Friday, May 4, 2018

King James Onlyism Refuted--Textual Inconsistencies

  • Discussion:
          -Notice how the first account of the Apostle Paul's conversion story reads in the King James Version:

          "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." (Acts 9:7)

         Notice how the account reads in Acts 22 of the King James Version:

          "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." (Acts 22:9) 

          If the King James Version is inspired by God, then it would most certainly not contain this contradiction (hearing a voice vs. not hearing a voice). This is not a biblical contradiction, but rather is a textual inconsistency of the King James translators. The New International Version (and other modern translations) accurately render Acts 22:9:

          "My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me." (Acts 22:9, NIV)


  1. Do you believe there is a Bible available TO DAY in any language that is inspired and without error?


    1. Hello Bob,
      (Originally posted May 24, 2018)

      No, I believe that errors and ambiguities will inevitably occur in the process of translation because we humans are finite by design. We are liable to error. No one translation is perfect. Inspiration was extended only to the original copies of Scripture. But anyway, my primary translation of preference is the NASB. The King James Version is also good.

      Furthermore, the New Testament is supported by approximately 25,000 manuscripts. It has much wider and closer source attestation than any other document of antiquity. Most textual variants can easily be resolved by scholars. The New Testament alone is reputed to be almost one hundred percent textually pure. Thus, we can be absolutely confident that we have the Word of God accurately preserved in its entirety.

      Bob, I am not certain as to whether or not you identify yourself with the King James Version only camp. But if you do, then I have some questions for you. If God divinely inspired the King James Version, then why would He not also do the same with a translation for every other nation with a native tongue? Why must we English speaking people be restricted to only one translation of the Bible, especially one that contains archaic words?

  2. Hi Jesse,

    So your belief is that an inspired and perfect Bible never existed because the original inspired writings never co-existed together?

    When Jesus quoted from the book of Isaiah in Lk 4v17-19 was that a copy or an original? If it was a copy was it inspired and without error?

    Yes "humans....are liable to error" but is God?

    You have me at a great disadvantage because I have never examined any manuscripts personally, neither do I read or speak Hebrew, Greek or Latin. Do you or do you rely on so called scholars to dictate which mss/Bible versions are the most accurate? If you are relying on other men's wisdom/knowledge then may I suggest that you are no better than a lost Roman Catholic who is relying on the Pope and the Magisterium to tell him what to believe.

    Lastly, why do you not have a problem with God giving the oracles of God in time past only in the Hebrew language? Are you saying the NASB and other versions don't use archaic language?


    1. The only inerrant Bible are the original manuscripts, none of which exist. However, we have thousands of later manuscripts, many from the first century. You know, manuscripts not available to the KJV translators.

      On the other hand, we have been able to capture over 99% of the original inspired text from the thousands of manuscript copies we have. Therefore, any accurately translated version is also the inspired word of God.

      There is no version which was ever chosen by God to be the one and only authorized English version of the Bible. To say otherwise is presumptuous and speaking for God.

    2. Who told you only the originals were inerrant?

      Who determines what is an accurate or inaccurate translation?


      Doesn't inspiration equate with inerrancy?

      I would suggest to say God didn't give the world an inspired, inerrant Bible in the universal language of today, is to call God a liar!

    3. Only the original manuscripts are inspired. Ergo, copies are not inspired and may have human errors. Since they are the word of God and Jesus taught the O.T. as the word of God, etc, then it is God himself who says they are inerrant.

      Scholars who know the original languages are who do the translations, and these people work together to hold each other accountable. When you have cults and false teachers "translating" to fit their particular ideology, they have no accountability and the real scholars can prove their errors.

      You can suggest you stupid irrational conclusion all you want, but all you prove is that you are an idolater who worships a translation. In your mind God gave every language group a non-inspired version except for those who speak English.

    4. I will let my 'IDOL' the Authorized King James Bible respond:

      Psa 138v2 "...thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name"

      Rom 3v4 "....let God be true, but every man a liar..."

