KJV debate

Sorry for what? Haha. I hope you don't feel that bad. Google still has the posts archived. Do you need help reposting them? Here are the three pages of the debate. I have them saved on my computer, too.

Page 1: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:HkLNq2YlWg0J:www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2766.html

Page 2: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:HkLNq2YlWg0J:www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2766/2.html

Page 3: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:HkLNq2YlWg0J:www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2766/3.html

God bless,
Jason

 

The links to pages 2 and 3 (above) are incorrect. Here are the correct links.

Page 2: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:b0CGIiBLCLYJ:www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2766/2.html

Page 3: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:uVYCCg0uaEsJ:www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2766/3.html

Unfortunately, we are still missing some posts. We'll have to get them from the forum owner who surely has backup copies. Plus, I have every copy of my posts and if Will has copies of his, then we can repost everything.

Jason

 

Those links provide rounds 1-3. Here are my round 4-7. All you need is Will's then we can paste and reorder them. I hope it's not too much trouble.

Jason Gastrich - Round 4

Round 4

Will,

Let me be painfully clear to you. You claim the KJV is inerrant. Therefore, you have no right to use other Bibles to prove your case. You must use the KJV to prove your case.

These are the errors that you cannot answer using the KJV.

1. Did Saul inquire of the Lord? In the KJV, one scripture says he did, but another scripture says he doesn’t. This is called an error, Will. Be honest.

1 Samuel 28:6 reads, “And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.”

1 Chronicles 10:13 and 14 read, “So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it; 14And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.”

Those verses say two different things in the KJV. If you say they don’t, then you are a liar. If you want to lie to us and say that these two verses don’t contradict in the KJV, then nothing you say can be trusted. In a court of law, this would be as perjury.

The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you cannot use the Hebrew. You say the KJV is inerrant. If you have to go to the Hebrew to clear up an error in the KJV, then you lose the debate.

2. The KJV is in error regarding Jehu. Jehu was the grandson of Nimshi; not the son. However, we find passages in the KJV that say both.

1 Kings 19:16 reads, “And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel . . .”

2 Kings 9:2 reads, “And when thou comest thither, look out there Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in . . .”

Will, these two verses say two different things in the KJV. This means there is an error. As before, the answer is in the Hebrew. However, you are arguing that the KJV is inerrant. Therefore, you cannot refer to the Hebrew.

These two verses plainly say two different things. If you claim they do not, then you are a liar. If you want to lie about this, then we cannot trust anything you say.

Do the KJV-onlyists really want to lie and support liars? Take this to heart and stop making yourself look foolish. Agree with the simple truth of God’s Word. There are errors that you cannot reconcile in and within the KJV. You can only reconcile them by going to the Hebrew and Greek and this is impossible for a KJV-Onlyist to do. This is what normal people do; normal people who understand there are some errors in the KJV. You cannot have it both ways. If you have to look to another text to help the KJV be correct, then you have lost the debate and admitted error.

3. Hares don’t chew the cud. The KJV says they do. This is an error. If you say it’s correct, then you are ignorant of science.

Leviticus 11:6 reads, “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud . . .”

The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you don’t have the liberty of looking in the Hebrew. You claim the KJV (KING JAMES VERSION) is inerrant. So, prove it. Prove the KJV is inerrant with the KJV. Hint: You can’t.

Do rabbits chew the cud, Will? Yes or no? No, they don’t. If you say they do, then you are a liar.

4. Unicorns don’t exist. The KJV says they do. Therefore, the KJV is in error.

Many verses in the KJV claim that unicorns exist. Here is one. Psalm 92:10 reads, “But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.”

Do unicorns exist, Will? No, they don’t. The KJV is in error. We have an answer from the Hebrew text, but you cannot use the Hebrew text if you want to say the KJV is inerrant.

Conclusion

There are errors in the KJV. There are errors in the KJV that cannot be explained with the KJV, with science, or with logic. If Will wants to look at the errors in the KJV and tell us they are not errors, then he is a liar and a willful deceiver.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

 

Jason Gastrich - Round 5

Round 5

Sorry. That’s not how I debate. I want straight answers, Will. I’ll repost my questions to you and leave spaces for you to give your replies.

