Unrelated question: Can you direct me to Christian rescourses to give to muslims (websites, books, tracts, ect...)in the French language? I was evangelizing 2 french muslims while listening to the camping debate (much more fun than falling asleep... I couldn't stand Mr. Camping and I actually fell asleep at the café I was at while listening to it-no joke) and I directed him to your site given they had decent english but Its best to give them rescourses in their native tongue.
Rev. 22:10 "And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand."What was sealed in Daniel's time was unsealed in John's day. The things spoken to Daniel were Revealed to the first century Church (see Gary Demar's interviews on ISI), not to Harold Camping. Camping is a false prophet that is leading people astray.
Thank you for stating clearly your responses to Harold Camping. Sadly, from his powerful position of owning a Television station he drums into vulnerable minds his vituperative interpretations of a loving and profound document: the New Testament. I appreciate your efforts to bring firm and healthy sanity in response to his muddled and corrosive babblings. At base in Mr. Camping is a crying desparate child in pathological fears of death and dying. He completely hypnotizes his followers by drumming his misguided message-points ad nauseum. Thanks again for bringing light to his dark teachings.
The "Biblical Calendar of History" booklet by Family Radio in not the base of all of Harold Camping's calendar. It just provided proofs."Adam When" and "Time has an End" are better explained basis for the time of the rapture and the Biblical Calendar.Please read those and respond to the verses provided.Remember to use verses to back up your claims.
Harold Camping has created books and documents showing his false reasoning. He has Added to the Bible. He has written things that have come out of his head, not God's. He asks us to refer to his teachings as if he is a spokesman for God. Adding to the bible is reprehensible. Harold Camping has, wrongfully, and sinfully, added to the bible when he refers people to find proof in his books. Shameful behavior.
We now have what is called a conundrum,regarding"lambsfury"or Tom or Thomas Golda of N.JNow it would seem on the surface that Thomas who posts here as "LAMBSFURY " is well taught of the BIBLE and one would say or could say is a very good writer just by the words he uses and one would /could think that he is "NOT OF THIS WORLD "BUT OF THE WORLD TO COME.........BUT AND THERE IS ALWAYS A"BUT " THEN WHEN ONE VISITS HIS "FACE BOOK SITE "http://www.facebook.com/people/Thomas-Golda/1617476400THEN ONE GETS A ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TAKE ON THOMAS...OR TOM ...OR LAMBSFURY....ONE NOW WOULD/COULD SAY THAT FROM FIRST BLUSH"THOMAS IS IN FACT A MAN OF THIS WORLD BASED ON HIS FACE BOOK SITE ...SO FAR..more to come Now one must ask this question is it possible that there is a layered "cover" for someone who "really " dislikes Harold Camping to the degree that he wishes to use language and comments that are so vitriolic in his attempt to dis-lodge the FAMILY RADIO PRESIDENT....THAT HE HIDES AND WRITES IN THE SHADOWS THEN HAS SOMEONE LIKE "LAMBSFURY" POST IN TOM'S NAME ??????????OF COURSE IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY IN THE BUSINESS AND POLITICAL WORLD.SO A PASTOR ,A PERSON WITH A DEGREEWOULD CHOOSE TO BE VERY VERY CAREFUL WITH HOW IT WRITES AND DISTRIBUTES THE MATERIAL...IT WOULD BE A 'LAYERED COVER".....NOW UNLESS TOM IS A JEKYLL & HYDEIT NOW BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING HE WRITES FROM THE VIEW OF A "CHRISTIAN" WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE "REAL WORLD HE LIVES IN"..AM I JUDGING ?? NO HE IS ADVERTISING..LOOK FOR YOURSELF THEN YOU DECIDE!http://www.facebook.com/people/Thomas-Golda/1617476400MORE TO COME....SOONDennis O'DAYI leave my address,i know that there are some /many who will want to send along additional information on this email@example.com
Dayweeks.Have you or Dr White proved Camping wrong on any verse backing it up with the Bible at not your own reasoning?
Crue KnightSee "Camping Jenga" on the aomin.org blog. Just because Camping says his methods are Biblical does not make it so. Anyone can impose their own twisted symbolical meaning to the Bible when they take everything as a parable. Mr. Camping speaks of the Rapture but how do we know that the "rapture" isn't just parabolic language that means something completely different to those in the "end times"? Jesus' parables were explained by Him to His people. They were not left to the speculation of mere men who forced hidden meanings on everything. That is Gnosticism. The shadows of the Old Covenant were revealed in the New. Now Mr. Camping is forcing shadows onto the New Covenant. This is unbiblical. He was wrong about 1994 and he will be wrong in 2011.
Mark 4:11 “And He said to them, ‘To YOU it has been given to KNOW THE MYSTERY of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables” (emphasis mine)Jesus told the disciples that THEY would know the mystery. According to Camping no Christian, including those to whom this was addressed, did know the mystery until he did 2000 years later. Mark 4:33-34 “And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it. But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, HE EXPLAINED ALL THINGS to His disciples.” (emphasis mine) The parables Jesus spoke were explained to His disciples IN THEIR DAY and we have that record in the scriptures. Mr. Camping suggests that there were hidden parables just for us, yet the Bible says the opposite. The scriptures refute Camping’s claims to an end times knowledge. And as I said before, the sealing in Daniel was unsealed to the Church in John‘s day, NOT Harold‘s day. They understood, better than most of us do, what Revelation was saying. Flee from this false prophet back to a solid foundation in Christ.
Fardawg, you're wrong, the Bible does not say what you're imposing upon it. You claim that the kingdom of God is the mystery, but the mystery is Babylon the Great:(Revelation 17:5) And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.You also claim that Christ explained all things to His disciples, but you derived that conclusion by looking at one verse. The Bible has a lot more to say about that:(John 15:15) Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for ALL THINGS THAT I HAVE HEARD OF MY FATHER I have made known unto you.Christ does not mean all things in the Bible, in the verse you quoted. He meant all things that He had heard of the Father at that time, but the Bible indicates that there is much more to learn:(John 14:26) But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, HE SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.And this passage also indicates that there is more to learn:(John 5:19, 20) Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: AND HE SHALL SHOW HIM GREATER WORKS THAN THESE, that ye may marvel.The book has been opened and knowledge is increased:(Daniel 12:4) But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.(Daniel 12:9, 10) And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words [are] closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.Christ has opened the book:(Revelation 5:5) And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.In the debate, James White had no answer as to what the book is. If the book is not the Bible, then it's incumbent upon James White and you to give an answer from the Bible, as to what the book actually is.
ATTENTION : Thomas Goldaaka >lambsfurymy question sHow is it that just the week before the interview with White & Campingthat you wrote IN AGREEMENT WITH CAMPING ????Then as a tree branch fell from a tree and hit you on the head you changed and wrote AGAINST Camping!I think as i remember I did or someone did mention Jekyll & Hydeor like in the days of the old west there were "GUNS FOR HIRE"IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IN THIS DAY THERE ARE "WRITERS FOR HIRE" I really wish your name was "Joe "so I could say say it isn't so "Joe".But alas you may be what we shall call a "Starvin Writer "named TomWho just dropped a "BOMB"here is some of what I have just found ,you seem to have the ability to write out of "BOTH SIDES OF YOUR MOUTH"WE ARE ALL WAITING FOR AN EXPLANATION,a short one,a long onewhatever!....................................................................By Thomas GoldaWhile there is much evidence that the Great Tribulation ends on May 21, 2011, with "those days after the tribulation" beginning Sunday May 22, 2011, in fulfillment of Daniel 12:12-13, the "rapture" does not take place during those days after the GT, it takes place at the very end of the world when Christ returns. Believers will be here on earth for the final 153 days to the last day of the FOT.Remember, for 23 years is the GT. This was God's judgment upon the churches. Believers were not raptured. Believers are here "on earth" while this is happening. Noah was "on earth" while the judgment occured in his day, Lot remained "on earth." The Israelites were "on earth" while the plagues occured to the Egyptians.The following are from Thomas Golda ....personal studiesetchttp://pablo33319.home.comcast.net/~pablo33319/Personal%20Studies.htmhttp://home.comcast.net/~pablo33319/Biblical%20Calendar.htmThomas I note at this site that you in fact AGREE with Harold Camping that the wold WILL END IN MAY OF 2011......http://pablo33319.home.comcast.net/~pablo33319/Works%20of%20Others/Timeline%20of%20the%20End%20by%20Thomas%20Golda.htmSHOULD ANYONE WISH TO WRITE ME PLEASE DO SO HEREdennis.firstname.lastname@example.org thank you Dennis O'DayWill someone please advise mR.wHITE of these 2 notices # 1 the church age has endedper lambsfury aka MR.Thomas Golda# 2 the world will end in May of 2011per Lambsfury aka MR.Thomas Goldathat now is the end of the story!
SeanThe Text clearly says "Mystery of the Kingdom of GOD" Maybe Babylon is your god's kingdom but it isn't mine. You are the one imposing your non-biblical ideas on the text. Anyone who isn't blinded by their rebellion to God's established order can see this.Camping uses that ONE verse of Jesus speaking in parables to try and say that all of the Bible is parabolic, yet in context it says that the things he spoke to them were explained to them. If it doesn't mean "all things in the Bible" then neither does it mean "all of the Bible" when it says "But without a parable He did not speak to them." Mr. Camping, and you, should stop using that verse to try and prove your case. You cannot use one part of the context and leave the other out.John 14:26 does not say "2000 years later Camping's Cult will be taught". The Apostles were to be taught by the Spirit and were guided by the Holy Spirit to write the New Testament. THEY were to have "all things" revealed to them in their day. John is not referring to Camping's cult twisting the scriptures.I already showed you that John was told to NOT seal up the book. The book was opened in John's day, NOT ours. It's interesting that you didn't address John's not sealing the book of Revelation, which is an explanation and expansion of Daniel. That would make it very difficult for you to keep twisting the Bible, wouldn't it?May God grant you repentance.
Sean, continuedNowhere does it say that the scroll of Revelation is the Bible. I don't have a biblical problem with that, but that doesn't mean that the opening of the seals is Camping's Cult twisting the scriptures. The sealed scroll represents the judgment of God as the loosening of the seals brings forth the initial judgments on the land. IF this is the Bible then the seals simply refer to God bringing about the judgment's that have been foretold throughout the rest of the Bible which were held back until that time. There is no reason to believe that this refers to Camping's Cult gaining new knowledge. I believe that the seals were broken in John's day based on the clear context that these things "must soon take place" "for the time is near" Revelation 1:1,3. These words were spoken to John to be given to the Churches in his time, not to Harold to be given to his cult members in our day. Context! Context! Context!
Hi, All. There is no reason to defend anyone that does not understand the true parabolic language of the Bible. For those that have not compare the scripture against Campings notes, you have no rights to say that Camping is a cult. I personally do not know him, but to be fare to anyone who claiming something from the Bible, I checked myself using 5 year time.Have you read your bible lately and check his timely? Brothers, no need to using human knowledge to say what you think, let God's word speak for himself.May God have mercy on this generation and DO NOT harden our heart as you did to all Israeli (Gods chosen people) back them which all died to their sin of unbelive.
check his time line of the Bible? Amazingly true to the word of God.No need to argument of any, since God did write dates on who was borned. Check it out carefully and be amazed.
kmalexchan I have looked at Camping's twisting of the scriptures. I used to own his book that claimed 1994 as a "possible" date for the rapture (I forgot until recently that I had read it). I returned it since it was 1996/7 at the time and it was full of babbling and speculations. Twisting scripture and speculating on "hidden meanings never known before" is not being "Amazingly true to the word of God"Camping's teachings are based on taking the Word of God out of context and claiming new revelations that the apostles didn't even know. Because he twists words from the Bible, his followers claim that this nonsense IS the Bible. Many cults can do the same thing but that doesn't make it Biblical. These teachings are heresy. See James White's blog for examples of how Camping reinterprets the biblical data to fit his timeline. When May 2011 comes and goes I hope you will see Camping for what he is and repent.
