 2000 words or so from other N.T. portions. Both the ever changing NASB and the NIV bracket or omit thousands of words that are found in the very NKJV that Mr. Price helped to translate and publish. The ESV omits even more entire verses from the N.T. than the NIV, but not as many as the previous RSV.

For an example of this textual confusion in the modern bibles, see my article about the new 2003 Holman Christian Standard Version. http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Holman.html

None of the modern versions like the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV or Holman always follows the same Hebrew or Greek texts, and even when they do, the resultant translations are often radically different in meaning from the other ones. So where is this “THE Hebrew and THE Greek” text to be found where Mr. Price assures us we have our Final Authority? Simple answer: No such animal exists and he knows it. He is blindly professing a faith in something he knows doesn’t exist and seems to hoping that nobody else will notice the Huge White Elephant standing in the middle of the room.

Typical of the long list of modern attempts to state their faith in the authority of an undefined “Scripture” is this one from the Southwide Baptist Fellowship found on page 7 of his book. It states: “We believe in the verbal inspiration of the 66 books of the Bible IN ITS ORIGINAL WRITINGS and that IT IS without error and IS the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice.” Well, this all sounds very pious indeed, but notice that both Mr. Price and this confession talk about something they have never seen a day in their lives, and that they all know does not exist, and yet they refer to it in the present tense as something that IS without error and IS our sole authority. This is an absurd and illogical fairy tale, and I and thousands of other Christians do not believe it for a second.

Mr. Price tries to make us think that the belief in the King James Bible as the only true Bible is some new heresy, but the truth of the matter is that the historical, formal confessions regarding the infallibility of Scripture all came out AFTER the King James Bible had gained a foothold among the English speaking people, and they support the King James only position rather than the more recent “originals only” view that leaves us with NO inspired Bible at all.

Please see the quotes and church confessions in the article titled ‘The Historic Confessions of Preservation Support the KJB View’ here:

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

I recommend you also take read the article titled “The Bible IS NOT the inspired and inerrant words of God”, where you will find many quotes from modern day Biblical relativists like Mr. Price who deny the existence of an inspired Bible. Then contrast Mr. Price’s view from what the Scriptures themselves affirm.

It can be seen here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoInerrant.html

The Printing Errors Ploy

In chapter 4 of his book Mr. Price begins his frontal attack on the King James Bible by trying to convince us that it has been “revised” several times in the past and that the text is no longer what it once was, and therefore cannot possibly be the preserved and infallible words of God. He brings up the old “24,000 variations” argument, and yet seems almost schizophrenic when he talks about how this great Book came into being.

Mr. Price mentions the previous English bibles like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops’ Bible and the Geneva Bible and on page 61 refers to each of these as “being a revision of its predecessor, modifying, refining, polishing, purifying, and updating it to current literary usage. By the time James 1 came to the throne, the process was due to be repeated.”

He then says on page 83 that “By making use of the best scholarship of their time, and building upon the excellent foundation laid by their predecessors, these translators produced an English Bible unsurpased in excellence of language, rhythm, cadence, majesty, worshipful reverence, and literary beauty.”

Well, this has been the Bible believers argument all along. It is just as the King James Bible translators stated, and Mr. Price himself includes in his book on page 82. “Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one...but to make A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES, ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, THAT OUR MARK.” Well, praise God, He used them to accomplish just that and we can be thankful for it.

The whole Printing Error Ploy has been addressed by several King James Bible believers such as Pastor David F. Reagan and Dr. Donald Waite. In my own article on the Printing Errors issue I address the examples Mr. Price brings up concerning Ruth 3:15, Song of Solomon 2:7, Jeremiah 34:16 and Judges 19:2. You can see it here and also find a link to Mr. Reagan’s excellent article:

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

(As a sidenote, if an occasional printing error invalidates a literary work's value, then by Mr. Price's own reasoning, his book itself cannot be trusted. When I ordered Mr. Price's book about King James Onlyism, it came along with an additional printed sheet informing the buyer about various printing errors they have so far discovered in his book. This page informs us that "page 35, Paragraph 3, line 2 "know" should be "known"; p 425 Jer. 46:20 should be Jer. 46:26; p. 427 1 Kings 9:38 should be 1 Kings 9:28; p. 429 2Kingsa should be 2 Kings; p. 430 Jer. 23:20 should be Jer. 23:30; p.431 Ps. 109:33 should be Ps.107:43; p. 434 Ps. 119:102 should be Ps. 119:101. Then it lists what it calls "Index Errors" and tells us that "In the index, the page numbers are OK up to page 369; from page 370 to 394, the page numbers are usually one number too high; from page 395 and above, the page numbers are usually two numbers too high." (End of quote). A verse came to mind when I saw this added page informing me about their printing errors - "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." 1 Corinthians 3:19)

The only “revisions” the King James Bible has gone through are the changes in format from the Gothic type to the Roman, the modernization of certain words like Sonne to Son, sinne to sin, and the correction of various minor printing errors that have occured and continue to occur in ALL printings of the bible or any book even in modern times.

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).

I found many of quoted criticisms of the King James Bible to be not only wildly exaggerated but even laughable when compared to the “examples” he then brings up to substantiate his claims. Mr. Price contines his theme of the so called “revisions” of the King James Bible, when in fact all they have done is to modernize the spelling of a few words and correct some printing errors.

At one point on page 99 Mr. Price quotes a Dr. Scrivener who wrote concering Benjamin Blayney’s 1769 “revision”, saying: “...more recent editors were right in the main in gradually clearing the sacred page of uncouth, obsolete, and variable forms which could answer no purpose save to perplex the ignorant, and offend the educated taste.”

So what exactly were these “uncouth, obsolete” forms that “perplex the ignorant and offend the educated taste”? Well, we don’t have to wonder, because Mr. Price lists a few choice examples on page 98 where Scrivenir says: “The following are a few examples of the changes made by Blayney.” Exodus 23:13 “names” changed to “name”; Numbers 4:40 “houses” changed to “house”; 1 Kings 16:23 “the thirty and one year” changed to “the thirty and first year”; Ezekiel 1:17 “returned” changed to “turned”, John 15:20 “then the Lord” changed to “than his Lord”; and Revelation 12:14 “flee” changed to “fly”.

So these are his examples of “uncouth, obsolete forms that perplex the ignorant and offend educated taste”?!!? This is pure silliness. These are nothing more that insignificant printing errors, yet Scrivener and Mr. Price are describing a tempest in a teapot.

Mr. Price again reveals his schizophrenic thinking when, after making a list of Scrivenir’s “errors” in the previos printings of the KJB, he then says: “Concerning the 24,000 variations, the American Bible Society Report stated, ‘Yet of all this great number, there is not one, which mars the integrity of the text, or affects any doctrine or precept of the Bible.”

The Usual List of Suspects

The next major area of criticism repeated by James Price are ones we have all heard many times before in our Bible clubs. Anyone who has read the books that criticize the King James Bible (and uphold none as the pure words of God) are very familiar with these examples of what the Bible critics call “oversights” or errors of one kind or another.

The three examples Mr. Price next brings up are the same ones James White conveniently has in his book too. They are Acts 19:20 “the word of GOD”; Hebrews 10:23 “the profession of our faith” and their all time favorite “strain at a gnat” in Matthew 23:24. Let’s take a further look at these examples of “error” in the King James Bible.

Acts 19:20 "So mightily grew the word of GOD and prevailed.

In his book, The King James Only Controversy, James White says on page 67 that the King James translators used the Latin Vulgate to come up with the reading "the word of GOD", rather than the Greek texts. Is this true?

Joining James White is another man who likewise does not believe that any Bible in any language is now the complete and pure words of God. In his book, King James Onlyism: A New Sect, James Price tells us on page 114: "Scrivenir listed two examples of what he called "oversight" and "inadvertence". In Acts 19:20 all English Versions (except Coverdale) read "OF GOD", although the Greek texts all read "OF THE LORD". The only support for the reading "of God" seems to be the Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate."

As we shall soon see, both Mr. Scrivenir and James Price are perhaps ignorant as to why many translations have legitimately rendered this phrase as "the word of GOD”. They are also wrong about the reading found in ( as they say) "the Greek texts". There are a variety of readings here with some Greek texts like E, 88, 436, reading "the word of God" as well as the Old Latin manuscripts ar, c, e, gig, p, ph, ro, w, and the Armenian versions. Then the well know manuscript D actually reads "the FAITH OF GOD" instead, and this is the reading found in the Syriac translations of Lamsa, Murdoch and Etheridge.

But for the sake of argument, let's go with the text followed by the KJB translators and see if Mr. Price's assertion is right, OK?

People who say this is a translational error are merely voicing their personal opinion, which many other translators do not share. I am not an expert, but I know enough to be able to defend the KJB here. The word is literally Kurios, which usually in the N.T. is translated as Lord. However, in the Greek translations of the Old Testament, the word Kurios is used thousands of times for the Hebrew words God (Elohim) and Jehovah. I’m not defending any particular Greek translation, but merely want to show how the Greek language itself works.

