Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Monday, August 14, 2006

The Line of Good Bibles

Examining the Claims of KJV onlyism [pt. 9]

I continue again with my examination of the claims of KJV only advocates, or those Christians who teach that the only reliable English Bible containing the Word of God is perfectly found in the King James Bible published in 1611.

I have attempted to boil their claims down to 6 foundational arguments. With this article I come to their fourth argument, what I call The Purity Argument.

A great majority of KJV only apologists will claim that the King James represents the final, complete, purified Bible having gone through what they insist was a seven-fold purification process in the English language. This process began with the first Bibles translated into English by Wycliff and his Lollard followers, continuing to Tyndale's work, onto Coverdale's translation, then Matthew's, then the Great Bible, the Geneva translation, the Bishop's and finally the King James. King James advocates will call this the Line of Good Bibles or the Tree of Good Bibles.

Additionally, they will set up their good line of Bibles in a comparison with a list of bad Bibles. Oddly, the list of bad Bibles will include non-English texts, like the Latin Vulgate and the Alexandrian manuscripts. Moreover, the bad Bibles listed by some KJV apologists will include post-KJV English translations like the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard, the New American Standard, and the New International.

King James advocates draw their conviction for the line of good Bibles argument from Psalm 12:6,7 which reads:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Though some KJV advocates believe this Psalm is a promise from God to preserve His Word in the Masoretic Hebrew texts and the Greek Received Text, many KJV advocates point to the words "purified seven times" and believe this is a prophetic statement speaking to the published English translations leading up to the final product of the King James.

However, if KJV only apologists insist these verses are a prophetic announcement that God is providing a line of good Bibles which can be traced from the KJV back to the original, inspired text, those source texts, as well as the various translations preceding the KJV, must have the same purity or the final product will not be the genuine purified product.

What then are we to make of this "line of good Bibles" argument? I believe this argument is not only the weakest one put forth by KJV advocates, but it is also the most fantastic and contrived, and it is riddled with some serious flaws.

1) The "line of "good Bibles" begins with an inaccurate interpretation of Psalm 12:6,7.

I went into more detail about the misuse of this Psalm by KJV only proponents when I considered the Promise Argument. To summarize, KJV onlyists believe this passage is specifically promising divine preservation applied directly to the physical copies of the biblical text. They then argue that those divinely preserved copies are found in the family of original language texts used to compile the base texts of the Hebrew and Greek languages from which the King James was translated.

The problem, however, is that this Psalm is not promising a word-for-word preservation of the physical copies, so it is inaccurate for KJV apologists to use Psalm 12 as a proof text for their "line of good Bibles" argument. Allow me to consider three problematic areas.

- The context refutes this argument: The context of Psalm 12 is God's promise to keep His people Israel from being destroyed by the wicked who persecute them. The writer does not have in mind the preservation of texutal copies. Again, see my previous comments in my previous article.

- The expression, "purified seven times": The idea of a seven-fold preservation is a Hebraic expression of certainty. In other words, God can be trusted to preserve His people from being destroyed by persecutors. The reason God can be trusted is the fact that He has a proven track record. He has demonstrated His faithfulness to His people over and over by keeping the promises He made to them through the various covenants. Thus, God can be tested just like silver purified seven times to reveal its purity. The writer has no thought of a future family of English translations that will be "purified" seven times to produce a finished product.

- Note that God's WORDS are already purified: If one carefully reads the text, he or she will notice that it plainly states God's word is purified, past tense. At the point of composing the Psalm, God's word (His promises) have been shown to be faithful because they have been purified. This purification is something that has already taken place.

2) There is no standard or consistent list of the seven-fold process to determine the "line of good Bibles."

Even though KJV apologists appeal to the notion of a seven-fold process of translating a perfect English Bible, there does not exist a consistent list of the "line of good Bible" leading up to the King James. Each list may vary from author to author.

