[many errors in the KJV.]

gotcha104,

I'm through with this foolish conversation. I've decided not to point out other facts that prove you are simply not telling the truth. In fact, I could have said nothing from the start, and that would have been obvious to all except your fellow "King James Only_ist" cult members. Trying to elevate the KJV to the only complete, perfect, and preserved Word of God is ridiculous. This becomes an absolute fact with only one error in the KJV, and there are many errors in the KJV.

Hi BEP, First of all, it is your "No Bible is inspired and inerrant" side which is the one denying the inerrancy of The Bible - not me.  You have come right out (along with Reba and some others here) and told us up front that No Bible is inerrant.

That was my whole point, and most Christians today are in the same sliding state of apostasy.  Yet you call me and others who believe the Book members of a cult, and perhaps serving the devil.  How ironic.

It was the devil who asked the very first question found in the Bible - "Yea, hath God said....?"

Then you tell us, without listing even one example, that the King James Bible has many errors (according to your opinion).

So why don't you list for us just one or two of these alleged errors and see if you are correct?  I don't want a long list like I see on many "No Bible is inspired" sites;  just give us one or two at a time, and let's see if you are correct.

Will K

gotcha104,  I would love to discuss this with you and reply to many of the points you make, but that is impossible when you post three really long posts in succession.  I don't have time for all of that.  They would need to be shorter and more succinct.

Joel

Hi Joel, thanks for at least responding to these examples.  I do not expect you to write a whole volume on these.  If you like, just pick one example and explain your points.  I think it would be of interest to some here who would like to know more about this fundamental issue of the pure words of God.

In His grace,

Will

1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the Geneva Bible, Holman Christian Standard, Darby, NIV, NKJV, and even the Douay version too. However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh?

Is Judah faithful to God as the KJB, RSV, ESV, NKJV teach - "but Judah yet ruleth with God and is faithful with the saints" or "Judah is UNRULY with God, even AGAINST the Holy One who is faithful" as the NASB, NIV teach in Hosea 11:12?

The Holman Standard is even weirder than them all. It says: "Judah still wanders with El and is faithful to holy ones." Say what?

Daniel 9:26 "shall Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

The Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, was killed not for Himself but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood.

There is no verb in the Hebrew text here. It reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí), Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.

Christ was to make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness, as verse Daniel 9:24 tells us. Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isaiah 53:8 - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." He must be cut off, but not for himself — not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."

John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - But for our sakes, and for our salvation."

David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off for the sake of others, not for Himself."

John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation."

However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".

Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statement made by some that "There are no conflicting bibles".

Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."

The Message 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM."

New English bible 1970- "one who is anointed shall be removed WITH NO ONE TO TAKE HIS PART."

Young's - "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."

1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (again not true)

New American Bible - "an anointed one shall be cut off WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY."

Douay 1950 - "Christ shall be slain AND THE PEOPLE WHO DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."

Lamsa's 1933 - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."

The Septuagint (LXX) - "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."

Men like James White tell us that by comparing all the bible versions we get a much better idea of what God really said. Do you think all these bibles have the same general message and clarify the true meaning for us?

This is the type of foolishness being promoted by those who tell us there are no conflicting bible versions and that they all have the same ideas but with different words. This one example from Daniel 9:26 can easily be repeated a hundred times over with many individual verses.

These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one directing the modern versionists. This God seems more than a little confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.

If you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.

Isn't there something written in the Bible that tells us of the falling away from the faith in the last days? Has Satan changed his hateful opposition and corrupting influence toward the words of God? Has man "evolved" to a higher state in these latter days to where he can now think more clearly?

If the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is found only in the Bible, and this "bible" contains contradictions, false information, completely different meanings in hundreds of places, verses found in some but not in others, then how do we know the gospel of which it speaks is true?

If God hasn't kept His promises to preserve His words, then how do you know God will keep His promise to preserve your soul? When does God start telling the truth?

Do you still think that "no doctrines are changed" in the various versions? Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God? If so, what exactly are you referring to when you say this? Some mystical bible that exists in your own mind, or a solid Book we can hold in our hands, read, believe and preach to a lost world?

Will Kinney

Who rules or is in control of this world, God or Satan?

In I John 5:19 the King James Bible along with the Tyndale 1525, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, and 1909 (y todo el mundo está puesto en maldad), Lamsa's translation of the Pegotcha2ta, Webster's 1833 translation, the Douay-Rheims 1950, the KJV 21st Century version, Green's literal translation and Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible all say: "And we know that we are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIETH IN WICKEDNESS."