It is interesting that the phrase "the word of God" is only found 3 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. Usually the phrase is "the word of the LORD". Yet in the Greek translations of the O.T. two of the three times the phrase "the word of God" is used, the Greek uses "the word of Kurios". The two places where the Hebrew says "the word of God" and the Greek translation has "o logos Kuriou" are 1 Kings 12:22 and 1 Chronicles 17:3. The one where the Greek uses Theos is Proverbs 30:5 "o logos Theou".

Not only does the King James Bible translate Acts 19:20 as "the word of GOD", but so also do Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, the Geneva Bible 1599, Matthew's bible, Bishop's bible 1568, Wesley's 1755 translation, the Italian Diodati 1649, and the Italian Riveduta 1927, the Douay-Rheims 1950, Webster's 1833 translation, Young's 'literal', the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible. So the KJB is by no means alone in translating this phrase as "the word of God".

It should also be noted that the vaunted NASB has done a similar thing but in reverse in Acts 12:24. There the Nestle-Aland Greek text, as well as the Majority and the Textus Receptus read "the word of GOD grew and multiplied." The word here is Theos - God, and so read the RV, ASV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, KJB, NKJV and numerous others, yet the NASB says "the word of the LORD" as does the Douay version, thus following a very minor reading and that of the Vulgate too."

Also, the word for Jehovah # 3068 is translated in three different ways in the King James Bible - as JEHOVAH, LORD, and GOD. The NKJV, NASB, NIV all translate it as both LORD and GOD, but not as JEHOVAH. In any case, both the Hebrew and the Greek words can legitimately be translated as both God and Lord, and many Bible translators have done this very thing.

The Greek lexicons, like Liddell and Scott, 17th Abridged edition 1878 page 400 tell us that Kurios equals the Hebrew Jehovah, and Baer, Arndt and Gingrich on page 460 say Kurios can mean "lord, master, owner" and also is "a designation for God". So, when the KJB translated this word as God here in Acts 19:20 they were well within the acceptable meanings of the Greek word.

Even the NIV has translated this same word Kurios as "master, sir, owner, and his majesty".

Dr. Jeffrey Khoo, Academic Dean of Far Eastern Bible College says regarding Acts 19:20: "The KJV is not a mistranslation, and does not differ from the TR. The Greek word kurios can be translated in a number of ways depending on the context. It can be rendered "Lord", "master", "Sir", "God", or "owner". (see The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, 900-1). Acts 19:20 certainly allows for "God" instead of "Lord" since the context is speaking of the Word of God as a whole. If it is rendered as "the word of the Lord" it might be construed as some specific word from Jesus instead of God's Word or the Holy Scriptures in general. In any case, whether it is "the word of God", or "the word of the Lord", both are perfectly acceptable translations of the original."

Acts 19:20 in the King James Bible is not an error, nor a departure from the Textus Receptus, but is a perfectly acceptable and accurate translation of the underlying Greek text.

If we follow the various opinions of men like James White or James Price, we end up never knowing for sure what or where the true words of God are found. These two men certainly do not agree even with each other regarding numerous textual matters. They only thing they both have in common is their shared belief that the King James Bible is not the pure word of God and that there is NO pure Bible anywhere on this earth.

The next one both White and Price pick on is Hebrew 10:23. You can see our defense of this verse here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/profaHeb10.html

The last one for the moment is the famous one in Matthew 23:24 about straining “at a gnat”. Here is one Bible believer’s defense of this phrase as found in the Book.

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

“Staining at Gnats”

While we’re on the subject of straining at gnats, let’s take a closer look at many of the petty and unlearned claims Mr. Price makes about the spelling and language of the King James Bible. It would be tedious to address every example he brings up, so we will take a look at just a few of the gnat straining examples Mr. Price lists in his efforts to discredit the language and wording of this magnificent Book of Books.

The language of the King James Bible is not as disorganized or as fickle as Mr. Price attempts to portray it. Among the “discrepancies” he lists are the capitalization or non-capitalization of words like “the Spirit of God” (Gen. 1:2) or “the spirit of God” (Exodus 31:3), the “holy spirit” (Psalm 51:11) versus “the Holy Spirit” (Luke 11:13), and the use of the indefinite article before the letter “h” as being either “an hairy garment” (Gen. 25:25) versus “a hairy man” (Gen. 27:11).

First of all, almost every Bible version out there will sometimes capitalize the Spirit of God and also use the phrase “the spirit of God”. God Himself has a soul and a spirit, just as man does, but there is also sometimes a reference to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity as being the Spirit of God. Sometimes “the spirit of God” refers to the energy, power or character of God that influences human behaviour. It often is not clear as to which of these is being referred to. This “confusion” is seen in most Bible translations that have ever been printed. All you have to do is simply type in “spirit” or “Spirit” and see how the various translations have dealt with this matter. There is no consistent agreement among the various versions.

For example, in Genesis 1:2 the Bible translations that have a capital S refering to the Third Person of the Trinity, and say “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” are Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, the ASV 1901, NASB, NKJV, NIV, the Complete Jewish Bible, and RSV.

However Bible versions that read: “the spirit of God” with a small “s” we find the following: Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ bible 1568, the Revised Version of 1881, the Douay-Rheims, and the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, and the 2001 Judaica Press Tanach.

The NRSV actually reads “the WIND from God swept over the face of the waters.”

In Exodus 31:3 the King James Bible reading may refer to the power and energy of God’s personal spirit that enables a man to fulfill certain callings. God called Bealeel and “filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship.”

The reading of “the spirit of God” is found in Bishops’s bible, Coverdale, Wycliffe, the Revised Version, Darby, Bible in Basic English, the 1917 JPS (though other Jewish translations have “Spirit”), Green’s 2000 translation, and the NRSV.

However other translations read the “Spirit of God”, like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ASV and the Geneva Bible.

Let’s take a look at just one more of a multitude of verses that could be used to show how the distinction between “the spirit” and “the Spirit” is not always that clear or even necessary. The translations all throughout history are in total disagreement with each other. In Genesis 41:38 Pharoah says regarding Joseph: “Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is ?”

[brandplucked]

Translations with a capital S in “the Spirit of God” are the following: the Geneva Bible, KJB, Darby, NKJV, Complete Jewish Bible, RSV and the 2001 ESV.

However versions that read “the spirit of God” with a small “s” are the 1917 JPS, the ASV, NIV, Coverdale, Bishops’, Young, and the NRSV. The NASB says “a divine spirit”. Notice too that the previous RSV has “Spirit”, then the revision of the revision NRSV has “spirit”, but then the revision of the revision of the revision called the ESV now once again reads “the Spirit of God”.

Mr. Price is merely straining at gnats and has no valid or consistent argument to condemn the King James Bible for something that ALL Bible translations do.

As for the issue of the “holy spirit” (Psalm 51:11) versus “the Holy Spirit” (Luke 11:13), please see my article about the Holy Ghost and the Holy spirit in the King James Bible. http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/HolyGhost.html

Many other scholars and Bible translators disagree with Mr. Price’s mere opinion when he criticizes the King James Bible on page 111 saying: “Here are references where the word “spirit” is capitalized in the King James Version where it refers to an evil spirit: “Spirit of the LORD” in 1 Kings 22:24 (2 Chron. 18:23).”

Well, the context is that of a false prophet who thinks he is a true prophet of the Lord who comes to Micaiah and says: “Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee.” Here in the KJB the deceived prophet actually thought he had been previously been used by the Spirit of the Lord, and NOT an evil spirit. It doesn’t even make sense to read it as Mr. Price has suggested. Bible translation that agree with the KJB reading of “the Spirit of the LORD” are Wycliffe, the Geneva Bible, the ASV, Youngs, Darby, Complete Jewish Bible, Holman Standard, NASB, and the 2001 ESV.

However versions that read as Mr. Price suggests are Coverdale, Bishops’, the NRSV, NKJV and the NIV. Again, notice that the RSV read “Spirit,” then the NRSV had “spirit”, and now the ESV once again has gone back to “Spirit”. Mr. Price is just one more confused voice among a multitude of conflicting Multi- Versionists, who all differ from each other and NONE of whom believes in the existence of a tangible inspired and 100 % pure Bible.

Regarding Mr. Price’s criticism of the KJB’s varied use of the indefinite article before the letter “h” as being either “an hairy garment” (Gen. 25:25) versus “a hairy man” (Gen. 27:11), we should note the following facts. The pronunciation of the English letter “h” before a vowel has changed over the years and even today is varies from region to region.

The English “h” is sometimes a fricative or hard sounding “h” as in “house” or the modern American pronunciation of “horse”, but there are many other words where the letter “h” is to one degree or another silent as in the modern pronunciation of “hour, heir, honor”. However some English speakers around the world still continue to differ from others in sounding the “h” in many of the same words such as “horse, hide, hidden and hairy”, much like some in our own country do with “herb” or “homage”.