King James advocate, William Bradly, for example, provides the list of seven Bibles in his book Purified Seven Times: The Miracle of the English Bible, and names them as: Wycliff's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible, Geneva, and then the King James. He leaves out of the list the major translation the Bishop's Bible from which the King James was a revision. On the other hand, KJV defender, Ed DeVries in his book Divinely Inspired, Inerrantly Preserved, lists Wycliff's, Tyndale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible, Geneva, Bishop's and then the King James. He omits the 1535 Coverdale translation.

Some KJV apologists recognize the difficulty of fitting all those versions into the "good line" list so as to arrive at the King James being the 7th, purified as silver translation. KJV onlyist, William Grady, presents a clever solution in his book Final Authority, in which he equates the number 7 to "perfection" and 8 to "new beginnings" and asserts that the King James is erected upon the seven-fold foundation of the Wycliff, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, the Great, Geneva and the Bishop's.

It is clear that the main reason for the confusion between KJV authors concerning the seven-fold list is the fact there are more than just seven English translations before the King James. Ultimately, the reality of all those translations place the entire "line of good Bibles" in the realm of subjectivity. Rick Norris, author of The Unbound Scriptures, wrote an exhaustive study critiquing the "line of good Bibles" argument. He observes:

What consistent criteria was used to determine objectively which translations to include? It seems that KJV-only advocates cannot agree on which Bibles to include on their lists and on which Bibles to leave off. Do they start with the assumption that the KJV has to be the seventh one and then subjectively pick out six others to make their count work?

That leads me to a third problem,

3) This "line of good Bibles" argument is inconsistent with known history.

It is fairly obvious to the reader by now that there are more than just 7 English translations between Wycliff's work and the King James of 1611. If we were to start the "good line" with William Tyndale's translations, there are roughly 31 various translations published in English before the King James.

If we were to eliminate those translations of just portions of scripture (by the way, Tyndale never completed the Bible. He only translated the NT and some of the OT), there are 12 major translations published from Tyndale's work to the KJV.

Moreover, we could ask the question: Are multiple editions of one specific translation to be counted with the "line of good Bibles?" All of the translations went through many editions with the newer edition improving upon the previous ones. David Daniell notes in his monumental work, History of the English Bible, that the Geneva Bible alone had a total of 140 editions between 1575 and 1645. The King James was re-published in 1612 to correct a number of mis-spellings and other "printing errors." It saw subsequent editions way into the 1800s.

4) The "line of good Bibles" argument is inconsistent with itself and other KJV only polemics.

As I noted above, some KJV only apologists will contrast their "good line" of Bibles with a "bad line" of Bibles. They will often extend these two contrasting lines backward to include other ancient language editions and translations. Yet, in doing this, they contradict themselves and this argument.

For example, Peter Ruckman, the pope of all KJV onlyism, puts together his two contrasting lines of "good and bad" Bibles in his book, The Bible "Babel." He has the Syriac Peshitta listed in his "good line" and contends that the Peshitta contained the OT and NT as it stands in the 1611. The problem with such a bold statement is the fact that the Peshitta omits the books 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Additionally, two favorite passages of KJV advocates, John 7:53-8:11 (the woman taken in adultery) and 1 John 5:7,8 (the Trinity passage) are omitted.

Ruckman also places the Wycliff translation in his "good line." He places the Latin Vulgate in his "bad line." He fails to note that Wycliff used the Latin Vulgate to translate his work. How then can a Bible be both in the "good line" and the "bad line" at the same time?

One last example will suffice to demonstrate inconsistency. Anyone familiar with the literature of KJV only advocates knows how the authors will have a set of verse comparison charts listing how all the modern versions will omit a word here or change a passage there. One favorite passage is Luke 2:33, where the KJV reads "and Joseph and his mother marveled ..." KJV advocates argue that Joseph is distinguished from Mary because he was not really the father of Jesus. The KJV, it is argued, is protecting the doctrine of the Virgin birth. Modern Versions render the verse as "his father" or "and his parents...," which hints to Joseph being his physical father and thus undermining the Virgin birth. The KJV authors will condemn the various modern versions as "perversions" and as attacking the Deity of Christ.

