Every Man For Himself Bible Versionism

[brandplucked]

I'm aware of the type of information you provided, I'm just not gullible enough to believe it. 1 John 5:7 is not "missing" from modern translations, it is "added" in the KJV. Big difference.

Well Jig, since you consider yourself a man of integrity and intelligence, are you willing to Fess Up about what you personally believe about "the Bible"? Do you believe like Hen does? That all bibles have errors in them and that only the originals were inspired? What IS your not gullible belief? Would you mind being up front and telling us whether or not you personally believe there is such a thing out there in print that you honestly believe is the complete, inspired and 100% historically and doctrinally true Bible in any language that is the infallible words of God, and that any version that differs from it in both text or meaning is to that degree wrong?

By rejecting 1 John 5:7 as being true Scripture you have already eliminated a great many bible translations from the list of potential true Bibles. So, what have you got to replace the King James Bible with?

Or are you one of those mystical, imaginary, change at any moment, nothing is sure types who likes the philosophical concept of an infallible bible but does not in fact have one?

Will K

 

[Jig]

Well Jig, since you consider yourself a man of integrity and intelligence, are you willing to Fess Up about what you personally believe about "the Bible"? Do you believe like Hen does? That all bibles have errors in them and that only the originals were inspired?

I have read your many posts on this thread and it seems you are being overly flippant. Knowing that you will reject my position without truly giving it reasonable consideration I'll still oblige you with a response. I have no qualms with revealing my personal beliefs.

You are correct. I hold to the theological position of the verbal plenary inspiration of the original autographs.

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science is that the Hebrew and Greek texts appear to be amazingly well preserved. We are amply justified in affirming a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely defect-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographic text. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). Wouldn't you agree?

What IS your not gullible belief? Would you mind being up front and telling us whether or not you personally believe there is such a thing out there in print that you honestly believe is the complete, inspired and 100% historically and doctrinally true Bible in any language that is the infallible words of God, and that any version that differs from it in both text or meaning is to that degree wrong?

The original autographs are no more. We currently do not have a word-for-word identical text to what the Biblical authors wrote. But thanks to the textual criticism we can be confident that the critical texts we have available today are extremely close to what the originals held. The majority of differences are grammatical differences and word placements. No major doctrine or dogma of our faith is challenged by such trivial variations.

By rejecting 1 John 5:7 as being true Scripture you have already eliminated a great many bible translations from the list of potential true Bibles. So, what have you got to replace the King James Bible with?

On a personal level, I enjoy reading from the NASB95.

Or are you one of those mystical, imaginary, change at any moment, nothing is sure types who likes the philosophical concept of an infallible bible but does not in fact have one?

Will K

?

 

[brandplucked]

You are correct. I hold to the theological position of the verbal plenary inspiration of the original autographs.

Hi Jig. Well, I at least want to thank you for your honesty in part. Honesty in that you at least are willing to admit that you do not believe that any Bible around today is the infallible words of God. That is in fact what most Christians today believe, but you at least are willing to admit it.


Now, in my opinion, here is the part where you go off the tracks.

You state:

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science is that the Hebrew and Greek texts appear to be amazingly well preserved. We are amply justified in affirming a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely defect-free.

Well, I DO believe God has promised to preserve His words and that there is such a thing as "the book of the LORD".

Is King James Bible Onlyism Scriptural?

KJB Onlyism Scriptural? - Another King James Bible Believer

Your so called "science" of textual criticism is a joke and your modern versions that primarily follow the ever changing Critical (condition) texts do not agree with one another, OFTEN reject the clear Hebrew readings, and are constantly changing their texts. This has resulted in the widespread unbelief in the Infallibility of the Scriptures that we see all around us today.

"Science" of textual criticism? You have got to be kidding, right?

It's not science; it's far more like Hocus Pocus.

"Science" of text crit - Another King James Bible Believer

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographic text.

