KJB Inspiration (quote)

Here is a comment my pastor had on my post "Where was the word of God before 1611?". --Hoss

"I agree. The only other reference to inspiration in the Bible explains how the AV translators were inspired:

 

Job 32:

8    But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

I know the words of God were available to man before 1611 because God promised they would be, but that doesn't mean they were all in one volume. People who have a problem with that should consider the following facts:

1. There was no written scripture for the first 2500 years of human history

2. For the next 1500 years there was not a complete Bible

3. God waited 4,000 years to send the Word of God, Jesus Christ, into the world 

Who are we to question how God does things? He sent the Word of God into the world when the "fullness of time was come" and He sent the word of God in the universal language of the world when the "fullness of the time was come"." --Pastor David O'Steen of Landmark Baptist Church

The word "calvary" in the King James Bible.

King James Bible Luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

That is the only verse in the Bible that refers to "calvary", yet we have many songs in our hymn books about "calvary". There are even churches called "Calvary Baptist Church". However, the modern perversions (non-King James Bibles) OMIT this word from Luke 23:33......the word "calvary" is not in the modern versions!

See for yourself.......

NIV Luke 23:33 When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left.

ESV Luke 23:33 And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left.

NASB Luke 23:33 When they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left.  

Strangely, there are churches with the name "Calvary Baptist Church" that do not use the KJB....??? Shouldn't those churches change their name to "Skull Baptist Church"??? Shouldn't they edit their hymnals and replace every reference to "calvary" with "skull"??? 

This is obviously most embarrassing for the non-KJB believers. So James R. White (author of The King James Only Controversy) has come up with an "explanation"......he says that the word "calvary" is NOT a Greek word and that it comes from the Latin. 

This is true, but it still doesn't change anything. The Old Latin (150 A.D.) and Jerome's Vulgate used "Calvariae" which is a proper translation going from Greek to Latin. This word "Calvariae" was used by the early church and so it was what the believers got used to hearing. This of course carried over into the English language with Wycliffe's translation in 1382......

Wycliffe Version Luke 23:33 And when they came into a place, that is called of Calvary, there they crucified him, and the thieves, one on the right half, and the other on the left half.

Even though this word "calvary" came from Latin and not Greek, it is still an accurate rendering of "Skull" because that is what the word meant. It is an English word with Latin origins (like many of our English words). James White tried to defend his corruption of the word (2 Cor. 2:17) by PRETENDING that this rendering of "calvary" was a mistake on the part of the King James translators. Why this use of  the word "calvary" was used by believers in 150 AD BEFORE the earliest Greek manuscripts. A Latin translation of the Greek is not an error--that was a Bible 'corrector' smokescreen put out by James White.

Even Luther used a German rendering of the Latin word for his German Bible in 1545.......

Luther Bible (1545) Luke 23:33 Und als sie kamen an die Stätte, die da heißt Schädelstätte, kreuzigten sie ihn daselbst und die Übeltäter mit ihm, einen zur Rechten und einen zur Linken.

And also the early English versions used the word.........

Tyndale Bible Luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place which is called Calvary there they crucified him and the evyll doers one on ryght honde and the other on the lefte.

Geneva Bible Luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the evildoers: one at the right hand, and the other at the left.

Long story short, the King James Bible is always right. (2 Tim. 3:14-17). --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Where was the word of God before 1611?

Where was the word of God before 1611?

ANSWER:

"         THE HOLY BIBLE
containing the old and new testaments
1611 Authorized King James Version
Translated out of the original tongues 
and with former translations
diligently compared and revised
by his magesty's special command         "

The word of God (prior to 1611) was in the former translations and the Hebrew and Greek languages. The KJB is a compilation of the correct (inspired) readings from those sources. The TR, Majority Text, Alexandrian Text, Old Latin, Old Syriac, early translations, etc. ALL have SOME inspired words and whole verses.  

For example,

KJB Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

NKJV Genesis 1:4  And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

When the NKJV (or anything else) agrees with the KJB, those verses/words are the inspired words of God. The KJB (to my knowledge) is the only complete compilation of the inspired words of God without error, though other texts do contain some inspired words and even verses.

The early Christians hardly ever had whole portions of scripture. Some may have had a few books of the Bible, others may have only had a few chapters. Carrying around a 66 Book complete Bible was not a common practice in the early days of the New Testament church due to persecution and availability. The word of God was scattered around in different copies and translations, but of course God supernaturally preserved His word through those copies and translations.

