King James Onlyism: A New Sect - A Bible Believer's Response

[John the Baptist]

Then what good is your position? It is worthless! According to you and your view, there is no true Bible today...

Jerry you certainly have the right to believe as you do. I have no problem with the JKV. You are making assertions that I do not believe. Yes I believe that the originals were without error. Yes we no not have the originals. But we have copies which do have a hight degree of accuraccy that point to the originals being pure.The variations are minute. I know you don't agree with this.I belive that God has preserved His Word . the KJV is a totally trustworthy translationalone with others, but it is not inerrant. You can beieve as you wish.

[Jerry]

The implication I got from your post was that ONLY the originals WERE inspired and trustworthy (ie. infallible, etc.), and we no longer have those - and they are still trying to reconstruct the originals; therefore none of us have it or can ever have it today. What good is that? What good is hedging and making references to all the copies, if you truly believe the copies don't completely reflect the original autographs? If we are commanded to live by every word of God and no one has them (according to your view), then we are all in a bit of a pickle, wouldn't you say?

I cling to the King James Bible because it is an inerrant, infallible Bible I can hold in my hands and say, "Here is God's preserved Word for me." I don't have to guess, I don't have to search for it, I don't have to wonder if that was what God really said or whether that was really in the originals - I just need to study it, apply it to my life, and stop explaining it away...

[pneu-engine]

Jerry you certainly have the right to believe as you do. I have no problem with the JKV. You are making assertions that I do not believe. Yes I believe that the originals were without error. Yes we no not have the originals. But we have copies which do have a hight degree of accuraccy that point to the originals being pure.The variations are minute. I know you don't agree with this.I belive that God has preserved His Word . the KJV is a totally trustworthy translationalone with others, but it is not inerrant. You can beieve as you wish.

JTB,

You keep contradicting yourself. In the very same breath that you say that God preserved His Words, you also say that they are not accurate, or what we have (the KJV) is not completely inerrant (<<<--your word, I prefer, "infallible", and no, they aren't the same.) Are you saying that whatever God does may not be accurate, precise, or true???

Actually, you just did say that.

"hight degree of accuraccy" <<<--- Your expression, albeit, complete with your own misspelled words. So then, what percentage of accuracy would you say??? 95%??? 98%??? 99%??? Are you not aware that the least little bit of leaven will leaven the whole lump, and the least little bit of inaccuracy in our Bible renders it equal to totally inaccurate in God's sight. A chain only has to be broken by one link.

[brandplucked]

I am part of the 43 percent that believe works are NOT necessary in order to be saved, part of the 55 percent that DO believe Jesus was sinless, the 66 percent that believes that the Bible is totally accurate, and the 44 percent that believe Satan is ALIVE and WELL and still doing his dirty work on this planet.

As the end times grow nearer and I believe they are, I think we will continue to be a shrinking minority of us who believe that way. That does not make our beliefs wrong, it just means that Satan continues to blind, mislead, and decieve more and more people from the truth!

Hi forgiven, I'm very glad to hear you believe the gospel. However, my main point is about whether or not there exists such a thing as an inspired, complete, infallible and 100% true preserved words of God Bible or not. Do you believe "The Bible is inspired and infallible"? If so, which one of the many conflicting translations is it? Or is it "out there somewhere" among all the thousands of variant readings that nobody seems to agree upon?

Thanks,

Will K

[IM4given]

That is an extremely easy question to answer - The King James Version Holy Bible, what else? All other Modern Versions are counterfiet bibles.

Here is a cute little article I found with easy to understand cartoons called "Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?"

http://biblebelievers.com/bookshop/dani ... rpt01.html

[John the Baptist]

JTB,

You keep contradicting yourself. In the very same breath that you say that God preserved His Words, you also say that they are not accurate, or what we have (the KJV) is not completely inerrant (<<<--your word, I prefer, "infallible", and no, they aren't the same.) Are you saying that whatever God does may not be accurate, precise, or true???

Actually, you just did say that.

"hight degree of accuraccy" <<<--- Your expression, albeit, complete with your own misspelled words. So then, what percentage of accuracy would you say??? 95%??? 98%??? 99%??? Are you not aware that the least little bit of leaven will leaven the whole lump, and the least little bit of inaccuracy in our Bible renders it equal to totally inaccurate in God's sight. A chain only has to be broken by one link.