Jig. Think about what you are saying here. Since you have never seen a single word of the autographic text a day in your life, how could you possibly know if the King James Bible is "an additional step away" or not? You have no originals to compare it to and your "science" of text crit is all over the board with no consensus even remotely in sight.

Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). Wouldn't you agree?

I would agree that a person can get saved using uninspired and fallible versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV or even a simple Bible track, because the gospel of salvation through faith in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of Christ is still in them. I have no problem with that. But the fact is, NOBODY defends any modern version as the infallible words of God (and rightly so) and most Christians today believe them less and less and read them less and less.

The original autographs are no more. We currently do not have a word-for-word identical text to what the Biblical authors wrote. But thanks to the textual criticism we can be confident that the critical texts we have available today are extremely close to what the originals held. The majority of differences are grammatical differences and word placements. No major doctrine or dogma of our faith is challenged by such trivial variations.

Uh, Jig. This simply is not true. Your modern versions reject or add to the Hebrew texts in numerous places and not even in the same places. The Bible texts used today are NOT "extremely close" since they differ among themselves by anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses in just the New Testament and by the omission (or addition) of some 3000 words for the N.T. and hundreds of very different meanings in the verses they do have. I can document all of this.

Are Bible Versions 99% the same?
Are Bibles 99.5% same? - Another King James Bible Believer

No major doctrine affected? This simply is not true.

"No Doctrines Are Changed?"
NoDoctrineChanged - Another King James Bible Believer

On a personal level, I enjoy reading from the NASB95.

Again, I appreciate the fact that at least you are willing to narrow down to some degree what you are reading and using as your bible.

The NASB continues to change it's underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as well as to radically alter its English text from one edition to the next. The 1995 NASB removed some 7000 words that were found in the 1977 NASB. The NASB teaches that God was deceived by mortal men in Psalm 78:36, rejects many clear Hebrew readings and has several false doctrines in it. You of course are free to read it, but not even you believe it is the infallible words of God. At what point does God start to tell the 100% truth in your NASB?

The Ever Changing NASBs

ever changing NASBs - Another King James Bible Believer

As for most Christians today not believing in the 100% truthfulness of "The Bible", this is only going to get worse as we get closer to the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ - not better. There will come a falling away from the faith and men will turn away their ears from the truth and be turned unto fables and doctrines of devils.

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

God bless,

Will Kinney

 

[Jig]

Hi Jig. Well, I at least want to thank you for your honesty in part. Honesty in that you at least are willing to admit that you do not believe that any Bible around today is the infallible words of God. That is in fact what most Christians today believe, but you at least are willing to admit it.

You still are carrying around an attitude of superiority. Your pride in this supposed "truer" knowledge is evident throughout your posting. I feel that you are not conducting yourself with an aura of Christ-likeness in this debate.

It might be argued (as you have brought up) that my position's definition of the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy (pertaining to only the autographs) directs attention away from the authority of our present texts. This is truly a failure on our (my theological camp) part to emphasize the authority of our present texts and translations as we should.

The authority of the Bible is established by its own claims. The Bible is the book of God's infallible truth. As long as this truth is transmitted, this truth stays infallible. This does not dictate that a copy or translation be an exact carbon copy, just that its "meaning" be preserved. This is clearly seen in the various language translations of the Bible. A German Bible and a French Bible (though using different words) have the same preserved "meaning".

I believe this to be true of most (but certainly not all) English translations and Greek/Hebrew critical texts. They are authoritative without being a perfectly precise replica of the autographic source because they continue to carry God's infallible truth within their pages.

"Science" of textual criticism? You have got to be kidding, right?

It's not science; it's far more like Hocus Pocus.

It appears you may not properly understand textual criticism. I apologize for only skimming the notes in the link you provided, but since they directly stem from you (being your website) - which is by itself a grossly bias source to be providing in the first place - I want to ask you a couple questions about the information within.

Do the website notes discuss and critique the specific techniques used to preform textual criticism OR is it dealing with specific results that have been created by the work of textual critics?