--

These are the errors that you cannot answer using the KJV.

1. Did Saul inquire of the Lord? In the KJV, one scripture says he did, but another scripture says he doesn’’t. This is called an error, Will. Be honest.

1 Samuel 28:6 reads, ““And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.””

1 Chronicles 10:13 and 14 read, ““So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it; 14And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.””

Those verses say two different things in the KJV. If you say they don’’t, then you are a liar. If you want to lie to us and say that these two verses don’’t contradict in the KJV, then nothing you say can be trusted. In a court of law, this would be as perjury.

The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you cannot use the Hebrew. You say the KJV is inerrant. If you have to go to the Hebrew to clear up an error in the KJV, then you lose the debate.

–

Will’s answer:

–


2. The KJV is in error regarding Jehu. Jehu was the grandson of Nimshi; not the son. However, we find passages in the KJV that say both.

1 Kings 19:16 reads, ““And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel . . .””
2 Kings 9:2 reads, ““And when thou comest thither, look out there Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in . . .””

Will, these two verses say two different things in the KJV. This means there is an error. As before, the answer is in the Hebrew. However, you are arguing that the KJV is inerrant. Therefore, you cannot refer to the Hebrew.

These two verses plainly say two different things. If you claim they do not, then you are a liar. If you want to lie about this, then we cannot trust anything you say.

Do the KJV-onlyists really want to lie and support liars? Take this to heart and stop making yourself look foolish. Agree with the simple truth of God’’s Word. There are errors that you cannot reconcile in and within the KJV. You can only reconcile them by going to the Hebrew and Greek and this is impossible for a KJV-Onlyist to do. This is what normal people do; normal people who understand there are some errors in the KJV. You cannot have it both ways. If you have to look to another text to help the KJV be correct, then you have lost the debate and admitted error.

–

Will’s answer:

–

3. Hares don’’t chew the cud. The KJV says they do. This is an error. If you say it’’s correct, then you are ignorant of science.

Leviticus 11:6 reads, ““And the hare, because he cheweth the cud . . .””

The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you don’’t have the liberty of looking in the Hebrew. You claim the KJV (KING JAMES VERSION) is inerrant. So, prove it. Prove the KJV is inerrant with the KJV. Hint: You can’’t.

Do rabbits chew the cud, Will? Yes or no? No, they don’’t. If you say they do, then you are a liar.

–

Will’s answer:

–

4. Unicorns don’’t exist. The KJV says they do. Therefore, the KJV is in error.

Many verses in the KJV claim that unicorns exist. Here is one. Psalm 92:10 reads, ““But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.””
Do unicorns exist, Will? No, they don’’t. The KJV is in error. We have an answer from the Hebrew text, but you cannot use the Hebrew text if you want to say the KJV is inerrant.

–

Will’s answer:

–

I wish Will the very best as he tries to defend his position that the KJV is inerrant.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

 

Jason Gastrich - Round 6

Round 6

Will,

If you could avoid your off-topic opining about other translations, you would probably have room for another entire round post.

You keep trying to use the Greek and Hebrew to explain the errors in the KJV. You also want us to think this is allowable. It may be allowable to some, but it isn’t allowable to you. Why?

You are forbidden to use the Greek and Hebrew texts to correct the errors in the KJV because of the resolution of this debate. In case you forgot, the resolution of this debate is: The KJV is inerrant.

Hares don’t chew the cud; even the thought is laughable. Hares practice refection. They chew partially digested dung. This is very different from chewing the cud.

Once again, I have an answer because I can read the ancient, non-English scriptures and discover the answer. Conversely, you have no answer because you chose to try and defend the following resolution: The KJV is inerrant.

Which doesn’t mean one single thing. You’re supposed to be trying to defend the resolution of this debate. Resolution: The KJV is inerrant.

I’m going to refuse again because I’m passing the football in the air while you’re trying to defend a ground attack.

