View source



“Why do you King James only people attack the word of God?”


I have been involved in many Christian internet forums over the years and have discussed whether or not there really is a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language with many Christians. 


When people begin to discuss the Bible version issue, many Christians become uncomfortable and then they get angry.  Passions are stirred about this single topic more than any other.  Some forums will not even allow discussions about the inerrancy of the Scriptures or the King James Bible to be discussed. 


I myself have been banned from several Christian clubs just because I brought up the issue of whether or not “The King James Bible” is the inerrant word of God or not.  The promoters of the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman Standard etc. are now rocked back on their heels and are scrambling for some kind of answer.  They are not doing well at all and unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture is at an all time high.



They do not believe that the King James Bible nor any other Bible in any language (including their nebulous and constantly changing “the” Hebrew and Greek) is the infallible words of God, and I see a remarkable deterioration in their thinking processes.  Many young Christians are simply unaware of the issues involved in the Bible version discussions, but many others who do have some knowledge are now coming out with some really strange, contradictory, and emotionally charged unbiblical statements.


Before we look at some of the things now commonly being said on the internet, let’s first address this frequent charge I now hear by those who are confronted with the King James Bible issue.  I have recently been asked several times: “Why do you King James only people attack the word of God?”


Most of the people asking this question are woefully ignorant of what has been going on for the last 100 years or so, and who started this attack on the Bible.  It certainly was not the King James Bible believers.  It was the seminaries and the modern versionist themselves who started this attack on not only the King James Bible but on the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture as a whole.



"The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God"


Most Christians today do NOT believe The Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God. This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examimation, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person's particular version differs from all the others.


As one liberal theologian pointed out in his review of Harold Lindsell’s, The Battle for the Bible, the only real difference between the conservative and liberal positions on the Bible is that the conservatives say the Bible USED TO BE inspired and inerrant, whereas the liberal says it NEVER WAS inspired or inerrant. BOTH positions agree that the Bible IS NOT NOW inspired or inerrant.


As brother Daryl Coats so aptly says: "If the Bible was inspired only in the original manuscripts, no one in the entire history of the world has ever had an inspired Bible. The original autographs of Job and the books of Moses had disappeared more than a thousand years before the first book of the New Testament was written, so no one has ever owned a complete Bible made up of the “divine originals.” Nor, has anyone ever owned a complete New Testament made up of “inspired originals”, because the originals were distributed among more than a dozen individuals and local churches."


God said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11


The Lord Jesus Christ also stated in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"


The apostle Paul wrote concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST..." 2 Thessalonians 2:3


The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.


The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.


"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).


"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).


The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.


As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."


H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."


Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."



"As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).


George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. 


Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real. Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, "The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy."


The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally: 58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"; 45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."


"Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that: 41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches."


"Seminary students, future pastors and leaders in the church, show very little support for the inerrancy of the Bible position. What does that foretell about the future of the church? Undoubtedly, just as the poll results show in the 1996 - 2001 time frame, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BELIEVING THE BIBLE IS INERRANT WILL DROP."(end of quotes by Barna)


Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed: 85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

 

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.


When the Revised Standard Version came out in 1946 and then was revised three more times till 1973, it did the usual “praise and then blast” syndrome on the King James Bible we see so often today by men like James White, Doug Kutilek, Rick Norris, James Price and D.A. Carson, all of whom have books out there now which say things like “The King James Version is a fine translation”, “I love the King James Bible” and then they proceed page after page to blast away at all the alleged “errors” they think they have found in this Bible they profess to love so much.


In the Preface of the RSV we find them first saying: “The King James Version has with good reason been termed “the noblest monument of English prose.”  We owe to it an incalculable debt.”  Then in the very next sentence they say: “Yet the King James Version HAS GRAVE DEFECTS....these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation....The KJV of the N.T. was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes.”  

 

The RSV continues attacking the King James Bible by further stating: "The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying....We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the N.T. and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text." (page vii of the RSV Preface.)