However, nearly all of the pre-KJV translations listed in the "line of good Bibles" translate this passage as "his father." That includes Wycliff's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible, and Bishop's. How is it then that KJV advocates can defend their pet translation, the KJV, if it is revised from Bibles containing what they all describe as inexcusable and damnable corruption? Is not the fruit of the tree only as good as the tree itself? How can the perfect, seven-fold purified Bible be based upon previous works so obviously corrupted?

These four problematic areas of the "good line of Bibles" argument clearly reveal that it is really no argument at all. If anything, this argument only serves to ruin the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy, because it suggests God has to make at least 7 attempts before He can provide an inerrant Bible. And, does this same seven-fold rule apply to all other languages? Meaning, does God need to produce 7 Spanish translations or 7 Russian translations before those people can have a purified copy of the scriptures in their language? This argument is pure subjectivism and it is only contrived to protect the KJV presuppositions.



Blogger Jaboguitar said...

When two "Bibles" clearly contradict one another, which one becomes the final authority? If all versions are "The Word of God" yet they differ in content and doctrine, how does one determine which one is correct as there haven't been originals readily available for centuries? Isn't one excercising mental reservation by claiming to believe in the perfect Word of God when the KJV/NIV/NASV etc. all differ from each other? How can they all be the perfect Word of God? Can two things be the same that are different? Isn't the logical answer that either all versions are in error or one of them is right? If all are wrong and we don't have the perfect Word of God, how could one be assured that important doctrinal truths that God wanted us to have are not lost forever? Why is it commonly heard, "The "blank" version states it best"? Who decides which one is best? What does one compare it to since the originals were removed from the scene centuries ago? Doesn't that place the person deciding as the final authority and not God's Word? How can you place your eternal security on God's Word when there are hundreds of versions that all contradict one another? Which one is correct? Wouldn't this give merit to the book of Mormon and the Quran? How do you know that they are not the Word of God? How do you know the Catholic Bible is not the pure Word of God since it is derived from the same manuscripts as the NIV, NASV etc? If God is not even powerful enough to perfectly preserve His Word, how can you expect Him to perfectly preserve your soul? Do you really believe in the perfect Word of God?

2:19 PM, August 14, 2006  
Blogger yes2truth said...


The Word of God is Perfect, for The Word is Jesus Christ Himself.

The Truth is also Jesus Christ and to find Him in His written word we have to search and study like The Bereans.

Common sense tells us the further back in time we delve, the nearer we are going to be to the original Scriptures. This immediately disqualifies most modern translations because they only make matters worse. Men with agendas tampering with Holy Scripture. The NIV in particular.

No honest KJV reader will ever say it is without error, for Holy Scripture came through the hands of RC illegitimates via the Vulgate, before any English translator even tried to translate it. The KJV was written by Protestants and Protestants have never fully purged Rome from their religion. This means RC contaminations abound in The KJV.

This in turn leaves us with only one option, the KJV with all its errors with the support of the Hebrew OT and Greek NT. Anything else will only complicate matters more than they already are.

4:41 PM, August 14, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...


Sorry bud, but your comment on UN conspiracies has been deleted. It has been a standing rule of mine to delete comments that diverge, or in this case, spiral out of control, from the points in the blog post. My posting guidelines make this abundantly clear.

Moreover, I would appreciate it if everyone would refrain from bringing personal baggage with another blog over to this one. I happen to know the so-called rude person who moderates "waterless places" and I concur that a blogger maintains the sole right to delete any and all comments with which he may not approve. I think it is important to realize that blogging comboxes are not the place where our first amendment rights of free speech with out censorship from the government extend.

Consider a blog a person's home. Any person who thinks he or she can come into my house and help him or herself to the fridge with out protestation from me is deluded. I leave the screen door to my house unlatched, so there is some freedom to say what you wish (I also find great amusement interacting with the cadre of cranks who may stop by here), but the commenter should act in a civil manner and never assume he cannot be dismissed.

