One of the complaints I have about the Roman Catholic Church in which I grew up is how “man-centered” its teachings are. After all, the sacerdotal system is all about “you” going to Mass; “you” going to confession; “you” blindly following the Magisterium. So it was with some little surprise that I saw this tweet today from Pope Francis:
Yep. Evangelization to Roman Catholics is apparently all about “you”, too.
Don’t be fooled, friends. Evangelization is about giving witness to Jesus Christ.
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. (Emphasis added; Matthew 28:18-20)
Soli Deo Gloria.
Reformation500 
Hi Paul. You have a good point, but the irony is that you yourself are using one of the new Vatican Versions, and not the Reformation text of the King James Bible. And when your fake bible versions say “make disciples of all nations” they are wrong. The KJB got it right (as it always does) when it says “TEACH all nations”. Here is why –
Matthew 28:19 “teach all nations” or “make disciples of all nations”?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/mat2819teachdisciple.htm
As for PROOF that your NIV, ESV, NASB, NET, etc. are the new Vatican Versions, here it is.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8
LikeLike
Hey Will,
Thanks for the note. My purpose however, was not to engage a debate about which Bible version is “correct” but rather to make the point that evangelization is about Christ and not about ourselves.
I’m sorry if I didn’t get that across.
Peace.
LikeLike
Hi Paul. No, you did get your point across. But the irony is that you are criticizing the Roman Catholic Church, and yet the corrupt bible version you quoted from, as though it has some kind of infallible authority, not only is one of the new Vatican Versions, which is directly controlled by this same Catholic church, but it teaches false doctrine as well. That is the irony of your “point”.
Did you by any chance actually READ the articles I linked for you to look at or did you just give us your knee jerk reaction? Let me hazard a wild guess. You didn’t actually read them before you responded, right?
LikeLike
Will,
I think you are trying to hijack this post. Again, my point was that evangelization is about Christ and not about ourselves – period.
To that end I don’t really care what version of Matthew 28 you use. If you like the KJV, then by all means, have at it.
Peace.
LikeLike
Hi Paul. You started out criticizing the Catholic church and then quote from one of the Vatican versions to prove some kind of a point, using a corrupt bible version in the process as though it had some kind of infallible authority. I merely pointed out the irony of you alleging error in the Catholic church, and yet you are using one of the new Vatican Versions that NOBODY, not even you, believes is the complete and inerrant words of God.
The reason you want to avoid discussing the Bible version issue is because you yourself do NOT believe that ANY Bible in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God and you know you don’t. And you are using one of the most corrupt, watered down, and error filled versions out there – the ever changing NIV, which IS one of the new Vatican Versions.
“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3
LikeLike
Will,
You apparently want to start a fight over a topic that misses the point of my post entirely. Please find someone else to take your bait.
Blessings,
LikeLike
Hi Paul. I just find it highly ironic that you, as a Calvinist (so am I), are on the one hand criticizing the whore of Babylon for its false teaching, and yet here you are using one of the whore’s bible versions to do it with. You have rejected the Reformation Bible text and are now using one of the corrupt Vatican directed bible perversions that not even you believe is God’s authoritative and inerrant words. And you can’t seem to see the logical disconnect nor the hypocrisy of your present position.
If you are going to “fight” the good fight of faith, you should be willing to take a closer look at the faulty weapons you are using in this battle when it is pointed out to you. You can’t defend yourself or your position very well with a butter knife. The true sword of the Spirit is a much better offensive weapon. That would be the King James Bible, in case you missed it.
At this point you are just unwilling to face the fact that you do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible as a present reality – something you can actually hold in your hands, read, and believe is the very words of the living God. And you don’t like having this pointed out to you.
LikeLike
Will, I have to agree with Paul. We don’t have to “actually READ” your articles in order to decline to discuss them.
While the KJV was a translation that was much loved and much respected, in honesty, your contention that the modern translations are “new Vatican versions” really has no basis in fact.