Some people do not acknowledge that God is the preserver of scripture. I have been told that scripture was not preserved perfectly because humans err in scribal work. They say that because humans are not infallible that this means that the word of God has not been perfectly preserved (James R. White says that copying and translating are strictly human process). These people seem to leave God completely out of the preservation of scripture! But God is THE preserver of scripture, humans are only instruments that God uses in the process.

Psalms 12:
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

1 Peter 1:

[23] Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
[24] For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
[25] But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Bible critics often say, "So you believe that the KJB translators were INSPIRED?!" In a way, yes I do believe that. I do NOT believe that they received new revelation, but I do believe that the Holy Spirit led and guided them in the translating of the text. God is the preserver. That is why Paul told Timothy that he had "holy scriptures" and that "ALL scripture IS given by inspiration of God".......

2 Timothy 3:

[13] But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
[14] But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Timothy did not have any original manuscripts (except for 1 and 2 Timothy), he only had copies or translations. However, he still had holy scripture that was given by inspiration of God. The words in our King James Bible are (in preservation) the inspired words of God--the KJB is inspired. Some people mistake this to mean that I believe that the KJB translators received a new revelation, almost like Joseph Smith and his book of Mormon. But I believe NOTHING of the sort, I just believe that the KJB translators were led by the Spirit to compile the inspired words of God into one Book......given by inspiration of God. 

Also see these posts

False premise of Bible correctors (James White)  
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/false-premise-of-bible-correctors-james.html

False premise of Bible correctors (Part 2)
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/false-premise-of-bible-correctors-part-2.html

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Hoss vs Herb, Colossians 2:10-12

Hoss vs Herb discussion on Colossians 2:10-12.

Herb, both the mystical circumcision and baptism happen at the moment a sinner repents and trusts Christ.

Here are my scriptures

Galatians 3:1-3

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Colossians 2:10-12

​And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Here is my rationale

According to Galatians 3:3 we are not made perfect by the flesh ("are ye now made perfect by the flesh"). We do not begin in the Spirit and by process do works that makes us perfect. Therefore, the "circumcision" and "baptism" that makes us COMPLETE in Christ cannot be works of our flesh.

The circumcision of Col. 2:11 is something we get IN CHRIST........("In whom also ye are circumcised ")......WITHOUT HANDS ("made without hands").......BY THE CIRCUMCISION OF CHRIST ("by the circumcision of Christ").......and the result is a separation of the old man from the new man ("in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh").

That is not circumcision of the heart and ears, that is a metaphor (obviously). However, the circumcision of Col. 2:11 is a literal, spiritual action accomplished when the believer is put in Christ ("in whom...ye are circumcised") that puts off the body of the sins of the flesh.

There was my two cents. --bro Hoss

Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he QUICKENED together with him, having FORGIVENyou all trespasses.

Nonsense! It is the body of the sins OF THE FLESH that is put off, since it is the sins that must be removed or cut off since we  were dead in sins and the UNCIRCUMCISION of the FLESH; Therefore we have to be QUICKENED and FORGIVEN rather than some science fiction type circumcision made into a sensational thing. There is no such thing as a MYSTICAL CIRCUMCCISION or baptism involved. -- Herb Evans

Herb,

To be saved and put in Christ we must......

1.) Realize we are sinners​

2.) Repent

3.) Trust Christ by faith knowing that He supplied salvation (Acts 17, Rom 3, 4, 5, 10, 1 Cor. 15:1-4, Eph. 1:13, etc. etc.)

Now, Herb says that the circumcision is repentance (circumcise your heart and ears) which is #2 on the salvation requirement list (no works on the list).

However, we only have this circumcision IN CHRIST ("in whom...ye are circumcised"). We repented BEFORE we were in Christ, not after. Unless you are a Calvinist!

Since when does repentance put off the body of the sins of the flesh? I thought Christ did that? In fact, I didn't think we could put off the body of the sins of the flesh WITHOUT being saved. Herb, you are saying that your own repentance (heart/ear circumcision) that you did BEFORE you got saved and in Christ 'put of the body of the sins of the flesh'.

Meanwhile the verse still says that we acquired this circumcision when we got put in Christ ("in whom") and that the circumcision is done by the circumcision of Christ.

King James Version

Colossians 2:10-12

​And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Herb Evans Version

Colossians 2:10-12

​And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In yourself ye have repented with the repentance made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the repentance of Christ: Buried with him in water baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of a Baptist preacher, who hath raised him from the dead.

