Legacy
Bumping Heads with a Bibleless Believer
By Karl C. Priest April 16, 2021
A born again young earth creationist (BB) posted “Matthew 25:46 has been mistranslated.”
I responded: There are no mistranslations in the KJB.
The conversation follows.
BB: Karl, there is no promise anywhere in the Bible that says every English translation would be perfect. You know, for example, that the New World Translation, put out by the Jehovah’s-Witness-cult, is defective. You may also believe that every English translation other than the KJB is defective. Our faith, however, must be in the Savior Jesus. Roman Catholics need not to put their faith in Mary for salvation. The classic view of inspiration is that when the Apostle Paul wrote, he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. His writings (original autographs, including other Bible books) were/are “God breathed”, aka Infallible. Surely you do not believe that for the first 1611 years, the Church was without an Infallible Word, as 1611 A.D. is when the KJB came into being. I LIKE the KJB, but my faith is in the Savior—not in a mere translation. Have you studied Greek and Hebrew? I have taken 6 courses in each for a total of 12—just in the Biblical languages alone. Don’t hold onto the KJB like Catholics hold on to Rosery beads. You and I both like Dr. Mastropaolo, but he likely was not a KJO man. The KJV was NOT perfect, but you have faith it was/is. We both love the KJB, but it seems you make an idol out of a translation. I love you as a brother, but please shift your focus totally to the Savior.
Karl: You may live with the thought that God could not preserve his Word without error. I do not.
I do not worship the Bible. I worship the One who is able to preserve his Word without error.
Here is why.
BB: Karl, you wrote, “You may live with the thought that God could not preserve his Word without error. I do not.” I believe He could, but even you believe He did not when Moses smashed the first set of Ten Commandments (His Word) to pieces. He had His purposes for that happening, and of course replaced the smashed pieces. He could also have put all the pieces together, but He chose to give a duplicate.
You added, “I do not worship the Bible. I worship the One who is able to preserve his Word without error.” So do I, but again He has reasons for testing our faith. He does not want you making an idol of any translation. Are you aware that the leader of the KJV actually opposed non-conformists (i.e., non-Church of England people)? I assume you are not C of E (Anglican), but you believe he led the KJV scholars, led by Bancroft, without error. You have faith in Bancroft. I do not.
In your article, you asked, “So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false ‘bibles’?” Because that is a question that states your bias. I say that respectfully, but also out of love. I don’t think you have a degree from a seminary. Plus, I don’t think you have pastored three church as I have. You may not know that many MSS have come down through the centuries, and that many older ones predate humanist Erasmus’ insertion of the KJB’s addition of 1 John 5:7f, based on humanist Erasmus’ back-translation from the Latin to the Greek. There was zero preservation of the original Greek; so did God fail to preserve it in Greek? You must believe Erasmus’ Greek (from Vulgate) was “inspired.” Why would God use possibly an unbeliever to preserve His Word? I know that I myself made arrogant mistakes. We’re both sinners, “prone to wander”. The Lord has forgiven me, and I believe He wants you better “educated.” To hold on to your view dishonors Him.
You have judged other versions as perversions, but some are more faithful to the originals than the KJB, and I’ve already told you that I love the KJB. Maybe 70% of the KJB, BTW, was based on Tyndale’s translation, and Tyndale is another of my buddies—having reservations about the traditional view. William Tyndale lived from AD 1492 to 1536 and is well known for his translation of the Bible into English. In 1536 he was convicted of heresy and executed by strangulation. Tyndale challenged the notion that the soul of man is immortal. He wrote, “The true faith putteth the resurrection, which we be warned to look for every hour. The heathen philosophers, denying that, did put that the souls did ever live. And the pope joineth the spiritual doctrine of Christ and the fleshly doctrine of philosophers together; things so contrary that they cannot agree, no more than the Spirit and the flesh do in a Christian man. And because the fleshly minded pope consenteth unto heathen doctrine, therefore he corrupteth the scripture to stablish it.” Tyndale, like me, believed there was Roman Catholic corruption, but you seem to distrust the very one who gave 70% of the KJB.
Regarding Dr. Henry Morris, I have several personal letters from him, and his son, John, wrote the forward to my “400 Prophecies” book, and I did not use the KJB in my book. I also wrote maybe 70 devotionals for ICR, all published in Days of Praise.
You asked, “Why then are we so ready to accept changes to God's word in the form of different Bible versions?” You are more ready than I to accept KJB “changes.” You seem unaware that the newer versions are closer to the originals than KJB. How? They are using MSS closer to the original sources.
“The Authorized King James text has faithfully served the body of Christ for almost 400 years.” Right, but that does not mean it is a perfect translation of the Greek/Hebrew. Paul even had to rebuke Peter who was out-of-line. You are unwittingly tolerating platonic poison that entered translations via Tertullian.