LikeLike
Hi John Bugay. Well, IF you had actually taken the time to READ the article, then you would know that your statement “your contention that the modern translations are “new Vatican versions” really has no basis in fact.” is completely false and based on ignorance.
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new “Vatican Versions”
http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm
IF you actually read it, this is just part of what you would learn.
I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.
If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:
“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STIP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament.”
There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not “definitive” – it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely “a stimulus to further efforts”.
And this –
The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
This from their own site –
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_pro_20051996_chrstuni_pro_en.html
Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible
“Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture (Dei Verbum, n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. TOGETHER WITH THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT PUBLISHED THE GUIDELINES FOR INTERCONFESSIONAL COOPERATION IN TRANSLATING THE BIBLE.” (1968; new revised edition 1987).
The United Bible Societies Vice-President is Roman Catholic Cardinal Onitsha of Nigeria. On the executive committee is Roman Catholic Bishop Alilona of Italy and among the editors is Roman Catholic Cardinal Martini of Milan. Patrick Henry happily claims, “Catholics should work together with Protestants in the fundamental task of Biblical translation …[They can] work very well together and have the same approach and interpretation … This signals a new age in the church.” – Patrick Henry, New Directions in New Testament Study (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 232-234.
Now, John, if you would care to dispute these FACTS, go right ahead and try.
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8
“But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” 1 Cor. 14:38
LikeLike
You should start your own blog, that way you will have a proper vent for your feelings, Will. We don’t care to dispute facts that have NOTHING to do with the subject at hand. This post was not about Bibles or translations or versions – it was simply about the Pope’s misunderstanding of evangelization.
Please stop trying to hijack the conversation.
LikeLike
Will, you have got it precisely backward. The Vatican HAS to use this version, because they don’t have their own translators. They don’t have their papyrii. Those are the Alexandrian texts, which are the oldest and best preserved.
The KJV is based on the “received” text — by whom was it “received” for a thousand years, (500-1500) if not by Rome. You, in fact, are the one using the Vatican version. .
LikeLike
Hi John Bugay. Sir, did you actually READ the article? One of the 5 chief editors of the UBS critical Greek text was the Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini. The Catholics obviously DO translate their own bible versions. Where do you think so many of these Greek manuscripts are located and copied from? You have heard of codex VATICANus, right? Sir, you are in denial of the most basic facts.
You do NOT believe that ANY Bible in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God. Prove me wrong. All you have to do is show us a copy of this inerrant Bible you seem to want us to think you actually believe in or give us a link to where we can see it. But that’s not gonna happen, is it.
Did you do the verse, phrase and word omissions comparison between the Vatican Versions like your ESV, NIV, NASB and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem? These modern Catholic versions even tell you in their prefaces that they (the Catholics, John) translated them from THE SAME Nestle-Aland/UBS critical Greek texts. It’s all there in black and white for anybody to see for themselves.
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, Holman Standard, NET, NASBs are the new “Vatican Versions” Part TWO
http://brandplucked.webs.com/esvcatholicpart2.htm
LikeLike
Will, I actually GLANCED AT the article. I am very busy, and your demands in a comments box have very little influence on me.
You make a fundamental error in attributing the newer versions to the Vatican. Do you have any understanding at all of what textual criticism is about? The history of the “Textus Receptus” upon which the KJV is based? It is Erasmus’s text, which was earth-shattering for its time, but which has been superseded by manuscripts that are far older than the ones that Erasmus used.
The Textus Receptus is based largely on manuscripts from the 5th -10th centuries. These were largely copied (by hand, of course) in monasteries and by the churches you decry. Since the days of Erasmus, we have found hundreds and hundreds of manuscripts that are far earlier, that are far nearer to the original manuscripts (which is where we find the inerrancy you are asking about).
The fact that the Vatican tries to attach its name to these efforts shows just how lacking they are in this area. While Rome was asserting the authority of the corrupt Latin Vulgate, it was Protestant scholarship that was examining the ancient manuscripts under the microscopes, cataloging materials and text types, and understanding just precisely where the earliest and best manuscripts lay.