Miles Coverdale's 1535 translation says: "We know that we are of God, and the whole world is set altogether in wickedness."

We live in a fallen world; it lies in sin and wickedness, just as the text says. But God is still in control and ruling over all His creation. "He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" Ephesians 1:11. Daniel 4:17,25,26 tell us three times that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Even though it may appear that wickedness is winning, the eye of faith sees His sovereignty and rejoices in this confidence.

However, believe it or not, many new versions change the truth of God's sovereign rule and would have us believe that Satan is the ruler of this world and is in control. In fact, they come right out and say it in these exact words.

The NIV says: "The whole world is UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EVIL ONE."

NASB " the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

Today's English Version "the whole world is under the rule of the Evil One."

ESV (English Standard Version) "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

Living Bible 1981 "the world around us is under Satan's power and control."

ISV (International Standard Version) "the whole world lies under the control of the evil one."

The NKJV, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible try to strike a medium with : " the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" but the NKJV as well as the NASB are also wrong when three times they refer to Satan as the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31; 14:30, and 16:11. Satan is NOT the ruler of this world. He is the spiritual "prince of this world", as the KJB, RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva, and even the NIV correctly say, but there are also other spiritual "princes" or beings working among the nations, and all of them are under the control of God and not Satan.

For a more detailed study of who rules the world see:

http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/controlworld.html

What is the fine linen, clean and white?

Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness of Christ. Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."

Versions that read like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Green’s interlinear, Webster's translation of 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Pegotcha2ta, the Third Millenium Bible, the 21st Century KJV, and even the modern paraphrase called The Message.

But the NKJV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” (or "the righteous deeds of God's people") If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same thing here. So, which one is true?

Matthew Henry notes: "You have here a description of the bride, how she appeared in fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of saints; in the robes of Christ’s righteousness... She had washed her robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and these her nuptial ornaments she did not purchase by any price of her own, but received them as the gift and grant of her blessed Lord."

John Gill comments: "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints, not good works, or their own righteousness;... these are not comparable to fine linen, clean and white, but are like filthy rags, and cannot justify in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints.

"Christ's righteousness may be compared to fine linen, clean and white... all the Lord's people will be righteous, they will have on the best robe, and wedding garment, and their being arrayed with it will be owing to the grace of Christ, who grants it. Not only the garment is a gift of grace, but the putting of it on is a grant from Christ, and what he himself does, (Isaiah 61:10) (Zechariah 3:4)."

Another doctrinal error is found in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman and others in 2 Samuel 14:14.

The context is Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.

In the course of their conversation the woman tells king David: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.

Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

However when we get to the New KJV, ESV, the NIV, Holman, and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is untrue and a contradiction.

Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. (2 Samuel 12:15). In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also."

1 Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."

God obviously does take away life, and the NKJV, NIV, Holman, and NASB are all in error in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.

In 2 Peter 3:12 the King James Bible, Tyndale, Geneva and others correctly say we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine.

See my article dealing with this verse in much more detail at:

http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/hastingunto.html

Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB and ESV read? The King James Bible, NIV, RV, ASV, Holman, and NKJV have Jesus saying: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go NOT UP YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come". Then in verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." However the NASB, ESV have Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up".

Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, ESV, Holman, and NIV teach? These versions read: "when the days for THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were completed...to offer a sacrifice", as opposed to the King James Bible, the NKJV, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished...to offer a sacrifice". Wycliffe's 1395 translation says "the days of the purification of Mary". The only Old Testament reference for this sin offering to make an atonement is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where the woman alone offered a sin offering for her purification.

Can God be deceived as the NASB and Holman teach in Ps. 78:36? The NASB and the Holman Standard say the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV, ESV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not obeying Him, but you certainly cannot deceive God.

For a much fuller discussion of this NASB blunder, and how one modern versionist tries to defend it, please see my article on this here. It is found in the second part of the article. The first part is interesting too :-)

http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/Eze14deceive.html

Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV.

The NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard pervert true doctrine in Acts 13:33 where the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ. He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5), and "the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18).

In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 God says and ALL GREEK TEXTS read: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". This is the reading found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV. The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV, and now the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Holman Christian Standard Version actually say "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!