Not only does the King James Bible say that Esau was like “AN hairy garment” but so does the English Revised Version of 1881, and instead of “a hairy man” in Genesis 27:11 Wycliffe’s translation says he was AN hairy man. It is in the King James Bible that we can see and trace the evolution of our English language. This is why the King James Bible still has words like “especial” and “special”, and “since” and “sith” (Ezekiel 35:6 - this is also the spelling found in the 1881 Revised Version), or “ensample” (1 Peter 5:3) or “example” (1 Peter 2:21) - they both mean the same thing, one is just an older form that evolved into the other.

The same can be said for Mr. Price’s criticism of the King James Bible use of the words “ye” and sometimes the variant “you” for the second person plural nominative pronoun as he does on page 112.. The older “ye” was giving way to the more generic “you”, but it is actually the King James Bible that is FAR MORE ACCURATE in its use of YE (you and your) to indicate the Hebrew and Greek plural and the Thee (thy, thine, thou) to indicate the Hebrew and Greek singular.

See the article discussing why the use of Ye and Thee are far more accurate to the Hebrew and Greek, and why they should be retained here - http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/yethee.html

Mr. Price's Only Conclusion - We don't have an inspired and inerrant Bible

In his closing arguments about the so called “revisions” of the King James Bible, Mr. Price stumbles over the dual pebbles of “printing errors” and “minor spelling differences” only to launch himself out into the chasm of profound uncertainty. Yet all the while he is trying, with a strained smile firmly fixed in place, to reassure the reader that he is not in fact tumbling in a free fall through open space.

He begins wrapping up his arguments about the “archaic and obsolete words” and lists 2 pages worth. Most of these words are not archaic at all, but are found in many printed books today. There is an book called, “Archaic Words and the Authorized Version”, by Laurence M. Vance. In it Mr. Vance shows how most of the so-called archaic words in the KJB are not archaic at all but are found in modern magazines, newspapers, and dictionaries. There are only about 200 words usually picked out by critics of the KJB, yet of the approximately 800,000 words in the Bible this is only .004 % of the total.

I always find it ironic and blindly hypocritical for some scholar to tell us he himself can understand the King James Bible (as Mr. Price does), but then tell us that ‘other people’ have a hard time with the language. Of course a good dictionary that anybody can pick up and read will go a long way in clarifying the meaning of these good old English words.

But what do men like Mr. Price recommend instead? Why..., it’s the even more "archaic", far more difficult to pin down and much less understood “THE Hebrew and THE Greek” of course. Now, how is THAT for giving the word of God to the common people?!? Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard are full of footnotes that read "Meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain". And where exactly do we find “the” Hebrew and “the” Greek? God only knows, because Mr. Price and his fellow multiple-choice, thousands of textual variants, omissions, additions, corruptions, lacunas, transcriptional probabilities and Bible of the Month Club promoters sure don’t know.

As for the “archaic” words ploy, please see The Old Fashioned Language of the King James Bible - http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/langKJB.html

Mr. Price tries to argue that since there are numerous King James Bible publishers out there like Oxford, Cambridge, British & Foreign Bible Society, American Bible Society, Zondervan, Nelson, etc. and that among them there have resulted some spelling differences and/or printing errors, then we cannot logically argue for the King James Bible as being the true and preserved words of God.

Keep in mind that these are such minor differences as “Spirit” or “spirit”, “axe” or “ax”, “lift” or “lifted”, “Abidah” or “Abida”, “cloths” or “clothes”, “colour” or “color”, “forbad” or “forbade”, “astonied” or “astonished”, “further” or “farther”. Gosh, maybe we should just toss up our hands in despair at ever being able to hold up a real Book in our hands and declare “Thus saith the Lord...”

One of his “biggies” is the printed differences in spelling found in Nahum 3:16 where we read in the Cambridge King James Bible - “...the cankerworm spoileth and FLIETH away.” In the Oxford edition it reads “spoileth and FLEETH away.” The original 1611 read “flieth”, but even if a later publisher mistook the word for “fleeth”, any good dictionary will tell you that both words can mean the same thing. My Webster’s dictionary tells me that one of the meanings of“to fly” is “to run away from, flee from; or avoid.”

But let’s go even further with this “big example” Mr. Price presents us with and take a look at all the other bibles out there, shall we? Those Bible translations that read along with the original 1611 and the Cambridge printing of the KJB “FLIETH AWAY” (or flies away) are the following: the Geneva Bible, the NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV and Holman.

However other versions that read “FLEE AWAY” are the ASV 1901, Coverdale, Bishops’ bible, Young’s ‘literal’, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the 2003 Updated Bible version, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, and the Hebrew Names Bible.

Listen to Dr. Price’s conclusions and see if you want to go where he clearly has gone in his thinking. On page 123 , after showing us a list of “archaic” words and a few different spellings in the various printed editions of the King James Bible by different publishers, he sums up saying:

“It must be concluded that the current editions of the King James Version are doctrinally reliable, but are not flawless in their minute details. Therefore it would be wrong to dogmatically insist, apart from THE AUTHORITY OF THE HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS (caps are mine), that the King James Version is the verbally inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God, when it is known that the various current editions have verbal differences with variations of meaning....The doctrine of verbal inspiration and inerrancy IS LIMITED TO the words that were written by the inspired prophets and apostles. Translations must remain dependent on THE HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS from which they are made, and must be expected to exhibit some measure of human fallibility....The differences among the King James editions ARE NOT AS NUMEROUS AS THOSE IN THE HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS....but they still do not have a flawless Standard English text of the KJV to which they can appeal for final authority. To resolve the differences, they must still appeal to the Hebrew and Greek texts to determine which English words are authentic.”

Can you see through all this scholarly Double Talk? Mr. Price is all hung up over a few printing errors, “archaic” words, and minor spelling differences, and his only logical conclusion is that THERE IS NO INSPIRED AND INFALLIBLE BIBLE ON THIS EARTH. In Mr. Price’s thinking, the “inerrant” words of God turned to dust long, long ago, and never did form a complete Book that could be rightfully called The Bible.

Gather up all the spelling variations and minor printing errors in all the various modern printed editions of the King James Bible and compare their number to the total number of the wildly different Hebrew, Greek, various Septuagints, Syriac, Latin Vulgates, Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch , the “oldest and best” yada, yadas, or just plain “made up” textual sources from which the modern bible versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman are translated. Then compare their total numbers and you will find the ratio to be about One Hundred to One. At least the King James Bible believer DOES HAVE a definite underlying Hebrew and Greek text he can go to if need be to find out which printing error is right. ALL Modern, Multi-Versionists like James Price and James White clearly DO NOT.

The Biblical Text Preserved

Beginning with chapter 7 of his book, King James Onlyism: A New Sect, Mr. Price almost sounds like a Bible believer. He starts off with some great quotes and even uses the King James Bible to support his hypothetical position.

He begins by saying: “Of equal importance to the doctrines of divine inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is the doctrine of preservation of Scripture. Of what authority would the Scripture be today if its text had not been preserved throughout successive generations?”

He then goes on to quote from the KJB the verses in Matthew 5:18 where the Lord Jesus Christ, referring to the Old Testament, says: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” He also quotes Matthew 24:35 and even refers it by extention to the New Testament Scriptures when the Lord says: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Then Mr. Price says: “Thus, He anticipated the New Testament and its preservation.” I and thousands of other King James Bible believers heartily agree with him up to this point.

Mr. Price then proceeds to refer again to the Westminster Confession which states: “The Old Testament Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, ARE therefore authentical”.

Then Mr. Price begins to reveal his Achilles heel when he says: “They thought that the printed editions of the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT available to them in their day were reliable representatives of the autographic texts.”

We would agree with Mr. Price and the Westminster Confession that was formulated in England in the year 1646. But may we be permitted to point out a couple of inconvenient facts here? What Bible were they referring to in 1649 that “by the providence and care of God had been kept pure in all ages” and was currently in widespread use throughout the churches in England at that time? It was the King James Bible.

If by the Hebrew and the Greek texts they included the other English Reformation bibles too, like the Bishops’s bible of 1568 and the Geneva bible of 1560, then we would like to point out that their OT Hebrew and NT Greek texts were of the same type as the King James Bible and all of them were far different from the multitude of modern versions like the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV and Holman Standard, all of which reject the same Westminster Confession Hebrew texts in scores of places and reject the aforementioned NT Greek texts by omitting or calling into question some 40 entire verses plus another 2000 words or so, and none of them agrees even with each other.

Mr. Price professes an agreement with a Confession of Faith in the purity of Scriptures which he soon effectively denies when he promotes such modern versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman, RSV and others, all of which affirm the same Hebrew Scriptures to have been corrupted or even lost in numerous places. So, Mr. Price, please don’t tell us you believe the Westminster Confession, and then turn right around and deny the very Hebrew and Greek texts they stood for.