The circumcision is done "in Christ" "by the circumcision of Christ" and it put off the body of the sins of the flesh.

The baptism is done "through the faith of the operation of God" "by one Spirit" into Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-13).

If you aren't fond of the KJB readings I suppose you can pen your own translation, everyone else seems to be doing it! LOL    (joking)

 --bro. Hoss

Hudson's questions answered.

 Here Gary Hudson has 50 questions for King James Bible believers. His questions in red. (my answers below his questions)

(1) Must we possess a perfectly flawless Bible translation in order to call it “the word of God”? If so, how do we know “it” is perfect? If not, why do some limit “the word of God” to only one 17th Century English translation? Where was “the word of God” prior to 1611?
ANSWER #1 : Yes. If our Bible is not perfectly flawless than it would be blasphemous to give it the title "the word of God" IF it had any errors in it because the word of God is PURE. Psalms 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

I know my Bible is perfect by faith. I did not see Paul when he wrote the book of Romans and even if I had seen him write it I wouldn't be able to prove that the Holy Spirit guided him in the writing. It is by faith that I believe the Bible is inspired and it is by faith I believe that it is preserved exactly how God wrote it. 

Psalms 12:
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. 

1 Peter 1:
[23] Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
[24] For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
[25] But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 

Proofs that the Bible is perfect is that it was written over the course of a few thousand years by 40 different authors and not one time does the Bible contradict. Also there are the detailed prophecies that are in the Bible, they have come to pass just like it said. 

I limit the title "the word of God" to only one 17th Century English translation because it is the only copy of the exact words of God compiled into one volume as far as I know. There are some contradictions in other translations and other translations don't seem to give God as much glory as the King James Bible does. Many modern versions refer to Joseph as Christ's "father" in Luke 2:33 where as the KJB says "Joseph". Many modern translations change "God was manifest in the flesh" (KJB 1 Tim. 3:16) to "he appeared in a body". Many modern versions change the references to Christ as God's "holy child" (KJB Acts 4:27, 30) to "holy servant". There are scores of other errors in modern versions, many of these are attacks on scripture, the blood atonement, the Deity of Christ, the virgin birth, pro-catholic readings inserted, and other problems. 

See these for more information on problems in modern versions:
New King James Version Corruption.
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/new-king-james-version-corruption.html 

The corrupt NIV  
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-corrupt-niv.html

As for the question "where was the word of God prior to 1611", the first page of the KJB answers that question. 

"         THE HOLY BIBLE
containing the old and new testaments
1611 Authorized King James Version
Translated out of the original tongues 
and with former translations 
diligently compared and revised 
by his magesty's special command         "

The word of God (prior to 1611) was in the former translations and the Hebrew and Greek languages. The KJB is a compilation of the correct (inspired) readings from those sources.

(2) Were the KJV translators “liars” for saying that “the meanest translation” is
still “the word of God”?
ANSWER #2 : They were not lying, but they were incorrect. It is true that a version other than the KJB can have "the word of God" in some places in it as long as it is in agreement with the KJB. A NKJV may CONTAIN some of "the word of God", but as the NKJV stands, it is NOT "the word of God". 

(3) Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are the word of God?
ANSWER #3 : The Hebrew and Greek behind the KJV may CONTAIN some of "the word of God", but as they stand (alone), they are NOT "the word of God". 

(4) Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can “correct” the English?
ANSWER #4 : The text of the King James Bible cannot be improved upon or corrected by anything.

(5) Do you believe that the English of the KJV “corrects” its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
ANSWER #5 : When the Hebrew and Greek are wrong the KJB can correct them.

(6) Is any translation “inspired”? Is the KJV an “inspired translation”?
ANSWER #6 : Here is a list of some of the inspired translations that were in the original autographs.
Genesis 42:18-20, 42:23, Ezra 4:7-11, Ps. 110:1 with Luke 20:42-43, Mark 5:54, Acts 22, Acts 26:14, and Matthew 27:46 with Mark 15:34. Also, anytime a NT writer quotes OT scripture, you then have an inspired translation. The NT quotes OT (Hebrew) into Greek. Yes, the KJB is the inspired word of God. (1 Pet. 1:23-25)

(7) Is the KJV “scripture?” Is it “given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim 3:16)?
ANSWER #7 : Yes and yes. All the scripture we have is given by inspiration of God. Paul told Timothy that he had the "holy scriptures" in 2 Timothy 3:15 and what Timothy had was either translations or copies. 