The NIV, ISV, and Holman version here teach that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness version, the New World translation, and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as does the NIV, to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting.

Please see my article about the Only Begotten Son for more detail: http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/begotnSon.html

Amen Pastor Roger!!   I see all of this KJV only stuff as a work of the devil. It obviously is since many translations of the Holy Bible contain complete and accurate doctrine.

Sorry BEP, but not all bible versions teach correct doctrine.

Please read through the following examples, and then come back and explain how they all teach the correct doctrine, OK?


No Doctrines Are Changed?

I often hear those who criticize the King James Bible and defend the multiple modern versions say: "Well, no doctrines are changed in the different versions." But is this true?

There are presently well over 100 different English bible versions available to the general public and none of them agrees with the others in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. This is easily proved and well noted by many atheist, Muslim and Bible basher sites on the internet.

Which of these different bibles is really the inspired, inerrant words of God? Or have the complete, pure, inerrant words of God been lost in the shuffle and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised? Is it true that "no doctrines are changed" in the various conflicting versions?

Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how can we then say the Bible is the inspired word of God? Shouldn't we say the bible WAS the inspired word of God?

I and thousands of other Christians believe God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Holy Bible. In general terms the overall state of textual evidence and ancient versions is overwhelmingly on the side of the King James Bible readings as opposed to such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and ISV.

However, one can argue back and forth over the textual evidence till you are either blue or red in the face, and prove nothing. For me and many other Bible believers, we clearly see the Providential hand of God placing His divine approval upon the King James Bible that has been universally recognized as THE BIBLE of the English speaking world for almost 400 years.

One of the clear and convincing proofs that the King James Bible is the complete, inerrant, and pure words of God is the purity and truth of its Christ exalting doctrines. Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God.

Modern versionists say they are examining the evidence to come up with the best text to restore the words of God. The problem with this is, the new versions continue to disagree with each other in both texts and meaning in a multitude of places. I believe God has already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His words and carry out the great modern missionary movement from the late 1700's to the mid 1900's, there is no need to do it again, unless He decides to put His complete words into a language other than English.

Some speak of the same General Message being found in all "reliable" versions. True, the simple gospel can be found in them all. Yet in all of them we also find contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and we find corruptions of other sound doctrines.

The "Any Bible Will Do" position leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief. There are a multitude of contradictory versions, with several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. Seventeen entire verses, and about half of another 50 are omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV, ESV when compared to the King James Bible, Tyndale, Bishop's, Geneva, Webster's, the NKJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The examples in the following list, except Luke 2:22, and John 7:8, are not the result of different Greek and Hebrew texts being used, as is often the case, but rather of different ways the same underlying texts have been translated into English.

Does the true Lord Jesus Christ have an "ORIGIN from ancient times" as taught in Micah 5:2 by the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard,and Jehovah Witness New World Translation, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB have it? One rendering teaches His eternality, while the other says He has an origin or a beginning.

I have a couple more questions for you ...
Is there some reason why the number of revisions of the KJV are almost impossible to count?"

Sorry BEP, but the King James Bible has never been "revised".  The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed. All that has happened is that the spelling was updated (like Sonne to Son), the type was changed from Gothic to Roman, and minor printing errors were corrected.  The underlying TEXT of the KJB has never changed.



BEP>>>I'm fully aware that the 1611 KJV and a large number of KJV revisions were published with the Apocrypha.

Is the Apocrypha part of the perfect and preserved Holy Bible?

If you think the Apocrypha is part of the perfect and preserved Holy Bible, would you please list the authority for that opinion?

Bep, this apocrypha thing gets really old after awhile.  Maybe this will help you.

WHY DID THE 1611 KJV INCLUDE THE APOCRYPHA?

Early editions of the King James Bible, as well as many other English-language Bibles of the past, including the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609), and the Authorized Version (1611, and the German Luther, all contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture.

If you look at a copy of the original 1611 King James Bible, the book of Malachi ends with these words: "The end of the Prophets".  Then the whole Apocrypha, which itself means "unknown, or spurious" is clearly marked off from the rest of the Scriptures by the words "Apocrypha" twice at the top of every page throughout.  It then ends with these words: "The end of Apocrypha".  Then on the next page is an elaborate woodcutting and it says: "The Newe Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

It is ironic and somewhat hypocritical of those who criticize the KJB for including the Apocrypha in its earlier printings, when they usually favor the modern English versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV.  These versions are based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which actually contain the Apocrypha books and then some others as well mixed up within and scattered throughout the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures with no separation indicating that they are less than inspired and authoritative.