I never said the Bible was not accurate. I said the manuscripts we have and good translations aretotally trust worthy. The variations are minute. You do not understand God's method of perservation. I believe that Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I believe the fundamentals of the faith, I believe in the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture as orginally given. This is what the early members of the fundamentalist movement believed, inerrancy was not in the translation, The movement was Started by men like Greshen Machen, B.W. Warfield, who were conservative scholars. This movement was started to stopthe infiltration of liberalism, or German Higher Criticism. I believe in the pre-millinnal second coming of Christ. I believe that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone plus nothing else.

HOw can you reject the authority of the Hebrew and Greek Text. Just because the manuscripts are not published in a book by Oxford Press, does not mean we have no Bible in the original text. If you say that the Greek and Hebrew have to agree with the KJV. Then The 1st Century writers were not inspired. Then we had no infallable Bible until the 1600s.Without the Greek and Hebrew text you have no basis for the KJV. It says in the preface "translated out of the original tongues." These are the vary text you deny!

[bibletotingunslinger]

When I first got saved, I got hung up on them Fisher Price Bibles, until this one elderly lady in Church one night said"Whats a big strong man like you doing with that little kiddie Bible?" I wasn't offended, I just spent the next 5 years studying Bible History and praying for a final answer.

The King James Bible, The Infallible Preserved Word OF God for English speaking people.
I prefer the 1769 Edition with early 1700 Spelling standards in place,

[brandplucked]

That is an extremely easy question to answer - The King James Version Holy Bible, what else? All other Modern Versions are counterfiet bibles.

Hi brother. That is great to hear. It's always a joy to meet another Bible believer.

All of grace,

Will K

[brandplucked]

I never said the Bible was not accurate. I said the manuscripts we have and good translations aretotally trust worthy. The variations are minute.

Hi John. Let's take a cursory look at some of these "minute variations", upon which your modern versions are based, OK?

The character of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts-
Most of the over 5000 New Testament differences between the King James Bible and modern Bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible, and others, are the result of two manuscripts which allegedly date to around 350 AD called Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (.

Dean John William Burgon, personally collated the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. In his book, "The Revision Revised", which he wrote in 1881, he gives his opinion and lists undeniable facts about what these two manuscripts say.

Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."

On page 319 of he remarks, "In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, afecting 2640 words."

Herman Hoskier also has written a 2 Volume set called: Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment. - Hoskier, Herman Charles (1864-1938) This thorough and scholarly work can now be seen online here: In it he documents many of the 4000 or more differences that exist just between these two "oldest and best" manuscripts.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hoskier/codexb1.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hoskier/codexb2.html

The purpose of this article is to give you just a few of many examples showing just how contradictory and confusing these two "oldest and best" manuscripts really are when contrasted with the Traditional Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible of 1611. Literally thousands of words have been omitted from the KJB text primarily on the basis of Aleph or B, yet the modern versions follow no discernable or logical pattern as to when they decide to include or exclude readings from one or the other

SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32; 17:35; John 9:38; 16:15; 21:25; and I Corinthians 2:15 and 13:2.

VATICANUS ( omits Matthew 12:47 and Luke 23:17 while Sinaiticus retains them. Luke 23:17, "For of necessity he must release one onto them at the feast", is omitted in B, the NASB, and NIV, yet it is in Sinaticus and the majority of all Greek texts. Yet B omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaticus and this time kept in the NASB and NIV. Go figure.

Luke 23:17 "FOR OF NECESSITY HE MUST RELEASE ONE UNTO THEM AT THE FEAST."

This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits the whole verse and so do the NIV, RSV, ESV, RV and ASV. The NASB pulls its usual trick, and from 1963 to 1972 the NASB omitted the verse, but then in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to put the verse back in the text. The brand new ISV of 2004 and the Holman Christian Standard of 2003 also retain the verse and place it in their modern versions, but The Message and the NET version continue to omit it. Aren't you glad we have the latest sure findings of modern scholarship to help us find out what God REALLY said?

Matthew 12:47 reads: "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." This verse is found in the Majority of all texts, in Sinaiticus correction, C and D. However Vaticanus omits it.

The RV and ASV included the verse. Then the Revised Standard Version of 1952 omitted it, but the NRSV of 1989 but it back in again. But wait. Now the 2001 ESV again omits it! However the NASB, NIV, ISV and Holman all keep it in their texts. Some "science" huh?