On page 129, Mr. Price begins to discuss the various “theories” of where God’s words might be preserved, and he gives us the modern day party line saying: “Those who have studied the SCIENCE AND ART of TEXTUAL CRITICISM have developed various theories of how the autographic text should be recovered from the multiple but imperfect witnesses. (Caps are mine). If you really want to see this “science and art” of textual criticism in action, take a look at my five part series on “Is this “Science” or Hocus Pocus?” here:

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

Mr. Price goes on to mention that some prefer the texts from Egypt, known as the Alexandrian tradition (these would be the Westcott-Hort versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV). Others prefer the Byzantine or ‘Majority Text’ view, others the Textus Receptus, and others still prefer an evaluation of all the witness from all traditions, but of course he takes a firm stand with none of the above and leaves the matter open to the individual conscience. He concludes: “No matter what theory a person prefers, the recovery of the autographic text is left with some degree of uncertainty.”

Since Mr. Price was one of the chief editors of the New King James Version, it is little surprise that he would support such an undecided and vague view of the preservation of Scriptures. Notice these words from the NEW KJV 1982 on page 1235: "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. THEY ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS EASIER FOR THE AVERAGE READER TO DELETE SOMETHING HE OR SHE FELT WAS NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE TEXT, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."

These footnotes in the NKJV generally have to do with the 3000 - 7000 words that have been omitted from the New Testament in such versions as the RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV. The NKJV editors are of the opinion that THE AVERAGE READER can DELETE something he FEELS is not part of the text.

On page 130 Mr. Price continues: “Because of the complexity of the problem of recovering the autographic text from multiple but imperfect witnesses, and because of the uncertainty...some have resorted to the dogma that God has preserved authoritative translations...and that the English Authorized Version is the perfectly preserved, authoritative Word of God for this time. But this is a new doctrine, not in harmony with the historical doctrine of Scripture.”

Again, let it be pointed out that the King James Bible believer’s faith in a preserved “book of the LORD” is based on what the Bible says about itself; not the “historical doctrine” of Scripture drawn up by men (i.e. the Westminster Confession) that even Mr. Price himself effectively denies. We really take those previously quoted verses in Matthew 5:18 and 24:35 to heart. We actually believe God has preserved His words as He promised and all the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that book.

Mr. Price again makes a silly argument against the possibility of a Translation being the inerrant word of God when he says on page 131: “But translations are the product of fallible men who cannot claim perfection.” Well, Duh.... How about those “fallible men who cannot claim perfection” that God used to give us the originals in the first place? If being fallible and imperfect men disqualifies any of us from being the chosen vessels of passing down God’s inspired words to succeeding generations, then the originals would never had been penned in the first place! His argument proves too much.

Then he again sticks his foot in his mouth when he says that “the Hebrew and Greek words cannot be perfectly transferred into another language (like English) without the loss of precision....Translation always involves some degree of deficiency. The most that can be expected of the best translation is an optimum transfer of information, not perfection, even with alleged providential preservation.”

He might want to take up his argument with the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles who continually “translated” from the inspired Hebrew and put it into another language for the New Testament, or with the apostle Paul who preached virtually a whole chapter in one language that was translated into another inspired one in Acts 22. This whole idea that a translation cannot be the inspired word of God did not come from the Bible, but from the seminary where they took both his money and his faith in an inerrant Bible.

Please see the article called “Can a Translation Be Inspired” - http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

Mr. Price admits the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted or even lost in parts, and has only a vague idea as to where the true N.T. readings may be found. So where, if not the King James Bible, does Mr. Price expect us to go to find the authoritative word of God? He won’t tell you. In his mind it is “out there somewhere” among all the thousands of variant readings and neither he nor any of his fellow Bible of the Month Club promoters are willing to take a stand on anything as being the sure words of God.

On page 150 he closes with these “comforting” words: “The reconstruction of the autographic texts is complex and not without some degree of uncertainty...So God evidently intends for His people to use their God-given intelligence, under illumination of the Holy Spirit, to accomplish this task....but, of course, no complete agreement has resulted. No one individual or group of individuals can claim to have the perfect solution to the problem.”

Apparently in Mr. Price’s view, poor ol’God has not only not been able to preserve His words as Matthew 5:18 and 24:35 promise, but now even God's “evident intentions” that His people could somehow manage to do it for Him have been dashed to pieces too.

In Conclusion

I have finished leafing through the rest of Mr. Price’s book to see what else he has to say, and frankly, I grow weary of reading him. The rest of his book takes up the various 8 to 10 different theories of textual criticism, with one scholar differing radically from what another says, ending up with Mr. Price eventually picking his own individual way of doing things. If you think my response has shown many textual differences among the various versions, then finish reading Mr. Prices book. He goes into literally hundreds of textual differences in both the Old and New Testaments in all the various versions out there and ends up with no Infallible Bible to give or recommend to anyone. He won’t even tell you which ones are right and which ones are not. The only thing he’s sure about is that neither the King James Bible nor any other Bible in any language is now the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God.

Mr. Price gives us the usual “No Bible is inspired” party line about the 5 or 6 different Greek versions and the so called Septuagint. If you are interested in reading the other side of this argument, then begin here and follow on through the rest. http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html

The idea that there was no authoritative Pre-Christian Greek Septuagint did not originate with Dr. Peter Ruckman. Others too throughout history have noted that what passes for the LXX is actually codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and that readings from an already completed New Testament were “back-translated” and placed into the so called Greek Septuagint.

Mr. Price also claims the Old Latin bibles are not on the side of the King James Bible, just as Doug Kutilek does. Yet how these gentlemen can ignore even their own Nestle-Aland footnotes that confirm the existence of every major disputed verse omitted in many modern versions as being found in these old bibles is beyond me.

You can see the evidence for yourself in this article about the Old Latin readings and the disputed King James Bible verses here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/OldLatin.html

Mr. Price basically ends his book with these words of distilled wisdom which are self-contradictory at best, but do reveal the sophistry of one who sounds out pious sounding words signifying nothing.

“The Bible, like all other things in life, has a measure of uncertainty associated with its identity...Sound reason has shown that this uncertainty provides no practical basis for doubting the authenticity or authority of Scripture; instead, reason provides the stepping stone for faith to move beyond uncertainty to full confidence in God’s Word....I plan to continue to use my King James Versions and other modern versions, to employ what seems to be the best method of textual criticism, and to retain my confidence in the Hebrew and Greek texts of he Bible as the divinely inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative Word of God, in spite of the occasional uncertainty.”

Can you see that Huge White Elephant standing in the middle of the room here?

In closing I would like to present you with one last article I have written about the Bible Version issue. One can argue the thousands of variant textual readings till they go silly and never solve anything, but the evidence that the King James Bible is the only true word of God is the fact that it always tells the truth and never perverts sound doctrine. Many argue, like Mr. Price does, that the major doctrines are taught in all bible versions, no matter how different. To a large extent I agree with him. However it is where these contradictory bible versions do pervert the Truth of God, that they reveal themselves to be bogus bibles They often speak with forked tongue, and raise again that first question found in the Bible when, in the garden of Eden, the subtle serpent asked - “Yea, hath God said...?

Please consider the article on the link below. It is titled ‘No Doctrines Are Changed?’.

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

May the Lord our God cause you and me “to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.” 2 Peter 3:18

Will Kinney

[AndysDad]

The idea that there was no authoritative Pre-Christian Greek Septuagint did not originate with Dr. Peter Ruckman. Others too throughout history have noted that what passes for the LXX is actually codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and that readings from an already completed New Testament were “back-translated” and placed into the so called Greek Septuagint.

Will, I don't know why you would keep bringing up this point. It it does not help your cause at all, because it simply doesn't fit the facts. Writers throughout history have not noted that the LXX was anything but one of the translations of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek in the last three centuries BC. There are dozens of LXX manuscripts and not all of them line up textually with either Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. Neither do Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, or Alexandrinus line up all that well with the New Testament Portions of those same manuscripts.

But if you really want to push this point, go ahead and give us some quotes from Pre-Ruckmanite scholars saying what you say they did.  And I will respond to every one with a quote from a Pre-Ruckmanite scholar saying the opposite.  Why, as early as the mid-third century--before any extant book of the LXX was even copied out--there was a discussion between two biblical scholars as to whether certain parts of the Septuagint were anciently composed in Greek or actually translated from a Hebrew original; but neither  of them disputed that the LXX was compiled before Christ's advent, nor did anyone else who used it.

Andy'sDad

[brandplucked]

Hi Andy's Dad.  Here is my response with lots of quotes from all over the place, about the so called LXX.  It is long, but divided into sections. 

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

Can you provide us with a single verse of Scripture that you think either the Lord Jesus or any of the apostles ever used that you can prove came from a Pre-Christian Septuagint?  Just one will do.  Thanks,

Will K

[Gabriel Anast]

That was a pretty interesting read (more like a skim)... the nolxx document I mean. I guess I never thought that Jesus and the apostles used the LXX (why would they?)... but I also presumed it was a real document of that era.

Not sure what to think now... have to go over that again.

Thanks for the effort you put into that.

--gabe

PS, you have a typo thus:

However, if you look closely at the context in both the New Testament book of Hebrews and especially in Genesis chapters 47 through 49, we see that Joseph Jacob / Israel did not die during the events recorded in Genesis 47, where the chapter ends with the correct reading that Israel "bowed himself upon the bed's head".