Alexander McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators, says: "...the Apocryphal books in those times were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture" (McClure, Translators Revived, p. 185). He then lists seven reasons assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical.

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly states that the Apocrypha have no scriptural authority. "...[the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any doctrine."

The Westminster Confession, which was written in England between 1643-48, only a few years after the publication of the King James Bible, says, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

Martin Luther included a note on the Apocrypha that stated, "These are books not to be held in equal esteem with those of Holy Scripture..."

It is also important to understand that in the early King James Bibles, the Apocryphal books were placed between the Old and New Testaments rather than intermingled within the O.T. itself as is done in Catholic Bibles. In the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible), for example, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees follow Nehemiah; the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow Ecclesiastes; Baruch follows Lamentations; etc.

The Apocrypha was never considered canonical by the Church of England or the KJV translators. It was only included in the Reformation Bibles (and not only in the KJV) for historical reference, much as notes, etc. are included in modern study Bibles.


Final Authority, p. 166-167, W. P. Grady, “Now of the many issues raised against the King James Bible, none is so hypocritical as that of the Apocrypha question. A typical example of Nicolaitan desperation is the sarcastic barb of Robert L. Sumner who wrote: “It is also interesting-and perhaps you are not aware of it-that the early editions of the Authorized Version contained the Apocrypha. Horrors!”

Although it is technically correct that the first editions of the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha, the complete picture is rarely given. What Dr. Sumner conveniently failed to mention is that the translators were careful to set these spurious books apart from the inspired text by inserting them between the Testaments. And to insure that there was no misunderstanding, they listed seven reasons why the apocryphal books were to be categorically rejected as part of the inspired canon.”

The Answer Book, p. 99-100, S. C. Gipp, “Question #34: QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha? ANSWER: Yes. EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
 
If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.”

Two of the most important Greek manuscripts for modern textual criticism are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Vaticanus contains all of the Apocrypha with the exception of 1 and 2 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses. Sinaiticus contains all of the Old Testament Apocrypha books as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in the New Testament. (see A General Introduction To The Bible, by Geisler and Nix, Moody Press, pp.271-274; or The Text Of The New Testament, by Aland, Eerdmans Press, pp.107-109.)

QUESTION: Since the Greek texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain the Apocrypha as part of its text, and these two manuscripts are used for the basis of most modern Greek texts and English translations, is not your question a little misleading? Why would you reject the original KJV for having the Apocrypha between the Testaments while accepting ancient uncial manuscripts which contained the Apocrypha as part of the text?

The books of the Apocrypha were included in the King James Version from the first as a matter of course, as they had been in all versions of the English Bible from the time of Wycliffe (c. 1384), including Miles Coverdale 1535, and the Calvinist Geneva Bible of 1560. ... The deliberate omission of the Apocrypha from an English Bible is first noted in the 1640 edition of the Geneva Bible, ... Not until the nineteenth century, however, did the omission of the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles become normal.

The Protestants in those days were obviously a victim of their times. Although the Apocrypha was found in Reformation Bibles (including the Geneva) since Wycliffe, it is clear that all of the Reformers opposed the Roman Catholic Church, and by the same token, rejected the Apocrypha as spurious. The feelings of the KJV translators, some of whom were Puritans, must necessarily be the same as those who produced the Westminster Confession of Faith (1645). In no uncertain terms, the Westminster divines wrote,

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings (WCF 1:3).

gotcha104,

The preserved and perfect Bible is in Hebrew and Greek primarily, not English.


BEP, there are multiple different Hebrew readings, and the Greek is far, far worse.  There are at least 25 very different Greek texts in print, thousands of varying manuscripts, and the Greek Nestle text and UBS that are behind such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV continue to change every few years.  You have no settled text.

I agree, the Hebrew was the inspired text, but why then do the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman all often reject the Hebrew readings?

I list many examples of this here.


http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/NIVapos.html

http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/NIVapos2.html


"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminsh ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2.

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5,6.

"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18, 19.



Here are two examples from the Psalms that illustrate what the NIV is doing.

In Psalm 72:5 we read: "THEY SHALL FEAR THEE as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations."

. This is the reading of the KJB, Revised Version, ASV, NASB, NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Spanish, Young's, Darby's, Geneva, and the 2001 revision of the RSV called the English Standard Version.

The NIV, however reads: "HE WILL ENDURE as long as the sun..." This is also the reading of the liberal RSV and NRSV, though the new ESV has again gone back to the KJB and Hebrew reading.. But the footnotes found in the NIV, RSV, and NRSV all tell us that the reading of HE WILL ENDURE comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads "they shall fear thee".

So why did the NIV change the clear Hebrew reading? Doesn't the Hebrew make sense? Didn't God inspire the words of the Old Testament in Hebrew and not in Greek, Syriac or Latin?

The second example is found in Psalm 73:7. There the Psalmist is speaking of the foolish and wicked who prosper in this world. He says of them: "THEIR EYES STAND OUT WITH FATNESS: they have more than heart could wish."

This is the reading of not only the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, but also of the RSV, NRSV and the ESV versions. However the NIV says: "FROM THEIR CALLOUS HEARTS COMES INIQUITY". Then in a footnote the NIV tells us this reading comes from the SYRIAC, but that the Hebrew says "their eyes bulge with fat."

Again, why would the "good, godly, evangelical scholars" who worked on the NIV change the text, if the Hebrew clearly makes sense and there is no doubt about what it says?

Also of note is the totally changed meaning of verse 9 where we read: "THEY SET THEIR MOUTH AGAINST THE HEAVENS, and their tongue walketh through the earth."

These wicked people speak against God, blaspheme heavenly truths and talk only of earthly interests. "They set their mouth against the heavens" is the reading or meaning of even the NASB, RSV, ASV, NRSV, RV, ESV, and NKJV. Yet the NIV actually says: "Their mouths LAY CLAIM TO HEAVEN, and their tongues take possession of the earth."

There is a distinct pattern easily seen if one studies the different bible versions. The King James Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text and the New Testament on the traditional Greek text. When the RV and ASV came out, they significantly changed the Greek text of the New Testament but kept the Masoretic text intact. Then the liberal RSV appeared with the same corrupted Greek text of the apostates Westcott and Hort, but also with many of the same changes in the Hebrew text that now appear in the NASB and the ever worsening NIV.

Will K

 The anyversionists claim that the "message" is still retained in the modern versions, that no important doctrine is messed with. As we'll see, apparently salvation is not an important doctrine to modern version supporters:

Is the "narrow way" HARD?
KJV Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

ESV 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Holman 14 How narrow is the gate and difficult the road that leads to life, and few find it.

CEV 14 But the gate to life is very narrow. The road that leads there is so hard to follow that only a few people find it.

Nkjv 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

        The modern versions make salvation hard/difficult, when it is actually quite easy. That's a serious difference dealing with the vital doctrine of salvation.

        The narrow was is EASY. Getting saved is easy, just believe on Jesus Christ. No effort at all. The scriptural examples of how easy it is are things like, opening a door, drinking water, eating bread, and all them actually require more effort than believing on Jesus.

    
Is it HARD to get into God's kingdom?

KJV Mark 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

        The KJV notes that it is hard for those who TRUST in RICHES to enter the kingdom - that's because we must TRUST in CHRIST - and then entering the kingdom is EASY.

 But the modern versions still make it hard:

NIV The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!" (the NASV reads almost the same)

NASB The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

Holman But the disciples were astonished at His words. Again Jesus said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

NWT But the disciples gave way to surprise at his words. In response Jesus again said to them: "Children, how difficult a thing it is to enter into the kingdom of God!"

ESV And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!

NLT This amazed them. But Jesus said again, "Dear children, it is very hard to get into the Kingdom of God."

CEV The disciples were shocked to hear this. So Jesus told them again, "It's terribly hard to get into God's kingdom!"

        Now it is not just hard, not just difficult, not just very hard, it is now terribly hard. At this rate the next version that comes out will have to say "it is impossible".
        
Will Kinney

"So, the bottom line is You do not believe The Bible is the inspired and inerrant words of God, right?"

Wrong. But I am aware of the problems in translating any book or document into another language accurately, even if the translators have the best intentions and no personal agenda.

Hi Rhys, could you then please tell us which text or which Bible of all the multiple choice, conflicting, contradictory and totally different in hundreds of verses Bible versions you believe is now the inerrant words of God?

Please give it a name so we can get ourselves a copy of it and compare it to all the others.

Thanks,

Will

BEP posted this site:
For Numerous Articles & Links:
http://www.kjvonly.org/

This website is dedicated to the defense of the Bible as originally  written, against the flood of falsehood propagated  by King James Onlyism."

Pea, I have seen this site before and I recognize many of the names and have read quite a few of their articles.  I have even debated with Rick Norris online many times at various sites, and I have responded to a lot of Doug Kutilek's articles.

NOT ONE of those people believe The Bible IS now the inerrant, inspired, complete word of God - not one of them.

They are among "the originals only" crowd.  It is so funny to see these "scholars" trying to defend "the originals only" when the Bible itself never even mentions "the originals".

Don't get me wrong on this.  I too believe the originals WERE (not ARE) inspired, but no person alive today has ever seen one word from "the originals". They do not exist and everybody knows this.

So, these fellas take a book (the Bible, any bible) that they do not believe is the inerrant word of God, and use a couple verses out of it to try to prove that the originals were inspired.  Now, think about it.  Does this make sense?  Yet, they deny what this Book says about itself, and don't believe that God in fact preserved His words in a Book here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away.  Doesn't this strike you as a bit inconsistent and hypocritical?

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

Will K

gotcha104,

Your arguments and logic are perfect examples of why many groups of "KJV-Only-ists" rise to near cult status. Actually, the circular type of logic and arguments issued do nothing except cause division among Christians and doubt in the Holy Bible.
This website is dedicated to the defense of the Bible as originally  written, against the flood of falsehood propagated  by King James Onlyism."

Hi BEP, I find your post to be highly ironic.  Brother, it is not the King James Only people who are the ones telling people that "There is no inerrant Scripture or translation"  - YOU are.

We are affirming the truth that God has given us an infallible Bible.  But in your opinion, those who deny there is such a thing as an inerrant, inspired and complete Bible of any kind are now "orthodox", and we who believe there is such a thing as The Inerrant Holy Bible that we can actually hold in our hands and believe every word, are now "a cult".  The irony is simply overwhelming.


You continue with:  "Your argument also obtains some unintended results - doubt of the KJV. If the older texts and manuscripts the KJV was derived from are not the inspired Word of God, neither is the KJV. You've already advanced the notion that the translators of the KJV could have been inspired and, thus, the KJV becomes the inspired and the older texts and manuscripts it was derived from should be ignored in favor of the KJV. BUT, this doesn't work because of the large number of obvious errors and revisions in the KJV.

My conclusions are fairly simple. "KJV-Only-ists" do approach cult-type status, harm the whole of Christianity, and do not serve God with their destructive and divisive claims."

BEP, We by no means deny the inspiration of the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts which were providentially used by God and translated into the English language of the King James Bible.

Rather it is your side, the Whateverists, the "No translation is inerrant", the "No Bible is inspired", the Bible of the Month Club members like yourself who affirm that all Hebrew texts have been corrupted and that no one can be sure which Greek texts are the true ones.

Why don't you come right out and say it very plainly?  You have already told us in plain words that "no translation is without error".  So just finish the line of your own logic and admit what we all know you really believe - "The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word(s) of God".

Just admit it, BEP, and be done with it.  The truth will make you free.  

I also find it interesting that people like yourself who think all Bible translations have errors in them, have yet to "correct" them all and given to the world the "perfect Bible with no errors".  If you know where all the errors are, why haven't you  come up with a bible that is totally true?

We do live in interesting times.

May God have mercy on His people.

Will

Versions of the Bible:
     There are too many English language versions and too few in other languages - proving that the real reason for all the new versions is to make money by convincing people they need to buy the latest version....

My church has abandoned the KJV for the NIV.

One of the real problems with people questioning the authority of Scripture is that most of them seldom read the Bible, much less seriously study it.

Hi Rhys, I agree that a lot of the reason for so many new versions is to make money.  I'm sorry to hear your church has abandoned the true Holy Bible for an inferiour perversion.

The NIV is not the true Bible.  It perverts sound doctrine in several ways; it rejects many Hebrew readings, and omits some 5000 words from the New Testament.

I also agree that most Christians today are woefully ignorant of what the Bible teaches.  I believe this is all part of the falling away predicted in the Bible.  God Himself is sending a famine into the land.

Here is part of a recent article showing how "the cream of the crop", from most evangelical churches are Biblically ignorant, and this article was not written by a King James Bible onlyist.

By David Alan Black

The Covenant News ~ May 13, 2005

Our God could have spoken to us in a heavenly language that no one would have understood. Instead, He revealed Himself through a book we call the Bible and in a message all can understand. It is a gory, bloody story, repulsive to the “refined” among us. It is foolishness to this age, for the cross is a scandal to unregenerate Adam.
Never has evangelical Christianity needed this message more than today.

For several years, my friend Gary Burge, who serves as Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, has been testing incoming freshmen on their knowledge of the Bible. What he has discovered is shocking.

 These students from evangelical churches could average only 50 to 55 percent correct on his simple exam. Burge points to the results of his tests to prove that we are living in a post-Christian era.

We can be strong in the Lord only as we are strong in His Word.  How well do you really know God’s Word? Try testing it with Burge’s quiz and then check your answers with the key. If we should discover that we are biblical illiterates, may the grace of God lead us to repentance!

1. Which one of these books is not in the Bible?
a. Isaiah; b. Jude; c. Hezekiah; d. Amos; e. Song of Solomon
2. Who was Israel’s first king?
a. Saul; b. Solomon; c. David; d. Samuel; e. Moses
3. Sarah and Abraham had a son in their old age and named him “laughter.” What was his real name?
a. Samuel; b. Moses; c. Isaac; d. Jacob; e. Ishmael
4. Which of the following is not an Old Testament prophet?
a. Elisha; b. Elijah; c. Aaron; d. Isaiah; e. Joel
5. Place these events in their biblical order:
a. the giving of the law at Mount Sinai; b. Creation; c. the Fall; d. the Exodus led by Moses; e. the flood of Noah
6. Place the following characters in their biblical order:
a. Moses; b. Adam; c. David; d. Solomon; e. Abraham
7. Which of the following books is from the New Testament?
a. Judges; b. Malachi; c. Deuteronomy; d. Hebrews; e. Isaiah
8. Who wrote Philemon?
a. Philemon; b. Paul; c. Peter; d. Onesimus; e. John
9. Which one of the following was among Jesus’ 12 apostles?
a. Paul; b. Matthew; c. Luke; d. Timothy; e. Silas
10. Whom did Pontius Pilate release during Jesus’ trial?
a. Barnabas; b. Peter; c. Silas; d. Barabbas; e. Paul
11. How many temptations did Jesus face in the wilderness?
a. one; b. two; c. three; d. four; e. five
12. Place the following events in their biblical order:
a. The Holy Spirit descends on Pentecost; b. John has a vision on Patmos; c. Jesus is baptized in the Jordan River; d. Paul, Barnabas and Mark are sent out on a mission by the church; e. Peter denies that he knows Jesus
13. Place the following events in their biblical order:
a. Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem; b. Mary’s song; c. Nicodemus’ conversation about rebirth; d. Peter’s denial of Jesus
14. Where would you find the Ten Commandments?
a. Isaiah; b. Exodus; c. Genesis; d. Numbers; e. Matthew
15. Where would you find the first Passover?
a. Genesis; b. Numbers; c. 1 Samuel; d. Exodus; e. 2 Kings
16. Where would you find “Create in me a clean heart, O God”?
a. Proverbs; b. Ezekiel; c. Psalms; d. Deuteronomy; e. Luke
17. Where would you find the Lord’s Prayer?
a. Matthew; b. Acts; c. Ephesians; d. Malachi; e. Isaiah
18. Where would you find “in the beginning was the Word”?
a. Acts; b. Isaiah; c. John; d. Leviticus; e. Romans
19. Elizabeth and Zechariah were the parents of:
a. Jesus; b. Samuel; c. Paul; d. Timothy; e. John the Baptist
20. Jesus was crucified during:
a. Passover; b. Hannukah; c. Tabernacles; d. Sabbath; e. Purim

Click Here for Answers

Dave Black
daveblack@daveblackonline.com

Not exactly Brand,if you take something & put it into another language.You are either going to lose something in the translation or you are going to mess it up.Alot of it is in correct though.Could it be that alot don't WANT to know what  it it saying ? So they can keep on doing what they are doing.

Hi Curious, I agree with the second point, but not the first.  God has no problem translating from one language to another.  He did this many times in the Bible itself.  Did you see my little article about Can a Translation be Inspired?

God bless,

Will K