“Satan has viciously and relentlessly attacked it,” and he loves you holding onto his lie to Eve. He told her that she would not die, and Plato preached the supposed “immortality of the soul.” Don’t you believe the KJB for 1 Cor 15:54—that we are “moral” and put on “immortality.” Plato was dead wrong. NOT everyone is “immortal"—only those receiving Christ’s gift. Unwittingly you are slandering Jesus by holding on to platonic poison and the platonically influenced KJB.
Karl: Answer this simple question: Do you have a Bible that you know is without error?
BB: I have the NT Greek that is likely around 99.9% without error. I would place the KJB around 98% without error and the NASB around 99%. The ESV give "Jesus" for Jude 5. The KJB gives "Lord", which is okay, but "Jesus" was original. Jude was written by one of Mary and Joseph's sons--James being another. Of course, we believe Joseph was only Jesus' adoptive father.
Karl: That is sad. An atheist can easily see that the God you preach is not all-powerful.
BB: Not sad. He uses fallible humans like you and me, but He also gives us a brain. The New Testament explicitly warns us against philosophy, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Col 2:8). The point is that we can be led astray. God is so powerful that He can use you and me with all our failings and still win.
Karl: Brother: You fight very hard to declare that God did not preserve His Perfect Word for us. That IS sad. In Christ,
BB: His Perfect Word is His Perfect Son, Whom He raised from the dead. Jeremiah 36 says, "When Jehudi had read three or four columns, the king cut it with a scribe’s knife and threw it into the fire that was in the brazier, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the brazier. 24 Yet the king and all his servants who heard all these words were not afraid, nor did they rend their garments. 25 Even though Elnathan and Delaiah and Gemariah pleaded with the king not to burn the scroll, he would not listen to them."
Is it your view that God must be weak because He allowed Jeremiah's inspired words to be burned?
Karl: How do you know that was God's Word that the king burned? You belief the bible has errors.
If a God-hater burned a KJB, the KJB would still be God's Word in English and God would stall be strong.
You have to hop, skip, and jump from version to version, and appeal to the Greek to support your beliefs.
I say my Great God preserved His written Word in English without error in the KJB. You say there is no perfect bible. The skeptics agree with you.
Also, no one has the originals.
BB: Karl, you wrote that I believe “the bible has errors,” but you should have written that I believe “the KJB has errors.”
This morning, I was having devotions and read Nehemiah 13:1-2a, see left column below. The KJB gives what is on the right side. Note that the main difference has been accentuated by me. I am about to explain why I believe the KJB is in error.
On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that an Ammonite and a Moabite should not enter into the assembly of God lastingly, because they did not meet the children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, to curse them.
On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever; because they met not the children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, that he should curse them.
For ever is wrong for two main reasons. 1) Ruth was a Moabite but became one of the Messianic “mothers” (cf. Matt 1:5). Deut. 23:3 says that “no one belonging to them”, Ruth had belonged to the Moabites, should “enter into Yahweh’s assembly.” If the KJB is correct with its “for ever” translation, then Boaz broke God’s law in marrying Ruth. If, however, the word “lastingly” is used for olam, then the prohibition did not have to be “for ever.” Boaz would not have been violating God’s law, and actually God blessed Ruth, allowing her to be in the Messianic line.
2) The Hebrew word olam is indeterminate as to duration, but the KJB’s mistranslation of “for ever” forces it into infinite duration. If the original word is indeterminate, then the translation should be indeterminate as to duration as well. Lasting (in this case, lastingly) is an excellent choice. KJB got it wrong.
Now, I am sure would will disagree, but please give me a logical reason for choosing “for ever” over “lastingly”. I believe I can give you 100 more examples of this kind of problem, but before I give you the next, please answer my concern in a way that makes sense for “for ever.”
Karl: You do not have a perfect Bible according to your own words.
I say that my perfect and all-powerful God preserved His Perfect Word in English in the KJB.
You say your perfect and all-powerful God did not preserve His Perfect Word in English.
A God-hater hates us both, but the God-hater easily has an excuse for rejecting your God.
BB: The KJB, in 1 Pet 3:15, says that you should “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.” I believe you should obey the KJB, but it seems that you, at least not yet, have disobeyed that command. I qualify as a “man,” and I asked you to respond to my concern, but you did not even refer to it—maybe because you do not know how. One of your hopes is in the KJB, so why does it misrepresent God—saying “for ever”, excluding Ruth?
Karl: My answer is simple: God guided the KJB translators to use "for ever."
Are you smarter than the KJB translators?
With respect, but bluntly, your fervent attempts to declare God did not (may as well say, "could not") provide His pure Word without error in English reminds me of the efforts by God-haters, I have observed over the years, to attack God.