This is a bizarre bit of ad hoc, piecemeal exegesis. Both of those scriptures are talking about the exact same event: when Saul (NOT SAMUEL) wasn’t/was inquiring of the Lord before he met the witch of Endor. This is a very clear, KJV contradiction. However, it is cleared up quite nicely in the Hebrew. It even lends for a fantastic sermon based on the right/wrong kinds of inquiring of the Lord.

One KJV verse said Saul (NOT SAMUEL) did inquire. One KJV verse said Saul (NOT SAMUEL) did not inquire. How could anything agree with both passages? Furthermore, I’ve already illustrated how the Hebrew text DOES NOT agree with the KJV’s contradiction. Two completely different Hebrew words are used for the English word “inquire.”

Once again, the KJV got it wrong, but the Hebrew shows us the truth. Unfortunately for Will, he cannot fall back on the Hebrew to help him in his quest to make the KJV inerrant. We have decided on the following resolution for this debate: The KJV is inerrant.

Maybe in another debate with another resolution. Not in this one though, Will.

Perhaps these numerous Bible translators also believe in gremlins, fairies, Odin, and Thor, but this doesn’t make unicorns exist.

Just so we’re clear, here is the one and only definition of “unicorn” in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:

“A mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead.”

I ask you, again. Do you believe in unicorns?

Really? “Today” we obviously recognize unicorns as the mythical creature defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. Are you so crazy about the KJV that you would prefer to reject actual, animal possibilities that the Hebrew gives us in favor of a mythical being with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead?

It’s only obvious because you have an irrational, a priori bias against any Bible translation that doesn’t start with a K and end with a V.

I’ll save my “personal opinion,” but you can guess where I derive it. Not from the English text that was translated a few hundred years ago, but from the scriptures that preceded your idolized translation by about 3000 years.

I know you do, Will. You’d like me to avoid mentioning how you cannot stick to or support the resolution of the debate: The KJV is inerrant. If I didn’t have a handful of airtight, completely obvious KJV errors, then maybe I’d labor to dig up some more. However, at this point, and at every other point in this debate, you’ve failed to support the resolution of this debate, so you are the loser.

I’m looking forward to your Round 7 post and making mine.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

 

Jason Gastrich - Round 7

Round 7

Dear Readers and Will,

Thanks to Baptist Board for hosting this debate. I appreciate their moderation and I also appreciate how they provided us two threads: one for debate and one for commentary. Plus, thanks to Will for debating.

The Most Important Thing

The doctrine of salvation reveals to us that we are saved by repenting from our sins and believing, trusting, and accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Whether we agree on non-essential doctrines should be secondary in importance. Our salvation is the most important thing.

This debate covered some of the KJV’s errors. By the tone of the emails I received from KJV-Onlyists, it would seem that they have forgotten the most important thing. I hope and pray that neither side forgets the doctrine of salvation and that we all strive to be like Christ as we take His message into the world.

The Inerrancy of the Scriptures

God is perfect. The Word that He breathed through the original Bible authors was inerrant. Glory to God. Furthermore, He has preserved His Word through the manuscripts that are copies of the originals. This can be confirmed.

I’ve studied hundreds and hundreds of the “very best, alleged Bible errors.” I have also found answers to every one of them. Therefore, I have informed faith that the scriptures are inerrant. Glory to God.

During my studies, I found that I had to return to the original languages in order to understand the answers to some of the alleged errors. Was this wrong? Well, for someone who does not claim that an English translation is inerrant, it was not wrong. It was perfectly right and normal. Would you really think that there would be no problems in translating the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into English? As small as they may be, there were some issues.

It has been my pleasure to invest thousands of hours of research on alleged Bible errors. My faith in God and His Word has increased a great deal. Wouldn’t yours if you found all of the answers to the tough questions about the scriptures?

I cannot honestly say that the KJV is inerrant. There are some obvious contradictions that I will summarize in a minute. In my humble opinion, those that have read the obvious errors in the KJV and still say there are no errors are lying and are dangerous people. They have let their pet belief dominate their intelligence and their life. They have exchanged diligent study and rational thinking with blind faith and foolishness.