Fardawg.........Matthew 13 :34-3534 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.please note the word "PARABLE"What Bible are you using?
DennisMark 4:33-34And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, HE EXPOUNDED ALL THINGS TO HIS DISCIPLES. (emphasis mine)Note the words "HE EXPOUNDED ALL THINGS TO HIS DISCIPLES." Jesus' speaking in parables is not referring to the entire Bible. He spoke parables to the crowd that he was preaching to at that time (context) but it specifically states that He told His disciples what they meant. There is no "only in the end times will anyone get this)to be seen. You would have to use Camping's magical, out of context verse jumping to get that.Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto YOU it is given to KNOW the MYSTERY of the kingdom of God: but unto THEM that are without, all these things are done in parablesThe "you" is referring to the disciples standing before Jesus, not Harold Camping 2000 years later. I already said this above so there was no need to point out the word "parable" as if this would change my mind. I used the KJV above since it seems you prefer this, but I used the NKJV before. Not that it matters, unless your tactic is to use the KJV as some kind of magical divination tool. I like to use what seems to be the clearest translation so people won't get confused by 17th century English. I hope this doesn't devolve into a KJV only debate. That would only add a rabbit trail which would detract from exposing Camping's Cult.
Fardawg......Matthew !3 :14 _1514 And if ye will receive it, this is E-li'-as, which was for to come.15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.We pray your ears to be open.Dennis
READERS OF THIS BLOG would do well to remember in light of the debate which was to focus particularly on Harold Camping's teaching on the “END OF THE CHURCH AGE” that it is men like James White and his contemporary scholars who have used their gifts . . their talents . . their energies to introduce and promote a “new & improved” English translation of the Bible, namely the NASB, and in so doing, have done their part to contribute to the wholesale confusion, contention, division, strife,and babel, that so characterizes Christ's church today.Imagine a classroom setting where students could choose their own text book on a particular course of study, I.e., Science, Math. Why there would be utter confusion! No one would be reading from the same page! Both teacher and student would be confounded. That is what this unending stream of “new & improved” bible versions has produced in the church.Instead of being a Christian apologist in the truest sense of the word, that is, being set for the “defence of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17), Mr. White and his peers have applied their higher learning to call into question and raise doubts as to the veracity, the inerrancy, the truth of God's Word.I believe there is an interesting parallel to be found here with that of the Scribes and Pharisees who questioned the truthfulness of Christ . . . the Word made flesh (John 1:14) in the testimony He bore to them, which was met with the same resistance, suspicion, doubt, strife, debate, contention, and even anger. The Gospels are replete with such examples . . read them for yourselves.The authority of God's Word has been greatly undermined by the infiltration of so-called modern versions of the Bible thrust upon the Christian community and embraced by prominent church leaders. and has driven many of its' members out of the church, not Harold Camping. This then is the bitter harvest reaped by the seeds of confusion sown by these conflicting and contradicting perversions of God's Word. “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3)James White was a Critical Consultant to the Updated NASB. http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbprin.phpIt would be well to note now, as some may not even be aware, that the late Dr. Frank Logsdon, who was a member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible. Consider his solemn words:“I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard...I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface...I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; and what am I going to do about it? ...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them...”Link: http://www.preservingthebible.org/DR.%20FRANK%20LOGSDON.htmSee also: 'The NASB Denounced . . . Dr. S. Frank Logsdon's Testimony' here: http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/Logsdon.htmlMay God in His mercy be pleased to open Mr. White's eyes, as He did for Mr. Logsdon, to the real problems confronting the church of Jesus Christ today and the underlying causes of them.
DennisYou didn't answer anything I said. You just pointed out what I have been saying, namely that Jesus revealed the shadows and mysteries of the OT in the New Testament. Matthew 13 says nothing about "never before known end times revelations". It says nothing of Harold Camping. Stop twisting the scriptures. JunePlease read The Lockman Foundations response on Dr. Logsdon at http://vintage.aomin.org/lockman.html He was not that involved. As I said before I am not going to go back and forth on the KJV, however I would ask you what I ask all KJV onlyists I run into. Can you show me a Greek text that reads exactly like the KJV? And I don't mean the back-translated Scrivener edition. If God preserved his word in the exact words of the KJV then you should be able to tell me. I would also like to see ANY Bible that reads exactly like the KJV in every instance before 1611. Also, I would direct you to the original preface by the translators themselves. http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm They were not KJV only. Speaking of the Septuagint they say, "The translation of the Seventie dissenteth from the Originall in many places, neither doeth it come neere it, for perspicuitie, gratvitie, majestie; yet which of the Apostles did condemne it? Condemne it? Nay, they used it"There is no confusion with the conservative translations. There is confusion in Camping's Cult. I will quote from the KJV and make the same points. Nothing I have said changes. May God grant you both repentance.
Addendum to my most recent post: Let the Readers of this Blog draw their own conclusions after doing the appropriate research on which Bible is God's Word. I would offer the following articles for the consideration of others who deem it important enough to look into. ********* James White's book, 'The King James Only Controversy' is examined and critiqued by church doctors and pastors alike via the following links: "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?" A Critique of James R. White's book By Dr. Thomas D. Holland, Th. D http://www.biblebelievers.com/Holland1.html Problems with the book "The King James Only Controversy, Can You Trust the Modern Translations?" By Tom Whitney http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/whitney-kjoc.html The King James Only Controversy- Answered . . Do not Trust the Modern Translations! An Exposé of the fallacies of James R. White By Pastor Hugo W.K. Schönhaar of TORONTO BAPTIST CHURCH Link:http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/resource/toronto.htm As to my repentance, this I understand to be a daily exercise for the child of God, but not appropriate when defending God's Word, its' inspiration, inerrancy & infalibility. Oh, and for those who may be interested, I am neither a listener and/or follower of either Camping or White! I am a follower of Christ and His Word. "It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God." John 6:45a
To those who read here and believe that JESUS CHRIST did "NOT SPEAK IN PARABLES".Then you believe that there are"HORSES " IN HEAVEN....Correct???REV 6: 2 to 5..........2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.3 And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.4 And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand...Dennis O'Dayfor those who would care to connect me do so here.........email@example.comAugust 4, 2009 5:52 PMAnd these cocludes the matter.
The Text clearly says "Mystery of the Kingdom of GOD" Maybe Babylon is your god's kingdom but it isn't mine. You are the one imposing your non-biblical ideas on the text. Anyone who isn't blinded by their rebellion to God's established order can see this.Fardawg, Babylon the Great is the external representation of the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of God. Christ is coming back for the 5 wise virgins who make up the eternal, invisible church, not the 5 foolish virgins who make up the external, visible church. During this time, the wheat are being separated from the tares, which means that the wheat are seeing the spiritual truth and are walking in the light of spiritual understanding that comes from the Bible. Those who see the spiritual truth and are understanding the unsealed mystery of God, are obeying the command of Revelation 18:4 to come out of the desolation. Babylon is fallen. What was the habitation of the Holy Spirit has become the habitation of devils. This is why God's word indicates that the elect are to come out of the midst of the desolation and be separate. The elect are to flee Babylon and assemble unto Christ in the Bible during this time of great tribulation. The Bible is where the true body of Christ is spiritually assembling today. Iron sharpens iron if the individuals are truly saved and God is blessing the understanding of His word. If you're truly saved, you will heed God's command to come out of where devils now habitate. Revelation 18:4 is a command to out of the division and desolation that is Babylon the Great.The Bible indicates that if we walk in the light as God is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and truly our fellowship is with God. If we walk in darkness, we're none of His. The Bible is a lamp that lightens out path, but if you don't have the Holy Spirit to guide you when studying the Bible, you will believe the Bible is a book like all others and you will read it as such. But God tells us in the Bible, how it was written. It was written in parables. Christ spoke in parables and He spoke the words of the Father, and every word in the Bible in the original Greek and Hebrew text is of God, not man, which means the entire Bible has been written in the language of parables which is how God speaks to His elect without the non elect understanding. God is very clear about this. God's mind is infinite and He wrote the Bible, not the prophets. They were merely human instruments. The historical grammatical method if interpretation is a product of what has become Babylon the Great, and is not a method that glorifies God. The fact that there are so many different versions of the Bible today, is further proof that the church has fallen away and has become inexorably divided and desolate.(Matthew 13:9-13) Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.(Matthew 25:29, 30) For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.May God have mercy on those reading this.
p.s. Just to clarify, what i mean when i say the Bible was written in the language of parables, is that the accounts such as Christ raising Lazarus from the dead, have a deeper spiritual meaning. For example, the raising of Lazarus is a picture of how God saves people. I'm not saying every account necessarily has a deeper spiritual meaning, but much of the Bible certainly does. Everyone knows the book of Revelation is full of parabolic language, which proves that God did not want everyone to understand the mystery in Revelation 17.
Fardawg posts: "As I said before I am not going to go back and forth on the KJV, however I would ask you what I ask all KJV onlyists I run into. Can you show me a Greek text that reads exactly like the KJV? ...I would also like to see ANY Bible that reads exactly like the KJV in every instance before 1611. ...There is no confusion with the conservative translations."Hi Fardawg. There is abundant confusion found in your conservative translations. They differ among themselves by some 3000 words in the N.T. alone; they often reject the Hebrew readings but not in the same places, and hundreds of verses have completely different meanings. Nobody defends any one of them as being the complete and 100% true words of God.As for Greek texts, likewise there is no Greek text that matches the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Holman or NKJV either. So why the double standard?I will bet that you yourself do not believe that there ever was nor is there now any Bible in any language that was or is the complete and 100% true words of God.As for before 1611, there was no perfect Bible. The English Reformation era bibles were far better textually than are the WH influenced stuff like the NASB, NIV, ESV, but they were not perfect."What about before 1611?" is not an unanswerable question. See my article on this here:http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/blowup.htmlAll of grace,Will Kinney
june, I was under the impression from your attack on Dr. White that you were defending Camping. My comment on repentance was primarily for this. I do not believe that being a KJV onlyist needs to be repented of unless it falls into heresy such as Ruckman's "advanced revelation" or when it calls other conservative translations of God's Word "the devil's bible" etc. However, you also slandered Dr. White and others who use or promote the NASB. You said they "call into question and raise doubts as to the veracity, the inerrancy, the truth of God's Word". This is very untrue. Dr. White's "King James Only Controversy" did just the opposite for me as it shows that the translational differences do not change any doctrine and actually show God's preservation of His Word. You still did not answer my questions. You cannot, and that is why KJV onlyism fails and why I will not consider debating the issue until someone answers those questions.
DennisNo one is saying that Jesus NEVER spoke in parables. That is a straw man. The book of revelation is CLEARLY a symbolical book. That does not make EVERY book of the Bible the same genre. Also, the interpretation of Revelation is not left up to Camping's twisted "New end times revelation" that "no one has ever seen before". The Book was "NOT SEALED" because it was for the understanding of the churches in that day. They understood the message even if many today have drifted from the truth and added their modern understanding without going to the OT, or to Jesus himself, to understand the symbolism. Again, nowhere does Revelation speak of Harold Camping's Cult. Just as it doesn't speak of the JW Cult or any other cult. May God grant you repentance.