Now, you asked a relevant question in your first comment, SB, but then you went running down the path of conspiracy theory where this post did not lead you. So I have copied your relevant comment about revelation 5:7-10 here:

Allow me to bring your attention to Rev 5: 7-10 in both the KJV and the NASB. This is a prime example of the fact that these 2 Bibles differ and differ greatly and as jaboguitar correctly states-they actually contradict one another.
Can they both be the Bible? Obviously not.
In this verse, the KJV clearly has the redeemed in heaven. Redeemed Gentiles are in heaven just prior to the tribulation in Chap 6. This also proves to me the pre-trib rapture of the church. The NASB on the other hand, has the redeemed on earth. Instead of "we", the NASB refers to the redeemed as "they" and "them". Clearly these verses contradict each other and just as clearly, the NASB is wrong.(Fred, correct me if you see it differently). This is a perversion and the NIV also has the redeemed on earth. Now why does this intentional corruption of scripture exist. I believe because when the church is raptured and the apostate church remains, Satan will point to this verse as "proof" to the apostates that the rapture has not yet occured. It hasn't yet occured he will tell them because the redeemed are on earth just prior and during trib. There are several other similar perversions in the NASB that I won't get in to. Fred, if you look honestly at the verse I've cited, then you will see that they contradict. And they can't both be right and that the NASB is wrong.

I happened to have left a comment at waterless places early today responding to a person named Mark who was asking the exact same question. (You wouldn't by chance be the same person, would you?) At any rate, I will put my comment here as a response.

From Waterless places:

A few problems with your complaint (though it may be a waste of time to point this out to you):

1) You assume the infalliblity of the KJV text and thus set it as the standard by which all other translations and renderings of a particular text are judged. You do this without establishing your position of authority.

2) You are not specific as to the nature of your complaint against the so-called corrupted Bibles. You just state that they have the saints on the earth prior to the tribulation. What exactly in the text brings you to that conclusion? Is it the KJV's "we shall reign" in verse 10, or the MV's "They shall reign" that has you in a tither?

3) You don't tell us why having the saints on the earth prior to the tribulation is a necessary problem. It may be a problem if you are defending some eschatological system, say for instance pre-tribulationalism, in which case you are reading this difficulty into the modern translations because you wish to defend your particular brand of eschatology. This is not how we do Bible study Mark. A Bible translation should not be condemned as bad just because a person thinks it is taking away his or her pet doctrine. It may be that your pet doctrine is not established by the Bible to begin with.


5:17 PM, August 14, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...


It may be helpful for you for the future to avail yourself of my previous articles on this subject. They are linked in the side bar. I have 8 articles before this one that interact with your various assertions.

It may also behoove you to consider the articles I wrote early on when I started this blog that deal with inerrancy. You will also find them linked in the side bar.

If you insist that there are truly two different Bibles vying for the attention of the Christian church, that differ in content and doctrine, then you are going to have to demonstrate this clearly and distinctly. Producing a list of so-called changes and corruptions in modern versions in the vein of Gail Riplinger, is not such proof. We need some tangible, historical documentation.

Moreover, you need to show how your claims for the KJV differ from the Muslim who claims virtually the same type of preservation for the Qur'an as KJVers do for the KJV text and the original language texts that underlie it. It will also be your burden to show how you are not like Bart Erhman and the host of other higher textual critics who argue in the exact same way as you when they insist no two Bibles are a like and they all differ as to content and doctrine. Of course, Bart's et. al. conclusions in these matters are diameterically opposite the KJVers, but they still use similar argumentation to reach those conclusions (see the afore mentioned inerrancy articles).

My question would simply be: What doctrine does the KJV contain that is not found in the modern versions? D.A. Waite has been asked this question and he couldn't answer it. Or to put it another way, which modern version completely eliminates a key, foundational Christian doctrine?

I look forward to your answer.


5:31 PM, August 14, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...

I wasn't aware of blogging rules and I will try to abide by them. But let me say this, I never mentioned any conspiracy theories. I never did. All I said was one fact: the ELCA is a UN-NGO. That is not a conspiracy!!
You say the KJV has many errors. Name them. So you are saying that between 1611 and 1885 there were no inerrant English Bibles? This makes God a liar.
I'd like to comment on what you said later.

7:33 PM, August 14, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...

I am the person who left the blog. For some reason it put up my name istead of my blog name. It was beneath NWC to reply to my question. Let me reply to you though it may be a waste of my time--
1) You assume the infalliblity of the KJV text and thus set it as the standard by which all other translations and renderings of a particular text are judged. You do this without establishing your position of authority.
(Surfer) I'm just stating that the 2 contradict and differ. I'm also saying that they can't both be the Bible.

2) You are not specific as to the nature of your complaint against the so-called corrupted Bibles. You just state that they have the saints on the earth prior to the tribulation. What exactly in the text brings you to that conclusion? Is it the KJV's "we shall reign" in verse 10, or the MV's "They shall reign" that has you in a tither?
(Surfer) The KJV text states plainly that redeemed gentiles are in Heaven singing praise to Christ. The trib. hasn't yet occurred! Therefore they are there prior to tribulation. The NASB speaks for itself. It refers to the redeemed on the earth. Yes, instead of we it says them.

3.Again, it can't be denied that these verses contradict. Also, I have never seen any evidence Biblically that the church goes through Trib. Only, the KJV is consistent here in placing the church in Heaven prior to trib. The NASB has the church on earth. I see no evidence for the fact that the church goes through trib. So yes, I am saying the 2 verses contradict. And I'm saying that only the KJV is correct because I see no evidence that the church is on earth during the trib.

8:18 PM, August 14, 2006  
Blogger yes2truth said...

Hello Fred,

In answer to your comments on The KJV.

It is called The Authorised Version because it was authorised by God's annointed - King James I of England and VI of Scotland. This is no ordinary annointing and he was carrying out God's will when he gave the work his blessing.

Being an adherent of the teaching of British Israel i.e. that England/Britain, her Commonwealth and the USA are Israel, this means King James as with all British monarchs are Kings of Israel and all descended from King David. So you can see just from this perspective alone it makes the KJV very special indeed. The British and American people are The Bible People.

That said, it does not alter the fact and historical evidence that papist illegitimates corrupted God's Word and worse, hid it in their language of the Devil - Latin, for hundreds of years thereby depriving ordinary folks access to The Truth. This is why we call them the dark ages.

OK, the errors within the KJV are numerous and I will quote two or three just for this exercise.

1 John 5:7-8 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth."

This verse is a Roman Catholic addition and is not any Greek original MS bar one. It is even discounted in my NIV Interlinear, now there's a revelation! This addition has perpetuated the trinity lie for generations and hidden the true Dual nature of the Godhead - Father and Son with The Holy Spirit as their power. The Holy Spirit is not a person of a closed trinity.

Phil 2:12 "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

This verse is poorly translated and does not mean 'salvation by works' but rather fear caused by persecution in the first century.

1 Tim 1:15 "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."

This verse is in present tense when it should be in past tense. Paul was chief of sinners before his conversion. If we read it as written it gives the impression that Paul is still chief of sinners - a nonsense.

There are many more such examples which I will share with you, if you wish.


2:18 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger Jaboguitar said...

Thank you Fred. We are obviously on different ends on the spectrum on this issue. I am a Bible believer while you are not. I believe God has perfectly preserved His Word just as He said he would and I will be the last one to call Him a liar. However unintelligent I may seem to the "textual critic", I do believe the King James to be free from error and the perfect Word of God. I just serve a bigger God than you do. He can preserve His Word. I pray God gives you many souls today for your witnessing efforts.

4:27 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger Jaboguitar said...