These people that ignore the obvious KJV errors can resemble cult members. The cults make extreme statements like people need to be baptized in their church in order to go to Heaven. The cults use impertinent scriptures (as Will has done) when they feel like they need to control thought and conversation. They apply these scriptures to whatever they feel like; even when these scriptures say nothing about the topic. In this case, the topic is the inerrancy of the English translation called the King James Version.

Now, I’m not saying that Will is a cult member. I’m also not saying that all KJV-Onlyists are cultists. However, I am saying that the ones I have met share qualities with the zealous cult members.

Baffling

It’s baffling how Will can proclaim the KJV is inerrant. We have firmly established that this is a faith-belief and not one based on facts. Perhaps the KJV was read to him as a child. Perhaps it was always used in his family. Nonetheless, it is absurd and irrational to blindly proclaim that the KJV is inerrant; especially after all of the evidence to the contrary.

Will likes to talk about preservation and how God must have preserved His Word for English speaking people. This is fine and good. However, Will was never able to tell us why this preserved Word had to be the KJV. Why couldn’t it be another, existing translation? Why couldn’t it be another yet-to-be-written translation? This will always be a problem for people who believe like Will.

Will expects us to believe with him that there was no inerrant English Bible for over 1600 years, then God gave us the KJV as His inerrant Word. This seems a bit arbitrary. Doesn’t it? Why the KJV? Why then? Why not a different translation and why not later? If God could wait 1600 years to reveal His preserved Word to the English speaking people, then why not wait 400 more years?

Obvious Errors

During this debate, a number of obvious errors were revealed from the KJV. Will never had any legitimate answers. If you can recall, you will remember that Will ran to and fro using external books, translations, and even ancient scriptures to try and defend the English translation called the King James Version. Of course, this was an inappropriate defense. If the KJV - and English Bible translation - is inerrant, then Will should not need to consult any external books, translations, or ancient scriptures in order to prove his case. The fact that Will had to leave the KJV on the shelf while trying to defend its inerrancy is to his detriment and significantly tarnishes his credibility.

Here is a summary of the handful of errors that were discussed in this debate.

1. Did Saul inquire of the Lord? In the KJV, one scripture says he did, but another scripture says he doesn’t. This is called an error, Will. Be honest.
1 Samuel 28:6 reads, ““And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.””

1 Chronicles 10:13 and 14 read, “So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it; 14And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.”

Those verses say two different things in the KJV. If you say they don’t, then you are a liar. If you want to lie to us and say that these two verses don’’t contradict in the KJV, then nothing you say can be trusted. In a court of law, this would be as perjury.

The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you cannot use the Hebrew. You say the KJV is inerrant. If you have to go to the Hebrew to clear up an error in the KJV, then you lose the debate.

–

Will’s answer:

–


2. The KJV is in error regarding Jehu. Jehu was the grandson of Nimshi; not the son. However, we find passages in the KJV that say both.

1 Kings 19:16 reads, “And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel . . .”

2 Kings 9:2 reads, “And when thou comest thither, look out there Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in . . .”

Will, these two verses say two different things in the KJV. This means there is an error. As before, the answer is in the Hebrew. However, you are arguing that the KJV is inerrant. Therefore, you cannot refer to the Hebrew.

These two verses plainly say two different things. If you claim they do not, then you are a liar. If you want to lie about this, then we cannot trust anything you say.

Do the KJV-onlyists really want to lie and support liars? Take this to heart and stop making yourself look foolish. Agree with the simple truth of God’’s Word. There are errors that you cannot reconcile in and within the KJV. You can only reconcile them by going to the Hebrew and Greek and this is impossible for a KJV-Onlyist to do. This is what normal people do; normal people who understand there are some errors in the KJV. You cannot have it both ways. If you have to look to another text to help the KJV be correct, then you have lost the debate and admitted error.

–

Will’s answer:

–

3. Hares don’’t chew the cud. The KJV says they do. This is an error. If you say it’’s correct, then you are ignorant of science.