SeanYou are twisting the scriptures. Nowhere does it say that the "mystery of the kingdom of God" is a false outward church. Camping made that up because of the use of the word "mystery" in both places. You cannot expect to misuse language like that and stay grounded. The context is clear that "the Kingdom of God" is the spiritual body of all believers. Only those who are spiritually reborn can understand the "mystery" and partake of it fully. That is repeated throughout the scriptures, Col 1:26-27 "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but NOW is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of THIS MYSTERY among the Gentiles; WHICH IS CHRIST IN YOU, the hope of glory:" I believe the context of Revelation shows that "Mystery Babylon" was first century Judaism which was destroyed in 70 AD. Read Gary Demar and Ken Gentry.Also, the disciples were told by Jesus in Matthew that "it is given unto YOU to know the mystery..." To THEM at that time, Not to Harold Camping 2000 years later. Stop misusing the Word of God so you don't have to be under God-established authority in a Church. The same problems in churches today are the same that were in the fist century and throughout church history. We should do what they did, which is to reform those churches or let them fall into condemnation, not flee from all the churches. There are many good churches today and I find your generalizing them all as having "high places" disgraceful. Dr. White's church is a great example of a faithful church with Biblical elders who preach the Gospel (hear sermons at prbc.org). You should be ashamed of your slanderous remarks. May God grant you repentance.
Hi Fardawg. I am in agreement with James White on the Camping issue and many other things. However I would like to address your other statements. You say: "However, you also slandered Dr. White and others who use or promote the NASB. You said they "call into question and raise doubts as to the veracity, the inerrancy, the truth of God's Word". This is very untrue. Dr. White's "King James Only Controversy" did just the opposite for me as it shows that the translational differences do not change any doctrine and actually show God's preservation of His Word.You still did not answer my questions. You cannot, and that is why KJV onlyism fails and why I will not consider debating the issue until someone answers those questions."James White does not have a preserved Bible and you know it. Your idea (both you and White) of "preservation" is like saying God's words are all preserved in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary - they are in there somewhere, all mixed up with other words that are not His and all out of order, But, Hey, there in there somewhere.(more to come)
In spite of the fact that modern versions like the NASB, RSV, NIV omit some 3000 to 4000 words from the New Testament text of the King James Bible, and either substitute or add another 1000 words, James tells us on page 48 of his book: "their text is NEARLY IDENTICAL to even the most Byzantine manuscript...ONE of those variant readings is indeed the original. We are called to invest our energies in discovering which one it is."I have read the Holy Bible several times in my life, and I have yet to find the verse that tells me we are called to invest our energies in finding out what God did or did not cause to be written in His word. In spite of Mr. White's loftly calling, modern scholarship has resulted in a constantly changing series of new versions that contradict each other and the King James Bible in literally hundreds of verses, and the number of Christians who no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture continues to grow each day.You ask about false doctrine. Would you please tell me which version you think is closest to your never seen originals, and I will point out the false doctrine in it.How about the NASB? Here is just one example. Is this a false doctrine?Psalms 78 tells us of Israel's rebellion and sin against their God and of his continued compassion towards them. One of the people's many recorded sins is found in v.36: "they did FLATTER him with their mouth, and lied unto him with their tongue." We can flatter God - say all kinds of nice things about him yet not really mean them. God is not fooled by mans false words of adoration.Agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible that the people FLATTERED God are Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, the NIV, NKJV, Green's Modern KJV, Darby, the RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, 1960 (le lisonjeaban con la boca), the Italian Diodati, the 1936 Hebrew Publication Society translation, the KJV 21st Century, Third Millenium Bible, Green's 1998 Modern KJV, the Amplified bible, and the 2003 English Standard Version (ESV). But the NASB, as well as the Holman Christian Standard Version, says "they DECEIVED him with their mouth". Notice that the NASB and Holman CSB don't say "they TRIED TO deceive Him" or "they THOUGHT they had deceived him" but "they deceived Him". This is completely impossible. God certainly cannot be deceived.If a person flatters another person, this never automatically means that the person flattered actually believes their words are sincere. When most people are flattered, they know that the other person is just saying nice things about them in an effort to be friendly or to get something. But to be flattered does not mean that you actually believe the nice things being said about you.This is an important point. The flattery comes from man and is directed towards God. It tells us nothing about how it affected God in any way. In fact, by calling it "flattery" we can pretty well assume that it was insincere. The Bible does not say "they complimented Him" but "they flattered him". Flattery is untrue or insincere praise.However when we look at the word deceived, this tells us about how the words of mere mortal men affected God Himself. The NASB blunder says that "they DECEIVED Him". Here we are looking at the way in which God Himself was affected by what was said. The NASB translation and clear meaning is either stupid or from the pits of hell, or both. But it is not right and it is not inerrant.The absurd reading found in the NASB and Holman Standard that people DECEIVED God is a theological error. The word Theology literally means the study of God. If we begin to list the attributes of God as found in Scripture, we can say that God is holy, God is righteous, God is love, God is light, and if we follow the NASB reading, we would also have to conclude that God is gullible - He can be deceived. Is this the true God of the Bible? I trow not.Will Kinney
WillI will not go into any questions that are not about pre 1611 "perfection" at any great length, but your "3000 word variations" and "completely different meanings" are so minor in the majority of instances, or just plain false, that they do not change anything. "As for Greek texts, likewise there is no Greek text that matches the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Holman or NKJV either. So why the double standard?"There is no double standard because my view does not demand one "perfect" text outside the original. Yours does. I believe comparing the differences leads us to the original text and that God used those variations to prove to us that there were no massive changes that would go unnoticed. Jesus and the apostles themselves used different translations of the OT. Sometimes they used what We see as the Masoretic, sometimes the LXX, and sometimes another text (see the preface to the KJV). Your view is that the KJV is the "perfect" preserved word. If that is so then you must show me where it was perfectly preserved before 1611 as a whole. "As for before 1611, there was no perfect Bible."Thank you for proving my point that you don't have a demonstrably "perfect preserved" Word of God. You admit by that statement that you believe God re-inspired the KJV and no Christian had a perfect Bible till 1611 (something the KJV translators would be shocked to hear - read the original KJV preface that has been left out of the new editions). That is the only explanation for all your claims. You should join the Mormons as you agree so much on "new inspiration". You can stop slandering the conservative translations now, since you can't demonstrate that they are NOT the preserved Word of God, neither can you demonstrate that the KJV IS. It seems that your only proof of "perfection" for the KJV is in your own mind. You are forced into the heretical re-inspiration theory because you start with a untenable conclusion and then find no historical support to back it up. I say God preserved His Word through the multiple lines of transmission throughout the world and demonstrated that no one was ever without His Word, something you cannot say. "'What about before 1611?' is not an unanswerable question."And yet you didn't answer it! Nothing you say about the Bible before 1611 can support your claim to "KJV perfection" as you are left without "perfection" before 1611. You slander the NASB etc. for not being "perfect" yet, according to your theory, it was only after 1611 that anyone could claim that (And 1611 perfection is nowhere in the Bible, unless you use the Campingesque "refined seven times" nonsense). There is no reason to believe that the KJV translators didn't do exactly what modern translators have done. In fact I'm sure they would praise them for their work in trying to get as close as possible to the exact text of the original and in giving God's Word in modern English, something they strived for themselves. May God open your eyes to your false "Ruckmanite" worship of a 17th century Anglican translation as the re-inspired Word that never existed before. As good as it may be, it is not "perfect".
Hi Fardawg. I noticed you dodged the false and even stupid teaching of the NASB about how the children of Israel DECEIVED God. Do you still maintain that no doctrines are changed?Fardawg posts: "I will not go into any questions that are not about pre 1611 "perfection" at any great length, but your "3000 word variations" and "completely different meanings" are so minor in the majority of instances, or just plain false, that they do not change anything."So these 3000 to 4000 word omissions do not change anything, huh? You have a really strange was of not seeing changes.For those who would like to see just what is missing in the NIV (let alone the RSV which is far worse) here is a site that shows the textual differences in just the N.T. Is there anybody left in modern Christiandom that still has the ability to see or even care that there are many and significant changes in these contradictory versions?The fact is that the majority of Christians today do NOT believe in the infallibility of any Bible, and they read these poor imitations less and less every day.I recently came across a blog link where a man made an in depth study of what is missing from the NIV New Testament when compared to the Traditional Greek Text of the King James Bible. It appears to be quite complete. Take a look. You will probably be surprised at what you see. Here is the link: http://rockymoore.com/ChristianLife/archive/2006/04/12/694.aspxWill K
"As for Greek texts, likewise there is no Greek text that matches the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Holman or NKJV either. So why the double standard?"Fardawg posts: "There is no double standard because my view does not demand one "perfect" text outside the original. Yours does. I believe comparing the differences leads us to the original text."Uh, Fardawg. There are no originals. So by your own admission your view is placing your faith and trust in something YOU KNOW does not exist.So, you think we are getting closer to the non-existent originals, do you? It looks like a lot of other non KJB scholars disagree with you on this.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).(more quotes to come)Will K
Fardawg says we're getting closer to the originals!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.""...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default" (Eldon Epp, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism," Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87)."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).(more quotes to come)Will K
Fardawg says we are getting closer, but recent polls show that fewer and fewer Christians believe ANY Bible is the infallible words of God.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."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.What Christians really believeA book by George A. Marsden, "Reforming Fundamentalism" quotes a survey of student belief at one of the largest Evangelical seminaries in the US. The poll indicated that 85% of the students "do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture."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 Barna report)Will K
"As for before 1611, there was no perfect Bible."Fardawg posts: "Thank you for proving my point that you don't have a demonstrably "perfect preserved" Word of God. You admit by that statement that you believe God re-inspired the KJV and no Christian had a perfect Bible till 1611 (something the KJV translators would be shocked to hear - read the original KJV preface that has been left out of the new editions). That is the only explanation for all your claims."Fardawg, I never said God re-inspired the KJB. You are making that up because it is what you want to see.I don't think the KJB translators would be as surprised as you think.As the King James Bible translators themselves wrote in their Preface: “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 endeavour, that our mark."The King James Translators also wrote: "Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are the thoughts to be the wiser: so if we build upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make better which they left so good...if they were alive would thank us...the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished."The King James Bible believer is the only one today who consistenly, historically and logically stands for the doctrinal truths that God has kept His promises to preserve His inspired words and that there really exists such a thing as a complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible.Will K
Fardawg posts: "You can stop slandering the conservative translations now, since you can't demonstrate that they are NOT the preserved Word of God, neither can you demonstrate that the KJV IS. It seems that your only proof of "perfection" for the KJV is in your own mind."OK, Fardawg, how is this for a demonstration that you modern bogus bibles are not the preserved words of God?Can you tell us which of the following few examples (and I have hundreds of them) are the true, preserved words of God? Looks like we're getting closer and closer to those ever elusive originals, huh?“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), or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!; 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).Will K
WillI was writing my last post before you posted about "deceived". And, I haven't read the posts you have posted since, just so you know.This is the last I will speak on the KJV Only issue. I have had many online debates before and none of this is new to me. This should be about Camping not KJV. I suggest that anyone interested should read James White’s book, and Daniel B. Wallace’s work, and not just what someone else says about it. I agree that the NASB rendering is probably not the best way to translate the Hebrew (again my view does not require me to have a perfect English translation), but it is not “wrong“. The same Hebrew word is translated as “deceived” in many places in the KJV. I believe that this can be seen as similar to the passages that “seem” to say God does not have unlimited knowledge or vision. (Genesis 3:9; 4:9; 18:20-21; 22:12; 38:4; Deuteronomy 8:2; Hosea 8:4 etc.) These use human language to describe God, but I’m sure you wouldn’t say that “they have made princes, and I knew it not” means God was clueless or that God did not know Abraham would be faithful until He tested him, or that He did not know where Adam or Able were and had to ask. People who do not practice Tota Scriptura do take these to mean God is not omniscient or omnipresent, does that mean the KJV should change the language? As you know there are people who use God “repenting of evil” to say that God changes his mind and sometimes does what is wrong. We both know that “repent” in the biblical sense basically means to “change direction” and that God knows before what they will do, yet the modern understanding and many dictionaries think of it more as asking forgiveness and being regretful of something you did wrong. That is why the NIV uses “relent” when speaking of God‘s action. Neither is wrong, but the NIV gives the better sense for our modern understanding in my opinion. This is why I don’t use a single translation but compare them and use lexicons and commentaries to better understand.