Thank you for your sidestepping response Fred. For once I would just like to have someone plainly state, "I don't believe we have the complete and inerrant Word of God as God was unable to preserve His written Word." Again, I am a Bible believer while you clearly are not. While it may seem ridiculous to the "textual critic" to believe in the perfect Word of God, I myself believe that God is not a liar. My God is bigger than the god you serve and He can perfectly preserve His Word in the universal language. I do believe the Authorized Version to be the perfect Word of God in English today. It will serve no purpose to list for you the hundreds of doctrinal contradictions between the Bibles as you clearly have all of the answers, however, if you would like a list of books for reference I would be glad to provide those for you. My guess is that you already know what they are yet continue to remain willingly ignorant. I have found it impossible, even when the proof is in black and white, to convince modern critics of their error due to the pride in their hearts. There is always an excuse. It is much similar to discussing Biblical truth with an atheist. Pride forces them to ignore all laws of science simply because they are unable to accept the fact that they must answer to a higher power. Much like the textual critic today cannot accept the fact that final authority resides in God's Word and not in their interpretation. May God provide you many souls for your witnessing efforts today as I know you must be a devout street preaching, soul winning, tract distributing Christian. Did you hand out a tract to the cashier the last time you went to the store? Be honest.....

4:46 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger Jaboguitar said...

Also, are you stating that as long as a doctrine exists somewhere within a Bible version that it is then acceptable and within reason to change it or completely omit it elsewhere? That seems like faulty logic or in better terms an excuse.

5:26 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

SB writes:

I wasn't aware of blogging rules and I will try to abide by them.

(Fred) Go to the very top of my side bar and you will find a link there that will take you to some basic rules of curtesy and conduct for my blog.

But let me say this, I never mentioned any conspiracy theories. I never did. All I said was one fact: the ELCA is a UN-NGO. That is not a conspiracy!!

(Fred) The conspiracy is that you imply there is something nefarious and satanic about the ELCA being a non-governmental organization. The further implication is that the people involved with the ECLA are trying to cover up that fact or hide it from the general Christian public. This is not the case.

Still the same, I deleted your stuff because it was irrelvant to the blog topic and it seemed as though you were attempting to trash talk another blog with mine.

In relation to Revelation 5:10

(Surfer) I'm just stating that the 2 contradict and differ. I'm also saying that they can't both be the Bible.
The KJV text states plainly that redeemed gentiles are in Heaven singing praise to Christ. The trib. hasn't yet occurred! Therefore they are there prior to tribulation. The NASB speaks for itself. It refers to the redeemed on the earth. Yes, instead of we it says them.

(Fred) Well, looking at the context more closely, the antecedent to verses 9 and 10 are the vials full of odors, which are the prayers of the saints (vs. 8). It looks like the prayers of the saints are that which gives praise to God for redeeming his people with the blood of the lamb. Their location, whether in heaven or on earth is irrelevant. I believe you are reading bug-a-bears into the text of the NASB

3.Again, it can't be denied that these verses contradict. Also, I have never seen any evidence Biblically that the church goes through Trib. Only, the KJV is consistent here in placing the church in Heaven prior to trib. The NASB has the church on earth. I see no evidence for the fact that the church goes through trib. So yes, I am saying the 2 verses contradict. And I'm saying that only the KJV is correct because I see no evidence that the church is on earth during the trib.

(Fred) Contradict is a rather strong word. It would be more precise to say there is a textual variant here and the reasonable way to determine which variant is the more proper reading is to weigh them according to some principles of textual criticism. Again, I believe you are reading your pre-tribulationalism into the text to make the determination for the KJV, but like I point out in my previous comment, you are assuming your eschatological take on Revelation is the correct one. From my observation, you are coming to the text of Revelation with a mind set of pre-tribulational, premillennialism, assuming it is the only correct eschatological understanding of the Bible, and making Revelation fit your model. This is not how we do Bible study.


6:08 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...


Where exactly did you go to seminary? I take it you are versed in the original languages?


6:12 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Hey JG,

I take it that you went back and read my previous articles I mentioned before you posted? You are a pretty fast reader. I admire that.