I'd be interested in knowing which techniques of textual criticism you find irrational to use and why.

Jig. Think about what you are saying here. Since you have never seen a single word of the autographic text a day in your life, how could you possibly know if the King James Bible is "an additional step away" or not?

Because it is written in English. The very fact that it is a translation proves this. Translating between two languages has inherent difficulties, some are not reconcilable.

There are some particular problems in the translation process such as problems of ambiguity, problems that originate from structural and lexical differences between languages and multi-word units like idioms and collocations. Another problem would be the grammar because there are several constructions of grammar poorly understood, in the sense that it isn't clear how they should be represented, or what rules should be used to describe them. Besides, some words are untranslatable when one wishes to remain in the same grammatical category.

Any translation is of the Bible is going to place us "an additional step away" from the originals obviously. Be it the KJV or the NASB.

You have no originals to compare it to and your "science" of text crit is all over the board with no consensus even remotely in sight.

I find it odd you would say this. Then how do you know that the King James Version's underlying majority Greek and Hebrew texts are accurate? What do you compare them with if the originals no longer exist?

Uh, Jig. This simply is not true. Your modern versions reject or add to the Hebrew texts in numerous places and not even in the same places.

Let's turn the tables again: Without the original autographs to compare these versions with, how do you know what was properly and rightly added or rejected?

I don't have a problem with this because I properly understand and have reasonable confidence that the critical texts provided by textual criticism are pretty darn close to the originals. You, however, doubt this. While I have something to compare by Bible version with...you're left standing with nothing to compare your KJV too.

No major doctrine affected? This simply is not true.

Are any of the beliefs in the Apostle's Creed affected by these slight varations? Are any doctrines concerning salvation affected?

OR are you talking about non-salvific dogma?

The Ever Changing NASBs

I like to use the word "improvement" instead of change.

 

[Zeek]

Hi Zaz, The King James Bible believers are not the ones responsible for the widespread unbelief in the Infallibility of the Bible by so many Christians today. If you yourself do not believe that any Bible in any language IS or ever was the complete, 66 book in one volume, 100% true words of God (and I am sure that you do not) and that "only" the originals were inspired, and that all bibles have errors in them (and this is what Hen believes and you too for that matter) then you will naturally take offense at the Bible believer pointing this out to you.

So you will whine and cry and complain that we are just plain nasty folks who like to stir up trouble, while you bible buffet version guys are all sweetness and light and it's perfectly OK for you all to gang up on God's Book (the King James Holy Bible) and point out what you think are "errors", but let a true Bible believer come around and take a stand on the promises of God to give us "the book of the LORD" and know where to find it, and you all cry "Foul".

Truth will always divide. The division today is between those who believe in the Infallibility of the Bible and those (like you) who do not. You just don't like this being pointed out to you in plain language.

Will Kinney

Brand...I was not anticipating a reply, but feel somewhat compelled.

I have argued and debated with brethren and others on different levels many times, and a good argument has never bothered me one bit, I am happy to imitate the Apostle Paul...I like it when people tell it how it is, and are not afraid to nail their flag to the mast. You have no clue to what versions I read or why, and you are certainly no prophet.

In actual fact I think much of what you say is both compelling and challenging up to a point, otherwise people wouldn't bother debating you on the subject...my objection purely as an observer, was to the uncharitable strident attitude you display, which speaks volumes...sometimes a person can be so right, they are wrong, in other words, much of what they say may be true, but their method of communication disqualifies their message. If you want to get milk from a cow, then kicking it is a pretty ineffective method.

I can understand your passion, but it comes across more as a fixation, almost a sort of religious fetish, that you wield like a cudgel at any that will engage you and join in the 'fun'. I have debated with many other brethren that are as fixated about the AKJV as you are (these true Bible Believers), and without exception they are more fervent about demonstrating how right they are in their personal choice of Bible translation, and how wrong everyone else is who may use a different Bible or a number of Bibles...than attempting to keep the bond of unity that is in Messiah.