(8) When was the KJV “given by inspiration of God”? – 1611 … or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
ANSWER #8 : All scripture is given by inspiration of God, the scripture I have in my hand right now was given by inspiration of God. So no matter what EDITION of the KJB you have, it is given by inspiration of God. 

(9) In what language did Jesus Christ (not Peter Ruckman and others) teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matt 5:18?
ANSWER #9 : Christ didn't tell us that the word of God was bound to any language in particular. The words of God are the words of God no matter what language is being used. One of the attributes of the word of God is that it "is not bound" (2 Tim. 2:9). Here is the verse you referenced, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.". That verse does not even hint that the scriptures are bound to one language. There are inspired translations and copies (see answers to #6-7).

(10) Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one 17th Century English translation?
ANSWER #10 : The Bible teaches that God will preserve His exact words (Ps. 12:6-7, Isa. 40:8, Isa. 55:9-11, Matt. 5:18, Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, 1 Pet. 1:23-25, and 2 Tim. 3:15-17). The word of God is not bound to any ONE place (2 Tim. 2:9). So "17th Century English translation" is irrelevant.

(11) Did God lose the words of the originals when the “autographs” were destroyed?
ANSWER #11 : No, the words were preserved through copies and translations. The original pieces of paper with the ink on them were lost, but the word of God endureth forever.

(12) Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was “translated out of the original Greek?” Were they “liars” for claiming to have “the original Greek” to translate from?
ANSWER #12 : You are the one who is misleading. The KJV said "original TONGUES", not "languages".

(13) Was the “original Greek” lost after 1611?
ANSWER #13 : Oh it was lost WAY before 1611.

(14) Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without “the word of God”?
ANSWER #14 : Actually it took place while GETTING the word of God. The catholics had up to that point had a monopoly on bibles and only allowed corrupt versions. The protestant reformation took place while believers were ditching the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Douay Rheims, and Jerome's Vulgate readings and switching rather to the pure line of Greek manuscripts from Antioch/Syria (instead of the Alexandria, Egypt local text). But yes, it took place without the pure word of God compiled into one volume, the KJB. 

(15) What translation of “the word of God,” used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant?
ANSWER #15 : Without a KJB they had none (to my knowledge). 

(16) If the KJV is “God’s infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people,” did the “English-speaking people” have “the word of God” from 1525-1604?
ANSWER #16 : Some of it, though not compiled into one volume.

(17) Was Tyndale’s (1525), or Coverdale’s (1535), or Matthew’s (1537), or the Great (1539), or Geneva (1560) … English Bibles absolutely infallible?
ANSWER #17 : No. 

(18) If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be “born again” by the “incorruptible word of God” (1 Pet 1:23)?
ANSWER #18 : You misquoted the verse.

1 Peter 1:
[23] Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
[24] For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
[25] But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

The seed was what was said to be incorruptible. Obviously the word of God is corruptible because the Watchtower Society (NWT) has corrupted the word of God (ditto NIV, LB, NEB, NASB, ESV, etc.).

A person can get saved of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ no matter where they read that gospel from. You could write the gospel message out on a role of toilet paper.  

(19) If the KJV can “correct” the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally “breathed out by God” need correction or improvement?
ANSWER #19 : I do not know anyone who says that the original autographs needed correcting (though they sometimes can, Jer. 36:32). KJB believers teach that the KJB is a completely accurate preservation of the original autographs in English. 

(20) Since most “KJV-Onlyites” believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired “scripture” (2 Pet 1:20), and 2 Pet 1:21 says that “the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” would you not therefore reason thus—“For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”?
ANSWER #20 : God is the one who guides the copyist and translator during preservation....

Psalms 12:
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

So the KJV translators were guided by the Spirit. However, their work (KJB) was a bringing forth of already inspired words.....not what some would consider a "re-inspiration". The KJV was a compilation of the already inspired words of God making it an inspired Book.   