WillI will say my peace once more because you already had more posts up. Quoting Liberals and the KJV preface, which also states that the apostles themselves used a translation (LXX)that the KJV translators said wasn't perfect, does not help your case. The KJV translators never said in those quotes what you say about the KJV. They were simply saying that they were continuing to refine the text as they had it before them. Your statements do lead to re-inspiration whether you want to admit it now or not. You said you have no perfect Bible before 1611. That has to lead to re-inspiration if you claim that it is preserved perfectly only in the KJV. The process by which the KJV was made is no different than what the modern versions have done, so God must have inspired the KJV translators since it is the first perfect Bible. The only difference is that we have more manuscripts to go on and a better understanding, based on wider sources, of Greek and Hebrew terms the KJV translators weren't as sure of. What keeps someone from picking a modern translation and saying that IT is the "Perfect Word" that never existed before? They are using the same faulty reasoning you are using. The End.
Will Kenney....my, it has been a while. I see you are as dogmatically wrong as you ever were! :-)So, tell me, Will...why did the KJV mistranslate the second person plural verb at Romans 6:17? I'd be interested in how your theory of "preservation" handles the mistranslations in the KJV? Do you default back to the TR at that point? Just wondering. :-)James Whitewww.aomin.org
Nice to see you on here Dr. White! I met you briefly at Duke University in NC last year at the Islam debate. I was the fat guy visiting from Ohio with his brother. Thanks again for signing our books. And thanks for refuting Camping's errors.God Bless.
SeanI would like to know why you believe that it is only NOW, through Camping, that we supposedly understand that the "Mystery of the Kingdom of God" is referring to the outward church (supposing for the moment that this twisting of the context is right), when the text clearly says that the disciples Jesus was speaking to were to know what it was? There is no 2000 year gap in the text for you to inset Mr. Camping. What kind of hermeneutical gymnastics do you use to get around that? You seem to dodge, every time I ask, the plain teaching that the disciples would understand.
Romans 6:17 and James White.James White, who does not believe that ANY Bible in any language is the complete, inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God, once again tries to find fault with the King James Holy Bible.He comments and asks: “Will Kenney....my, it has been a while. I see you are as dogmatically wrong as you ever were! :-)So, tell me, Will...why did the KJV mistranslate the second person plural verb at Romans 6:17? I'd be interested in how your theory of "preservation" handles the mistranslations in the KJV? Do you default back to the TR at that point? Just wondering. :-)James Whitewww.aomin.org Hi James. Thanks for the question. I will be happy to address this alleged error you think you have found. I will answer your question. I’m wondering however if YOU will address the accusations I have been making here at this forum about you. I have stated now several times that you, James White, do not believe that ANY Bible in any language is or ever has been the complete, preserved, inspired, infallible and 100% words of God. Do you affirm or deny that this is true?If you do believe in the preservation and infallibility of the Bible, would you then clearly and in no uncertain terms tell us exactly where we can get a copy of this “infallible, preserved and complete Bible” so we can compare it to whatever we are using now to see the differences and similarities?Or are you going to be as “dogmatically” evasive, slippery and nebulous “as you ever were”? Now, let’s take a closer look at the King James Bible’s translation of Romans 6:17. Romans 3:1-2 “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. “ The King James Bible translation is not wrong in Romans 6:17. They were well aware of what the Greek text reads since they have a marginal note that says “Greek - whereunto ye were delivered.”The issue is not whether or not Romans 6:17 is a striclty literal translation (NO Bible translation is always strictly literal, not even your NASB or whatever it is you are now promoting these days as your “reliable translations”.The issue is what does the verse mean. Were the Christians at Rome ‘handed over to the teaching” or was the teaching given to them? Is there any REAL or significant difference in meaning between the two expressions? And which expression flows more easily and is in keeping with the doctrine found in the rest of the New Testament?
Barnes comments on Romans 6:17 in his Notes on the New Testament -That form of doctrine. Greek, Type. The form or type of doctrine means that shape or model of instruction which was communicated. It does not differ materially from the doctrine itself, "you have obeyed that doctrine," etc. You have yielded obedience to the instructions, the rules, the tenor of the Christian revelation. The word doctrine does not refer to an abstract dogma, but means instruction, that which is taught. And the meaning of the whole expression is simply, that they had yielded a cheerful and hearty obedience to that which had been communicated to them by the teachers of the Christian religion.What we see in the book of Romans itself is that Paul took the preaching of the cross and the teaching to the people. “So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ...” Romans 1:15-16Notice that the oracles of God were committed unto them; not that they were committed unto the oracles of God.Romans 10:8 “The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach.”The clear sense of the passage is that the Christians at Rome had received the message of the gospel and believed it.You may think you have finally discovered some “mistranslation” in God’s Book, but there are lots of other Bible translators just as qualified as you who disagree with you on this. There are lots of other Bible translations that have the same or very similar meaning as that found in the King James Bible. Here are some of them.Webster’s 1833 - Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin; but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.The 1994 21st Century Version - “But God be thanked that though ye were the servants of sin, now ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.”The Holy New Covenant 2004 - Rom 6:17 But thank God that, even though you were slaves of sin, you obeyed from your hearts that pattern of teaching which you were given.Goodspeed 1923 - Rom 6:17 But, thank God! though you were once slaves of sin, you have become obedient from your hearts to the standard of teaching that you received,Weymouth 1912 - Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God that though you were once in thraldom to Sin, you have now yielded a hearty obedience to that system of truth in which you have been instructed.1995 Contemporary English Version - You used to be slaves of sin. But I thank God that with all your heart you obeyed the teaching you received from me.The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ 1865 American Bible Union - Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that ye were servants of sin, but obeyed from the heart that form of teaching which was delivered to you;Darby - But thanks [be] to God, that ye were bondmen of sin, but have obeyed from the heart the form of teaching into which ye were instructed.God’s Word Translation 1995 - You were slaves to sin. But I thank God that you have become wholeheartedly obedient to the teachings which you were given.
The Spanish Reina Valera 1995 - Pero gracias a Dios que, aunque erais esclavos del pecado, habéis obedecido de corazón a aquella forma de doctrina que os transmitieron; - “you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which they transmitted to you.” Spanish Biblia en Lenguaje Sencillo (BLS) “Antes, ustedes eran esclavos del pecado. Pero gracias a Dios que obedecieron de todo corazón la enseñanza que se les dio. - “Thanks be to God that you obeyed with all your heart the teaching that was given to you.” Copyright © 2000 by United Bible Societies The Spanish NIV (Nueva Version International) 1999 reads just like the KJB with - “Pero gracias a Dios que, aunque antes eran esclavos del pecado, ya se han sometido de corazón a la enseñanza que les fue transmitida.” - “You have submitted from the heart to that teaching that was given to you.”The 1991 Italian New Diodati - “ma avete ubbidito di cuore a quell'insegnamento che vi è stato trasmesso.” -but you have obeyed of heart to that instruction that has been transmitted.”The 1997 Italian La Parola e Vita - “avete ubbidito con tutto il cuore all'insegnamento che vi è stato dato.” = “you have obeyed with all the heart all' instruction that has been given.1869 Noyles Translation - Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God that, though ye were the bondmen of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching which was delivered to you;Worsley Version 1770 - Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that ye who were servants of sin, have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered to you:The 1729 Daniel Mace translation - “but God be thanked, that you, who were the vassals of sin, have sincerely obeyed in the manner the gospel prescribed.”The 2008 International Standard Version - “But thank God that, though you were once slaves of sin, you became obedient from your hearts to that form of teaching with which you were entrusted!” Th 2005 Faithful New Testament - “But grace [be] to God because you were slaves of sin, but you obeyed from the heart that type of teaching you were delivered. The Easy English Bible 2006 Wycliffe Associates - Before, you were slaves to sin. But then you really obeyed the true things about Christ that people taught you. So, we should thank God because of that!
The 1995 God’s Words to the Nations online version - “You were slaves to sin. But I thank God that you have become wholeheartedly obedient to the teachings which you were given.”The Good News Translation 1992 - “But thanks be to God! For though at one time you were slaves to sin, you have obeyed with all your heart the truths found in the teaching you received.”The 1998 Third Millenium Bible - “But God be thanked that though ye were the servants of sin, now ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.”The New Living Translation 1996 - “Thank God! Once you were slaves of sin, but now you have obeyed with all your heart the new teaching God has given you.”Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Peshitta - “But thank God that you, who were once the servants of sin, now obey from the heart that form of doctrine which has been delivered to you. “The Complete Jewish Bible 1998 - “By God's grace, you, who were once slaves to sin, obeyed from your heart the pattern of teaching to which you were exposed;The 1991 New Century Version - “In the past you were slaves to sin -- sin controlled you. But thank God, you fully obeyed the things that you were taught.”The TNIV 2005 - “But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance.”The New International Reader’s Version - “You used to be slaves of sin. But thank God that with your whole heart you obeyed the teachings you were given!”The New Life Version 1969 - “At one time you were held by the power of sin. But now you obey with all your heart the teaching that was given to you. Thank God for this! “The 2001 Easy to Read Version - “In the past you were slaves to sin--sin controlled you. But thank God, you fully obeyed the things that were taught to you.”The Bible in Worldwide English - “You were at one time slaves to wrong things. But I praise God that you obeyed what your teachers taught you. And you obeyed because you wanted to obey.”So, how about it James? Do you have any Bible in any language that you believe is or was ever the complete, inspired, infallible and 100% true Holy Bible? Does it have a name? Is it in print somewhere? Or is it just a hypothetical, imaginary Bible that exists solely in your own mind?Looking forward to your clear and unambiguous answer.Will Kinney
Fardawg posts:This is the last I will speak on the KJV Only issue. I have had many online debates before and none of this is new to me. This should be about Camping not KJV. I suggest that anyone interested should read James White’s book, and Daniel B. Wallace’s work, and not just what someone else says about it."I've read them and know for a fact that neither one of these men believes in any Bible is the complete and infallible words of God. Not even White and Wallace agree with each other as to what texts should be used 100% of the time. They are both "Every Man for Himself Bible Versionists" Fardawg says: "I agree that the NASB rendering is probably not the best way to translate the Hebrew (again my view does not require me to have a perfect English translation), but it is not “wrong“. The same Hebrew word is translated as “deceived” in many places in the KJV."I am well aware that the Hebrew word has many meanings, but not all meaning fit every context. To say that God was DECEIVED is not just wrong, but it is stupid.But since you do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture then you can let even this gross blunder slide and try to tell us it is "not wrong".Will K
Fardawg posts: "The process by which the KJV was made is no different than what the modern versions have done, so God must have inspired the KJV translators since it is the first perfect Bible. The only difference is that we have more manuscripts to go on and a better understanding, based on wider sources, of Greek and Hebrew terms the KJV translators weren't as sure of. What keeps someone from picking a modern translation and saying that IT is the "Perfect Word" that never existed before? They are using the same faulty reasoning you are using."God preserved His words through the process of purification. The finished product was the King James Bible. Not even you believe there was a perfect Bible before 1611. So is it OK for you to think this way but not for me?The difference between the KJB and all the fake bibles is the sovereignty of God in history and the true witnesss of the text of the KJB.Nobody seriously defends any modern version against all the others as being the inspired and infallible words of God. You sure don't."He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15Will K