And what precisely are these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" these modern versions refer to but never identify? They are primarily two Greek manuscripts that differ not only from the vast Majority of all Greek texts, but also from each other more than 3000 times in the gospels alone! If you want to know the FACTS about what these "oldest and best" texts really contain, then check out my article here: 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm 
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the Bible Critics always pick on the King James Bible, and not the others.  Even at the time the RSV came out, there had ALREADY BEEN two revisions of the English translation - the Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901.  Why didn’t the RSV editors mention these?


The 1977 NASB edition opens up with glowing praise for the King James Bible saying: “In the history of English Bible translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious.”  Then it proceeds to alter the text of the KJB by omitting some 3000 words from the New Testament alone and bracketing another 30 or more entire verses, thus indicating doubt as to their authenticity, from the very texts found in “the most prestigious” King James Bible.

 

We see this typical "praise and then blast" method used by Mr. Edwin Palmer, the chief editor and translator of the NIV. He wrote the booklet called "The NIV - The Making of a Contemporary Translation". In Chapter 14 of his booklet, titled: "Isn’t the King James Version Good Enough? (The KJV and the NIV Compared)", Mr. Palmer says: "I love the King James Version. I was converted under it, my first memory verses were taken from it, and I have been blessed by it. And God still uses the KJV to bring many people to salvation in Christ. This version was translated by godly men who did an excellent job with the tools they had in the language of four centuries ago. Countless millions have been converted, sanctified, and nurtured through it. Thank God for that marvelously used translation. The KJV is not, however, the best translation to use today. This is so for two reasons: (1) it adds to the Word of God and (2) it has now-obscure and misleading renderings of God’s Word." 

 

Mr. Palmer, of the NIV committee, closed with these words: "Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible… For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), p. 156.)  

 

So, do you STILL think the people directly behind the NIV are "neutral", fair and unbiased in their open disparagement and severe criticism of the King James Holy Bible? 


Even such modern versions as the NIV and the ESV expose their basic unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture by their own prefatory remarks.  The 1984 NIV Preface closes with these words on page xx. “Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals.” 


Well, they were wrong about two things and right about one.  #1.There CAN BE a perfect translation.  #2 If God cannot use imperfect man to give us His pure words, then there never would have been any “originals” in the first place! #3.  The NIV editors  definitely got number 3 right - “This one undoubtedly falls short.”


The recent ESV (English Standard Version of 2001) is a revision of the NRSV which is a revision of the old RSV.  It closes out its prefatory remarks saying: “We know that no Bible translation is perfect or final.”


So the scholars who put together their own modern versions acknowledge that their own versions are not the perfect words of God.  In fact, not one of them really believes that such a thing exists. So who is really attacking the words of God?  It’s the modern versionists and seminary scholars themselves. It is not the King James Bible believers.


And now for some Christian Forum conversations about what they really believe about “The Bible”.


Here are some direct quotes from Christians at a very large fundamental Baptist forum on the internet.  It is called Baptistboard.com and, unless they decide to delete the whole topic (they have alreadly locked it) you can see it for yourself if you wish. I begin posting on page 3.   


http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=60392


These are real people, and these statements reflect how many present day professing Christians think about the issue of the inerrancy of the Bible.  In the following quotes, the Caps are mine, to highlight the main points.


One of the moderators over at Baptist Board who says he is also a missionary calls himself DHK.  After some discussion with him about whether or not there exists such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible, I finally post to him the following, and then he responds.


Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney [quote]Hi DHK. I am not the one who said his final authority was "the originals only" which no longer exist and no one living today has ever seen, and that "No translation is perfect". Remember, that was you; not me.[/quote]


Then DHK responds: [quote]You misquote me. Go back and read what I said.  I said: "My final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine is the Bible (the Word of God)." I did not mention in that statement anything about "the originals only." Why are you misrepresenting what I said. That is very deceitful.[/quote]


I then answered with this post: Originally posted by DHK [quote]You misquote me. Go back and read what I said. I said: "My final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine is the Bible (the Word of God)." I did not mention in that statement anything about "the originals only." Why are you misrepresenting what I said. That is very deceitful.[/quote]


Hi DHK, here are your own words.  I am not  the one being deceitful; you are.