(21) Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture—“whom ye” (Cambridge KJV’s) or “whom he” (Oxford KJV’s) at Jer 34:16?
ANSWER #21 : See this excerpt from my critique of The King James Only Controversy
"Cambridge AV
Jeremiah 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

Oxford AV
Jeremiah 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

1611 AV
Ruth 3:15 Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.  

1769 Cambridge Edition AV
Ruth 3:15 Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he went into the city.  As you can see the variants do not contradict and all are true. However, Jeremiah 34:16 was a printers error where the printer had an upside down "h" making it "y". A printers error is not an error in the text of what the AV translators translated though. For James White to say that both editions of the AV must match is unbiblical, for God often changes His word when a NT writer quotes an OT scripture. God's word is not bound (2 Tim. 2:9) and He does what He wants with it. White is also using a double standard. Back in chapter 3 he talked about how there were so many differences and variants among the manuscripts in the original languages but he still accepts them, why can't AV believers do the same with the AV? James White and Scholarship Onlysim are the kings of double standard rationale."

(22) Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture—“sin” (Cambridge KJV’s) or “sins” (Oxford KJV’s) at 2 Chron 33:19?
ANSWER #22 : As Dr. Herb Evans states, "Both readings are correct. One uses a plural, the other uses a singular plural as was common in English at one time. Even one of our Christian songs uses "all my sin." "


Bible correctors are obsessed with VARIANTS and ORIGINALS.

(23) Who publishes the infallible “inerrant KJV”?
ANSWER #23 : I assume all of the publishers do, though some make an attempt to Americanize some spellings.

(24) Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 [sic] made … many hundreds of changes [sic] … would you say the KJV was “verbally inerrant” in 1611 … or 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850 [sic]?
ANSWER #24 : I would hardly call the changes in font, spellings, and the removal of printers errors "revisions". They are all good.

(25) Would you contend that God waited until a king named “James” sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well … if the historical fact was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all his life?
ANSWER #25 : No I would not contend that. Meanwhile there are no proofs of King James being a queer, that was a rumor started by one of  King James's enemies YEARS AFTER the death of James.

(26) Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was “led by God in translating” even though he was an alcoholic that “drank his fill daily” throughout the work? (Gustavus Paine, The Men Behind the KJV, 40, 69).
ANSWER #26 : Why not? David was a murderer and committed adultery, Peter denied Christ three times, etc. etc. and God still used them.

(27) Is it possible that the rendition “gay clothing,” in the KJV at Jas 2:3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?
ANSWER #27 : It is very possible, that is if the modern reader does not know what "gay" means. Similar to the word "ass" in the Bible. One who studies the Bible would find our that an "ass" is a donkey, "gay" means goodly, and that "shittim" is a type of wood. 

(28) Did dead people “wake up” in the morning according to Isa 37:36 in the KJV?
ANSWER #28 : Yes, if you misread the verse. Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.

(29) Was “Baptist” John’s last name according to Matt 14:8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
ANSWER #29 : Yes, if you are an idiot. ;) Meanwhile is "Christ" the last name of Jesus? John was called "Baptist" because he was a baptizer.  

(30) Does 2 Cor 6:11-13 in the KJV make any sense to the modern English KJV reader as compared to the NIV?
ANSWER #30 :  Yes it does make sense to anyone reading the chapter and is paying attention.

(31) Does the singular “oath’s” occurring in every KJV at Matt 14:9 and Mark 6:26 “correct” every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural “oaths”?
ANSWER #31 : Yes, though I am not sure it matters which way it is said.

(32) Did Jesus teach a way for men to be “worshipped” according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4:8? (Remember—you may not go to the Greek for any “light” if you are a KJV-Onlyite!)
ANSWER #32 : I wasn't going to consider going to the Greek. I read English much better, Luke 14:10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. 

Where did it say to "worship men"? I missed your point. 

(33) Is the Holy Spirit an “it” according to John 1:32; Rom 8:16, 26; and 1 Pet 1:11 in the KJV? (Again—you may not go to the Greek for any “light” if you are a KJV-Onlyite!)
ANSWER 33: Yes, and Christ is a "it" according to Genesis 3:15. 

Here is a quote from Dr. Herb Evans. 
"What if I already know that "itself" is the Greek "AUTO" and is neuter. Like auto-matic is selfo-matic.

I am beginning to think that you are afraid of the Greek. Now, let me see if I understand this. You have made a rule that the Holy Spirit cannot be called an "it" or "itself" and you want everyone to obey your theological rule. If that correct, what is the basis for your rule?

Do you also have a rule for MAN being called an "it" or "itself," for the KJB and both the NKJB and NIV all use the word itself for the creature (creation in the NIV and NKJV). The KJb says, "Because the creature ITSELF also shall be delivered . . . Romans 8:20 When I knock on your door, and you ask, Who is IT? I might reply, "IT is I." Merely a nuance of our language.