I strongly disagree with some of my Catholic and Orthodox brethren, but I can tell you, with many of them in spite of our marked differences, there is still a bond of unity....whereas you seem 100% determined to become a martyr to your own cause, and happily create schism and spout your opinions (because that is all they are) about people who differ from you, without even evidencing how they live their lives before the Father. These things should not be...and demonstrate a self-righteous judgmental spirit.

I have no problem recognising you as my brother in the L-rd, but at the same time, because I read the things you have posted, I could not keep silent about your bombastic attitude because it is such a poor witness to the Body of Messiah. In Him. Zazal

 

[brandplucked]

You still are carrying around an attitude of superiority. Your pride in this supposed "truer" knowledge is evident throughout your posting. I feel that you are not conducting yourself with an aura of Christ-likeness in this debate.

Hi Jig. Well of course the belief I have in the existence of an infallible Bible is superior to your position of unbelief regarding the existence of God's preserved words in a real and tangible Bible we can hold in our hands, read and believe every word. It is only natural to your position of "originals only" (Thus, NO infallible Bible NOW) that this would seem like pride and presumption to you.



Jig continues:

It might be argued (as you have brought up) that my position's definition of the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy (pertaining to only the autographs) directs attention away from the authority of our present texts. This is truly a failure on our (my theological camp) part to emphasize the authority of our present texts and translations as we should.

Brother, the very essence of your bible agnostic (no reading is sure; anything can change on a moments notice) position is that NO Bible in any language IS the infallible words of God. That is why the majority of present day Christians no longer hold to the infallibility of Scripture.

Which of your "wonderful new translations that say the same thing but in different words" got this small sampling right?

Which of these are the inerrant and 100% true words of the living God? You can just pick one of the examples if you like and we can talk about it.

“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 10:17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET), 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 - RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Holman), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV), 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) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV, Holman), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV), or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!; 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV, NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman), or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, Holman) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET) or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac) or 110,000 gallons (Holman) or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read THREE years old (Hebrew texts, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET) or THIRTY years old (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”) or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV ESV 2001 edition) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV, Holman, NET).

All modern bible versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman Standard,etc. often reject the clear Hebrew readings and not even in the same places. These are undeniable facts. Here are many examples:

NIV, NASB reject Hebrew - Another King James Bible Believer

NIV,NASB reject Hebrew2 - Another King James Bible Believer

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will K

 

[Hentenza]

You really ought to get your information from a more diverse and unbiased source. I guess you think that Will Kinney is infallible also.

 

[brandplucked]

It appears you may not properly understand textual criticism. I apologize for only skimming the notes in the link you provided, but since they directly stem from you (being your website) - which is by itself a grossly bias source to be providing in the first place - I want to ask you a couple questions about the information within.

Do the website notes discuss and critique the specific techniques used to preform textual criticism OR is it dealing with specific results that have been created by the work of textual critics?

I'd be interested in knowing which techniques of textual criticism you find irrational to use and why.

Hi Jig. That you supposedly "skimmed" my article on the "science" of textual criticism and can still ask these questions as to why I believe it is more Hocus Pocus is quite interesting.

Did you see what Wilbur Pickering said?

Here it is again.

Is this "Science" or Hocus-Pocus?

Most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV (the 2001 English Standard Version) are based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, which omits or substitutes some 5000 words and many whole verses from the New Testament Greek text that the King James Bible is derived from.

The W-H text is based primarily on two manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two texts disagree significantly with each other, let alone with the vast majority of all other texts, in over 3000 places in the gospels alone, and over 1000 times in the rest of the New Testament. Yet they form the textual basis of most modern bible versions.

Bruce Metzger, the chief editor of the United Bible Society eclectic critical Greek text, says, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence." B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 210.