As for street preaching and soul winning, the fundamentalists perversion of biblical evangelism and discipleship; when was the last time you handed a tract to a cashier and he or she read it, repented of his or her sin and then you spent a good year discipling the person, getting in his or her life, helping the person re-order his or her life to be conformed to the image of Christ? Moreover, how many of those cashiers you have handed a tract to actually came to genuinely know Christ and is still walking with him to this day? 50? 10? How about just 5?

Oh yeah, that's right, soul winners are hit and run artists. Throw someone a tract, manipulate him into repeating a canned prayer, and cut another soul winning notch on your belt. So much for fundamentalist soul winnin'.


6:20 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger Pickle Boy said...

When I read the comments in here, it reinforces my conviction that KJVO's do more harm to the credibility and reliability of scripture than anyone else. In their effort to defend a perfect, inerrant KJV, they actually do just the opposite by creating the same doubts about all Bibles as does Bart Erhman. They equate textual variants as well as variations in translation of words as contradictions and error.

Theirs is a false dichotomy, and an all-or-nothing approach to matters of certainty regarding the text of scripture that has been handed down to us over thousands of years. In their zeal for perfect certainty about EVERY word, they actually propogate dangerous and unnecessary uncertainty about the core beliefs of the Christian faith.

7:50 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger yes2truth said...

Hello Fred,

You said:


Where exactly did you go to seminary? I take it you are versed in the original languages?"

I went to the same 'seminary' as the twelve disciples, who became Apostles when they were Born Again.

I am a Spirit Born Son of God and have no need of seminaries.


8:56 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger Jaboguitar said...

After reading your profile I understand your defense of a worldly and watered down version of the Word of God. Your choice of music speaks volumes (Police? Rush?). Modern versions are embraced by liberal, modern Christianity and produce carnal Christians. The Authorized Version (two edged sword) cuts too deep for you to accept. You must find a "Bible" that fits into your lifestyle and isn't too abrasive. I understand now. This is the last message I will post. I will be praying for your conviction on both this issue and that of separation from the world.

9:35 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger yes2truth said...

Question for Pickle Boy

What are the 'core beliefs' of The Christian Faith, in your opinion?


9:45 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Don't let the screen door bump your fanny. Just leave us libertines alone with our concubines.


9:59 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger D.J. Cimino said...

Great article Fred. I have really benefited from these KJV posts, you... you... bible believer! :)

10:09 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger D.J. Cimino said...

jabo, don't you know that blogging is worldly? I mean everyone's doing it...

10:15 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...

How can you say the location of the saints is irrelevant. Whether saints are in heaven or on earth just prior to trib. is very relevant. And they do contradict.
The main point is that in the KJV, the singing saints refer to themselves as the redeemed (in Heaven). In the NASB, those in heaven singing refer to the redeemed as them (on earth).
I think you are trying to be too clever. The only scenario consistent with scripture is that the redeemed are in Heaven just prior to trib. The redeemed can't be on earth during the trib.

Now let me comment on your statement that people involved with the ELCA are not trying to hide or coverup their association with the UN from the general Christian public. Do you really believe that? Their association with the UN, I don't believe, is mentioned on the ELCA website. I doubt that this assoc. is mentioned on their letterhead. You don't see "A UN affiliate" displayed on any of their churches for the public to see. And I know that the SBC wants its assoc. with the UN kept as quiet as possible. The fact that myself and others are mocked by people like NWC for just stating these facts shows that these associations aren't generally known to even pastors or seminary grads. I don't think you'll deny that these assoc. are kept hush hush. And they are kept quiet for good reason-no true Christian would knowingly tolerate his church being associated with the UN. Now having said that, allow me one personal note--when I was a young boy I had to "trick or treat for UNICEF" for my United Methodist church. Through my efforts, my church was funding the UN. And of course, the UMC is another NGO. But still, these associations aren't well known or well understood especially the SBC/UN assoc. I would like it very much if Christians would stop mocking those who merely mention these associations. I believe the denominations have been long subverted. But I don't want to go any further off topic here.