The NIV and NKJV with the KJB call Jesus an IT in Rev. 12:4. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he may to devour her child the moment IT was born.

You might note that the in Matthew 14:26, the NKJV and NIV say, about the disciples quote, "IT is a GHOST " (SPIRIT in the KJB). What does Jesus say, "IT is I" (verse 27). What do the disciples say, "If IT is you" (verse 28). So Jesus is an IT! "

(34) Does Luke 23:56 support a “Friday” crucifixion in the KJV (no “day” here in Greek).
ANSWER #34 : No. What kind of sabbath was it?

(35) Did Jesus command for a girl to be given “meat” to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? (or, “of them that sit at meat with thee” at Luke 14:10).
ANSWER #35 : There is nothing wrong with eating meat (1 Tim. 4). But also "meat" in the Bible is sometimes used to mean food. I don't really care.

(36) Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a “Bible-corrector” for saying that Rom 8:24 should be rendered “saved in hope,” instead of the KJV’s “saved by hope”?
ANSWER #36 : You bet!

(37) Was J Frank Norris a “Bible-corrector” for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be “born of water and the spirit,” and for saying that “repent and turn” in Acts 26:20 should be “repent, even turn”? (Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pp108, 116). Also, is Norman Pickering an “Alexandrian Apostate” for stating, “The nature of language does not permit a ‘perfect’ translation—the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap”?
ANSWER #37 : You bet!

(38) Was R A Torrey “lying” when he said the following in 1907—“No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given”? (Difficulties in the Bible, p17).
ANSWER #38 : Maybe not lying, but misinformed for sure. I have in my hand a compilation of quotes pre-1900 where people believed that the English Bible (KJB) was without error. 

(39) Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing “in favor of canonizing our KJV,” thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? (The Flaming Torch, June 1989, p6).
ANSWER #39 : I am not sure what you are talking about.

(40) Did God supernaturally “move His Word from the original languages to English” in 1611?
ANSWER #40 : He supernaturally preserves His word through any kind of language or copy. Going from one language to the next is not some outstanding miracle. God supernaturally PRESERVED His word as I have already shown (Psalms 12:6-7, 1 Peter 1:23-25).

(41) If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, how is it that they humbly acknowledge their own shortcomings and imperfections as Bible translators?
ANSWER #41 : Not even all the NT writers claimed inspiration. You do not have to know that your work is inspired.

(42) When there is a difference between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, why do you prefer the Textus Receptus?
ANSWER #42 : It makes no difference to me, I prefer the English text myself.

(43) Did the Lord Jesus and the Apostles make use of and quote from the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT), even though the Septuagint differed from the original Hebrew in places and was certainly not a perfect translation?
ANSWER #43 : They did not quote the septuagint. 

(44) Since no two manuscripts of the Greek New Testament have been found to be exactly alike, which manuscript is it that has been perfectly preserved and perfectly mirrors the original?
ANSWER #44 : Find an original and do the comparison. 

(45) Why does the KJV differ from the Textus Receptus in certain places like Acts 19:20 where the Greek has “Lord” and the KJV has “God”?
ANSWER #45 : I suppose it is because the TR is not perfect. Tyndale has God as well, "So myghtely grewe ye worde of god and prevayled."

(46) Has any Bible to date proved to be that hoped for improvement of the KJV?
ANSWER #46 : The KJB needs no improvement and a modern version certainly is not an improvement on the KJB.

(47) Why did the KJV translators translate the Apocrypha and include these books in the original 1611 edition?
ANSWER #47 : In act of rebellion against the Catholic church. The catholics believed that the apocrupha was part of the Old Testament scripture, therefore the protestants started putting it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament and didn't acknowledge it is as scripture. The KJB translators ended the OT and said "end of the prophets" and then put the apocrypha between OT and NT. 

Meanwhile Vaticanus and Siniatics have the apocrypha in the OT (siniaticus has NT apocrypha) NOT between the testaments.

(48) Why were italics employed by the KJV translators in 1 John 2:23?
 ANSWER #48 : I suppose it is because it was not in the TR. However, it has since been found in X and B. 

(49) Why are there 35 textual notes given in the margin of the King James Bible? (Examples: Matt 26:26, “Many Greek copies have …,” Luke 10:22, “Many ancient copies add these words …,” Luke 17:36, “These verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies,” Acts 25:6, “Or as some copies read, …”.
ANSWER #49 : I suppose it was because the KJB translators were scholars that were obsessed with ORIGINALS and VARIANTS similar to modern scholarship. 