Hi all. It was pointed out to me that I had Romans 3:1-2 in the wrong place.It should not have been at the beginning, but in this context here. Sorry for the mistake.Barnes comments on Romans 6:17 in his Notes on the New Testament -That form of doctrine. Greek, Type. The form or type of doctrine means that shape or model of instruction which was communicated. It does not differ materially from the doctrine itself, "you have obeyed that doctrine," etc. You have yielded obedience to the instructions, the rules, the tenor of the Christian revelation. The word doctrine does not refer to an abstract dogma, but means instruction, that which is taught. And the meaning of the whole expression is simply, that they had yielded a cheerful and hearty obedience to that which had been communicated to them by the teachers of the Christian religion.What we see in the book of Romans itself is that Paul took the preaching of the cross and the teaching to the people. “So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ...” Romans 1:15-16Romans 3:1-2 “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. “Notice that the oracles of God were committed unto them; not that they were committed unto the oracles of God.Romans 10:8 “The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach.”The clear sense of the passage is that the Christians at Rome had received the message of the gospel and believed it.Will K
Fardawg posts: "This is the last I will speak on the KJV Only issue. I have had many online debates before and none of this is new to me. This should be about Camping not KJV."Fardawg, I just wanted to point out that I am not the one who started up anything about the King James Bible. It was you. If you go back in all the posts here you will see that you posted about three times things concerning the KJB, and King James onlyists, and all were in a negative light.It was only after this that I began to address the King James Bible issue with you. So please don't try to make it sound as though I just jumped in here out of the blue and totally out of context with my defense of the King James Bible as being the only complete and 100% true Bible. You were the one who first brought it up.Will Kinney
Hi Folks,Greetings, fascinating discussion.Now, before beginning , it does looks a bit on the desperate side for James White to actually attack a common and sensible translation of Romans 6:17 as his latest great "King James Bible error".Even more so when the translation choice was clearly the conscious decision of the dozens of expert and superb Greek scholars who worked on the NT who decided that Romans 6:17 is best as a passive construction. This is clear from the footnote, where, as often, they show that they avoid potential wooden and superficial literalism, the bane of translation funk (my words ). (Note: Isaiah 53:9 and Psalm 12:7 are good OT examples of such helpful notes).Romans 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heartthat form of doctrine ** which was delivered you. ** Now I do not claim to know any Greek .. however I do follow discussions among others and often the issues are rather simple. And it seems like this is a common construction that can move grammatically in translation that is referred to as "accusative objects in passive constructions". And is discussed at times on the biblical Greek forum, using Romans 3 and Romans 6 as examples, along with other verses, simpatico with what Will Kinney shared above.In this post from the biblical Greek forum Romans 6:17 was specifically given as an example of a translational decision of this nature.===============================instances of (accusative) objects in passive constructions - Alex Hopkinshttp://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2001-October/018888.htmlAn interesting passage in the light of such a discussion is Romans 6:17, CARIS DE TWi QEWi hOTI HTE DOULOI THS hAMARTIAS hUPHKOUSATE DE EK KARDIAS EIS hON PAREDOQHTE TUPON DIDACHHS.If PAREDOQHTE is understood to express what in the active form of the sentence would have been the *direct* object, the sentence can be translated, "But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching *to which you were entrusted*." (NIV; NRSV, NKJV, etc.)(continues)
But if PAREDOQHTE is understood to express what in the active form of the sentence would have been the *indirect* object, the sentence can be translated, "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine *which was delivered you*" (KJV; Good News, NLT, etc.).==============================Some folks (again, not KJB) also note that this passive voice fits the pattern of the Romans section.The Gospel, Passive Voice Verbs, and Communityhttp://juliepizzino.xanga.com/699056752/the-gospel-passive-voice-verbs-and-community/the verses of Romans 6:17-18 ... there are three passive voice verbs. The first context is "that form of doctrine to which you were delivered." ... The second context is "having been set free." ... And the third context is "you were enslaved to righteousness." In some articles the passive voice of :Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.is specifically emphasized and I believe this adds more light to the proper translation of the complementary and parallel Romans 5:17 as well. From the preceptaustin site:"Having been freed...have become slaves - It is important to notice that both of these verbs in Ro 6:18 are in the passive voice, which indicates that we have been acted upon by a power outside of ourselves to bring about the effects/actions of each verb. In other words, it is God alone Who supernaturally brought about the effects/actions indicated by these two verbs and this should be a cause of worship and humble thanks to our Creator and Redeemer and Friend."You can find this passive voice emphasized, especially in many Calvinist articles :-) .======================Now I do not mean to belittle the background of James White on these matters, he surely has some Greek scholarship background, yet it is very clear that even modern Greek scholars are quite sympathetic to the King James Bible passive construction and able to explain the methodology. Thus, while one may prefer one translation over another, clearly the King James Bible translation is not only far from an error, it looks to be quite superior to the active construction, in terms of the consistent flow of the verses, even if in an atomistic technical grammatical sense two choices are both acceptable.Overall, in sum, the very fact that such a putrid (hard to find a more apt word) example of an "error" is brought to a public discussion forum by a leading anti-pure-KJB proponent is amazing. And quite telling about the impoverishment of this movement to deny the historic Holy Bible in our hand. The Holy Bible available to the ploughman, and even the scholar, fully pure and perfect, the King James Bible, the Authorized Version.Shalom,Steven Avery
Hi all. I found a couple more modern translations that translate Romans 6:17 in a very similar way to that found in the King James Bible. These people surely are not trying to "copy" the King James Bible here.It is a legitimate way of translating the verse. The 1968 Jerusalem Bible says: "You were once slaves of sin, but thank God you submitted without reservation to the creed you were taught."The 1979 St. Joseph New American Bible says: "Thanks be to God, though once you were slaves of sin, you sincerely obeyed that rule of teaching which was imparted to you."Will Kinney
WillActually, it was Dennis who asked me what version I was using. I knew where it was going and said then that I hoped it wouldn't become a KJV only debate and said I was willing to use the KJV even though I prefer using something that reads better than a 17th century translation. Any "negativity" was obviously against Campingites misusing the KJV. I never said anything bad about the KJV. June then went into the KJV only being perfect and accused Dr. White and ISI of promoting "confusion and strife" etc. All I said then was that I wanted an answer to what the perfect preserved Bible was before 1611 and pointed out a quotation of the 1611 preface. That is when you started. I made it clear from the beginning that I did not want to debate the KJV and that I would quote from it because this is about Camping. I said nothing negative about the KJV. I don't have a problem with the KJV as a translation. It's a good translation and I thank God for it. It was the other side who turned this into a KJV debate. I find it interesting that KJV onlyists were lurking here, waiting to jump on the issue and take away from Camping's errors. It seems you are more worried about which Bible I quote from than Mr. Camping telling people to leave the Churches and making false prophecy. I guess since he uses the KJV he isn't as bad as Dr. White to you.PS. I do believe in the inerrancy of scripture. I do NOT believe in the inerrancy of translators. And you still don't have a "perfect" Bible before 1611. I guess there was no inerrancy before 1611 either.
Fardawg posts:" It seems you are more worried about which Bible I quote from than Mr. Camping telling people to leave the Churches and making false prophecy. I guess since he uses the KJV he isn't as bad as Dr. White to you.PS. I do believe in the inerrancy of scripture. I do NOT believe in the inerrancy of translators. And you still don't have a "perfect" Bible before 1611. I guess there was no inerrancy before 1611 either."Hi Fardawg. Just because someone "uses" the KJB does not mean that I agree with them. I don't know for sure, but I doubt Mr. Camping is KJB only. There are many things I agree with Mr. White about and I think he is a brother in the Lord. But I believe that when it comes to the Bible version issue he is blind.By the way, I never said there was a perfect Bible before 1611. I don't think there was. During the Reformation period God was in the process of purifying His words and putting them into "the book of the LORD". That is my view. You can see it here and in the link at the bottom of the article:http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/blowup.html You SAY you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, but again this is just pious posturing on your part. You do not have nor do you believe in an inerrant Bible.You, just like James White, have an inerrant Bible only in a philosophical, hypothetical and imaginary manner. You do not have a real and tangible Book of any kind that you can give me to hold in my hand, read and believe every word. You, my friend, are not a Bible believer but a Bible agnostic.You believe selected parts of various bible versions but all of none and doubt or do not know for sure(agnostic) about many others.If I am wrong on this, then show us The Book you hold to be the inerrant Scriptures above all others. But you won't do that, will you.All of grace, believing the Book,Will K
As Will Kinney has pointed out:"The difference between the KJB and all the fake bibles is the sovereignty of God in history and the true witnesss of the text of the KJB.Nobody seriously defends any modern version against all the others as being the inspired and infallible words of God. You sure don't."Readers of this blog are urged now to consider the comments of Dr.Samuel Gipp, Th.D. in this regard: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_43.asp The Answer Book by Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D."QUESTION: Isn't the devil behind all the confusion and fighting over Bible versions?ANSWER: Undoubtedly. EXPLANATION: It is a great irony that many of the critics of the Bible claim rather indignantly that the devil is behind the battle over the King James Bible. In this they are correct. But somehow they have managed to assume that it is the people claiming perfection for the Bible who the devil is guiding. Is this a correct assumption? Let us consider the history of the battle. From the time of its publication in 1611 the King James Bible has grown in popularity. Although not mandated by the King to be used in the churches of England, it did, in a matter of a few years, manage to supplant all of the great versions translated before it. Though it was not advertised in the Madison Avenue fashion of today's versions, it soon swept all other versions from the hearts and hands of the citizenry of England and its colonies. With the conquest of the British Empire behind it, it crossed the Atlantic to the United States. Landing here it overwhelmed the double foothold of the Roman Catholic Church planted previously under the flags of Spain and France. It then began to permeate young America with its ideals. Its truths led to the establishment of an educational system, based on Scripture, that was unparalleled in the world. It instilled in men the ideals of freedom and personal liberty, thoughts so foreign to the minds of men that their inclusion in our Constitution could only be described as an "experiment" in government. It commissioned preachers of righteousness who, on foot and horseback, broke trails into the wilderness and spread the truth of the gospel and of right living. In its wake was left what could only be described..."one nation, under God..." This accomplished, it set out for the conquest of the heathen world. Bible colleges (Princeton, Harvard, Yale) were founded. Mission societies formed. And eager young missionaries began to scour the globe with little more than a King James Bible and God's Holy Spirit. But these activities did not go unnoticed by Satan. He who had successfully counterfeited God's church, ministers and powers certainly could not be expected to let God's Bible roam the world unchallenged. Through agents such as Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, he published his own translation in 1884. (The New Testament had been published in 1881.) Though there had been sporatic personal translations between 1611 and 1884, this new translation, called the Revised Version, was the first ever to be designed from its outset to replace God's Authorized Bible. It failed to replace God's Bible, but the arguments of its adherents were the first shots fired in a nearly 400 year battle for the hearts and minds of God's people concerning the authority and fidelity of Scripture. In 1901 another round was fired in the form of the American Revised Version, later called the American Standard Version. (An intentional misnomer since it never became the "standard" for anything.) This version, other than being the darling of critical American scholarship met a dismal end when, twenty-three years later, it was so totally rejected by God's people that its copyright had to be sold. (Does this sound like God's blessing?)
Continuation of Dr. Samuel Gipp's solemn comments follow:"The ASV was further revised and republished in 1954 as the Revised Standard Version. This sequence of events has repeated itself innumerable times, resulting in the New American Standard Version of 1960, the New Scofield Version of 1967, the New International Version of 1978, and the New King James Version of 1979 to name a few. The process has never changed. Every new version that has been launched has been, without exception, a product of Satan's Alexandrian philosophy which rejects the premise of a perfect Bible. Furthermore, they have been copied, on the most part, from the corrupt Alexandrian manuscript. (Although a few have been translated from pure Antiochian manuscripts after they were tainted by the Alexandrian philosophy.) THIS then was Satan's battle in print, BUT by no means was it his exclusive onslaught. He used a standard military "two-pronged" attack. While popularizing his Alexandrian manuscripts via the press, he began to promote his Alexandrian philosophy in and through Christian Bible colleges. Soon sincere, naive, young, Bible students attending FUNDAMENTAL Bible colleges began to hear the infallibility of the Bible challenged in their classrooms. In chapel services the Bible's perfection was much touted. But then, the very same speakers, would debase, degrade, and even mock the English Bible, always assuring their students that they were not a "liberal" or "modernist" because they believed that the Bible was infallible in "the originals". That non-existent, unobtainable, mystical entity which ALL apostates shield their unbelief behind. Soon stalwartness gave in to acceptance and fidelity to a perfect bible became fidelity to one's "Alma Mater". Young graduates, disheartened and disarmed by their education, found themselves in pulpits across America parroting the professor's shameful criticism of the Word of God. They readily accepted new versions hot off the Alexandrian presses. Then, when some Christian approached them claiming to believe the Bible (one you could hold in your HAND, not a lost relic from bygone days) was word perfect (a belief they had once held before their education stole it from them) they felt threatened. They try to dispel this "fanatic," this "cultist". Finally they look this faith filled Christian in the eye and piously ask, "Don't you feel that the devil is using this Bible version issue to divide and hinder the cause of Christ?" "Undoubtedly," comes back the answer "But I'm certainly glad it's not MY CROWD that he's using." Who's side are YOU on? Additional Note: Here's something that you need to think about. If we King James Bible believers have our way, a Preacher would stand in a pulpit to read Scripture and everyone else in the church would read from the same Bible. Isn't that UNITY? But if the Bible-correctors have their way everyone would read from a different bible. That's confusion. And who is the author of confusion? (I Cor. 14:33)"
Hi june. Thanks for the article; a lot of good stuff there. Yes, I believe in the sovereignty of God who "worketh ALL things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11). I find it to be highly ironic that James White sees God's sovereignty in some areas but apparently believes God was not sovereign in giving us His "book of the LORD" in time and history.I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude.In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God.Was there a perfect Bible consisting of the present 66 book canon in the year 90 A.D? No. Not all of it had even been written yet. Why is it that the God of history didn’t allow the invention of the printing press until around 1455 A.D? Most Christians didn’t even have an opportunity to have their own copy of any printed Bible till around 1550.Even regarding the canon of Scripture, or the individual books that taken as a whole form the Bible, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for British Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.There was no formal church agreement on the present day Protestant Bible consisting of 66 books until 1563. The Catholics still do not agree with the Protestants and include several other books called the Apocrypha.All the formal church confessions about the inspiration of Scripture began to appear AFTER the King James Bible came on the scene.Are all these facts just "coinkidinks"? I trow not.Will K
WillI no you don't believe there was a perfect Bible before 1611. That is the problem. You insist that it was only perfect in 1611 which is very cult like. It sounds like Mormonism. If you can't show me where God had a perfect Bible before 1611, I will never believe that a 17th century Anglican Bible was perfect. The claim that God finally perfected His Word in 1611 has no solid foundation. That is too cultish for me. "During the Reformation period God was in the process of purifying His words and putting them into "the book of the LORD"."Wow. That is seriously weird. No TRANSLATION is inerrant. You demand one today, but what would you tell those before 1611, "Sorry, but God hasn't made one yet"? I guess it's a good thing you weren't born before 1611. You couldn't have made the claims you do now. The original texts were inerrant and by comparing the texts as they have been transcribed down through the ages we can determine what the original was and what was added or left out. We see in the various editions of the "TR" that there were variants that were in question and when the KJV translators made their translation they did their best to discern what the original was from those texts and other translations and commentaries. They knew there were things that were still in question and made footnotes with the alternates. The very translators of the text didn't have your view of it's inerrancy. The fact that we have so many texts in the original languages, and from various places around the world which we can examine, gives us the assurance that we do have the Word of God and can determine what it is. I have a feeling that this wont get back to Camping any time soon. Oh well!By the way, what is the "perfect" word in Jeremiah 34:16 "whom HE had set at liberty" or "whom YE had set at liberty"? And how do you determine what it it?
Fardawg posts: "I no you don't believe there was a perfect Bible before 1611. That is the problem. You insist that it was only perfect in 1611 which is very cult like. It sounds like Mormonism. If you can't show me where God had a perfect Bible before 1611, I will never believe that a 17th century Anglican Bible was perfect. The claim that God finally perfected His Word in 1611 has no solid foundation. That is too cultish for me."Hi Fardawg. YOU yourself do not believe there was a perfect Bible before 1611. Is that "cultish"? In fact, you talk about believing in the inerrancy of Scripture, but when asked to tell us where we can get a copy of this inerrant Scripture you SAY you believe in, you dodge it. Looks like you have learned well from Mr. White on this issue.Fardawg continues: "No TRANSLATION is inerrant." OK, Fardawg. Now you have gotten yourself into a bit of a bind. If "No Translation" is inerrant, then were is a copy of the "inerrant Scriptures" you keep trying to make us think you believe in? Are you just going to pretend that I didn't ask the question like Mr. White apparently is doing, and hope that nobody else will notice?Fardawg continues: "The original texts were inerrant and by comparing the texts as they have been transcribed down through the ages we can determine what the original was and what was added or left out."Oh really? Well, why then haven't you scholars been able to give us a complete and infallible Bible yet? How many tries have you had now? Some 200 different English versions so far and counting. And each one comes down the pike and disagrees both textually and in meaning in scores if not hundreds of verses from all the others.James White recommends 3 different "reliable versions" in his book - the NASB, NIV and NKJV. Yet the NKJV differs textually from the NIV by some 3000 words, including 17 entire verses. Plus none of these "reliable versions" agree textually scores of times in the Old Testament and HUNDREDS of verses have completely different meanings.And what has been the result of your "new and improved" versions? Widespread unbelief in the infallibility of Scripture; ever growing Biblical ignorance, and people actually read these rags less and less every day.Yep, looks like the modern versions are leading down the right road, doesn't it.The Bible says there will come a falling away from the faith in the last days. God will send a famine of hearing His words, and when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?The apostasy is here and nobody is going to stop it. Unfortunately, you are on the wrong side of this issue right now.Now, if James quietly disappears, maybe YOU can tell us where we can get a copy of this "inerrant Scripture" you keep telling us you believe in.Will K
Mr. Kinney,I was very edified by your last post. Bible teachers are not called to cast doubt on God's precious Word, but to defend it! Much damage has been done to the faith of God's little ones by those who by their skepticism,undermine and call into question the veracity of God's Words, much like the serpent, who beguiled Eve in the garden when he said: "Yea, hath God said, . .. " Gen.3:1bWill, I discern you to be a true apologist for Christ's churchby the unapologetic stand you take for the inerrancy, infallibility, veracity and preservation of His Word, that God, who is sovereign in all things, was pleased to give us in the KJB in the fulness of time. quite consistent with his unchanging nature, who in the fulness of time sent His Son into the world to save sinners. Sovereign in history; sovereign in salvation, all to His praise and glory alone! "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" Rom. 11:33
June. Many pastors recommend the use of one Bible translation in their Church services, though it is not demanded. The church I attend uses the NASB in the pews and the pastor uses it and points out different translations if they are better or more clear at certain points. Your generalizing of what people believe is erroneous. It is by comparing translations that confusion disappears, not by being forced to read one 17th century English translation. As for Sam Gipps "history" lessons, they are filled with false accusations and misrepresentation. The newer translations are not the devils doing. They have lead many people to Christ. By my study of the various conservative translations I have come closer to Christ. It was only when I started using the NKJV and the NIV (which is my least favorite now as it can be too paraphrastic) that I really began to understand God's Word, and the Bible was no longer an archaic, hard to read artifact, but "living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword". It is the bible burning attitude of some KJV onlyists that is more in line with satan's work. The KJV only movement is causing the division, not us.KJV onlyists were not the first to claim to have a perfect Bible. I seem to remember some Italian folks and a certain Latin translation. And there was the Septuagint onlyists. As Dr. White pointed out in his book, Jerome was criticized for changing the Septuagint, and Erasmus was criticized for changing Jerome. Now people are criticizing the changing of Erasmus' "TR" (though the KJV translators already did that, so its a changing of a change that changed a changing, and probably another change or two). It was by going back to the sources and questioning what was added or taken out that we got away from onlyism and came back to a true study of the Word of God. This continues today. We should always examine our traditions as the Reformers did.
More edifying words from the Late Dr. Frank Logsdon, a well known scholar and Bible conference speaker. He was a member of the Amplified Version committee and the New American Standard Committee, when he "saw the light" and stepped aside from both.********http://www.maranath.ca/fourscholars.htmExcerpt from a pamphlet authored by Dr. Otis Fuller entitled:Four Recognized Greek Scholars Had No Use For The Book "Which Bible?" Until They Read It For Themselves: Then They "Saw The Light!"On The Authorized VersionGod produced it! God preserves it! God conveyed it! God controls it! God presented it! God protects it! God manifested it! God manifested it! God magnifies!"Providential preservation is a necessary consequence of Divine Inspiration". Most arguments against the authorized version - abandon reason!If - the Authorized Version is not authentic - which is?If - the Authorized Version is not God's revelation, have we been deceived?Did - God wait 1900 years to reveal His true Word?If - the Authorized version has been incorrect - what harm has resulted?If - the True Revelation was lost - where was God when it happened?Was - man left in darkness when the Authorized Version was his only Bible?Were - we wrong these years in claiming the Authorized Version to be indeed God's Word?Why - has this present generation become so dissatisfied with the Authorized Version?Are - we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?Who - would risk his integrity in saying that nay present-day volume excels the Authorized Version?Dr. Frank Logsdon, Scholar and Bible conference speaker
JuneI came to realize the Sovereignty of God in all things while reading the NASB. I also was edified by James Whites book on the KJV and my faith regarding God's preservation of His word was made stronger. God is Sovereign in history as He preserved His word through all of the texts we have. Again, it is by comparing them that we can see what God's Word is and don't have to rely of silly myths about 17th century Anglicans making the first "perfect" Bible (something that is nowhere in scripture). I pray that you will realize that you are reduced to a cult-like stand in order to preserve your preconception that the KJV is perfect. For you to say that God waited until 1611 to make a "perfect" Bible is very disturbing, unhistorical, and unbiblical. God has preserved His Bible in the same way since the beginning.
WillDr. White is not dodging you, he is a very busy man who has better things to do like flying to London to debate Muslims etc. I answered your question on inerrancy. Try reading the rest of my post.
Fardawg posts: "I answered your question on inerrancy. Try reading the rest of my post."Fardawg, you are sounding more and more like a James White clone. You told us very clearly "NO Translation is inerrant." But you also said: "I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture."OK, then tell us where we can get a copy of this "inerrant Scripture" you keep trying to make us think you believe in so we can see the differences and similarities to what we are using now.Instead of answering the direct and simple question, you act like James White who also dodges the question and says: "Read my book."Hopefully Mr. White will be able to respond to my simple and direct question in the coming days, but if he is anything like you, he will try to artfully dodge giving a direct and clear answer.Will K
Will"why then haven't you scholars been able to give us a complete and infallible Bible yet? How many tries have you had now? Some 200 different English versions so far and counting."Again, no translation can be infallible. That is the nature of translation. Are you saying that the KJV is "perfect" and "infallible" when it uses "God forbid" for "me genoito"? Are you saying that translating it "may it never be" is fallible and not perfect? What determines the correct rendering? Where is the word "God" and why was it added if God didn't inspire the Greek to have it?The current Greek text is likely very close to the original with the exception of a few minor things, such as words that make no difference to the teachings. Many of the supposed "differences" and "deletions" are like the above translation of the Greek or things like "Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ" (And there are places in the KJV BTW that simply have "he" or "Jesus" and not the fuller title). In Revelation 1:8 the NIV says "Lord God" while the KJV leaves out "God". That does not make the KJV any less Godly, neither does it take away the deity.
Will Kinney said:So, how about it James? Do you have any Bible in any language that you believe is or was ever the complete, inspired, infallible and 100% true Holy Bible? Does it have a name? Is it in print somewhere? Or is it just a hypothetical, imaginary Bible that exists solely in your own mind?Looking forward to your clear and unambiguous answer.Yes, we are all waiting for James white's precise, concise, unambiguous, plain-spoken answer to the pointed questions Will Kinney has posed to him!
Someone just had a bad wreck near us. Someone is screaming. Please pray for them and their family.
Consider the Satanic underpinings from which the NASB was translated,Namely, two Catholic manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus These are not my words friends!**********http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/translator.aspEXCERPT:Bible Translator Says, ‘I'm In Trouble With The Lord.'Dr. Frank Logsdon, member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible.Although the most popular translation at the present time is the New International Version, both of these modern Bibles are based upon the same Catholic text, and Logsdon's concerns apply to both.Being involved with the project from the very beginning, Logsdon helped publisher F. Dewey Lockman with the feasibility study that led to the translation. He interviewed some of the translators, sat with them, and even wrote the preface. But soon the questions began coming in.His old friend, Dr. David Otis Fuller, began to put his finger on the many shortcomings of the Catholic text used in all modern Bibles, which include the NASB and today's NIV.Logsdon then began to travel extensively, trying to make up for his error by explaining to people the very simple reasons why the Authorized Version is the one Bible which is absolutely 100% correct.Along with many other scholars, Logsdon had blindly accepted the basic argument used today to support the use of the two Catholic manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, in all modern Bibles.It was only after Logsdon took the time to really look into this issue that he was horrified to see that he had played right into Satan's hands, and helped to take many verses out of the Scriptures. Logsdon admitted, "The deletions are absolutely frightening."The huge number of English Bible translations currently available has produced untold millions of dollars in sales, but does anyone believe that they have produced a modern Church which is more knowledgeable about their Bible? No, it has produced the Siamese twins of confusion and falling away from truth.If you hold in your hand the Authorized Version, you have God's Truth.History supports it, the Holy Spirit has confirmed it, God's Church has prospered by it. You will find it is hated by all those who seek to make an elastic Bible that is all things to all people… which then becomes nothing to anyone.Logsdon's advice? If you hold the Authorized Version, and someone tries to prod you to accept another, "You don't need to defend it; you don't need to apologize for it."Just say, ‘Well, did this new version or this translation come down through the Roman Catholic stream? If so, count me out.'"
You are twisting the scriptures. Nowhere does it say that the "mystery of the kingdom of God" is a false outward church.I never said that mystery is the same mystery we read about in Revelation 17. In Revelation 10:7, the Bible says that the mystery should be finished when the seventh angel begins to sound. Are you saying that the seventh angel sounded two millenniums ago?(Revelation 10:7) But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.The mystery is Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots who commits spiritual fornication and says she sits a queen and is no widow (claims that Christ has not left her) but desolation has come upon her. Some believe Babylon is the Catholic church, but the Bible indicates that Babylon is, in fact, all churches. Babylon is fallen. Christ has already spiritually come and removed the candlestick. The temple (corporate body) that was supposed to be builded together and holy and not defiled, has become inexorably divided (division = desolation) and God has allowed the corporate body to be overthrown by the tares as God has loosed satan and is using him as a tool as God brings judgment upon the house of God. Satan comes as an angel of light and his ministers as ministers of righteousness, so it's no surprise that many Christians are deceived in the churches, today. If it were possible, the false prophets who come with signs and wonders would deceive the very elect (those who God has truly saved) but the elect are not deceived and are proclaiming the truth of the Bible during this time of great tribulation when iniquity is abounding in the churches and many false prophets in sheep's clothing are leading many astray today. But, by God's mercy, the elect are not believing a lie, the elect are believing the truth of the unsealed word of God and are coming out of the midst of where devils now habitate. God says to come out of Babylon the Great in Revelation 18:4.God did not heal Babylon because she did not repent. Babylon did not repent because many are called and few are chosen, and only those who are truly saved will repent in a way that pleases God. Christ's sheep hear His voice in the Bible and seek His face in the Bible. The Bible is where the elect are spiritually assembling unto Christ as His eternal body today. Christ's eternal church is alive and well outside the midst of Babylon the Great. As the elect exhort one another with sound doctrine outside the midst of the desolation, especially as they see the day approaching, the truth is increasing among the wheat, while the love of many, which is keeping God's word, has waxed cold and the tares remain in the midst of division and desolation. The churches are spiritually dead and those with spiritual eyes to see, realize that. The falling away has already happened and many are deceived. What a terrible time of deception the great tribulation is.
Sean"I never said that mystery is the same mystery we read about in Revelation 17."Really? I quoted Mark 4:11 and you said in response. "Fardawg, you're wrong, the Bible does not say what you're imposing upon it. You claim that the kingdom of God is the mystery, but the mystery is Babylon the Great: (Revelation 17:5) And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.""Fardawg, Babylon the Great is the external representation of the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of God."
Will - "why then haven't you scholars been able to give us a complete and infallible Bible yet? How many tries have you had now? Some 200 different English versions so far and counting."Fardawg posts: Again, no translation can be infallible. That is the nature of translation. Are you saying that the KJV is "perfect" and "infallible" when it uses "God forbid" for "me genoito"? Are you saying that translating it "may it never be" is fallible and not perfect? What determines the correct rendering? Where is the word "God" and why was it added if God didn't inspire the Greek to have it?"Fardawg, may I make a suggestion? Why don't you first go to my website and take a good look. I have tried to address all the usual suspects you "No Bible is inspired and infallible" guys always bring up. It appears you only read people like White, Kutilek and Wallace and think they actually know what they are talking about.This "God forbid" thingy gets really old and you look like a rank amateur.“GOD FORBID!”Doug Kutilek is a virulent critic of the King James Bible. He has written this short article criticizing the rendering of “God forbid” as is found in the Holy Bible. Here is his opinion and then I will post the refutation.Doug Kutilek writes: The phrase “God forbid” occurs some 24 times in the King James Version of the Bible. Nine of these occurrences are in the OT (and thrice the similar “the LORD forbid”), while fifteen are found in the NT. Of the NT occurrences, all but one are found in the writings of Paul.
Kutilek continues his mindless tirade against "God forbid" saying:As has been pointed out countless times with regard to the use of the phrase “God forbid” to render the words of the original Hebrew and Greek, it is a close English equivalent except for two facts: 1. the word “God” is not found in the original text; and 2. neither is the word “forbid.” Other than that, it is a fine representation of the original!It is obvious, of course, that here at least, the KJV is not a literal translation of the original, but is at best a paraphrase, a “dynamic equivalent.” (Do I hear some rigid KJV adherent mutter under his breath, “God forbid!”?)The NT passages, gleaned from Strong’s concordance, are Luke 20:16;Romans 3:4; 3:6; 3:31; 6:2; 6:15; 7:7; 7:13; 9:14; 11:1; 11:11; I Corinthians 6:15; Galatians 2:17; 3:21; 6:14. In every case but the last, the phrase is a self-standing grammatical unit, expressing strong opposition or rejection of a just mentioned opinion, point of view, or implied answer to a question. In Galatians 6:14, it is incorporated into a sentence.In all 15 references, the Greek phrase is identical: ME GENOITO. ME is a negative particle usually used with verbs in the subjunctive, optative or imperative moods. GENOITO is a rare NT occurrence of a verb in the optative mood (just 56 cases in all). It is from the verb GINOMAI, “to be, become, happen,” etc. Taken together, the phrase may be literally rendered, “may it not be,” a phrase weaker in force in English than the Greek original.Modern English equivalents would be “not at all!” or “absolutely not!” or “certainly not!” or “by no means” or “under no circumstances” or “perish the thought!” or even the colloquial, “no way, Jose!” (see the New King James Bible, New American Standard Bible, and New International Version in the passages involved).While all of these modern renderings are other than strictly literal renderings of ME GENOITO, they at least have the advantage over the KJV rendering of not introducing the name of God where it is not found in the original.Frankly, I am at a loss to explain how it came to pass that “God forbid,” came to be considered by Wycliffe and other early English translators from Tyndale to the KJV as a suitable and correct translation of the Greek ME GENOITO. It was strictly a phenomenon that arose in the then-very small English-speaking world, as far as I can tell. It cannot be defended as “the closest possible English equivalent.” The renderings of the NKJB, NASB, and NIV are very much to be preferred to it.---Doug Kutilek "AS I SEE IT" Volume 4, Number 4, April, 2001
And now for my rebuttal.All previous English versions use this same expression, God forbid, including Wycliffe 1395; Tyndale 1525; Coverdale 1535; Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley's translation 1755.So also does the Douay version of 1950 in Luke 20:16; Romans, I Corinthians and Galatians, as do the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901(in all the same New Testament verses as the KJB), The World English Bible in Luke 20:16 and Gal. 2:17, Weymouth Version in Mat. 16:22, Luke 20:16 and Gal. 6:14, the Revised Standard Version in Mt. 16:22 and Luke 20:16, and the New Living Translation 1996 in Luke 20:16, and Galatians 6:14.The New RSV has "heaven forbid" in Luke 20:16 (likewise no heaven nor forbid-according to Kutilek). By the way the NRSV also has "God forbid" in Mat. 16:22 where likewise it is not "in the Greek" as the scholars like to say.The modern Hebrew Names Version contains "God forbid" in Gal. 2:17, Wesleys Bible Translation has it in Mat. 16:22; Luke 20:16, and Gal. 6:14; Todays English Version has it in Mt.16:22, as well as the Good News Translation.The New Century Version has "heaven forbid" in all the same verses where the KJB has "God forbid"; The Living Bible has God forbid in Romans 3:6, Gal 2:17, and 6:14, the Jerusalem Bible has it in Luke 20:16.
Mr Kutilek apparently is totally unaware that the NASB has 'God forbid" in Mat. 16:22 where his own scholarly standards would condemn this version he recommends. It is a different Greek construction, but again neither the words “God” nor “forbid” are found there. Both the NASB and the NIV frequently add the words God or Lord when they are not “in the original text”.Surpise! Even the New KJV, which he told us to consult, has rendered the exact same “me genoito” as God forbid in Galatians 6:14 !In fact this is the definition that the Oxford Greek Dictionary gives. Also Constantine Tsirpanlis, former Instructor in Modern Greek Language and Literature at New York University, Former Consultant for the Program in Modern Greek Studies at Hunter College, Professor of Church History and Greek Studies at Unification Theological Seminary, gives the definition of "me genoito" on page 72 of his book, "Modern Greek Idiom And Phrase Book," Barron's Educational Services, Inc., 1978, ISBN 0-8120-0476-0. The ONLY definition Tsirpanlis (a native Greek) gives for "me genoito" is "God forbid!" There is NO reference to "may it never be", "by no means" or "certainly not"!The proper force of this Greek phrase 'me genoito' is to express a negative in the strongest of possible terms. The English equivalent of "God forbid" perfectly and accurately expresses this thought, whereas such phases as "may it not be" come across as anemic if not effeminate.
Mr. Kutilek chides our AV because "God" is not literally found in the text. In spite of all his learning he has little understanding of how languages work and exalts his opinion above any bible version out there today.Another example using the verb kreematizo and the noun kreematismos is found in Romans 11:4 “But what saith the answer of God unto him?”. The NIV reads, “And what was God's answer to him?” It is interesting to note that there is no word in ANY Greek text for the word “God”. Despite this fact the NIV reads "God's answer". Now I wonder what Mr. Kutilek would say to that?Literally the Greek of Rom. 11:4 reads, “alla ti legei autoo ho kreematismos”. The last word in the previous phrase is ‘kreematismos’ and it carries the idea of 1) an answer from God or 2) a divine response or revelation. So, in order to accurately preserve the Greek in this sentence the word “God” or “Divine” must be "added" (even though NOTHING has been added) to the English text. In fact if "God" were not 'added' then the sense of the verse would be lost.The verb form is found in Matthew 2:12, 22: Acts 10:22; and Hebrews 8:5 and 11:7. In Matthew 2:12 and 22 the KJB reads, “And being warned of God”. The NASB likewise reads in both, “And having been warned by God”, and so does the NKJV in 2:22. The NASB also renders this verb as "warned by God" twice in Hebrews 8:5 and 11:7. The NKJV reads "divinely instructed", though strictly speaking the words God or Divinely are not "literally" there. Once again we see that the NASB, NKJV and NIV have commited the unpardonable sin, according to Mr. Kutilek, of saying "by God" when God is not in the Greek text.The brand new 2001 English Standard Version also "adds" the word God in the expressions "warned of God", "God's reply", and "instructed by God" in Romans 11:4; Hebrews 8:5 and Hebrews 11:7. It also adds the word God to other passages when not literally found in the Greek.Another example of “God not being in the text” is found in the NASB three times in Acts 13:43; and Acts 17:4 and 17. In Acts 13:43 the KJB, as well as the NKJV, RV, ASV, and even the NIV read: “many of the Jews and RELIGIOUS (or devout) proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas”. The word is sebomai and there is nothing literally found about God in the word at all. Even the NASB in this same chapter verse 50 the word is simply translated as “devout” However in Acts 13:43, 17:4 and 17 the NASB reads “GOD-fearing”, with no literal “God” in any Greek text. The NIV too switches gears and in both Acts 17:4 and 17 likewise “adds” the word God just like the NASB, but not so the KJB, NKJV, RV or ASV.The NASB often adds the words Jesus, God and Lord to their translation, when these words are not found in the Hebrew and Greek texts. The NASB adds the word "Jesus" in Mark 1:45; Luke 22:63, and Acts 3:16; Acts 9:22. It also adds the word "God" in 1 Samuel 16:7, adds "God" in Job 20:23 and 21:17 (as well as the NIV, NKJV, RV, ASV and ESV), "God" in Isaiah 37:20 (from Dead Sea Scrolls, but not from Hebrew Masoretic text), Nehemiah 6:9 (along with the RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV,etc.), Matthew 15:5, 16:22, Acts 3:19, Acts 7:4, Acts 13:43, Acts 19:26, Romans 11:28, 1 Peter 2:9; and "Lord" in Exodus 33:9, Exodus 34:10, 2 Kings 23:19, Job 21:19, 2 Chronicles 32:24, Hosea 1:6, 9, and 10:2.
Jeremiah 3:1 - "THEY SAY, If a man put away his wife...". So read the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, RV, ASV, Darby and the Spanish Reina Valera. However the NASB adds the word "God" here without any textual support from the Hebrew Scriptures. The NASB reads: "GOD says, If a husband divorces his wife..." The NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman just omit the phrase altogether, but the RSV, ESV footnotes inform us that the omission is due to the Syriac and the Greek, but that the Hebrew texts read "saying". So, this is another case of the NASB adding the word GOD when it is not in the text, and the NIV, ESV, Holman omitting what the Hebrew texts do read.Acts 7:4 is a bit interesting in that all Greek texts read as the King James Bible has it with: "...when his father was dead, HE removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell." The 1963 and 1972 NASBs put GOD in the text with no italics, but in 1977 and again in 1995 they placed it in italics. The online NASB still has it not in italics. Likewise the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, Holman and NET versions place the word GOD in the text (with no italics), when in fact it is not there. The point being, it is highly hypocritical of the modern versionists to criticize the King James Bible for doing something that they themselves do as much or more than that great old Book.Likewise in Mark 7:11 we read in all texts: "But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, A GIFT (dooron), by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free."However instead of the simple word "gift", the NASB, NIV, ESV all add the word GOD to the text by saying: "given TO GOD", while the NKJV paraphrases and adds these words: "dedicated TO THE TEMPLE", none of which are found in any Greek text.The NIV likewise mistranslates the word hagios, which means saints, as "God's people" a total of ten times in the New Testament. Neither the words God nor people are there in any textThe NIV continually adds to and takes away from the true words of God in both the Old and New testaments. There are certain expressions where the word God or Lord are implied, as in 'God forbid' or 'God save the king', and in these cases the KJB as well as many other translations express this. However in the NIV what we often find is the word "God" or "Lord" being left out of these expressions and instead, the NIV adds the words God, Lord, Jesus or Christ when it is not in any text, be it Hebrew or Greek.
You might want to take a look at the NIV complete concordance for yourself. In it you will find by their own documentation that the NIV has added the name of Jesus to the New Testament a total of 336 times when it is not found in the Greek texts they themselves are using. That's three hundred and thirty six times!.The NIV has omitted the name of God or JEHOVAH # 3378 thirty eight times (38 not translated) and 52 times they have added LORD, or GOD when it is not in the Hebrew text.The word Elohim, or God found on page 454 of the NIV concordance, has not been translated 13 times when found in the Hebrew text and it was placed in the NIV text another 52 times when not in the Hebrew for a total of the word "God" being added 104 times and not translated when it is in the text 51 times, and all this just in the Old Testament.The NIV has also ADDED the word God 117 times in the New Testament when it does not occur in any Greek text nor when it expresses the idea of "God forbid" and they have not translated it three times when it is in their Greek texts.Likewise the NIV has added the word Christ 15 times when not in any Greek text See for example Colossians 1:22; 2:9, 10 and 13. The NIV has also added the word Lord to the New Testament 6 times when it is not found in any Greek text - for example: 1 Cor. 1:2; and 7:34. All this factual information is found by merely looking at their own NIV complete concordance.Apparently the scholarly views of Mr. Kutilek are not shared by others members of the Bible of the Month Club. Perhaps Mr. Kutilek should write his own bible version to give us the true light we benighted souls have so long pined for these many years now ;-)Mr. Kutilek, and fellow Bible critics are like those described in I Timothy 1:7 "Desiring to be teachers...understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."By the rigid standard he sets up, he himself condemns all bible versions in print. He criticizes the KJB for translating me genoito as God forbid, yet the lexicons, including Thayer, Liddel & Scott, and Baer, Arndt & Gingrich all tell us this is a perfectly acceptable way of rendering this expression. There are a whole host of Bible versions both before and after the King James Bible that do the very same thing, including some that Mr. Kutilek himself recommends!Words of advice from Proverbs for those who think Mr. Kutilek has a handle on the truth. “Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.” Proverbs 14:7Will Kinney
Hi Folks,As far as I can tell, there are two unique aspects of this thread, and a lot of the other material can be found in articles and forums on the net.One is having Harold Camping's Family Radio on the periphery of the thread .. incidentally their Bible reading on Family Radio is from the MKJV of Jay Green, which while far better than the crapware modern versions is quite distinct from and inferior to the King James Bible. Most of us do not consider him very relevant to sound doctrine (except to be avoided) or the pure Bible issue. The truly interesting part of this thread is that we have had one of the leaders of the anti-pure-KJB brigades (perhaps the chief Quixote leader) James White coming on board and actually claim an "error", a KJB "mistranslation" in the verse in Romans:Romans 6:17But God be thanked,that ye were the servants of sin,but ye have obeyed from the heartthat form of doctrine** which was delivered you. ** Will and I have shown by a huge variety of evidences (including the b-greek forum discussions and multiple independent translations and more) that this was a truly absurd accusation, one that if maintained should effectively deep-six any pretensions that James White has a level of expertise on the Bible issues (agree with him or not).Thus, the proper response would be for James White to respond specifically to that point. My suggestion to him is simple -- simple acknowledge the error without caveat, that the King James Bible is fine on Romans 6:17, and then we can tip our hat to Mr. White in appreciation to his acknowledgment and willingness to admit serious error, and move on. However, if James wants to try a "round two" - really defending his absurd accusation and offering whatever counterpoint he can muster, that is his right. It might even make for an interesting scholarly forum continuation. The choice is Jame's.However the one thing Mr. White should not do .. simply disappear. He floated the accusation against what we believe is the pure word of God. The accusation has been rebutted very strenuously and emphatically. The next step is his. Perhaps James is going back to his textbooks and grammars and needs some more time, if so, he should simply say so. No rush, the issue is integrity and truth, not speed.So, we await his response. For James to simply disappear at this point, as if the accusation and response never occurred, would be quite telling. Granted it has only been a day or two, so perhaps his response will be in shortly. Thanks.Shalom,Steven Avery
I see that Will Kinney has not only chosen to turn this combox into his own private blog forum, but he's brought others along with him. I wonder---is the Internet not big enough for KJV Onlyists to create their own websites, their own blogs, and ply their position there? The zealous promoters of this abuse of the venerable KJV surely behave in an...odd way. Be that as it may, I had to laugh when I finally scrolled back far enough through all the cut-and-paste postings of various KJV Only diatribes that we could have read a dozen other places on the net, to find Will Kinney demonstrating, once again, the complete double standards of the KJV Only movement. While men like DA Waite and Sam Gipp RAIL against the inclusion of textual and translational notes in modern translations, what does Kinney make reference to? A KJV translational note! Wonderful! I think it's great that folks can see that the KJV translators made a choice, BUT THAT THEY KNEW THEIR CHOICE WAS NOT THE FINAL WORD. That was my whole point! Their rendering is NOT the formal translation of the text (as a later writer noted, though I am uncertain whether his particular discussion would be relevant to the state of koine studies in 1604-1611), but is, at best, somewhat interpretational. Of course, all translations are a mixture of formal and less formal renderings, just as is the KJV, but it is the KJV Only proponent (not the KJV translators) who is attempting to establish a 17th century Anglican translation as the final word. And here we have clear evidence that the constant question-begging of Mr. Kinney and those like him (Show us a perfect, inerrant Bible!) is simply hypocritical: for if he is willing to allow the KJV translators this kind of freedom to allow for TWO renderings, then what happens to his own position? Which is it, Mr. Kinney? Do you apply the same standards to modern translations you apply to the KJV? You and I both know the answer to that one.Now, I have no interest in combox wars. I do not have the time to keep up with Mr. Kinney. I have less than a week before I fly to Australia for two debates and a large amount of lecturing and teaching, and as soon as I return I have a matter of days before further debates against atheists, lectures on NT reliability, etc. But if Mr. Kinney wants to discuss such things as the KJV's acceptance of textual emendation by Beza, for example, or the list of mistranslations I provided in the King James Only Controversy, he knows I do a live webcast called The Dividing Line. Just yesterday I interviewed Dan Wallace for an hour on that program. It was very educational and edifying. The number (877-753-3341) is toll free. I will be doing two more programs before I leave for Australia, so, if he wants to air his views, there is his chance. James White
Romans 6:17 .. :-)
Here's a warning: The Iron Sharpens Iron blog is not a democracy. I will not tolerate personal attacks or insults against Dr. James White. Think I'm kidding? Try me. Your comment will be deleted. What's a personal attack or insult? Well if you're smart enough to write, and you're smart enough to defend your views, I think you're smart enough to know when you've deliberately crossed the line. Try this little game: ask yourself if you would be offended or insulted if what you just wrote was directed toward you. In fact, I will be going through some of the older comments and weed out those of you who can't behave when you sit behind a keyboard.
I'm not going to babysit. If I recall, Harold Camping and James white did not debate the KJV.
Post a Comment