Why didn't you comment on the fact that Y2T is a British Israelite who believes that all the British monarchs are kings of Israel and descendants of King David? Why did you let that slide? This is called British-Israelism and this theory has been propagated to a large extent by Herbert W Armstrong and his ally, Gene Scott. I used to believe this myself to an extent. I have now come to see that this is a Satanic deception. The British monarchs aren't in the lineage of King David but are rather in the lineage of the Satanic House of David which is also called the Merevingian line. This is the Satanic lineage that has been the subject of Holy Blood Holy Grail and the Da vinci Code. This is the lineage that the anti-christ comes from. Who they want us to believe will have the blood of Satan and Christ. So I have come to learn that British Israelism is a Satanic deception that is being used to ready the public for antichrist.
Y2t also believes that the verse in 1 John perpetuates "the trinity lie". So you say the Godhead has a dual nature? Fred, why did you not comment on this? Y2t states that the Holy Spirit is not a person in the trinity.
You haven't convinced me of any errors in the KJV. Paul is saying that he is the chief of sinners. That is not a lie and it doesn't negate his conversion. If I murdered someone before my conversion, then I am still a murderer after my conversion. Paul both was and is the chief of sinners.

10:22 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

The comments are quickly going off topic, so I have had to delete a few.

This is a post addressing either KJV onlyism generally, or the line of good Bibles argument specifically. It is not a post on British Iraelitism, Armstrongism, secondary separation, or the UN-NGOs.

I am planning a post on the spiritual detriment of conspiracy theories on the spiritual life of Christians, so you can hold your comments until then.


11:23 AM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...


Why not allow comments that pertain to or correct other comments? Why not just let it go?
The original topic was KJV onlyism and then y2t made a comment that King James was an Israeli King because he believes in British Israelism. This is a belief among some. (Gene Scott pushed this belief for 100 hours on local TV.) So I tried to correct him. These comments seem like a natural progression. Would it be terrible if the comments then turned to British Israelism? I didn't bring it up, but it is a valid concern because this man, y2t, believes the US and Britain
are Israel. As long as a comment pertains to another comment, I think it should be allowed. Do all blog sites have to stick with the original topic?

4:04 PM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Well, Surfer,
Y2T comments went beyond discussing King James to promoting a British cult. One of the other rules I have is not to allow my blog to become a platform for cultic propaganda. It is one thing to deal with KJV only cranks, it is quite another to deal with pseudo-Christian cult members.


6:52 PM, August 15, 2006  
Blogger Bible Discernment said...

The Bible is under attack from all sides. Satan knows it tells the truth about him, the victory that Jesus had at the cross, and what will happen in the future. As such, Satan has and still is making every attempt to destroy the Word of God. What better way to do this, than to change the meaning of the Bible over time with different bible versions; each version as it comes along claiming it is the truth and the most accurate of all the versions up until that point.
The line must be drawn where we say, "If the King James Bible was good enough for 400 years, then it is still good enough for me." For by it men and women have been saved and the knowledge of God imparted unto them. When new bible versions come along, they always take something away that is never replaced, only to be lost forever. If you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then stand up for it. Take a stand and speak out against these new bible versions. An objection often raised against the "King James Only Crowd" is that people learn something from the other (modern) versions, too, and that some even get saved: but I dare say that this occurs in spite of these errant versions, not because of them!
The Authorized Version of 1611, or, in other words, the King James Bible, stands alone in its uniqueness, integrity, and fidelity to the truthfulness of God’s Word. Among reasons why this writer holds this conviction is because of the great harm done not only to the Word of God, but the detriment wrought in the local church in its public worship, and, of course, because of the confusion created in countless group and individual Bible studies. After all, it could be said: How do you think your professor would think or feel if all of his students used different textbooks in his class?! In our case, God is our Great Professor! He alone is the one true God, who has walked among us upon this earth and left us the living and enduring legacy of His Word and His Spirit. Until He comes, Amen.

12:44 PM, October 06, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I respond to Bible Discerner here.


7:27 AM, October 13, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home