While you are pointing me to one blog article of dubious origin, I can point to the whole history of textual criticism. Take a look at some of the resources at this link:
http://vintage.aomin.org/kjvo.html
That’s really just the tip of the iceberg.
LikeLike
Hi John. There is such a thing as ignorance, and then there is willful ignorance. You may have “glanced at one blog article of dubious origin”, (which I wrote, by the way) but you remain in denial of the facts. Most of these “hundreds and hundreds of manuscripts” you mention support the readings found in the Traditional Reformation Bibles you now reject. Your UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican ever changing critical text is based primarily on 2 so called “oldest and best mss.” that not only differ from the vast majority of all manuscripts out there, but from each other in hundreds of very significant ways, and probably owe their greater age to the fact that they were seen as so corrupt, that nobody used them. Good manuscripts wore out with use.
Even Dr. Hort, of the famed Westcott Hort critical Greek text, said: “The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century.”
Dean Burgon, in his book The Revision Revised, immediately comments: “We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament, —the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, in short – is, according to Dr. Hort, “BEYOND ALL QUESTION the TEXT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.”
You really seem to know very little about this issue, and you are in fact promoting the new Vatican Versions. You ought to do more than just “glance” at the documented facts.
May I suggest this one I put together called “Six Lies Modern Scholarship Tells US”
http://brandplucked.webs.com/liesofmodscholarship.htm
In it you will also find a link to where I show what these so called “oldest and best manuscripts” you talk about are REALLY like, with many specific and concrete examples. You are probably totally unaware of the facts regarding your favorite mss.
LikeLike
Here are a couple of other links for you, with links to some of the real scholarship that’s going on today:
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
http://danielbwallace.com/
http://blogs.bible.org/bock
LikeLike
Hi John. The fact that you bring up Dan Wallace shows just how very confused and far from the truth of an inerrant Bible you are. Dan Wallace’s NET version, just like the ESV, NIV, Holman Vatican Versions, often rejects the Hebrew texts and totally changes the meaning of numerous verses and corrupts sound doctrine. IF Dan Wallace’s NET version is right, then your ESV, NIV, NASB are not. The simple FACT is, you do not have nor do you believe in the existence of ANY Bible in ANY language as being the complete and inerrant words of God.
I have LOTS of information about Dan Wallace’s NET version here at my site.
Dan Wallace is messing with The Bible.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/danwallacenut.htm
Dan Wallaces NET version teaches that God was DECEIVED by the children of Israel in Psalm 78:36. His NET version teaches that the giant Goliath was not 9 1/2 feet tall but “close to 7 feet tall”, Hardly big enough for the NBA, and if he is right, then all the others are wrong.
Dan Wallace and James White are both professional liars. Why do I say this? Because both of them SAY “I believe the Bible IS the infallible words of God.” And yet if you ask either one of them to SHOW you a copy of this infallible Bible they PROFESS (and lie about) to believe in, neither one of them could do so if their lives depended on it.
Anybody who uses the NET version has taken a giant step backwards into confusion and uncertainty regarding the text of the Bible itself. Just over 60 years ago this same Dallas Theological Seminary, where Dr. Wallace now teaches, wrote a scathing article about three specific readings found in the liberal RSV.
Here is what the Dallas Theological Seminary symposium said. This particular section was written by Merrill F. Unger, Th.D., Ph.D. You can see the Dallas Theological Seminary article here –
http://brandplucked.webs.com/timeschangedtsemnet.htm
These were all Christological passages and included the nature of the Son of God as found in Micah 5:2, the Messianic prophesy about “until Shiloh come” in Genesis 49:10 and changing “a virgin shall conceive” in Isaiah 7:14 to “a young woman”. Yet here we are just 60 years later, and Dan Wallace’s NET version has gone back to those same readings that were in the liberal RSV they criticized.