A cursory review of the writings of textual scholars suggests that Metzger's "in some cases" is decidedly an understatement. In fact, even the same scholars will vacillate, as demonstrated by the "more than five hundred changes" introduced into the third edition of the Greek text produced by the United Bible Societies as compared with the second edition. The same committee of five editors prepared both!!!

W. M. Pickering significantly notes that in the space of three years (1975-1978), "with no significant addition of new evidence, the same group of five scholars changed their minds in over five hundred places. It is hard to resist the suspicion that they are just guessing." - The Identity of the New Testament Text, revised edition, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, p. 209, footnote 5 for chapter 1.

In case you are under the impression that all bibles are 99% the same, I highly recommend you take a look at this site called Westcott and Hort's magic marker. There are two parts to this, but it is very easy to follow and will probably shock you to actually see just how different the two basic New Testament texts really are.

Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2)

 

[Hentenza]

Here is another translation error in the KJV.

Songs of Solomon 2:12
12The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;

Turtles do not have voices and are not birds. The Hebrew word is הַתֹּ֖ור which means turtledove not turtle.

 

[Hentenza]

Here is yet another translation error in the KJV.

Leviticus 12:8
8And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

I guess according to the KJV translators it was OK to change the Law of Moses. It is NOT two turtles that they could bring but 2 turtledoves. As a matter of fact, when Mary presented Jesus to the temple and brought her motherhood offering it was two turtledoves that she brought not two turtles (Luke 2:24). The KJV translators got it right in the Luke passage.

Between the turtles and the unicorns it seems that the KJV translators could not get their animals straight.

 

[brandplucked]

Here is another error in the KJV.

Songs of Solomon 2:12
12The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;

Turtles do not have voices and are not birds. The Hebrew word is הַתֹּ֖ור which means turtledove not turtle.

Hi Hen. You got this straight from James White's goofy book, didn't you. Can't you guys ever find something on your own? Are you now going to go through James White's whole book for us, as though this man actually knew what he is talking about. I guess so. You guys just skip from one silly example to the next, always trying to hide the simple FACT that not one of you believes in the Infallibility of "The Bible", but pretending that you actually have some kind of Final Authority other than your own mind and understanding.

THE TURTLE

= turtledove

James White, in his book the King James Only Controversy, pokes fun at the King James Bible's use of the word "turtle" when referring to the turtledove. Mr. White says on page 235 in the section titled Problems in the KJV: "This is almost as humorous as Song of Songs 2:12, "The flowers appear on the earth: the time of the singing of the birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land." Then Mr. White comments: "Turtles are not known for their voices, and how these would be connected with flowers and the singing of birds is unknown. Of course, the passage is not referring to turtles at all, but to the turtledove, as the modern translations recognize."

Mr. White himself does not believe any Bible in any language or any text, be it Hebrew or Greek, is the preserved, inspired words of God. Mr. White also works for the NASB committee and apparently doesn't mind representing a version like the NASB that says God can be deceived in Psalms 78:36, or that God doesn't take away life in 2 Samuel 14:14; or that there are two Gods, one not seen and one begotten in John 1:18; or that Jonah was not swallowed by a whale but by a "sea monster" in Matthew 12:40. Likewise, the NASB departs from the Hebrew texts scores of times and is continually changing its underlying Greek texts from one edition to the next; but he does have a bee in his bonnet with the KJB's use of the word "turtle" instead of turtledove.

Such are the ways of those who attack God's pure words as found in the King James Holy Bible.

Here are a few facts James may not be aware of. The Hebrew word is translated both as turtle and turtledove in the King James Bible and several others too. One of the meanings of the word turtle is a turtledove, and the context always indicates that we are speaking about a bird and not the shelled reptile.

Here is another example of context clearly showing the Bible is speaking of a bird when it uses the word turtle. In Jeremiah 8:7 we read: "Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the TURTLE and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the LORD."