In the gospels alone, both SINAITICUS and VATICANUS omit the following verses. Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 9:55-56, 17:36, 23:17, and John 5:4. They are all found in the majority of the remaining Greek texts we have today. The NASB of 1972 omitted these verses, but in 1977 put them back [in brackets]. The NIV continues to omit these verses entirely.

Matthew 6:13

What is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer ends with these words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Out of about 1000 remaining manuscripts these words are found in all but 10, or a ratio of 100 to 1. They are included in the Didache 150 AD, and the Diatessaron 170 AD (200 years before Sinaticus and Vaticanus). They are also found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin 200 AD, the Syriac Peshitta 250 AD, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic.

These inspired words of our Lord Jesus Christ are also found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, NKJV, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, the Italian Diodati, Spanish Reina Valera, German Luther, and the new Complete Jewish Bible.

However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all these words and the NIV, RSV, ESV omit them while the NASB, and Holman Standard put them in brackets.

Matthew 16:2-3 Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit most of 2 and all of verse 3. "When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky: but can ye not discern the signs of the times?". Here the NASB includes the words with no notes while the NIV footnotes that these words "are not found in some early manuscripts". .

Matthew 17:20 An error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is the result of following Aleph and B. When the disciples could not cast out a devil they ask Jesus why. The Lord tells them, "Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove." In this instance they had no faith at all and Jesus tells them that if they had just a little bit of faith they could remove mountains.

However both Aleph and B read "little faith" instead of

[John the Baptist]

Hi John. Let's take a cursory look at some of these "minute variations", upon which your modern versions are based, OK?

The character of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts-
Most of the over 5000 New Testament differences between the King James Bible and modern Bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible, and others, are the result of two manuscripts which allegedly date to around 350 AD called Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (.

Dean John William Burgon, personally collated the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. In his book, "The Revision Revised", which he wrote in 1881, he gives his opinion and lists undeniable facts about what these two manuscripts say.

Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."

On page 319 of he remarks, "In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, afecting 2640 words."

Herman Hoskier also has written a 2 Volume set called: Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment. - Hoskier, Herman Charles (1864-1938) This thorough and scholarly work can now be seen online here: In it he documents many of the 4000 or more differences that exist just between these two "oldest and best" manuscripts.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hoskier/codexb1.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hoskier/codexb2.html

The purpose of this article is to give you just a few of many examples showing just how contradictory and confusing these two "oldest and best" manuscripts really are when contrasted with the Traditional Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible of 1611. Literally thousands of words have been omitted from the KJB text primarily on the basis of Aleph or B, yet the modern versions follow no discernable or logical pattern as to when they decide to include or exclude readings from one or the other

SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32; 17:35; John 9:38; 16:15; 21:25; and I Corinthians 2:15 and 13:2.

VATICANUS ( omits Matthew 12:47 and Luke 23:17 while Sinaiticus retains them. Luke 23:17, "For of necessity he must release one onto them at the feast", is omitted in B, the NASB, and NIV, yet it is in Sinaticus and the majority of all Greek texts. Yet B omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaticus and this time kept in the NASB and NIV. Go figure.

Luke 23:17 "FOR OF NECESSITY HE MUST RELEASE ONE UNTO THEM AT THE FEAST."

This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits the whole verse and so do the NIV, RSV, ESV, RV and ASV. The NASB pulls its usual trick, and from 1963 to 1972 the NASB omitted the verse, but then in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to put the verse back in the text. The brand new ISV of 2004 and the Holman Christian Standard of 2003 also retain the verse and place it in their modern versions, but The Message and the NET version continue to omit it. Aren't you glad we have the latest sure findings of modern scholarship to help us find out what God REALLY said?

Matthew 12:47 reads: "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." This verse is found in the Majority of all texts, in Sinaiticus correction, C and D. However Vaticanus omits it.

The RV and ASV included the verse. Then the Revised Standard Version of 1952 omitted it, but the NRSV of 1989 but it back in again. But wait. Now the 2001 ESV again omits it! However the NASB, NIV, ISV and Holman all keep it in their texts. Some "science" huh?

In the gospels alone, both SINAITICUS and VATICANUS omit the following verses. Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 9:55-56, 17:36, 23:17, and John 5:4. They are all found in the majority of the remaining Greek texts we have today. The NASB of 1972 omitted these verses, but in 1977 put them back [in brackets]. The NIV continues to omit these verses entirely.