[brandplucked]

Hi gabe.  Thanks for at least looking it over and considering it.  Thanks too for the typo correction.  I will go correct it right away.  I appreciate your pointing this out to me.

Will K

[AndysDad]

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

Can you provide us with a single verse of Scripture that you think either the Lord Jesus or any of the apostles ever used that you can prove came from a Pre-Christian Septuagint?  Just one will do. 

No, I doubt I can, especially not to your satisfaction. Providing evidence is easy enough; deducing a proof is much more complicated.

Furthermore, there is not a scholar alive today who can prove otherwise.

But can you give even a single piece of evidence to back up any of these assertions?

Versions like the RSV, NIV will often reject the Hebrew readings and then tell you in a footnote: "SOME LXX versions say...."

Others too throughout history have noted that what passes for the LXX is actually codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and that readings from an already completed New Testament were “back-translated” and placed into the so called Greek Septuagint.

The LXX "quotations" and references in the Old Testament which differ significantly from the Hebrew Scriptures were taken directly from the already completed New Testament writings, and then transplanted back into the Greek O.T. translations in an effort to harmonize the different readings.

I can come back with a lot more, but I'm still waiting for you to provide me with some evidence for your assertions.

Just remember, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Andy'sDad

[Gabriel Anast]

He goes into this in some detail in the document he linked... pretty interesting actually...

The document seriously needs to be re-formatted, though... its like a Pauline epistle ;P in style (or lack thereof). No offense intended, Will.

--gabe

[AndysDad]

John Owen's commentary on Hebrews 10:5

He says the translators of the LXX took the reading of the New Testament and placed it in their LXX translation! Please note that the view that the LXX translation was made AFTER the New Testament was complete is NOT A NOVEL POSITION invented by the King James Only people.

Thank you for this, Will. Your depth of research continues to impress me. It is clear from reading Owen in Hebrews that he is convinced that what is known as the Septuagint Translation was not a source for certain disputed readings in the New Testament, but vice versa. However, you need to take a closer look at what he actually wrote. He did not believe that the NT was the source for the LXX, and that it never existed before the NT.

For although we should not adhere precisely unto the opinion

Now he is about to give the opinion that he does not exactly agree with, which is:

that all the quotations out of the Old Testament in the New, which agree in words with the present translation of the LXX, were by the scribes of that translation transferred out of the New Testament into it

In other words, he is not in support of your thesis as I understand it--although in some cases he does feel that some parts of what we now know of the LXX had their source in the NT, he doesn't agree that all OT quotations in the NT found their way back into the LXX.

There's nothing odd about such a view; There is no way to prove that the 'extra Cainan' of Luke 3 did not originate in a scribal error of the NT and thence make its way back into the LXX. And I don't know of any scholar who doesn't think that the most of Psalm 14:3 in the LXX was lifted from Romans 3 in the NT, which in turn was a run-on quote of Ps. 53:1-3, 5:9, 140:3, 10:7, Isaiah 59:7, 59:8, and Psalm 36:1.  But in order for these verses to be inserted into Ps. 14 of the LXX, there had to be a Psalm 14 of the LXX already in existence. Owens certainly doesn't dispute that.

What Owen does hold is

(3.) That sundry passages have been unquestionably taken out of the new testament, and inserted into that translation (the LXX) which I have elsewhere proved by undeniable instances. And I no way doubt but it hath so fallen out in this place, where no account can be given of the translation of the LXX as the words now are in it.

Owen also said of Hebrews 1:6:

Many of the ancients . . . conceived the words to be cited from Deut. 32:43, where they expressly occur in the translation of the LXX,
"Rejoice ye heavens with him, and let all the angels of God worship him."

But there are two considerations that put it beyond all pretensions that the words are not taken from this place of the LXX:

So, Owen is saying that in this and many other cases, there is no way, in his opinion, that these words came to stand in the current LXX other than by having been moved there from the NT.

Because indeed there are no such words in the original text. . . but the whole is inserted in the Greek Version.

But what he says next sets him up for a fall:

Now, although it may perhaps be safely granted that the apostles, in citing the Scripture of the Old Testament , did sometimes use the words of the Greek translation then in use . . . yet to cite that from the Scripture as the word and testimony of God which indeed is not therein, nor was ever spoken by God, but by human failure and corruption crept into the Greek version, is not to be imputed unto them. And indeed I no way question but that this addition unto the Greek text in that place was made after the apostle had used this testimony.

We can forgive Owen this, as when he wrote there was no way to prove otherwise. But we do in fact have a B.C. Hebrew fragment of Deuteronomy, lately pulled from its place of long repose deep in a Judean cave,  that just happens to contain this very verse. And lo and behold, it contains the very words in question.  They could not possibly have been pulled from the book of Hebrews, as its author, whoever he was, had yet to be born.

Owen was wrong.  And his was not the only pre-KJO opinion on Hebrews 10:6, nor even the only one that found a way to resolve the discrepancy between the LXX and Hebrew of the quote. In 1825 Adam Clarke wrote:

But how is it possible that the Septuagint and the apostle should take a meaning so totally different from the sense of the Hebrew? Dr. Kennicott has a very ingenious conjecture here: he supposes that the Septuagint and apostle express the meaning of the words as they stood in the copy from which the Greek translation was made; and that the present Hebrew text is corrupted in the word oznayim, ears, which has been written through carelessness for az gevah, THEN A BODY. The first syllable THEN, is the same in both; and the latter which joined to makes oznayim, might have been easily mistaken for gevah, BODY; nun, being very like gimel; yod, like vau; and he, like final mem; especially if the line on which the letters were written in the MS. happened to be blacker than ordinary, which has often been a cause of mistake, it might have been easily taken for the under stroke of the mem, and thus give rise to a corrupt reading: add to this the root carah, signifies as well to prepare as to open, bore, Septuagint, and followed by the apostle, must have read the text thus: az gevah caritha li, σωμαδεκατηρτισωμοι, then a body thou hast prepared me.

Thus the Hebrew text, the version of the Septuagint, and the apostle, will agree in what is known to be an indisputable fact in Christianity, namely, that Christ was incarnated for the sin of the world.

AndysDad

[ForeverGirl]

Mr. Kenney,
Thank you for linking that article. I was especially impressed with the section titled No LXX - Part Two and the examples taken from the Psalms and Romans. It seems clear to me that the authors of the LXX were completely unfamiliar with the Hebrew scriptures. How embarrassing for them. 

thanks,
Rebekah

[Gabriel Anast]

John Owen's commentary on Hebrews 10:5

He says the translators of the LXX took the reading of the New Testament and placed it in their LXX translation! Please note that the view that the LXX translation was made AFTER the New Testament was complete is NOT A NOVEL POSITION invented by the King James Only people.

It is clear from reading Owen in Hebrews that he is convinced that what is known as the Septuagint Translation was not a source for certain disputed readings in the New Testament, but vice versa. However, you need to take a closer look at what he actually wrote. He did not believe that the NT was the source for the LXX, and that it never existed before the NT.

For although we should not adhere precisely unto the opinion

Now he is about to give the opinion that he does not exactly agree with, which is:

that all the quotations out of the Old Testament in the New, which agree in words with the present translation of the LXX, were by the scribes of that translation transferred out of the New Testament into it

In other words, he is not in support of your thesis as I understand it--although in some cases he does feel that some parts of what we now know of the LXX had their source in the NT, he doesn't agree that all OT quotations in the NT found their way back into the LXX.

No, indeed. Owens is exactly in support of Will's view (rather, vise versa). Owen's only caveat ("...we should not adhere precisely...") is that there are probably points where the texts were in agreement and were not tampered with either... the nature of, "precisely" in this phrase implies that accuracy is not in question, but the scope is more limited than the statement implies.

There's nothing odd about such a view; There is no way to prove that the 'extra Cainan' of Luke 3 did not originate in a scribal error of the NT and thence make its way back into the LXX.

Proof, like is it repeatable scientifically? Probably not... but proof as in, deduction from the nature of the error and the handling of the rest of the text... I think Will is well supported in these particular conclusions.

And I don't know of any scholar who doesn't think that the most of Psalm 14:3 in the LXX was lifted from Romans 3 in the NT, which in turn was a run-on quote of Ps. 53:1-3, 5:9, 140:3, 10:7, Isaiah 59:7, 59:8, and Psalm 36:1.  But in order for these verses to be inserted into Ps. 14 of the LXX, there had to be a Psalm 14 of the LXX already in existence. Owens certainly doesn't dispute that.

Why, pray tell would there have to have been a Ps 14 before that point? That there might have been I might agree with... but if all the manuscript evidence suggests the same handling of Ps 14, then I would have to say the manuscripts themselves indicate that the Psalm in question was revised as it was translated.

What Owen does hold is

(3.) That sundry passages have been unquestionably taken out of the new testament, and inserted into that translation (the LXX) which I have elsewhere proved by undeniable instances. And I no way doubt but it hath so fallen out in this place, where no account can be given of the translation of the LXX as the words now are in it.

Owen also said of Hebrews 1:6:

Many of the ancients . . . conceived the words to be cited from Deut. 32:43, where they expressly occur in the translation of the LXX,
"Rejoice ye heavens with him, and let all the angels of God worship him."

But there are two considerations that put it beyond all pretensions that the words are not taken from this place of the LXX:

So, Owen is saying that in this and many other cases, there is no way, in his opinion, that these words came to stand in the current LXX other than by having been moved there from the NT.

Because indeed there are no such words in the original text. . . but the whole is inserted in the Greek Version.

Indeed, and in complete agreement with Will, I might add.

But what he says next sets him up for a fall:

Now, although it may perhaps be safely granted that the apostles, in citing the Scripture of the Old Testament , did sometimes use the words of the Greek translation then in use . . . yet to cite that from the Scripture as the word and testimony of God which indeed is not therein, nor was ever spoken by God, but by human failure and corruption crept into the Greek version, is not to be imputed unto them. And indeed I no way question but that this addition unto the Greek text in that place was made after the apostle had used this testimony.

We can forgive Owen this, as when he wrote there was no way to prove otherwise. But we do in fact have a B.C. Hebrew fragment of Deuteronomy, lately pulled from its place of long repose deep in a Judean cave,  that just happens to contain this very verse. And lo and behold, it contains the very words in question.  They could not possibly have been pulled from the book of Hebrews, as its author, whoever he was, had yet to be born.

Please provide a citation.

Owen was wrong.

Woah... you cannot say that... maybe he was right, and the possibly later LXX Greek translation was from a minority text... one maybe that had its origins in a Judean cave...  It it also possible that this Hebrew fragment was translated from Greek from Hebrew... uh... which is more likely?

And his was not the only pre-KJO opinion on Hebrews 10:6, nor even the only one that found a way to resolve the discrepancy between the LXX and Hebrew of the quote. In 1825 Adam Clarke wrote:

But how is it possible that the Septuagint and the apostle should take a meaning so totally different from the sense of the Hebrew? Dr. Kennicott has a very ingenious conjecture here: he supposes that the Septuagint and apostle express the meaning of the words as they stood in the copy from which the Greek translation was made; and that the present Hebrew text is corrupted in the word oznayim, ears, which has been written through carelessness for az gevah, THEN A BODY. The first syllable THEN, is the same in both; and the latter which joined to makes oznayim, might have been easily mistaken for gevah, BODY; nun, being very like gimel; yod, like vau; and he, like final mem; especially if the line on which the letters were written in the MS. happened to be blacker than ordinary, which has often been a cause of mistake, it might have been easily taken for the under stroke of the mem, and thus give rise to a corrupt reading: add to this the root carah, signifies as well to prepare as to open, bore, Septuagint, and followed by the apostle, must have read the text thus: az gevah caritha li, σωμαδεκατηρτισωμοι, then a body thou hast prepared me.

Thus the Hebrew text, the version of the Septuagint, and the apostle, will agree in what is known to be an indisputable fact in Christianity, namely, that Christ was incarnated for the sin of the world.

So, this is interesting... but does not set aside the other point... indeed it necessitates a transcription error which, as far as I can tell, is never presented except in this "stretch" to cover the validity of the LXX.

A transcription error is the more difficult path to follow if one has to choose between the two based strictly on the merits of likelihood... Occam's Razor.

--gabe

[brandplucked]

Mr. Kenney,
Thank you for linking that article. I was especially impressed with the section titled No LXX - Part Two and the examples taken from the Psalms and Romans. It seems clear to me that the authors of the LXX were completely unfamiliar with the Hebrew scriptures. How embarrassing for them. 

thanks,
Rebekah

Hi Rebekah. Thank you for your comments.  I know it is a very complicated issue as to even what the Septuagint even is (there are several versions of it even today) and when it was written.  Were there various and discrepant parts of the O.T. translated into Greek before the time of Christ?  Probably there were sections or parts, but I do not believe there was any complete and authoritative LXX before the Christian era. 
The example of Psalm 14 and Romans 3 seems to be a classic "smoking gun" that blows up the whole idea of a Pre-Christian complete and authoritative LXX that the apostles and Christ Himself supposedly used as many tell us.

Besides that, the scholars used to tell us that the Hebrew language had died out around the time of Christ and so they needed the LXX.  But many recent findings have put the lie to this theory as well. The Hebrew language was alive and well at the time of Christ, and thus no need for Jesus or the apostles to quote from some alleged Greek Septuagint.

A third thing to consider is the fact that everyone who tries to promote the pre-Christian LXX theory is himself a Bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the existence at any time in history, and especially today, of a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible.  They all deny the inerrancy of the Bible.  It is sad to see, but by far the majority of Christians today do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture or of any Bible in any language. 

May God graciously increase our faith and understanding of His precious words.

God bless,
Will K

[jchthys]

The Preface to the KJV about the Septuagint:

Therefore the word of God, being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the marketplace, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by.

It appears that the KJV translators believed that the apostles took readings from the LXX and not vice versa.

[andiclare]

A third thing to consider is the fact that everyone who tries to promote the pre-Christian LXX theory is himself a Bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the existence at any time in history, and especially today, of a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible.  They all deny the inerrancy of the Bible.  It is sad to see, but by far the majority of Christians today do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture or of any Bible in any language. 

I think you're again perhaps confusing belief in inspired, inerrant Scripture with belief in one inspired and inerrant translation of Scripture. You see how they aren't exactly the same thing? Do you believe that the Word of God consists of (English) words on a page and nothing else?

God bless!

[AndysDad]

We can forgive Owen this, as when he wrote there was no way to prove otherwise. But we do in fact have a B.C. Hebrew fragment of Deuteronomy, lately pulled from its place of long repose deep in a Judean cave,  that just happens to contain this very verse. And lo and behold, it contains the very words in question.  They could not possibly have been pulled from the book of Hebrews, as its author, whoever he was, had yet to be born.

Please provide a citation.

4QDeutq:
1 Shout for joy, oh heavens, with him
2 And worship him, all ye gods
3 For he will avenge the blood of his sons
4 And will render vengeance to his adversaries
5 And he will recompense the ones hating him
6 As he purges the land of his people

So, good point--the correspondence is not exact here. Chances are probably better that it's a quote from Psalm 97:7.

So, this is interesting... but does not set aside the other point... indeed it necessitates a transcription error which, as far as I can tell, is never presented except in this "stretch" to cover the validity of the LXX.

A transcription error is the more difficult path to follow if one has to choose between the two based strictly on the merits of likelihood... Occam's Razor.

--gabe

I'm not sure what you mean here--what's the alternative that's even more likely to happen than a typo?

AndysDad

[Gabriel Anast]

It's more likely that there was no error, and that as Will mentions, quoting AW Pink... whoever that is... that,

"Commentators have needlessly perplexed themselves and their readers by discovering a discrepancy between these words and Psalm 40:6 which reads, "Mine ears hast Thou opened" or "digged" (margin). Really, there is no discord whatever between the two expressions: one is figurative, the other literal; both having the same sense."

In other words, David used the figurative, "ears" and the writer of Hebrews, replaced the figure with the literal: body.

It seems better and more likely (in my opinion) than looking for the necessity of a scribal error.

--gabe

[brandplucked]

The Preface to the KJV about the Septuagint:

Therefore the word of God, being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the marketplace, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by.

It appears that the KJV translators believed that the apostles took readings from the LXX and not vice versa.

Yes, I am well aware of that.  They were wrong.

Will K

[brandplucked]

A third thing to consider is the fact that everyone who tries to promote the pre-Christian LXX theory is himself a Bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the existence at any time in history, and especially today, of a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible.  They all deny the inerrancy of the Bible.  It is sad to see, but by far the majority of Christians today do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture or of any Bible in any language. 

I think you're again perhaps confusing belief in inspired, inerrant Scripture with belief in one inspired and inerrant translation of Scripture. You see how they aren't exactly the same thing? Do you believe that the Word of God consists of (English) words on a page and nothing else?

God bless!

Hi andiclare.  No, I do not believe I am the one who is confused nor try to obfuscate the matter.  I believe the King James Bible is both inspired and inerrant and as far as I know is the only inspired and inerrant translation on the earth today.

Now, how about your belief?  Do you believe there exists any Bible or any single text in any language that IS the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God?  If Yes, then can you please tell us where we too can get a copy of this inerrant Bible (a Bible is 66 books and includes both testaments) so we can compare it to whatever we are using now to see the differences and similarities?

Yes, No, or I was just kidding. 

What do you believe about the existence of an inerrant and inspired Bible.

You may well disagree about where I stand, but there should be no doubt about what it is that I believe and defend.  How about you?

Thanks,

Will K

[andiclare]

I believe that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God, but I still don't believe that it is necessarily confined to one single language/translation. I don't see any reason why I'd try to struggle to believe that when it (to me) makes no sense. I'm open to learning if my current beliefs aren't the truth.

But I do apologize for saying you might be "confused" lol.  Right or wrong, you are obviously convicted, so there wasn't really any need for that from me. 

[brandplucked]

I believe that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God, but I still don't believe that it is necessarily confined to one single language/translation. I don't see any reason why I'd try to struggle to believe that when it (to me) makes no sense. I'm open to learning if my current beliefs aren't the truth.

But I do apologize for saying you might be "confused" lol.  Right or wrong, you are obviously convicted, so there wasn't really any need for that from me. 

Hi andiclare.  Thank you for your response and the spirit with which you made it.  If you allow me, I would like for both of us to examine what it is that you say you believe about the Bible.  When you make a statement like "I believe that THE Bible IS the inerrant and inspired word of God" I have to ask myself a couple of questions.  When you talk about "the Bible" what exactly are you referring to?  A real and tangible Book of paper and ink, or a mere philosophical construct or idea that, when examined closely, is found to be really nothing in particular?  Is there some phantom, invisible, unreadable and unknown "the Bible" that you are referring to, or is it really something you can hold in your hands and give to somebody else to actually read, study and believe?

I ask these questions because I think many of us have beliefs that are quite fuzzy and undefined.

So, where can we get a copy of this inerrant and inspired Bible you say you believe in? Or is it something not in print?   Can you answer that for me?  Thanks.

God bless,
Will Kinney

[andiclare]

When you make a statement like "I believe that THE Bible IS the inerrant and inspired word of God" I have to ask myself a couple of questions.  When you talk about "the Bible" what exactly are you referring to?  A real and tangible Book of paper and ink, or a mere philosophical construct or idea that, when examined closely, is found to be really nothing in particular?  Is there some phantom, invisible, unreadable and unknown "the Bible" that you are referring to, or is it really something you can hold in your hands and give to somebody else to actually read, study and believe?

We read the scriptures (obviously) as words on a page,  paper and ink that you can hold in your hands and study and believe. There are numerous translations of the originals, some obviously more authoritative than others. As long as it's been approved by the Church, it's authoritative enough for me. The King James Version is by far my most preferred protestant translation.

But as far as King James Onlyism...If you look at history it's actually a "new" doctrine. Who came up with it? And by what authority? The Christian Church and the scriptures have been with us for 2000 years. We've believed that these books are inspired and inerrant for almost as long. Why would I make the pronouncement that God is so limited, that he can only speak to the Church as a whole or an individual believer's heart through one 400-year old translation in one language?  I guess the question for me is not why don't I believe King James Onlyism but why would I believe such a thing?

[brandplucked]

When you make a statement like "I believe that THE Bible IS the inerrant and inspired word of God" I have to ask myself a couple of questions.  When you talk about "the Bible" what exactly are you referring to?  A real and tangible Book of paper and ink, or a mere philosophical construct or idea that, when examined closely, is found to be really nothing in particular?  Is there some phantom, invisible, unreadable and unknown "the Bible" that you are referring to, or is it really something you can hold in your hands and give to somebody else to actually read, study and believe?

We read the scriptures (obviously) as words on a page,  paper and ink that you can hold in your hands and study and believe. There are numerous translations of the originals, some obviously more authoritative than others. As long as it's been approved by the Church, it's authoritative enough for me. The King James Version is by far my most preferred protestant translation.

But as far as King James Onlyism...If you look at history it's actually a "new" doctrine. Who came up with it? And by what authority? The Christian Church and the scriptures have been with us for 2000 years. We've believed that these books are inspired and inerrant for almost as long. Why would I make the pronouncement that God is so limited, that he can only speak to the Church as a whole or an individual believer's heart through one 400-year old translation in one language?  I guess the question for me is not why don't I believe King James Onlyism but why would I believe such a thing?

Hi sister. Thanks for getting back to me on this.  You mention that "there are numerous translation of the originals".  Have you really thought through that belief?  There are no "the originals" so how could we have numerous translations of them, and yet these translations (especially the modern ones like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, Holman etc.) often differ from each other by literally thousands of textual words and the meanings of hundreds of verses are completely different?

It seem more reasonable to say that God is indeed "limited" as you say.  He is limited to what He really inspired and caused to be placed in "the book of the LORD". 

I already addressed the issue about why the King James Bible and none other is the true book of the Lord in this thread:

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

As for KJB onlyism being a "new doctrine", I think if you go back in history to the time when the Church actually began to formally address the doctrine of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, it wasn't until AFTER the King James Bible came on the scene.  This is another mark of the sovereignty of God in history.

The formal church confessions about the Inerrancy of Scripture support the King James Bible view rather than the modern versionist view.

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

God's revelation is progressive.  In the early church confessions they never mentioned anything about "the originals".  They just assumed we had the inspired words of God in the Bible, and at that time there was only one Bible that was in common use.

Today the whole belief about the inerrancy of Scripture has shifted dramatically.  Now most churches do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inspired, inerrant and 100% true words of God.  They are "originals only" and this is both silly and damaging at the same time.  Damaging because it clearly implies that there is no inerrant Bible NOW, and silly in that these people are professing a faith in something that THEY KNOW does not exist.

How do I know the King James Bible is the only true Bible Standard?  Because it always tells the truth, and all the others are to one degree or another false witnesses.

All of sovereign grace believing the Book,

Will K

[jchthys]

What is faulty with the argument you gave is that you do not answer the question, “Where was the Bible before 1611?” It is a legitimate question. It does not work simply to state that the other side does not answer it either. No non-KJVO claims that there “God promised to preserve His pure, complete and 100% true words in a Book somewhere on this earth”; therefore, they are not compelled to answer the question. The burden of proof rests with those who believe that the KJV is the inspired word of God. It is your claim that there must exist a 66-book Bible in one language in one place, and it is therefore necessary to answer the question: “Where was the complete 66-book Bible, in a single language in one place, before 1611?”

God never promised to preserve all His pure, complete and 100% true words in any single book at one time, at one place and in one language.

You might say that it is not Bible-believing to say such a thing. But I find no scriptural warrant for that statement. Was it not Bible-believing to say that before 1611? You yourself would say that there was no need for the complete word of God in a single book in one language before 1611. How is that different from believing the same thing after 1611?

You believe that there was, I gather from your statements, no verbally inspired word of God before 1611. Second Timothy 3:16 begins, however, “All Scripture is inspired by God.” The Holy Spirit is not talking about the KJV, as that translation had not been started yet—in fact, even the language had not come into being. But still He says that that Scripture is inspired by God. It must be something other than the KJV.

[andiclare]

Hey again Mr. Kinney,

Our basic disagreement, I believe, has to do with my own opinions about the authority of the Church re: Scripture. Which is fundamental. Without it, I wouldn't believe that the Scriptures are inspired or inerrent. If you and I disagree on that basic foundation, there's no way we're going to see eye to eye on the rest.  (I tried to explain as best I could in this old thread.)

I know that you are very convicted in your beliefs, and I wouldn't want to fall into the trap of trying to convince you or "teach" you otherwise. I don't have the authority to do that. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my posts every time.

[brandplucked]

What is faulty with the argument you gave is that you do not answer the question, “Where was the Bible before 1611?” It is a legitimate question. It does not work simply to state that the other side does not answer it either. No non-KJVO claims that there “God promised to preserve His pure, complete and 100% true words in a Book somewhere on this earth”; therefore, they are not compelled to answer the question. The burden of proof rests with those who believe that the KJV is the inspired word of God. It is your claim that there must exist a 66-book Bible in one language in one place, and it is therefore necessary to answer the question: “Where was the complete 66-book Bible, in a single language in one place, before 1611?”

God never promised to preserve all His pure, complete and 100% true words in any single book at one time, at one place and in one language.

You might say that it is not Bible-believing to say such a thing. But I find no scriptural warrant for that statement. Was it not Bible-believing to say that before 1611? You yourself would say that there was no need for the complete word of God in a single book in one language before 1611. How is that different from believing the same thing after 1611?

You believe that there was, I gather from your statements, no verbally inspired word of God before 1611. Second Timothy 3:16 begins, however, “All Scripture is inspired by God.” The Holy Spirit is not talking about the KJV, as that translation had not been started yet—in fact, even the language had not come into being. But still He says that that Scripture is inspired by God. It must be something other than the KJV.

Hi jc.  I did answer the question.  I said I do not believe there was a complete, inspired, perfect and 100% true Bible before God brought forth the King James Bible.  Does this sound shocking to you?  Well, YOUR view is that there NEVER was a perfect Bible both before and after 16ll.

I see all those promises in Scripture as referring to the "book of the LORD".  You apparently do not. I cannot help that. If you prefer to not believe in the infallibility of the Bible or any bible, then go for it.  See where it will lead you. 

By the way 2 Timothy 3:16 was not referring to the long lost originals and the N.T. had mostly not even been written yet, let along gathered into one place. God's putting together His Book was a process sovereignly guided by the God of history.  I and many thousands of others believe we have the finished product in the King James Bible.

You, on the other hand, do not believe that any Bible is the pure and 100% true words of God.  It is your side of unbelief that is on its way down, not mine.