It may surprise Mr. White, but not only does the King James Bible say "turtle" in the Song of Solomon 2:12 and in Jeremiah 8:7 but so also do Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, the Revised Version 1885, the Calvin Bible 1855, the Lesser Bible 1853, J.B. Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, The Jewish Publication Society's 1917 translation, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company's "The Holy Scriptures", Young's literal translation, the Douay-Rheims, the 1950 Douay version, the1994 KJV 21st Century version, the 1998 Third Millenium Bible, the 2000 Holy Scriptures Jubilee Bible, and the 2001 Urim-Thummin Version.

Smith's Bible Dictionary

Turtle, turtledove Turtur auritus (Heb. tor ). The name is phonetic, evidently derived from the plaintive cooing of the bird.

Some dictionaries do not even list "turtle", meaning the turtledove, as archaic.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary Tur"tle noun. Anglo Saxon. turtle, L. turtur; probably of imitative origin. (Zoöl.) The turtledove.

Definitions from The Online Plain Text English Dictionary: Turtle * (n.) Any one of the numerous species of Testudinata, especially a sea turtle, or chelonian. * (n.) The curved plate in which the form is held in a type-revolving cylinder press. *(n.) The turtledove.

A similar word in English that can have several meanings is the simple word cow. When we say cow, are we referring to the bovine creature that gives milk, or to a whale, a seal or an elephant? The context will usually tell us which one is meant. In every case where the word "turtle" is used in the King James Bible and all the others listed that have come both before and after the King James Bible, it is clear that the bird also known as the turtle dove is intended. Mr. White is again straining at gnats and mocking the time tested word of God as found in the King James Bible.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will K

 

[Hentenza]

Hi Hen. You got this straight from James White's goofy book, didn't you. Can't you guys ever find something on your own?

lol. I got it from scripture not from James White. BTW- Funny that you accuse me of finding something on my own when all the majority of your links are from one blog and the others from biased sources.

 

[Hentenza]

Hi Hen. You got this straight from James White's goofy book, didn't you. Can't you guys ever find something on your own? Are you now going to go through James White's whole book for us, as though this man actually knew what he is talking about. I guess so. You guys just skip from one silly example to the next, always trying to hide the simple FACT that not one of you believes in the Infallibility of "The Bible", but pretending that you actually have some kind of Final Authority other than your own mind and understanding.

THE TURTLE

= turtledove

James White, in his book the King James Only Controversy, pokes fun at the King James Bible's use of the word "turtle" when referring to the turtledove. Mr. White says on page 235 in the section titled Problems in the KJV: "This is almost as humorous as Song of Songs 2:12, "The flowers appear on the earth: the time of the singing of the birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land." Then Mr. White comments: "Turtles are not known for their voices, and how these would be connected with flowers and the singing of birds is unknown. Of course, the passage is not referring to turtles at all, but to the turtledove, as the modern translations recognize."

Mr. White himself does not believe any Bible in any language or any text, be it Hebrew or Greek, is the preserved, inspired words of God. Mr. White also works for the NASB committee and apparently doesn't mind representing a version like the NASB that says God can be deceived in Psalms 78:36, or that God doesn't take away life in 2 Samuel 14:14; or that there are two Gods, one not seen and one begotten in John 1:18; or that Jonah was not swallowed by a whale but by a "sea monster" in Matthew 12:40. Likewise, the NASB departs from the Hebrew texts scores of times and is continually changing its underlying Greek texts from one edition to the next; but he does have a bee in his bonnet with the KJB's use of the word "turtle" instead of turtledove.

Such are the ways of those who attack God's pure words as found in the King James Holy Bible.

Here are a few facts James may not be aware of. The Hebrew word is translated both as turtle and turtledove in the King James Bible and several others too. One of the meanings of the word turtle is a turtledove, and the context always indicates that we are speaking about a bird and not the shelled reptile.

Here is another example of context clearly showing the Bible is speaking of a bird when it uses the word turtle. In Jeremiah 8:7 we read: "Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the TURTLE and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the LORD."

It may surprise Mr. White, but not only does the King James Bible say "turtle" in the Song of Solomon 2:12 and in Jeremiah 8:7 but so also do Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, the Revised Version 1885, the Calvin Bible 1855, the Lesser Bible 1853, J.B. Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, The Jewish Publication Society's 1917 translation, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company's "The Holy Scriptures", Young's literal translation, the Douay-Rheims, the 1950 Douay version, the1994 KJV 21st Century version, the 1998 Third Millenium Bible, the 2000 Holy Scriptures Jubilee Bible, and the 2001 Urim-Thummin Version.

Smith's Bible Dictionary

Turtle, turtledove Turtur auritus (Heb. tor ). The name is phonetic, evidently derived from the plaintive cooing of the bird.

Some dictionaries do not even list "turtle", meaning the turtledove, as archaic.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary Tur"tle noun. Anglo Saxon. turtle, L. turtur; probably of imitative origin. (Zoöl.) The turtledove.

Definitions from The Online Plain Text English Dictionary: Turtle * (n.) Any one of the numerous species of Testudinata, especially a sea turtle, or chelonian. * (n.) The curved plate in which the form is held in a type-revolving cylinder press. *(n.) The turtledove.

A similar word in English that can have several meanings is the simple word cow. When we say cow, are we referring to the bovine creature that gives milk, or to a whale, a seal or an elephant? The context will usually tell us which one is meant. In every case where the word "turtle" is used in the King James Bible and all the others listed that have come both before and after the King James Bible, it is clear that the bird also known as the turtle dove is intended. Mr. White is again straining at gnats and mocking the time tested word of God as found in the King James Bible.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will K

Will K still has it wrong. There is a world of difference between a turtle and a turtledove. I wonder what the levite priest would have thought if one showed up with two turtles to make a sacrifice. lol

Turtle:

Turtledove:

Big difference, huh?

And how about them unicorns.

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Brother, the very essence of your bible agnostic (no reading is sure; anything can change on a moments notice) position is that NO Bible in any language IS the infallible words of God. That is why the majority of present day Christians no longer hold to the infallibility of Scripture.

We still have the Hebrew and Greek text that the KJV was translated from, and can go back and read that. So what makes the KJV so much more special than the Hebrew and Greek? You should just learn Greek and Hebrew and go read the texts the KJV originated from!

 

[Jig]

Without the original autographs to compare with and a reluctance to embrace any type of textual criticism as valid, how do you know that the text found within the KJV is infallible and inerrant in all its words and grammatical constructions?

 

[brandplucked]

Originally Posted by Hentenza Here is another error in the KJV.

Songs of Solomon 2:12
12The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;

Turtles do not have voices and are not birds.

++++++++++++++++

Hi Hen. The only "error" here is your own ignorance of the English language. Maybe if you looked up some common words found in God's Book - the King James Bible - in a good English dictionary, you might not stumble all over yourself trying to find all these alleged errors you want so badly to show us.

Not only does the King James Bible say "turtle" in the Song of Solomon 2:12 and in Jeremiah 8:7 but so also do Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, the Revised Version 1885, the Calvin Bible 1855, the Lesser Bible 1853, J.B. Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, The Jewish Publication Society's 1917 translation, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company's "The Holy Scriptures", Young's literal translation, the Douay-Rheims, the 1950 Douay version, the 1994 KJV 21st Century version, the 1998 Third Millenium Bible, the 2000 Holy Scriptures Jubilee Bible, and the 2001 Urim-Thummin Version.

Now, if you want to help out some of the other bible agnostics here explain how that list I keep posting of totally different names and numbers found in all these contradictory "wonderful modern versions that say the same things but in a different way" are not flat out contradictions, please give it a shot. Oh wait! You think ALL bible versions have errors in them, don't you. That would only prove your point that none of us has God's infallible words today. Silly me. What was I thinking?


All of sovereign grace,

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

We still have the Hebrew and Greek text that the KJV was translated from, and can go back and read that. So what makes the KJV so much more special than the Hebrew and Greek? You should just learn Greek and Hebrew and go read the texts the KJV originated from!