You have NO inerrant Bible to believe in or to give to anybody else. You have no Absolute Standard of written truth and the perversions you are using are getting worse, not better, and they are all based on the texts directly determined by the Vatican to create an “interconfessional” text in an effort to unite “the separated brethren” and to destroy what they call “the Paper Pope of Protestantism”.
Those are the facts.
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8
“But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” 1 Cor. 14:38
LikeLike
Oh good. Will Kinney found our blog. Just what we were all hoping for. Yay. Now every single comment thread can be about why his favorite bible version, based on the Greek text published by a Roman Catholic priest (insert ominous music and crack pot conspiracy theory here), is the only one anyone should be reading. We don’t want one of those “Vatican” bibles. We’ll take the one based on the work of a Catholic priest. That’ll show ’em!
But I digress. So…there is some kind of a meaningful distinction to be made between teaching and making disciples?
LikeLike
Hi John. Wretched has blocked me from posting on their Facebook forum. If that is not “kicked off the forum”, then what do you call it.
As for your being a bible agnostic, this is exactly what most of you are. A bible agnostic does not know (a = not + gnosis = to know) for sure what God wrote in His Book. Can I prove this? Absolutely. Very easy. I have tons of examples, but here are just a few. Do you know which one of these readings is the inspired, inerrant and 100% historically true word of God? Just pick one example if you like, and let us know. Care to give it a try?
1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading – ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or “was 40 years old…and when he had reigned 2 years” (ASV 1901, Amplified bible 1987) or “____years old and reigned 2 years” (Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible, , Jehovah Witness New World Translation) or “was 30 years old…ruled for 42 years” (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old…reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or as the Jehovah Witness New World Translation has it – I Samuel 13:1 – “Saul was . . .* years old when he became king, and for two years he reigned over Israel. “ Footnote: The number is missing in the Hebrew text.” or even “was 50 years old and reigned 22 years.” in the New English Bible of 1970!
But wait. There’s even more. The ESV 2001 edition had “Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel.” But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of “Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel…”. Think about it. “Saul lived for one year and then became king”. They just get loopier and loopier, don’t they?
Or 1 Samuel 13:5 we read: “And the Philistines gathered themselves together to fight with Israel, THIRTY thousand chariots…” (Hebrew text, Geneva, RV, ASV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, Douay-Rheims) or “THREE thousand chariots.” (Syriac text, NET, NIV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible)
Or 1 Samuel 6:19 – 50,070 men slain (KJB, Douay-Rheims, RV, ASV, NASB, NET) or only 70 (ESV, NIV, RSV, St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible) or 75 (The Voice) or 70 men, 50 chief men (Youngs) or 70 men and 50 oxen (NKJV, NLT footnote)?
Or whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV 1881, ASV 1901, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, ISV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times – KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV 2001, 2007 editions, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV, ESV 2011 edition, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness New World Translation)
or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT) or “the NEXT day” ISV (they just made this up!)
Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT)
or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard
or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
LikeLike
We have not blocked you here. As for our being “bible agnostic”, I don’t think there is a problem with the Warfield doctrine of inerrancy of the manuscripts.
I just simply think there are too many issues with the KJV to suggest that that one version is THE inerrant word of God. Your calling White and Wallace “liars” does nothing to fix those problems. I’ve not looked into this in some while, but I do think that the KJV has more, not fewer problems than the NA texts.
LikeLike
Will, your current post has gone into moderation. I notice that you have flown off the handle on your Facebook page and spouted off about “Responding to another Seminary trained Bible agnostic over at Wretched blog. (They already kicked me off the forum)”. No one has “kicked you off the forum”. If you had an ounce of understanding you would have figured out that WordPress blogs have a setting so that comments with more than one link go into moderation.
Nor are we “seminary trained” nor “bible agnostics”.
Your big complaint seems to be that we have not “ACTUALLY READ” your links — but nor have you “ACTUALLY READ” anything here, You just seem more interested in chest-thumping and brow-beating respected men like James White and Daniel Wallace. And meanwhile, what you consider to be “evidence” is based on faulty history and even faultier logic.