(50) Blayney’s edition of the KJV (1769) became the standard form of the version and is unto this day, but his edition differs from the 1611 edition in about 75,000 minor details. Which edition of the KJV (Blayney’s or the original) is the perfect Bible?
ANSWER #50 : Like I said, the changes are in spelling, font, and printers errors. Such as "sonne" to "son" etc. etc.

Baptism (sent or sent not?)

Here is a message that I replied to a Baptist Brider with.

Baptism BY Christ WITH the Holy Ghost INTO a person.........

     Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:​

     Mathew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Baptism BY the Spirit WITH a person INTO Christ........

     1 Corinthians 12:12-13 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

    Colossians 2:10-12 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

    Colossians 3:1-3 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

   Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

    Romans 6:3-4 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

    Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

  Galatians 3:26-28 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

According to Acts 2-19, baptism BY Christ WITH the Holy Ghost INTO a person results in gifts of tongues and other supernatural gifts.

According to Romans-Philemon, baptism BY the Spirit WITH a person INTO Christ results in being a member of Christ's body (crucified, buried, risen, and seated with Him).

According to Luke 3:3, 7:30, Mark 1:4-5, Matthew 3:6-8, Ezekiel 36:25, Hebrews 10:22, 1 Peter 3:21, Isaiah 52:15, John 1:31, 3:25-26, Acts 2:38, 22:16: WATER baptism is a like figure of the washing away of sins (though it didn't actually put away the filth of the flesh). It is done BY a person WITH water UNTO repentance FOR the remission of sins TO manifest Christ to Israel.

Now there is only ONE baptism as far as our calling, walk, and unity is concerned and that is baptism BY the Spirit into Christ (Eph. 4:1-6). That is why it is in the "unity of the SPIRIT".

Paul (The one we are supposed to follow: 1 Cor. 4:16, 1 Cor. 11:1-2, Phil. 3:17, 2 Thes. 3:7. The one who is our apostle: Rom. 11:13, Gal. 2:8. The one who was given the faith of our present dispensation: Eph. 3:1-9, Rom. 11:25, Col. 1:25-27, 2 Tim. 2:7, 1 Cor. 3:10. The one who is our pattern: 1 Tim. 1:14-16.) was SENT NOT to baptize.....Paul, our pattern and apostle, did not follow the "great commission"!

     1 Corinthians 1:14-17 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Christ didn't tell Paul to baptize (or else he would have been sent to baptize) and it wasn't Christ's will for Paul to baptize (or else Paul would not have said "I thank God I baptized none of you..."). The commission of Matthew 28 and Mark 16 was an apostolic commission that SENT apostles TO baptize. Paul apparently didn't follow this commission because he said that Christ sent him NOT TO baptize. We are not told to baptize (Romans-Philemon) and we are told to follow Paul....and he wasn't sent to baptize. The only people we see baptize in scripture are apostles.

You aren't an apostle are you? --Hoss

James R. White's request (three supposed errors in the KJV)

James R. White (author of The King James Only Controversy) wrote: "I would very much like to challenge Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro, or Dr. D.A. Waite, or Dr. Strouse, or any other member of the Dean Burgon Society, or any other published KJV Only Advocate, to a public debate on the issues regarding Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, John 1:18, and the entire topic of the deity of Christ in the modern translations and the KJV. The claim that the NASB, the NIV, and the NKJV, somehow "deny" the deity of Christ is simply absurd; and those who continue to make the claim do so at the expense of truth itself. I stand ready to demonstrate this in a public forum in formal, moderated, and scholarly debate. One-on-one, or one-on-as many as they would like, on television or radio. Allow the Christian people to hear both sides at the same time. "

First, notice the phrases "PUBLISHED KJV Only Adovcate", "PUBLIC debate", "PUBLIC forum", "on TELEVISION or RADIO'.......White was wanting to show off his "scholarship", not to identify which book is the Holy Bible. 

Second, why doesn't Mr. White answer these 45 questions "in public" or "on television or radio"??? http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/questions-for-anti-kjv.html 

Now let's look at White's passages of scripture.