Matthew 6:13

What is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer ends with these words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Out of about 1000 remaining manuscripts these words are found in all but 10, or a ratio of 100 to 1. They are included in the Didache 150 AD, and the Diatessaron 170 AD (200 years before Sinaticus and Vaticanus). They are also found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin 200 AD, the Syriac Peshitta 250 AD, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic.

These inspired words of our Lord Jesus Christ are also found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, NKJV, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, the Italian Diodati, Spanish Reina Valera, German Luther, and the new Complete Jewish Bible.

However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all these words and the NIV, RSV, ESV omit them while the NASB, and Holman Standard put them in brackets.

Matthew 16:2-3 Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit most of 2 and all of verse 3. "When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky: but can ye not discern the signs of the times?". Here the NASB includes the words with no notes while the NIV footnotes that these words "are not found in some early manuscripts". .

Matthew 17:20 An error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is the result of following Aleph and B. When the disciples could not cast out a devil they ask Jesus why. The Lord tells them, "Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove." In this instance they had no faith at all and Jesus tells them that if they had just a little bit of faith they could remove mountains.

However both Aleph and B read "little faith" instead of

[John the Baptist]

Brandplucked

Will I have two seminary degrees. I am familiar with Siniaticus and Vaticanus and the other manuscripts. KJV People blow the variations out of proportion. Because they cannot accept where the critical text varies from the king James. I have spend long hours discussing this issue with others on this website in the past. you will never agree with me and I will never agree with you.

[brandplucked]

Brandplucked

Will I have two seminary degrees.

Hi John. This explains a lot:-)

Will

[John the Baptist]

brandplucked:

This is from Daniel B. Wallace who you consider a heretic. But he compares the variations in the Majority text from the Textus Receptus and then fromthe Critical text.
there is not that much difference.

"

How different is the Majority Text from the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament or the Nestle-Aland text? Do they agree only 30 percent of the time? Do they agree perhaps as much as 50 percent of the time? This can be measured, in a general sort of way. There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among New Testament manuscripts. The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. But the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about 6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of the time. Not only that, but the vast majority of these differences are so minor that they neither show up in translation nor affect exegesis. Consequently the majority text and modern critical texts are very much alike, in both quality and quantity.

Wallace says concerning the UBS Text only 1,440 textual problems are listed out of 300,000 variations. The vast majority are not list because the editors are most certain about the true reading and the variations do not effect translation. He says Pickering overstates his case.

The varaitions are blown out of proportion.

The Textus Receptus differs from the majority text in almost 2,000 places. It has several reading that have never been found in any manuscript and hundreds of readings that depend on only a handful of very late manuscripts.Many of these passages are theologically significant text according to Wallace. What Wallace says is general knowledge for the most part.

Taking the number 200,000 these variations occur in only 10,000 places. Westcott and Hort says of these variants, only about one eight have any weight. The rest are very minor. This would leave the text about 98.33 percent pure. It does not matter whether one uses the Textus Receptus or their own Greek Text. What does this mean it means God has preserved his Word!

A.T. Robertson said the area of real concern concerning textual variants amounted to a thousandth part of the entire text.

[IM4given]

Hi forgiven, I'm very glad to hear you believe the gospel. However, my main point is about whether or not there exists such a thing as an inspired, complete, infallible and 100% true preserved words of God Bible or not. Do you believe "The Bible is inspired and infallible"? If so, which one of the many conflicting translations is it? Or is it "out there somewhere" among all the thousands of variant readings that nobody seems to agree upon?

Thanks,

Will K

Just in case anyone has forgotten to read the top of the page lately...

Forum rules

Online Baptist is a KJB board and we will not change. Regardless of what you think, we have studied this out and believe that God has preserved His words for the English speaking people in the King James Bible. We do not care to listen to your insults and sarcasm as it is a waste of our time.

Do you have to hold to these beliefs to fellowship with us here? No. We do ask that like many of our members that do not hold to these beliefs, that you respect them.

[Jerry]

I am familiar with Siniaticus and Vaticanus and the other manuscripts. KJV People blow the variations out of proportion. Because they cannot accept where the critical text varies from the king James.

If these manuscripts differ, they can't both be true. THAT is the issue.