Keep it up and we will “kick you off the forum”.
LikeLike
Hi John Bugay. Instead of blocking me, why don’t you actually take the little test I gave you and tell us if you know for sure which of those readings is the true one? What a novel concept! Do you know why you won’t tell us which readings are the right ones? It is because you don’t know for sure, and that is why you are a bible agnostic. Get it?
LikeLike
Hi Andrew. I have several articles that explain why the KJB is God’s inerrant words, but you aren’t really looking for answers and you just want the cliff notes anyway. The KJB is God’s true Bible because it is always true and does not contain false doctrine, like your Vatican perversions.
That being said, you are either going to come back with a laundry list of alleged errors in the KJB, which I have seen many times. Give us your Number One provable error, and we can take a look at it to see if it is an error in the Book or in your understanding.
Or, you might ask “Which false doctrines in my favorite versions?” and I will be glad to show you some. Tell me what your favorite version is.
Another proof is the sovereignty of God in history and how He has used and borne testimony to the King James Bible. I have an article on this too.
And then we have the FACT that not one of you non-King James Bible onlyists has ANY Bible in any language that you honestly believe is God’s complete and inerrant words. You do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible in any real way as a tangible book that you can hold in your hands, read for yourself and believe is the inerrant words of God.
LikeLike
Hi Andrew. If your are up to reading more than 25 words at a time, here is just one of my articles on why the King James Bible is God’s Book.
God’s Persistent Witness to the Absolute Standard of Written Truth – The King James Holy Bible
http://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm
LikeLike
John Bugay posts: “I just simply think there are too many issues with the KJV to suggest that that one version is THE inerrant word of God. Your calling White and Wallace “liars” does nothing to fix those problems. ”
Hi John. First of all, you don’t believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever was the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God, right? Come on. Be honest about it. You simply have NO inerrant Bible, do you?
Secondly, as I have stated several times over, the reason I say James White and Dan Wallace are lying is simply because both of them SAY “I believe the Bible IS the infallible words of God.” They both say this. Yet, if you ask either of them to SHOW you a copy of this infallible Bible they PROFESS (and lie about) to believe in, they will NEVER do it. Why? Because they do not have such a book and they know they don’t. They are putting on a pious sounding front so as to appear like people who have a REAL Bible they believe is God’s infallible words; but they do not and they know they don’t. They are lying. If they are not lying about this, then what would you call it? “Poetic license”? hyperbole…a slight exaggeration? It’s a lie. It’s deception. It’s a phony pose of piety. And it is not an accidental slip of the tongue on their part.
Now, how about you? Are you willing to be honest enough to admit the fact that you yourself do NOT believe there exists such a thing as a Bible in any language as the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God? Yes or No?
LikeLike
Hi Andrew. Have you looked at the posts I have made to answer your question? The fact is, you do not want an answer. You want to feel better about the fact that there is NO Bible on this earth that you believe is God’s complete and inerrant words. So to do this, you will simply make fun of me and of my position. You will call me Willy and Billy boy and mock at the idea that there really is such a thing as an inerrant Bible. You are too dishonest yourself to admit that there is NO Bible you believe is the inerrant words of God. And apparently you can’t even come up with an example of a provable error in the King James bible. You are content to go along with your herd mentality and embrace your new Vatican Versions and scoff at us “ignorant buffoons” who actually believe God has acted in history to give to the world an infallible Standard of written truth in the King James Bible or in any other bible.
God Himself said He would send a famine of hearing His words into the land. There will be a falling away from the faith before the return of Christ and people will turn away their ears from the truth and be turned to fables. Everything is going according to God’s eternal plan. Nothing takes Him by surprise. So when He says in Revelation 18:4 Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins”, He knew beforehand that many of His people would in one way or another be in close partnership with the great whore of Babylon, who deceives the whole earth with her fornication.
And that is where you are now with your Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, etc.
And since you cannot defend your fake bibles, you then mock at the truth of God’s words being found in one Book, which is the ONLY one believed by many thousands even today to be the pure and perfect words of the living God.