Leviticus 11:6 reads, “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud . . .”

The answer is in the Hebrew. However, you don’’t have the liberty of looking in the Hebrew. You claim the KJV (KING JAMES VERSION) is inerrant. So, prove it. Prove the KJV is inerrant with the KJV. Hint: You can’’t.

Do rabbits chew the cud, Will? Yes or no? No, they don’’t. If you say they do, then you are a liar.

–

Will’s answer:

–

4. Unicorns don’t exist. The KJV says they do. Therefore, the KJV is in error.

Many verses in the KJV claim that unicorns exist. Here is one. Psalm 92:10 reads, “But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.”

Do unicorns exist, Will? No, they don’t. The KJV is in error. We have an answer from the Hebrew text, but you cannot use the Hebrew text if you want to say the KJV is inerrant.

–

Other Arguments and KJV- Onlyists

There are plenty of other arguments against the KJV’s inerrancy. It’s unfortunate that the handful of KJV-Onlyists who have been posting in this thread and the commentary thread will not see that the original autographs were inerrant, but the KJV is not.

Throughout the debate, Will mocked me and told me I had no inerrant Bible. Do you think this was appropriate? If Will has an inerrant KJV, then it came from inerrant manuscripts that came from inerrant autographs. I affirm the inerrant autographs. I even affirm the fact that we have enough inerrant manuscripts to compose a single, inerrant Bible. However, I will not be intellectually dishonest like Will and turn a blind eye to the obvious, KJV errors.

I encourage the KJV-Onlyists to join the other inerrantists. We know that God’s Word is inerrant. However, we also know that the KJV is not. This is obviously a valid and tenable belief. In fact, I tell people that I have “informed faith” because my belief stems from both my faith and what I have discovered by reading the Bible.

It must be a fearful thing for a KJV-Onlyist to consider leaving their doctrine. Pride is obviously a factor. It must also worry them that they will be seen as less faithful to God. However, it is quite normal and right for people to change their minds and have a more informed viewpoint as they grow older and increase in knowledge. Don’t you think?

How does it feel to be mocked by people who tell you that unicorns don’t exist? How does it feel to use poor and illogical arguments to atheists who show you KJV errors? Don’t think that you are suffering for the cause of Christ. Your irrational belief in the KJV-Onlyism doctrine has nothing to do with the cause of Christ. Countless educated and faithful people are making great strides for the kingdom of God and we know without any doubt that there are some errors in the King James Version. You should repent from your unbiblical belief that this one, English Bible translation is inerrant and consider that the ancient autographs were inerrant; revealed by the inerrant manuscripts we have today.

The inerrant autographs are not evidenced by the KJV. The KJV contradicts itself. Who can two opposing things be true? Saul inquired of the Lord. Saul didn’t inquire of the Lord. In the KJV, THAT IS AN ERROR. It is talking about the exact same event.

The KJV-Onlyists are handcuffed and cannot use one of the greatest weapons that we have available to us. This weapon, of course, is the ancient scriptures. The KJV-Onlyist has no right whatsoever to avoid using the KJV to prove that the KJV is inerrant. Only a fool would try and use ancient Hebrew and Greek to prove that a modern, English translation is inerrant. If you want to be a KJV-Onlyist, at least do not be a fool.

Uneducated?

There are good educational institutions and there are poor ones. There are people who go to learn and there are people who go to get by. However, I’m very concerned about the KJV-Onlyists who have been posting at the Baptist Board. If you have read their posts, then you probably share the same concern.

We can all cite multiple spelling and grammatical errors from all of the KJV-Onlyists. Why is this so? Why do they all have this in common?

It is of no surprise to me that the KJV-Onlyists seem uneducated. Look at the belief that they’re trying to defend! Look at they way they are trying to defend it! There are some scriptures in Revelation that speak to people like the KJV-Onlyists. They read:

Revelation 3:15-20 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked—18I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. 20Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.”