BB: Karl, Richard Bancroft (1544-1610) was 74th Archbishop of Canterbury, and “chief overseer” for the King James Bible production. He also preached conformity to the Church of England’s hierarchy and was opposed to the Puritans (English Protestants who believed the Church of England had only partially reformed): “Bancroft was increasingly involved in developing an anti-puritan rhetoric, and by the time that he was admitted DTh at Cambridge in April 1585 he had produced a series of investigative accounts of puritanism in which he wrote warmly in the defense of episcopacy and denounced the practices of gathered congregations.”
Some, zealous for the exclusivity of the King James Version and scorn any other translation, may be members of churches which are not “Episcopalian” (Baptists, for example). Are non-Episcopalian believers aware that the “chief overseer” of their KJV translation may not have been overly supportive of their church? Let us not put our confidence in mere men, for they are fallible. God is infallible. He gave us His Word, but not all translations of it are perfect. Additionally, one reason He apparently has not allowed us to see/hold the original manuscripts is because He knows our tendency to worship objects (idols). He wants His followers to be diligent in studying and translating the many manuscripts which have providentially survived, however, and He certainly would not want His precious Word comingled with Platonic (Greek) error.
Karl: Right, and you should not put confidence in your own "mere man" confidence that God did not (could not) provide His Perfect Word in English.
Your recommendation to study all the per-versions is pathetic.
As I said, your fervent support of compromise fits well with the God-haters.
As for me, I would rather kneel before God in heaven and be reprimanded for taking a stand on Him having provided English speaking people with an inerrant Bible.
You can kneel before Him and say your great intellect told you He had not done so.
BB: First, I never said God “could not” provide His Perfect Word in English. The evidence is overwhelming that He did not—for His own divine purposes. The KJB may be 70% dependent on Tyndale, and God could have saved him from martyrdom, but He did not—for His own divine purposes. We live in a fallen world, with cancer, etc. God healed my wife from leukemia—for His own divine purposes.
Second, there is no place in the KJB that says which “translations” God would preserve as perfect. Regarding my supposed “fervent support of compromise” fitting “well with the God-haters,” they mock God for allowing cancer. Couldn’t God protect all His people from cancer? God-haters says He must be weak.
Finally, you are free to respond, but at least for now, I do not plan to respond to your next email, and you may believe Jonah was in the fish/whale “for ever” (cf. Jonah 2:6, “the earth with her bars was about me for ever”), but our Lord said 3 days/nights. I believe the translation “for ever” clashes with Jesus’ teaching. He was/is right, Bancroft et al were wrong relative to olam and Jonah 2:6.
Karl: I too am finished trying to convince you that our great God gave us an English Bible without errors. I pity all those average folks that need a Hebrew/Greek seminarian scholar to tell them which Bible verses are true.
I will pray that God will open your eyes to the lack of logic of your position. You can pray that God will take away my faith that He did a very logical thing and is "not the author of confusion." Oh, dear highly educated Bible scholar that you are, is I Corinthians 14:33 translated accurately?
I am currently in "discussion" with two God haters on YouTube. I am sure both of them would align with you that there is no perfect Bible. They just disbelieve more of it than you.
----------------------------------------
A long-time KJB man with lots of knowledge made the following comments about the Bibleless Believer.
I can answer every one of his objections and have gone around the block with (him) on the Bible issue. Ultimately, is God God? Or is He a wuss who couldn't even preserve his own word? Despite saying His word was magnified above His name and more sure than His actual voice? And that EVERY word of God is pure?
Is the word of God the authority over us, or are we an authority over it? That is the key question. (He) wants to be the authority over God's word because he doesn't believe in an eternal hell. He can't hold that believe unless he hops, skips, and jumps from version to version, and appeals to the Greek.
(He said), {Our faith, however, must be in the Savior Jesus} Right. And where do we learn about this Jesus? Why, from His written word! Otherwise, we wouldn't know who Jesus was, what He wanted from us, or how to be saved.
(He said), {The classic view of inspiration is that when the Apostle Paul wrote, he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. His writings (original autographs, including other Bible books) were/are “God breathed”, aka Infallible} And in the very passage Paul told Timothy about inspiration of God's word, he said ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God and the *COPIES* Timothy had were INSPIRED SCRIPTURE even though they were NOT the originals.
BTW, in the textus receptus for Matt 25:46: 166. aionios aiwnioV aionios ahee-o'-nee-os from 165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):--eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).
(He said), {I have the NT Greek that is likely around 99.9% without error.} How does he know this since he has NEVER seen the originals, nor has ANYONE? BTW, which NT Greek is that?
(He said), {Not sad. He uses fallible humans like you and me, but He also gives us a brain. The New Testament explicitly warns us against philosophy, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Col 2:8)} Problem is, WE are following the word of God, the pure scriptures. HE is following traditions of men and their philosophy above the scriptures. In fact he doesn't actually have any pure scriptures.
LEGACY INDEX
|