1.) Titus 2:13

KJB Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

NKJV Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

NASB Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

NIV Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

White actually claims that the King James Bible pulled a fast one on the Deity of Christ in this verse. He claims that when the KJB says "the great God" it is not referring to "our Saviour Jesus Christ". So you be the judge, is this an attack on the Deity of Christ or is the KJB just referring to Christ as "the great God and our Saviour"? I don't see how this could be labeled as an attack on the Deity of Christ nor can I see how the other translations are any better. 

As Dr. Thomas Holland puts it, "Consider the following sentence, "He was a great hero and our first president, General George Washington." This statement is not referring to two persons but two aspects of the same person. Washington was a great hero by anyone's standards, but he was not everyone's president. He was our president." (Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory)

2.) 2 Peter 1:1

KJB 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

NKJV 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

NASB 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

NIV 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Mr. White claims that the KJB has pulled another attack on the Deity of Christ. MY CLAIM, is that the modern version have pulled out a reference to God the Father. Here is an excerpt from a different post I did.

"Critics say that the KJB makes this sound like "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" are different and not the same. The critics pretend that this is an awful attack on the deity of Christ. They say that the title "God" should never be separated from "Christ" since they are the same. I disagree, if that is an attack on the deity of Christ than get a load of this.......

Ephesians 1:

[1] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
[2] Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
[3] Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
[17] That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Ephesians 4:

[4] There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
[5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Corinthians 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ 

2 Corinthians 1:2​ Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 2 Corinthians 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

​

Galatians 1:

​[1] Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
[3] Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Philippians 1:2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:

[2] To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
[3] We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

Colossians 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

Colossians 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

1 Thessalonians 1:

[1] Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
[3] Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

2 Thessalonians 1:

[1] Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
[2] Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

[12] That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:

[1] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
[2] Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

2 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

And the list goes on and on.  That is 26 verses where there is a distinction between the title "God" and the title of "Lord Jesus Christ" (or variant). Did you see 1 Timothy 5:21? By the logic of the critics of the KJB, THAT SHOULD BE a big "no no". But the truth is that ESV, NASB, NIV, LB, GNV, RSV, ASV, Amplified, etc. ALL make distinctions between the title "God" and the name of Christ. Some of these references even put a distinction between the name "God" and the "Father". The KJB critics lied when they said it shouldn't be done. 2 Peter 2:2 is just another verse where the Father is referenced as "God" and Jesus is referenced to as "Lord". That is done dozens of times in the New Testament in any edition of any translation in any language. Why did the KJB critics pick 2 Peter 2:2 out of the dozens of verses just like it? Your guess is as good as mine.

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

It is done AGAIN in the very next verse.......

2 Peter 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,   

The ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. say the same thing in verse 2. The accusation that the critics make against the KJB in 2 Peter 1:1 are based on the hope that you don't know your Bible too well. Or else you will know that this "attack" on the deity of Christ is actually just a reference to the Father and a reference to the Son as is drastically common. Not to mention that "the righteousness of God and our Saviour" does not mean that they are not the same."

Why didn't White site any of the following verses? Are these "attacks" on the Deity of Christ as well? White didn't site them.

2 Peter 1:2  (THE VERY NEXT VERSE)

NIV 2 Peter 1:2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

NASB 2 Peter 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord

NKJV 2 Peter 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord,

1 Timothy 5:21 

NKJV 1 Timothy 5:21 I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality. 

NIV 1 Timothy 5:21 I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.

NASB 1 Timothy 5:21 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.   

Why didn't James White offer to debate these verses? Isn't this a double standard? How come the modern versions can read "of God and Christ Jesus" but the King James Bible can't read "of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"??? 

3.) John 1:18

KJB John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 

NKJV John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.  

NIV John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

NASB John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.  

NWT John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten god who is in the bosom with the Father is the one who explained him.

Here James White says that the KJB, NKJV, and NIV are wrong when they say "begotten Son" and that the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness version) is right. James White says that he believes that Christ was a begotten God.....need I say more? James White is obviously in a cult. Therefore why do we take him seriously when he is telling us which Bible is accurate? We shouldn't. There is only ONE GOD and He is made up in three persons. God is not "begotten". 

Secondly, the NASB is teaching TWO Gods. One God is begotten ("the only begotten God") and the other is not ("the Father, He has explained Him"). 

Now that White is through revealing his cult doctrine....let's discuss some REAL attacks on the Deity of Christ in the modern versions.


New King James Version Corruption.
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/new-king-james-version-corruption.html 

The corrupt NIV  (ditto pretty much the same errors in NASB and ESV)
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-corrupt-niv.html

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell