Heretick or Divisive?

Brian posts: Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Heresy is defined as 1. religious opinion at variance with opinion or doctrine. 2. any belief or theory that is at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that KJV-onlyism, because it is at varience with orthodox, historical, established Christian doctrine (and also causes division within the church, btw), is heresy?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Brian, I'm saying that belief in an inspired Bible that we hold in our hands is the historic position. It is you conflicting multiversionists who now hold the position that "only the originals were inspired", and that today we do not have any inspired Bible.

Consider the following two items. 1. Confessions of faith of Christians in the past, and 2. the present state of most graduating seminarians, which I will post separately.

 The Westminister Confessions of 1646, is probably the most famous Confession of Faith ever written. It says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." This is of course not a Baptist Confession, but it has had great influence among Baptists. This Confession says that the Scriptures were "inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages..." How could anyone make such a statement, unless they believed that they had reliable copies of the originals and reliable translations?

         The Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675 says, "God saw to it that His word, which is with power unto salvation to everyone who believes, was entrusted to writing not only through Moses, the prophets and apostles, but also He has stood guard and watched over it with a fatherly concern to the present time that it not be destroyed by the cunning of Satan or by any other human deceit."

.If these people had no reliable text and no reliable translation, how could they make such a statement? If their Greek and Hebrew texts were not pure, and they had no pure translation, why would they make such a foolish statement?

         The Midland Confession, 1655, was adopted unanimously by the messengers of the churches meeting at Warwick, England. This group of Baptists said, "We profess and believe the Holy Scriptures, the Old and New Testament, to be the word and revealed mind of God, which are able to make men wise unto Salvation, through faith and love which is in Christ Jesus, and that they are given by inspiration of God, serving to furnish the man of God for every good work; and by them we are (in the strength of Christ) to try all things whatsoever are brought to us, under the presence of truth. II Tim. 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20."

We hardly see how the critics of the KJV can find any comfort in that statement of faith. Those who adopted the Midland Confession of 1655, believed in the inspiration of the Scriptures, they believed they had those Scriptures, and they believed that by those Scriptures they could "try all things whatsoever are brought to us, under the presence of truth."

In 1655, you can well know what English version they used, and they had never heard of the Westcott & Hort text, and we can thank the Lord for that.

         The Standard Confession of 1660 (Baptist), said, "That the holy Scriptures is the rule whereby Saints both in matters of Faith, and conversation are to be regulated, they being able to make men wise unto salvation, through Faith in Christ Jesus, profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." While they mention no version, and said nothing about the originals, yet they believed that they had the holy Scriptures. We are confident that they were using the KJV.

         The Second London Confession of 1677 (Baptist) says, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience. . ." We ask, how can the Holy Scriptures be a certain and infallible rule if we have no infallible Bible? To hear Dr. Rice and others tell it, all versions have errors in them, and if this be so, we are left in a tragic situation. The Second London Confession of 1677 says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the Native language of the people of old) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the Nations) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages, are therefore authentical; so as in an controversies of Religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."

The Baptists of 1677 believed that the Scriptures were inspired of God, and that "By His care and Providence kept pure in all Ages." They believed that the Church in all ages could appeal to the pure Scriptures. That is quite different than some of our modern fundamentalists who talk about inspiration, but who are constantly finding errors in the Bible.

         Which Bible were the Baptists of 1677 using? It surely wasn't the NASV, ASV, RSV or the Living Bible. Don't you suppose that it was the KJV of 1611?

         The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English mother tongue, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day."

What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt, but what they are talking about the Authorized Version (KJV) of 1611.

         
         

         The New Hampshire Confession of Faith was adopted in 1833, and it states, "We believe the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter, that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried."

Please note that they mention no "originals" and no version. There was one version that ruled supreme in the English language of 1833 and it was the KJV.
.
     

It Is Not Heresy To Believe In Divine Preservation

        
         It all boils down to how big of a God we serve. Did He have the power and desire to preserve the Word in written form for us today, so that we are not left in the dark concerning what is the Word of God? Is His power so weak or His Divine purpose so unsure, that we must now search out all the manuscripts, all the Hebrew and Greek texts, and all the versions, in order to say that we do have the Word of God mixed in with all the errors. If we are reduced to this state, may the Lord help us, for we are in absolute confusion unmatched in human history. If we are still looking for the Word of God, and do not have an infallible Bible, it should be obvious to all, that we never will have such a Bible. This means that God has not kept His promise, and where do we stand, if we have such a God?

        

         This writer is convinced that we have God's Word in the English language, providentially preserved in the very form in which He wanted us to have it, and that it is the KJV. If this is ignorance, heresy or insanity, make the most of it, for this is where we stand.

.
         John Owen (Puritan scholar) said: "The providence of God hath manifested itself as no less concerned in the preservation of the writings than of the doctrine contained in them; the writing itself being the product of His own eternal counsel for the preservation of the doctrine, after a sufficient discovery of the insufficiency of all other means for that end and purpose. And hence the malice of Satan hath raged no less against the Book than against the truth contained in it." (Quoted in "The Providential Preservation of the Greek Text of the New Testament" by W. MacLean, M.A., page 7).
         

         Dr. Alfred Martin said: "What is the use of the inspiration of the Bible, if no form of the Bible that we now have is inspired? Why should God have worked a stupendous miracle in order to preserve the writers of the Biblical books from error and make the autographs of their books completely true, if He intended then to leave the books thus produced to the mere chance of transmission from generation to generation by very human and often careless copyists?" (In a Moody Founder's Week Message, 1966. Quoted in Counterfeit or Genuine, by Fuller).
         
         LeBaron W. Kinney, wrote in 1942, "When a Bible teacher refers to the original languages of the Bible, there is a danger of giving a wrong impression about the authority and true value of the standard King James Version. Too many are ready to say that they have a better rendering, and often in such a way as to give an impression that the King James Version is faulty, or that other versions are much better. We believe that God overruled His gift of the King James Version of 1611, so that we have in it the very Word of God. We believe that no other English Version will ever take Its place. As a whole it is nearer to the original Greek and Hebrew than any other version. Every one of the various English versions claims to be nearer the original than the others. This could not be true of more than one of them." ("Hebrew Word StudiesAcres of Rubies" p. 9, published by Loizeaux Brothers).

         The cry for a new version has come from the apostasy of the 19th Century, which has taken root in the 20th Century, even among God's people. The source of the new versions has been from the putrid fountain of German Higher Criticism, humanism, ecumenicalism and modernism. Have you ever met a modernist that preferred the KJV? I have not, and I don't expect I ever will. A modernist will prefer almost any version above the KJV. That should tell us something!

         Not all advocates of the new versions are modernists by any means. But they have been drinking at the polluted fountains of modernism, Catholicism and ecumenicalism. They have adopted a position that is detrimental to the truth, and which will be used of Satan to lead countless numbers into error. No fundamentalist can be consistent in doctrine and practice while at the same time advocating the new versions which sprang from Westcott and Hort. Evangelicals who advocate the new versions, will soon slip into the camp of new-evangelicals, and from there into something even worse. When we abandon an absolute authority, we become the authority, or at least recognize the authority of some man who is a scholar, or at least claims to be one. Remember that God is a jealous God and that He has magnified His Word above His Name!

         Some good men and some good schools have taken the wrong side in this struggle. Some are no doubt already sorry that they have taken the wrong stand. It is not too late to admit a mistake, and correct it. This is God honoring, and will mean so much at the Judgment Seat of Christ. It is our prayer that many will do that very thing!

Pastor E. L. Bynum

 

Growing apostacy among seminarians documented.


With the flood of modern Bible versions it seems there is less and less believed about the pillars of the Christian faith. These versions were translated from different manuscripts than the KING JAMES BIBLE. For their New Testaments their translators used questionable Greek texts from which to translate, two of which were SINAITICUS and VATICANUS.

These same modern Greek texts, often referred to as the Critical Text, are used in most seminaries and Christian institutions of higher learning in courses of higher textual criticism. Whether the text is Nestle‚s 26th or 27th edition, Nestle-Aland's, or that of the United Bible Societies, this appears true even if the institution is liberal or conservative. Each of these texts relies upon the Westcott-Hort text. Bible textual criticism does not mean the Bible is criticized but that readings from other manuscripts or Greek texts are examined, whether they are credible or not.

It is somewhat like being in a Bible study where someone says my NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION says. . . and someone else remarks but my LIVING BIBLE says this. . .and one ventures that the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD has this reading. . while yet another says the NEW KING JAMES has a slight variation.

The result is, What does the Bible really say? Which one is right? All the readings cannot be correct because that would be inconsistent and if there is one thing God IS NOT - is inconsistent.

This undermines the faith of seminary students and they cannot say with absolute certainty, I hold here in my hands, beyond a shadow of a doubt, God's infallible, inerrant Word. The situation may fit with 2 Timothy 3: 7 „Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. This is definitely one of the characteristics of the present day apostasy in which we live.

Is it then a coincidence that at one leading Baptist Theological Seminary in the mid 1970's, a survey presented the following information in a thesis? A group of statements regarding the Christian faith were presented to (1) Diploma, (2) lst year Divinity, (3) Final year Divinity, and (4) Ph.D./Th.D. Students. Findings on the answers to some of the statements given by each group were:

# I know God really exists and I have no doubt about it.
(1) Diploma- 100% Final Year Divinity (2) Ist year Divinity - 74%
(3) Final Year Divinity - 65% (4) Ph.D./Th.D. - 63%

# Jesus is the Divine Son of God and I have no doubts about it.
(1) 100% (2) 87% (3) 63% (4) 63%

# The Devil actually exists. (1) 96% (2) 96% (3) 42% (4) 37%

# I believe the miracles happened just as the Bible says they did. (1) 96% (2) 61% (3) 40% (4) 37%

# There is life beyond death: Completely true.
(1) 100% (2)89% (3) 67% (4) 53%

# Jesus was born of a Virgin: Completely true.
(1) 96% (2) 66% (3) 33% (4) 32%

# Jesus walked on water: Completely true.
(1) 96% (2) 59% (3) 44% (4) 22%

# I definitely believe Jesus will return to the earth some day.
(1) 100% (2) 87% (3) 63% (4} 63%

HOW NECESSARY FOR SALVATION DO YOU BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING TO BE?

# Belief in Jesus Christ as Saviour: Absolutely necessary.
(1} 100% (2) 85% (3) 60% (4) 59%

# Loving thy neighbor: Absolutely necessary.
(1) 43% (2) 54% (3) 65% (4) 53%

Is it true that the more and more Bible versions we have, and the more and more Seminary education one receives, the less and less one believes about the Bible?


Sad Statistics

A previous issue of Christianity Today published the results of a poll of Protestant clergymen conducted by sociologist Jeffrey Hadden. He contacted 10,000 clergymen of whom 7,441 replied.

They were asked if they accepted Jesus' physical resurrection as a fact.

51% of Methodists said "No"
35% of United Presbyterians said "No"
30% of Episcopalians said "No"
33% of American Baptists said "No"
13% of American Lutherans said "No"
7% of Mo. Synod Lutherans said "No"

They were asked if they believed in the virgin birth of Jesus.

60% of Methodists said "No"
44% of Episcopalians said "No"
49% of Presbyterians said "No"
34% of Baptists said "No"
19% of American Lutherans said "No"
5% of Mo. Synod Lutherans said "No"

They were asked if they believed in evil demon power in the world today.

62% of Methodists said "No''
37% of Episcopalians said "No"
47% of Presbyterians said ''No"
33% of Baptists said "No''
14% of American Lutherans said "No"
9% of Mo. Synod Lutherans said "No"

They were asked if they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters.

87% of Methodists said "No"
95% of Episcopalians said "No"
82% of Presbyterians said "No"
67% of American Baptists said "No"
77% of American Lutherans said "No"
24% of Mo. Synod Lutherans said "No"

Each of these questions concern a basic belief in Christianity. These ministers, by their own confession, are denying the faith they proclaim from the pulpit and are using their churches to destroy Christianity; many of them are acting in innocent ignorance because of their denominational teaching, but many are Satan's emissaries being transformed as angels of light (2 Cor. 11:14) and are operating in the pulpit.

--Copied from a tract, as published in FGB July-August 1979.
~~~~~

 

Brian, you probably remember many hear at BB promoting the ESV, which follows the same texts generally as the old RSV.

Do you know what some of those men believed, or didn't believe? And now this revitalized version is being widely recommended by Christians today.

An example of modernism is found in the writings of the men who
translated the Revised Standard Version of 1951. This corrupt version
was produced by apostates, men who rejected the faith once delivered
to the saints. Consider a few excerpts from their books:

"Revelation has sometimes been understood to consist in a holy book.
... Even on Christian soil it has sometimes been held that the books
of the Bible were practically dictated to the writers through the
Holy Spirit. ... I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS THE DISTINCTIVELY
CHRISTIAN POSITION. If God once wrote His revelation in an inerrant
book, He certainly failed to provide any means by which this could be
passed on without contamination through human fallibility. ... The
true Christian position is the Bible CONTAINS the record of
revelation" Clarence T. Craig, The Beginning of Christianity, New
York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1943, pp. 17,18 ).


"The dates and figures found in the first five books of the Bible
turn out to be altogether unreliable" (Julius Bewer, The Literature
of the Old Testament, New York: Columbia University Press, 1940).

"The writers of the New Testament made mistakes in interpreting some
of the Old Testament prophecies" (James Moffatt, The Approach to the
New Testament).

"One cannot of course place John on the same level with the synoptic
Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke] as A HISTORICAL SOURCE" (William
Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Press, 1957).

"He [Jesus Christ] was given to overstatements, in his case, not a
personal idiosyncrasy, but a characteristic of the oriental world"
(Henry F. Cadbury, Jesus, What Manner of Man?).

"As to the miraculous, one can hardly doubt that time and tradition
would heighten this element in the story of Jesus" (Cadbury, Ibid.).

"A psychology of God, IF that is what Jesus was, is not available"
(Cadbury, Ibid.).

"According to the ENTHUSIASTIC TRADITIONS which had come down through
the FOLKLORE of the people of Israel, Methuselah lived 969 years"
(Walter Russell Bowie, Great Men of the Bible, New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1937, p. 1).

"The story of Abraham comes down from ancient times; and how much of
it is fact and how much of it is LEGEND, no one can positively tell"
(Bowie, Ibid., p. 13).

"WE DO NOT PRESS THAT GOSPEL [JOHN] FOR TOO GREAT VERBAL ACCURACY IN
ITS RECORD OF THE SAYINGS OF JESUS" (Willard L. Sperry, Rebuilding
Our World).

"This phrase ['Thus saith the Lord'] is an almost unfailing mark of
SPURIOUSNESS" (William A. Irwin, The Problem of Ezekiel).

"Only bigotry could bring us to deny an EQUAL VALIDITY WITH THE
PROPHETS OF ISRAEL in the religious vision of men such as Zoraster or
Ikhnaton or, on a lower level, the unnamed thinkers of ancient
Babylonia" (Irwin, Ibid.).

"The narrative of calling down fire from heaven upon the soldiers
sent to arrest him is PLAINLY LEGENDARY" (Fleming James, The
Beginnings of Our Religion).

"What REALLY happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER KNOW" (James, Ibid.).

"We cannot take the Bible as a whole and in every part as stating
with divine authority what we must believe and do" (Millar Burrows,
Outline of Biblical Theology).

These are just some of the men who put together the RSV, and now the ESV continues their textual choices.

Will

 

Ed, as far as your personal opinion of me goes, I really am not very concerned about this. However I will address a few comments about Ruth 3:15. You probably got this info from Doug Kutilek.


Ruth 3:15 he or she?

Frequently those who claim the King James Bible is riddled with errors and has changed in thousands and thousands of places since it first came out in 1611, bring up Ruth 3:15 as an example of contradiction and confusion.

This supposed error is one of Doug Kutilek's favorites. He has no final authority but his own mind and he seems to take great delight in pointing out alleged errors in the KJB.

Mr. Kutilek says: "It should be unnecessary to say much about variations which have always existed among various printings and editions of the KJV. They do exist, and have from the beginning (the two editions printed in 1611 differ in over 2,000 places, perhaps the most famous being "he" or "she" at Ruth 3:15)."

An excellent study of these "thousands of changes" showing that the vast majority of them were changes in spelling, as Sonne to Son, and yeeres to years, can be found at this site.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvupdt.html


Now, to address the example Mr. Kutilek gives in Ruth 3:15. The Cambridge edition, which I use, says: "Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and SHE went into the city."

There was a discrepancy between the edition published in 1611 and the one published in 1613. The verse in question was Ruth 3:15. In the 1611 edition, it read, “HE went into the city,” referring to Boaz. In the 1613 edition, it read, “SHE went into the city,” referring to Ruth. These two editions became known as “the Great He Bible” and “the Great She Bible,” respectively. This printing error was soon discovered and changed back to the original 1611 reading of "she" went into the city.

Mr. Kutilek and those like him have no infallible Bible. They continue to promote the modern versions which differ from one another in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. The popular NASB, ESV, NKJV, and NIV depart from the texts that underlie the KJB in scores if not hundreds of places that I can specifically point to. The NASB, NIV and ESV often reject the Hebrew Masoretic texts and follow the Greek Septuagint, Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, Dead Sea Scrolls or the Vulgate in scores of instances and often not in the same places as the others. Yet this is the confused Bible of the Month club babel that Mr. Kutilek would recommend to overthrow the time tested KJB.

There still continue to be differences among the many versions even in Ruth 3:15.

Those versions that read: "And HE went into the city" are the NIV, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Darby, Young's, the Jewish 1917 translation, World English Bible, New Living Translation, and the New Revised Standard Version.

The versions that read: "And SHE went into the city" are the KJB, NKJV, NASB, Revised Standard Version, Coverdale, Bishop's, Douay, Bible in Basic English, Geneva bible, 1936 Jewish translation, and the 2001 English Standard Version. Notice in the case of the RSV, NRSV, and ESV, each of which is a revision of the other, that the RSV went with "he", then the NRSV read "she", and the latest ESV has now gone back to "he" again.

We even get conflicting footnotes in some of these versions. The NKJV which reads SHE, just as the KJB and NASB, has a footnote which says: "Masoretic text reads HE; some Hebrew manuscripts, Syriac, and Vulgate read SHE.

However the NIV, NRSV, both of which still say HE, have footnotes telling us: "Most Hebrew manuscripts read HE, but many Hebrew manuscripts, Vulgate and Syriac read SHE."

Mr. Kutilek is all worked up about a little printing error he thinks he has found in the KJB, and he recommends we use the modern versions, yet they all continue to disagree with each other!


That people like Mr. Kutilek have to resort to such petty arguments as this against the King James Bible, only shows how very weak their case is and how desperate they are to find any error at all in God's infallible words.

Even with the different Hebrew texts, some reading "he" while others having "she", there is no doctrinal difference and the simple fact of the matter is that they BOTH went into the city. Mr. Kutilek's objection is much ado about nothing.

And so is yours, Ed. Say, Ed, with all your talk about the REAL KJB 1611, do you believe it is the inerrant words of God and all the versions that differ from it are not? Where do you stand?

Will Kinney

 

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
This printing error was soon discovered and changed back to the original 1611 reading of "she" went into the city.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, Will, the original 1611, first edition, first printing, says "he went into the citie" not "she."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the correction, Skanwmatos. My mistake.

Will

 

Brian, the position I now see several of you Biblical relativists promoting is that all the bible versions are inspired and infallible, no matter how contradictory in numerous passages, and no matter that the ESV adds literally hundreds of words to the Old Testament not found even in the NASB, or NIV.

It apparently doesn't matter that numerous whole verses are found in one version and not in another, or that the meaning is drastically different in hundreds of verses - they all are inspired by the same Holy Spirit. So says Dr. Bob too.

I sit back and marvel. It looks like words do not have the same meaning for you as they do for me. We both speak English, yet it is like we are each using a foreign language with the other that both do not know.

Is this called Bible Babel?

How someone can think that these two examples of literally hundreds I have noticed can both equally be the inspired, infallible, complete words of God, baffles me.

   One of the hundreds of Scripture references called into question by today's bible translators is I Samuel 13:1.  We read in the Authorized King James Bible: "Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin; and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent."   

                       "Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS..."  This is the reading of the KJB, the NKJV, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Daniel Webster's translation of 1833, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and 1960, the Italian Diodati version, the KJV 21st century version and the Third Millenium Bible. 

The Spanish Reina Valera 1960 reads: "Había  ya reinado Saúl UN ANO; y cuando hubo reinado DOS años sobre Israel..."= KJB  

Italian Diodati - Saulle avea regnato UN ANNO, e poi (then) dopo (after) aver regnato DUE ANNI sopra Israele..." = KJB

Luther 1545: Saul war ein jar König gewesen / vnd da er zwey jar vber Jsrael regiert hatte...

"Saul was king one year, and when he had reigned two years over Israel...= KJB

The Swiss Zürcher 1531 says exactly the same thing.

            There are several bible versions like Darby's, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and  the  New Scofield KJV, which actually read: "Saul was ____years old when he began to reign; and he reigned_____and two years over Israel." Then in a footnote they tell us "the number is lacking in Hebrew" and "two is not the entire number. Something has dropped out."  

            The ASV of 1901, which is the predecessor of the NASB, says: "Saul was  (forty) years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel..." Then in a footnote it tells us "The number is lacking in the Hebrew text, and is supplied conjecturally."  

      When we finally get to the NASB and the NIV we really get confused.  The NASB of 1972 and 1977 reads: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he began to reign, and he reigned THIRTY TWO years over Israel."   But the 1995 edition of the NASB has changed the 32 years to now read 42 years.  The NIV says: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel FORTY TWO years."  So was Saul 30 or 40, and did he reign 2 years as the ASV tells us, or 32 as some NASBs have it or the 42 of the NIV?  

       Not only do the NIV, ASV and NASB all contradict each other, but they also contradict Acts 13:21 where we are told that Saul reigned over Israel 40 years.  

      Have some of God's words been lost or dropped out of the text? Or has God been faithful to His promises to preserve His words here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away?  Jesus said in Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." This is either a true statement or Jesus lied to us.  The modern version translators imply that the Lord Jesus Christ didn't really mean what He said.

Example #2

Exodus 26:14

"Thou shalt make a covering for the tent of ram's skins dyed red, and a covering of BADGER'S skins". The NKJV, Geneva, Darby, Young’s, Webster's, KJB 21, Third Millenium Bible, Rotherham's Emphatic Bible, and the Spanish all agree with the KJB. The NASB says the covering would be "of PORPOISE skins" while the NIV has "sea cows". The RSV and the 2001 ESV both have "GOATSKINS".

While wandering around in the wilderness for 40 years, badger's skins might be troublesome to get, but how many "porpoises" (NASB) or "sea cows" (NIV) do you think they could have scrounged up?

Now, could you do me a big favor? Explain to me real slowly so I can understand, how are all of these equally the inspired, infallible words of God. I just don't get it.

Maybe Ed or John can help out here. I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes and could use some tutoring.

Thanks,

Will

 

Brian says: "It should read what the original author wrote. If the original author wrote "he", then "she" (although maybe factually true) would be a textual corruption, and vice versa."

Brian, I'm having just a little bit of a problem trying to connect the dots in your reasoning process here.

If, on the one hand, all those different bible versions are equally the infallible words of God, then when does your criteria about textual corruptions come into play? Are the corruptions also inspired, infallible and inerrant?

If what is important is what "the original author wrote" (to me this smacks of humanism, since I believe the Author is God Himself), then did the the Lord Jesus Christ actually say "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" in Matthew 6:13?

He said His words would not pass away. He either said these words or He didn't. So if they are omitted, as in the NIV, ESV, NASB, is that a corruption? Or if they are found in the NKJV, KJB, Geneva Bible, Spanish Reina Valera, and an host of others, is this then the corruption?

Do you see the tiny little problem I'm having with your reasoning here? Maybe we ARE speaking different languages afterall.

Just wondering,

Will