Hi Bear. You are correct (in a way) that we still have the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible, but they are not what you probably think they are. The KJB does follow the Hebrew readings, but all modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman Standard frequently reject the clear Hebrew readings (like that list I keep posting and everyone here keeps avoiding) and not even in the same places.

As for "the" Greek, there is no such animal. There are at least 25 different printed Greek texts out there today and they do not agree with each other by as much as 3000 words or more in just the New Testament. Some versions like the RSV omit some 45 entire verses from the N.T. plus another 1000 or so other words and phrases - and that is just the New Testament.

It is a simple documented fact that the majority of present day Christians do not believe in the infallibility of the Bible, and this trend is only going to get worse as more and more conflicting, contradictory and ever changing "new and improved" bible versions keep coming down the pike. It's big business, and if the "scholars" who keep putting together this Bible Babble Buffet Industry ever got it right, then they would be out of work and might have to get a real job!

The recent 2010 NIV 4th revision is now coming out and they have changed about 10% of the verses from the "old" NIV of 1984, which was the 3rd different NIV to come out since 1973. Each time they change their English translations and sometimes even the underlying Hebrew and Greek they use, and they are using the wrong Greek texts to begin with. It's only going to get worse.

Think about it.

Will K

 

[brandplucked]

Without the original autographs to compare with and a reluctance to embrace any type of textual criticism as valid, how do you know that the text found within the KJV is infallible and inerrant in all its words and grammatical constructions?

Hi Jig. Now that is a good question. I believe I have addressed these points in my article "Is King James Bible Onlyism Scriptural?"

KJB Onlyism Scriptural? - Another King James Bible Believer

It all has to do with the sovereignty of God in history and the simple Truth of Scripture. Only the King James Bible passes the test.

All of sovereign grace,

Will K

 

[Jig]

Hi Jig. Now that is a good question. I believe I have addressed these points in my article "Is King James Bible Onlyism Scriptural?"

KJB Onlyism Scriptural? - Another King James Bible Believer

It all has to do with the sovereignty of God in history and the simple Truth of Scripture. Only the King James Bible passes the test.

All of sovereign grace,

Will K

In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God.

It seems to boil down to the above quote I took from your website. I major component of your assumption is this a priori argument to support that the KJV is the "perfect and infallible word of God".

This is not objective proof. This is a subjective theory.

 

[brandplucked]

It seems to boil down to the above quote I took from your website. I major component of your assumption is this a priori argument to support that the KJV is the "perfect and infallible word of God".

This is not objective proof. This is a subjective theory.

Well, brother Jig, I believe the Bible itself has many verses of Scripture that teach that God does have a real and tangible Book that is His inspired and infallible words. I listed a whole bunch of them for you in that article. The question is - Where is such a Book to be found, if it in fact does exist?

You don't have it. Not one of the scholars behind the modern versions has it. They even admit in their own translations "No Bible is perfect". They, like most here, do not believe such a Book exists or ever existed.

I and thousands of other blood bought children of God DO believe it exists and that God has clearly set His marks upon this Bible like no other in all of history. It is the Authorized King James Bible. None other even comes close to the way God has used this Book and still uses it.

It is the Standard by which all modern versions compare themselves to and it is the ONLY Bible believed by thousands alive today to be the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. Nobody seriously defends any modern version as being God's infallible words of truth and grace. They contain parts of God's words (when they agree with the King James Bible), but they are not God's pure and complete words.

The issue of the King James Bible is the dividing line between two very different camps in the Christian church today. It divides between those who are Bible believers and those who are Bible agnostics (whether they will admit it to themselves or not). You are either on one side or the other and there is no compromise.

May God be merciful and open the eyes of more of His people as to where His pure words of truth and grace are found today and have been for 400 years now - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

"Kept by the power of God through faith" - 1 Peter 1:5

Will Kinney