Do what you will.
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8
“But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” 1 Corinthians 14:38
LikeLike
Seven Easy Ways to Tell the True Bible from the False bibles
http://brandplucked.webs.com/truebible.htm
LikeLike
Hi Andrew. The only thing it will prove is that you now are a lying Bible mocker as well as a bible agnostic. You don’t really believe the Geneva Bible is the only inerrant and infallible words of God. You are just saying this to avoid telling us what you REALLY believe (or rather, don’t believe) about the Bible. The FACT is you do not believe that ANY Bible is the inerrant words of God and won’t take a stand on anything, so you resort to mocking.
By the way, I DO read the links that people give me. I like to know what it is they actually believe. As for your mocking references to the Geneva Bible, which I know you do not really believe is God’s inerrant words, it was just a step on the way to God’s perfect Bible – the King James Bible.
God has put the Geneva bible on the shelf. It was pretty good, but fell short of perfection for many reasons. Here are some concrete examples of the Deficiencies of the Geneva bible. You won’t read it, but maybe somebody else will, if they are really interested in looking at the facts.
The Deficiencies of the Geneva Bible
http://brandplucked.webs.com/deficientgeneva.htm
LikeLike
Will, I have deleted all of my posts in which I took to calling you names. That isn’t how a Christian should go about his business. I don’t mean to say that I shouldn’t have mocked your position, for mockery is all KJV onlyism deserves. I just mean that I shouldn’t make it personal. So I am sorry for calling you “willy” etc…But I am not sorry for ridiculing your asinine, crack pot theory about the KJV.
LikeLike
I could not be happier to see that Will has heeded my advice and posted his stuff on another blog. I see also, that he not only provided the material for the blog but also for the lone comment – which is nearly as long as the blog. That is just perfect!
LikeLike
Funny thing is, I read the KJV most of the time. I’m just not a KJV onlyist. It’s silly.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
Hi Andrew (and Paul). You say: “Funny thing is, I read the KJV most of the time. I’m just not a KJV onlyist. It’s silly.”
Andrew, the issue is not which version of the Bible you “use” or “read most of the time”. The fundamental issue is the fact that neither you, nor Paul, nor James White, nor Dan Wallace, nor most Christians today believe that ANY Bible in ANY language (including those long lost and non-existent originals) IS or ever WAS the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. That is the issue. You do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (any bible) and you do not know for sure in numerous cases what God may or may not have said in His Book. This, of course, also makes you a bible agnostic. You believe parts of some, but all of none.
And you go along with those who promote the whore’s new Vatican Versions, which I find to be highly ironic for those who profess to be of the Reformed tradition.
Now, if I am wrong about all this and am falsely accusing any of you, then all you have to do to prove me wrong is to simply SHOW us a copy of what you honestly believe is the complete (66 books in a single volume), inspired, inerrant and infallible words of God. Or give us a link to where we dan see it and then read it for ourselves to see what are the similarities and differences with whatever other Bible somebody else thinks is the inerrant words of God.
But you won’t do this, will you? And why is that? It’s because you really don’t believe God has acted in history to give any of us an absolute and 100% true standard of written truth in any book in existence on this earth.
Now if any of you think you have found a single provable error in the King James Bible that i hold in my hands (the Cambridge printing of the Holy Bible, also known as the KJV) then give us your Number One example and we can take a look at it to see if the error is in the Book or in your understanding. Not the usual laundry lists I have seen dozens of times, but your Number One Best Shot. OK? Thanks.
“In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 21:25
LikeLike
Will, I am not going to go back and forth with you anymore. If one of us actually writes a post relevant to the issue then I will be happy to engage on it. But for now, I am done enabling you to hijack Paul’s thread in the interest of riding your particular theological hobby horse.