  

DHK post # 66 - “No, there is not a single translation of the Bible that I believe is the complete and inerrant word of God, totally infallible in every word, without any error whatsoever.


If I have a question about the translation I can go back to the Greek or Hebrew which I believe God has preserved his Word in.


ONLY THE ORIGINALS WERE INSPIRED.  NO TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS PERFECT. YOU DO NOT HAVE A PERFECT BIBLE.” DHK post # 50 - There is no perfect translation. It is an impossibility.


DHK post # 73 - I must point out the deficiencies in their translation when I am there. Tactfully, the best way, is: "Better translated, it would read something like this..." Or, "The Greek word used here has more this meaning..."


DHK post # 155 You’re right, ALMOST ALL KNOW THAT THE ORIGINALS DO NOT EXITS.” (End of quotes by DHK, Caps are mine)


So, DHK, it should be obvious to anybody that has eyes to see and can read plain English, that your beliefs about "the Bible" have clearly left us with NO complete inspired and 100% true Bible now.  Will K 


Another poster, Thinkingstuff, says: -”I mean I like them all as well I even like the NIV. And think THEY ARE ALL THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD But then theres the AV 1611 only.  Then theres the TR as the only reliable source. And multitude of others and some I would think lean one way actually lean another and get confused.” (end of Thinkingstuff)


Then a guy who calls himself Mexdeaf responds: “You see, that's the whole problem with this issue. Who sez we gotta plug everybody into a niche based on Bible preference? IT’S JUST ANOTHER MINOR ISSUE THAT SATAN USES to separate the brethren and keep us from focusing on the main thing.”


I responded to Mexdeaf - “Whether or not there exists such a thing as a complete, preserved, infallible and 100% true Bible in any language is "a minor issue"?  We have several here at the forum who tell us that it is impossible to have an infallible translation and that only the originals were inspired, but of course we no longer have the originals. Thus, "no inerrant and 100% true Bible".


Some prefer the ever changing Critical texts and still have no inerrant Bible. Other like the TR but still have no inerrant Bible. Some commit intellectual suicide and tell us that 5 or 6 versions that differ from each other by thousands of words, names, numbers, and meanings are "all inspired and inerrant". And meanwhile the recent polls show that the majority of Christians do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture; more than half do not believe either Satan or the Holy Spirit are persons, but are mere influences, and a good percentage of Christians believe Christ sinned while on earth.   


"A minor issue"?  We are living in the times of the falling away from the faith; not a great revival.  "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15.  Will K.


Mexdeaf’s then replies: “It IS a minor issue. Whether you like it or not. You can spout all of your supposed knowledge as to the supposed superiority of the KJV over all other translations, but in the light of eternity it is but a will-o-the-wisp in the flame of God's wrath upon sin.


Your teaching does not build faith in the Word of God, rather IT DESTROYS IT. Your teaching is nothing more than a pharisaical tradition that makes two-fold children of hell who espouse KJVO doctrine and deny salvation and grace to those who don't "toe the line" instead of delivering people out of hell.  Don't bother responding. I probably will be banned for calling you out. It will be a blessing not to have to read your pitiful cries of "Do you have a complete and 100% true Bible?"I do, thanks- and goodbye.” (end of Mexdeaf)


The moderator and missionary DHK (Remember him?)  immediately responds: “No Mexdeaf, you will not be banned. Thank you for such a well-worded and clear-cut response.” DHK


Mexdeaf’s belief that the issue of a complete, inerrant and 100% true Bible is just “a minor issue” is more and more typical of the younger Christians I see coming up in this next generation.  He thinks that the King James Bible believers position that there is an infallible Bible  by which all others are to be measured is “destroying faith in the word of God”. 


By the way, I know of no KJB believer who “denies salvation and grace” to those who don’t agree with us. The gospel of salvation through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ for our sins is still found in any version out there, no matter how poorly done or defective it might be in many other areas.


Deacon, who’s first name is Rob, posts: “No Will, all that needs to be done to prove you wrong is to show you ONE error in the KJV, that would prove that the Authorized Version is not an inerrant bible.  Will, the problem lies not with the KJV, the modern translations or even the textus receptus. It lies with your insistence on an infallible translation.  IT IS GOD’S WORD THAT IS INERRANT. mans transmission and translation of it is open to correction and err. Certainly the Authorized Version is a great literary masterpiece but TO CLAIM THAT THE KJV OR ANY OTHER TRANSLATION IS INERRANT IS WRONG.” (end of Deacon Rob)


Deacon Rob tells us it’s “God’s word that is inerrant” and yet he seems totally unaware of the fact that by his own definition (No translation is inerrant), he himself has no such thing.  Where then is God’s inerrant word to be found?  In the non-existent, never seen “originals only”?  In the thousands of partial and often wildly contradictory manuscript readings that nobody agrees on as to which ones are right and which are wrong?


A man named Ed Edwards then comes along and posts what I have lately seen more and more Christians say they believe.  He says: “All VALID English Language Bibles Collectively and Individually contain and are the Inerrant and Perfect Written Word of God preserved by Divine Appointment for the generation in which they are translated.” (end of Ed)


I like to call this the “Fruit Loops Theory”.  Only in modern day Christiandumb could somebody make the claim with a straight face that several versions like the NASB, KJB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard and NKJV  are all somehow “the inerrant perfect word of God”.


These modern versions differ among themselves by literally thousands of words, anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses are omitted in the N.T. by some and not by others; many reject the clear Hebrew readings of names and numbers; and hundreds of verses now have totally different meanings.  


By the way, all these modern versions have been produced “in this generation”.  Is God really that confused?  Try taking the Fruit Loops argument before a court of law or even a high school debating team and you will be laughed out of the room. Yet in modern day Christian circles a person can affirm such silly nonsense and be considered by others as deeply spiritual and advanced.   Small wonder the unbelieving world thinks most Christians are idiots.


Another man named Trotter posts a similar thought to Ed’s.  He says: “I've got several inspired, 100% true bibles. Some are KJV, some are other translations. Each one was inspired by God through the penning of the originals and have been faithfully translated into English.”


To whom I responded: “Hi Trotter. I suspect you have a really strange and unique way of defining the words "100% true bibles", but to put my theory to the test, would you mind listing any two of these "inspired and 100% true bibles" and maybe we can see if what you affirm makes any sense. OK? Are you willing to do that?  Thanks. 


Unfortunatley Trotter was never able to post his examples. The Baptistboard locked down the topic.


In contrast to the now prevailing attitude that the issue of the inerrancy and infallibility of God’s word “is a minor issue” the Scriptures speak of God’s word with great reverence and awe.


“Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.”  Psalm 119:128


“Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.”  Jeremiah 15:16


“...but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.”  Isaiah 66:2


“...my heart standeth in awe of thy word.”  Psalm 119:161


“I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.”  Psalm 138:2


“Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail...”  Isaiah 34:16


No my friend, it is not the King James Bible believer who is attacking the words of God.  On the contrary, it is the King James Bible believer who really and truely believes that God has been faithful to His promises that “The Scripture cannot be broken” and that we do have such a thing as a complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today.  


For another article dealing with the question of where was the pure word of God before 1611 and can the King James Bible only position address the “unanswerable” question, please see the article ‘Does the KJV only position “blow up”?


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

 

By His grace believing The Book,


Will Kinney`


== External Link ==

* [http://brandplucked.webs.com/attackthewordofgod.htm Why do you King James Bible onlyies Attack the word of God?]

{{Donate}}