Will K

[jchthys]

Given the Old Testament context of the statements about ‘the book of the LORD’, it seems logical to believe that this refers to a specific portion of the Bible, possibly the Torah (in Hebrew). Take a passage such as 2 Chronicles 17:9: “And they taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the LORD with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught the people.” What is the book of the law of the LORD? The Torah, in Hebrew. It actually existed prior to 1611.

Never in Scripture is it said that what God intended to communicate would never be put into writing until a translation, well after all the inspired authors of the Bible had died. That would mean that God’s words would not even have existed in the times of the writing of the Bible, because the words only appeared in 1611.

You say, “I do not believe there was a complete, inspired, perfect and 100% true Bible before God brought forth the King James Bible.” Second Timothy, however, says, “All Scripture is inspired by God.” It is in the present tense: either that the entire Bible had already been inspired (which was not the case), or the process was still in operation (which was). It does not mean, “All Scripture will be inspired by God.”

When you say, “Well, YOUR view is that there NEVER was a perfect Bible both before and after 16ll.” This statement is ambiguous. I do believe that all the words that God breathed out can be and have been collected into one book (you can buy a copy here). This does not mean that every copy of this book was inspired. God’s providence guided the preservation and collection of his words. Only the originals were actually God-breathed, but our copies are accurate, and we can put our faith in them.

[brandplucked]

Given the Old Testament context of the statements about ‘the book of the LORD’, it seems logical to believe that this refers to a specific portion of the Bible, possibly the Torah (in Hebrew). Take a passage such as 2 Chronicles 17:9: “And they taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the LORD with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught the people.” What is the book of the law of the LORD? The Torah, in Hebrew. It actually existed prior to 1611.

Hi jc.  In the Isaiah passage is speaks of things not mentioned elsewhere in the O.T. law, but they are mentioned way up in the book of Revelation.  The "book of the LORD" exists in the mind of God as a completed whole even when from our point of view it is in process of being completed.

Never in Scripture is it said that what God intended to communicate would never be put into writing until a translation, well after all the inspired authors of the Bible had died. That would mean that God’s words would not even have existed in the times of the writing of the Bible, because the words only appeared in 1611.

Then do you know of a perfect, complete (66 books in a single Bible) infallible and 100% true Bible before the King James Bible came out?  What was it?

You say, “I do not believe there was a complete, inspired, perfect and 100% true Bible before God brought forth the King James Bible.” Second Timothy, however, says, “All Scripture is inspired by God.” It is in the present tense: either that the entire Bible had already been inspired (which was not the case), or the process was still in operation (which was). It does not mean, “All Scripture will be inspired by God.”

You almost had it right.  Yes, Scripture (true Scripture) IS inspired but it was in process at the time 1 Timothy was written.  In fact, much of the N.T. was still to be written at that point in time.  If it is Scripture, then it is inspired.  He was not referring to the originals only position.

When you say, “Well, YOUR view is that there NEVER was a perfect Bible both before and after 16ll.” This statement is ambiguous. I do believe that all the words that God breathed out can be and have been collected into one book (you can buy a copy here). This does not mean that every copy of this book was inspired. God’s providence guided the preservation and collection of his words. Only the originals were actually God-breathed, but our copies are accurate, and we can put our faith in them.

jc, I notice that you referred me to a LATIN translation of a Hebrew O.T. and some Greek N.T.  Is that actually what you believe to be the infallible and inspired and 100% true words of God?

If so, would you then consider any version that omits whole verses, changes the names and numbers, and completely alters the meaning of your copy of what you refer to as all the words of God collected into one book, then are they too the infallible and 100% words of God?

Depending on how you answer this, I may have some other questions for you.

In fact, let me post something now that will give you an idea of where this is going.  Can you tell us which of the following "bible versions" IS the infallible and 100% true words of God?  I am mainly using just numbers and names because there are not many different ways these can be translated.  You either get it right or you don't.

“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples.  Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read THREE (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, NET, Holman or THIRTY from the Syriac NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, ESV) or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).

You don't have to address them all. Just pick one or two good ones and then let us know which texts are the God inspired and infallible ones. OK?

Thanks,

Will K

[andiclare]

I am not getting back into the discussion, but just wanted to post a quick comment. I would love to see the following statement fairly addressed. With an actual answer; not deflected with another question.

Never in Scripture is it said that what God intended to communicate would never be put into writing until a translation, well after all the inspired authors of the Bible had died. That would mean that God’s words would not even have existed in the times of the writing of the Bible, because the words only appeared in 1611.

[jchthys]

None of the translations are pure, 100% inspired words of God. The book I linked to it is the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, the final authority for all matters of faith and practice.

[brandplucked]

I am not getting back into the discussion, but just wanted to post a quick comment. I would love to see the following statement fairly addressed. With an actual answer; not deflected with another question.

Never in Scripture is it said that what God intended to communicate would never be put into writing until a translation, well after all the inspired authors of the Bible had died. That would mean that God’s words would not even have existed in the times of the writing of the Bible, because the words only appeared in 1611.

Hi andiclare.  I will give it a shot, but first is should be noted that I definitely did not say that.  jc did.  But I will address a couple of thoughts about what he said.  He is setting up a false standard for determining what God's pure words are.  He himself cannot meet this man made standard.

He says that nowhere in Scripture does it teach that God's words would be put in writing until a translation came along well after the authors of the Bible had died.  Well, he's right in this.  But it should also be pointed out that neither do the Scriptures say anything about "the originals" nor "the Hebrew" nor "the Greek" being God's words.  Nor do the Scriptures teach anywhere jc's stated believe that no translation is inspired or inerrant.  Nor do the Scriptures teach that the pure words of God are found in that Biblia Sacra Editio Hebraica et Graece he is so eager to recommend. So, in other words, he has absolutely NO Scriptural support for his ideas either.

He then concludes with a totally false statement.  He says: "That would mean that God’s words would not even have existed in the times of the writing of the Bible, because the words only appeared in 1611."

This is completely untrue.  God's words did exist before 1611.  It is just that they were scattered all over the place in various manuscripts that had become corrupted to varying degrees and for the most part have now long ago turned to dust.  Only God is capable of purifying His words, because He alone knows which ones are His and which are not, and of bringing them together in one Bible composed of 66 books.

As I pointed out, the printing press was not even invented till around 1450 and most people could not even see a whole Bible much less own one themselves till around 1550.  Before this time most churches had just a few hand written copies of a few books of the Bible if that.

Next I will take a closer look at what it is that jc recommends we buy so we can supposedly have the complete and pure words of God in a single volume.

I hope this addressed the issue you raised.  If not, please ask again about any particular point you would like answered.

Blessings,
Will K

Advanced search

• 1 Timothy 3:16 GOD was manifest in the flesh, or the Vatican versions "he"?: Translation Questions and Discussion byandiclare (3)
• Revelation 18:20 - Bible critics and "ye holy apostles and prophets": Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• What About the 2011 NIV Old Testament?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• 1 Samuel 6:19 Is your Bible the 100% historical truth of God? 50,070 or 70 slain: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (3)
• What About the new NIV 2011?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (2)
• Answering the Typical Anti-KJB Only sites: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• We are Gods?: Bible Discussion bySoffi (0)
• Every Man For Himself Bible Versions: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• Answering James White's Question - Which KJV?: Translation Questions and Discussion byAndysDad (6)

• Japanese/English Bible?: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byGarlicMomma (5)
• Beka....?: Announcements & Updates byandiclare (0)
• HELP? Hubby can't sleep (I tried to search this): Healthcare @ Home byandiclare (1)
• Where is everyone?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (5)
• Introduce Yourself!: Nothing Deep bypiperjameson (325)
• The scoop on Soap: House and Home byCherika Four Seasons (1)
• Ideas: Children serving each other: Parenting byjenibee (0)
• My husband needs help with something I think is wrong: Relationships byjackiee (4)
• like minded moms?: Parenting byHomeschool_Newbie (2)
• "Courtship" discussions/questions: Relationships byHomeschool_Newbie (15)
• Announcing....: Announcements & Updates byBJ_BOBBI_JO (5)
• 80 days dream: Announcements & Updates bybasething (16)
• strabismus: Healthcare @ Home byFree Woman (10)
• Prayer Requests -- Health Related: Healthcare @ Home byBJ_BOBBI_JO (640)
• Translations in Guatemala...: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byAndysDad (5)
• Boring christian life: Sarah's Daughters byBJ_BOBBI_JO (6)
• Is this site for real?: Relationships byandiclare (2)
• Emergency food: canned or powder?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (9)
• A heart issue for my children?: Parenting byandiclare (9)
• Keeping Warm, Heating Tips & Tricks: House and Home byherbalmom (60)

[Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.Did you miss your activation email?]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

February 07, 2012, 03:35:10 PM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 6893
• Latest: ROxidRe4

Stats

• Total Posts: 243886
• Total Topics: 21906
• Online Today: 27
• Online Ever: 437
• (April 01, 2008, 03:09:36 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 29
• Total: 29