My Experience With Bible Translations

When I was 7 years old, I repented from my sins and believed, accepted, and trusted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. I attended church with my parents and began growing spiritually.

Unfortunately, between the ages of 16-20, I faced some hard times. I wasn’t overly interested in kingdom things and I sort of went my own way. However, God helped me become devoted to Him after that period and I have been very blessed ever since.

When I was 20 (the year God helped me turn my life around), my Mom gave me a Bible. This Bible was in the Living translation. I could not put it down. I read it all of the time. It was my favorite Bible and I really liked it.

In the years shortly after my repentance, I studied the Greek and Hebrew texts and found that it was convenient to use the KJV to do so. I also found that some of the translations had some changes and word choices that I didn’t like. Frankly, some translations I’ve studied use poor and misleading words.

The following two web pages illustrate some of my research. Please visit them when you have some time.

Modern Translations of the Bible vs. the KJV
http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/KJV.htm

The Best Bible Versions (and the Worst)
http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/BBV.htm

Those web pages simply take scriptures from various translations and show how things have been changed or omitted. They are also very pro-KJV. In fact, the only Bible that is directly linked from every one of JCSM’s 60,000 web pages is the KJV. It is an excellent translation. See http://bible.jcsm.org for this Bible.

My ministry sells a CD-ROM with an apologetics book in it. This book gives nearly 4,000 answers to the tough questions about the Bible. Many of the answers come from the Hebrew and Greek.

In this CD-ROM, we include one Bible and a Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Concordance and Dictionary. This Bible is a KJV Bible. See http://sab.jcsm.org for more.

Kingdom Work

Another common thread among the KJV-Onlyists seems to be their lack of kingdom work. It would seem that their zealous adherence to the doctrine of KJV-Onlyism has caused them to be paralyzed for the cause of Christ. We do not see them leading people to Christ. We do not see them prioritizing the gospel message. We do not see them zealously serving the Lord.

On the contrary, we see the KJV-Onlyists acting like cult members. They are desperately trying to get people to see things their way. Look at Will’s web site. He posted enough links for us, so surely you visited at least once. His entire internet presence, his entire web site is devoted to the defense of the King James Version Bible! If this isn’t misdirected and if this isn’t paralyzing him regarding the important things, then I do not know what is.

Here are the first words on Will’s main web page. They read:

“Hello and welcome to my website. Several years ago I became interested in the Bible version issue. After much study and prayer I am convinced God's pure, perfect and preserved words in English are found only in the Authorized King James Bible.”

Is this really what Christian ministry is all about? Are these really the words of a person who has his priorities in order?

Here is the remainder of the words on Will’s main web page:

“Feel free to read any of these articles which defend the Holy Bible as being the inspired, inerrant words of the living God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I welcome any comments, questions or suggestions you might have concerning this most vital matter. Just e-mail me and I will get back to you as soon as I can.
By His grace -the only way to get there from here, Will Kinney”

Of course, we see some sleight of hand from Will. He calls the KJV the “Holy Bible” while obviously excluding any other scriptures from that title. Is this healthy? Is this the sign of someone who is well?

Will makes it sound like he is defending the Word of God, when in actuality, he is defending his personal, pet-belief that the King James Version is the only inerrant Bible on the Earth. This endeavor is more important to him than the gospel. It’s more important than posting Bible lessons about love. It’s more important to him than sharing about Bible prophecy and its fulfillment. It’s more important to him than revealing miracles and his relationship with Jesus Christ.

Where is the gospel, Will? Why isn’t it on your site? Isn’t it important to you?

Conclusion

All throughout this debate, Will had an incredibly difficult time staying on topic. He continually wanted to bash other translations. He continually wanted to try and defend the KJV with ancient scriptures. These things did him no good.

Until Will and people like him repent from their short-sightedness and radical, zealous faith in KJV-Onlyism, they should be approached with caution. They are dangerous people who call black white. They ignore sound arguments and the ancient scriptures until they are convenient for them. Their arguments do not support their premise and they use scriptures like daggers to promote their opinions; regardless of whether or not the biblical authors had KJV-Onlyism in mind.

The errors in the KJV are so obvious that only someone with an a priori belief in them that willfully and continually tried to do damage control could think otherwise.

Who are the great defenders of KJV-Onlyism? Why didn’t Will quote from them? Where did these people go to school? Where are they now?

Perhaps Will didn’t quote from Peter S. Ruckman - a primary defender of KJV-Onlyism - because his stance is so absurd. In "A Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence", Ruckman has a chapter entitled, "Correcting the Greek with the English." He claims, "Where the majority of Greek manuscripts stand against the A.V. 1611, put them in file
13" (p. 130). "When the Greek says one thing and the A.V. says another,
throw out the Greek" (p. 137). Citation: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5951/KJVOnly.html

As you know, there aren’t any institutions that say the KJV is inerrant. If there are, I have never heard of them and no KJV-Onlyist has ever revealed them to me. The blind faith belief in the KJV’s inerrancy is an extreme minority viewpoint held by uneducated zealots. Why? Because most people will be honest and because most educated Christians will agree that the original autographs were inerrant, but the KJV is not.

Dr. Daniel B. Wallace summarized this controversy as follows, “So, is there a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I believe there is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern translations. Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to elevate an anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and difficult to understand. ... It takes little thought to see who is behind such a conspiracy.” Citation: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=706

Bob L. Ross summarizes KJV-Onlyism as well. He says, “This bias is contrary to the views of the King James Translators themselves and ALL professing Christian denominations, including all Baptist Confessions of Faith, and is plainly a modern innovation — except, of course, for old-line Roman Catholicism which taught that the Latin Vulgate was the "one-and-only" Bible.” Citation: http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/whatkjvo.htm

Thanks again to the readers of this debate. I pray that God richly blesses you.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
http://www.jcsm.org

 

What a great trick!!!

 

Yes SpiritualMadMan this is true, but when people try to discredit the truth that will save them....then do we give up on them or do we sometimes have to get tougher (in love of course)?

Jesus got tough at times too. Clearing the temple, the rich young ruler, rebuking Peter.....
But of course there are times that we might have to knock the dust off our feet at their door and leave.
But I'm also glad for the people in my life with bulldog tenasity(sp?). They never gave up or got tired of me.


Music4Him

 

Is there any more important truth?

Is there any Christian translation that does not have an adequate amount of the True Gospel to lead a person to Jesus?

If something is missing... What is it?

And, why is it essential to salvation?

 

Haha.

 

I've posted on forums and I've owned and moderated forums for several years, so I know that wild and crazy things like this can happen. Accidents can happen, too. I'm confident we can get it all back up or else I would be a little disappointed.

Thanks for wanting to help with the reposting! Let's pray that Will doesn't alter any of his posts.

God bless,
Jason

 

I emailed Will about his posts and the deletion. Oddly, he doesn't have a copy of them. Does anyone else (e.g. the forum owner) have a copy of the deleted posts?

Sincerely,
Jason

 

Jason, you and Will need to check your temp files. Anything you've looked at since deleting your temp files will be stored there. I don't read your debates so I don't have it.

We clear cached files daily and not at a specific time.

Diane

 

Hi Diane,

I delete all of my cache, trash, and temp files each day. They are long gone.

I'd be shocked if a board this size didn't backup everything daily. At least, the person who hosts this board probably backs it up, daily. I know my hosting admin does for my site.

JG

 

One of my jobs as administrator is to clear the cache and I do it daily and at no certain time. I did it earlier today while approving new members.

Maybe someone who was following the debate will check their temp files *.tmp and find what you're looking to replace.

Diane

 

Diane,

I understand you clearing the cache. However, I'm not talking about the cache. I'm talking about someone making literal backup copies of the forum posts. Isn't this done periodically? Have you checked with the person who hosts this site to see if they have made backup copies?

Jason

 

No I have not. That would be Webmaster's call and not mine. We recently attempted to recreate a 'lost thread' and used someone's personal cache.

Again, if anyone else was following this debate and would like to offer their cached pages....

Diane