I will ask you this, as food for thought; but I will not engage with you on this thread anymore. Why does almost every modern translation of the bible translate Colossians 2:9 better than the KJV does? Did the “fullness of the Godhead” dwell in Jesus bodily? I hope not. That would mean the Modalists are right. No, rather, the modern versions get it right when they say things like “fullness of deity” (ESV, NASB etc…) or “fullness of God’s nature” (HCSB). And yet, the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible translates it the same way as the KJV!! Keep in mind, the Douay-Rheims Bible predates the KJV. So why does your only inerrant word of God on earth agree with the Church of Rome? I thought we had the Vatican versions and you the only pure bible on earth? I guess not.
See, anybody can take an irrelevancy and turn it into a conspiracy. If it weren’t the easiest thing on earth to do about 80% of the internet wouldn’t exist.
Good day, sir.
LikeLike
Hi Andrew. Thanks for your reply and for an actual verse to look at and compare. I guess what you mean by “your particular theological hobby horse.” is the issue of whether or not God has acted in history to give us a real, tangible, hold it in your hands and read type of complete and inerrant words of God Bible. Since I believe He did and can tell anyone where to get a copy of it, and since you do NOT believe such a thing exists, I guess you can try to make yourself feel better about your own biblical agnosticism by referring to my inerrant Bible position as “a hobby horse”.
But you actually do ask about a specific verse and I will be glad to answer it. It was one of James White’s many goofs where he criticized the King James Bible for having the word “Godhead” in Colossians 2:9. James White is wrong, as usual, and here is why. You are going to have to actually read it if you want to learn why the KJB is right. Or maybe I can post it separately and see if the moderators let it go through.
Godhead or Deity – Is James White Right?
Colossians 2:8-9
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of THE GODHEAD bodily.”
http://brandplucked.webs.com/godheaddeityschoolmast.htm
LikeLike
Will, your posts with multiple links continue to go into moderation, and I’m not letting them out because, basically, you are hijacking a thread here and life is too short to be interacting with an idealogue such as yourself.
Your basic contention is “whether or not God has acted in history to give us a real, tangible, hold it in your hands and read type of complete and inerrant words of God Bible.” Of course you must be aware of Warfield’s doctrine of inerrancy, reiterated in the Chicago statement in 1980, to the effect that, no, we don’t have “hold-in-your-hands-read-the-complete-inerrant-words” Bibles.
But in the same way that I can take John’s words that his “hands have handled” the Christ and mine have not (that is what faith is), I can take the understanding of Warfield and the Chicago statement that God has given his inerrant word, and the prophets have “held it in their hands” and that our fallible, human methods of copying manuscripts (with a great deal of care) and that God has preserved His Word for us.
While I have a great deal of respect for the King James Version, it is NOT what you say it is. You are in the same boat that we are, and this is where your rants have little effect.
The history of textual scholarship has been discussed in many places, and I had some intention of spending time and reviewing those sources, and putting up a blog post that discusses these issues. However, I’ve seen plenty of these discussions, notably at Puritanboard. Here’s one, but there are others:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/kjv-textus-receptus-onlyism-modern-reformed-community-9463/
And given the fanatical nature of your beliefs, my understanding is that you won’t take my word for it even if I research the best sources (as White and Wallace have done). In the end, my best guess is that you’ll end up calling me a liar too, and life is too short to be going through that kind of exercise. And for you to call White and Wallace liars as you have repeatedly done is out of bounds.
LikeLike
Hi, Paul. You are picking over words. What is “what we are” if not Christians? What is “what we believe in” if not the gospel of our Lord? The very “gospel” we are supposed to preach to all the nations is “good news,” and it is the person of Jesus Christ. The word “evangelize” means — and in fact, that’s the point of this message — “to tell the good news.” Now, if you had some reason to charge that by “evangelizing,” Catholics means to something over than to tell the good news of Jesus Christ, your criticism would have a point. But that is exactly what we mean, and you are just picking at words.
LikeLike
Ack. That was garbled. “Now if you had some reason to charge … Catholics mean something other than to tell the good news of Jesus Christ…” Need more coffee.
His peace be with you.
LikeLike