      Bob 'the idolator'

    5. Jesse,

      When did I ever say that non-KJVO's are unsaved?

      At the end of the day it comes down to faith.

      Have you ever read the KJB from cover to cover the way God commands you to? If you have and you still remain in unbelief then may I suggest, in all charity, that:

      Jn 8v47 "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God".

      1 Cor 2v14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"

      May your imperfect mss and imperfect 300 plus English translations bring you many blessing's.

      Bob "the unrepentant, anonymous troll idolater"

      PS I guess you won't be publishing this response will you?

    6. Bob, I've read the KJV cover to cover NUMEROUS times before I got an NAS, which was much easier to read in more modern English, besides being more accurate. But guess what, God never commanded us to read the KJV at all!

      Your KJV is also imperfect.

    7. Glenn,

      I never said God commanded anyone to read the KJB. You need to pay attention to what I actually said and not what you think I said!

      Ecc 10v13 "The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness."

      You claim to have read the KJB in it's entirety NUMEROUS times and you still haven't come unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2v4). Then I guess there is no remedy for you (Prov. 29v1)!

      Bob "the ignoramus with a perfect Bible in the English language"

    8. Trolling Bob:

      Have you ever read the KJB from cover to cover the way God commands you to?
      That sure sounds like you are saying God has commanded me to read the KJB from cover to cover. YOUR words!

      Your scripture citation should be read aloud by you while looking in the mirror.

      The reason I HAVE come to the knowledge of the truth about the KJV is BECAUSE I have read it cover to cover so many times. I've also read cover to cover the NKJV, NIV, NAS, God's Word, and HSCB.

      There is no "perfect Bible in the English language," and certainly not the KJV. You do realize, I hope, that the KJV was revised several times since 1911--so much for perfection.

    9. Bob,
      (Originally posted May 30, 2018)

      You asked:

      "When did I ever say that non-KJVO's are unsaved?"

      Well, you did say that people who trusted modern Bible translators "are no better than a lost Roman Catholic who is relying on the Pope and the Magisterium to tell him what to believe." You have also been conveying the message that we are essentially unbelievers who are in need of spiritual conversion, all because we refuse to accept the foolish King James only message!

      You said:

      "At the end of the day it comes down to faith."

      Yeah, we can all see that you subscribe to fideism. That means you argue no better than do the Mormons! They take the same approach to their so-called holy books too, you know?

      Your 'beloved' translation not only has been revised ten times since it was originally published in 1611, but it also once contained the Roman Catholic deuterocanonicals. So, if the KJV is divinely inspired, then you should have no problem with accepting the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, or even with the idea of becoming Anglican.

      This article contains an evidence against the inerrancy of the KJV, which you absolutely failed to address. Not even the translators of the King James Version took the ridiculous stance that you strive so hard to defend. Never mind evidence, though. The King James Bible is the Word of God because the King James Bible is the Word of God!

  3. Bob,

    It isn't just the KJV which says those things -- ALL accurately translated English Bibles say the same thing in those passages,

    1. Glenn,

      Who determines if a translation is accurately translated? Do you or some so called scholar?

      Does the ESV accurately translate Psa 138v2 and say the same thing:

      "...for you have exalted above all things
      your name and your word"?

    2. Bob,
      (Originally posted May 30, 2018)

      I hope you realize that translations will inevitably be worded differently. That is simply how the process works. Following is how Psalm 138:2 is rendered in English Bibles older than the KJV:

      "I will worship towards thy holy temple, and I will give glory to thy name. For thy mercy, and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy holy name above all. (Psalm 138:2, Douay Rheims)

      "I wyll worshyppe towarde thy holy temple, and prayse thy name, because of thy louynge kyndnesse and trueth: for thou hast magnifyed thy name and thy worde aboue all thynges." (Psalm 138:2, The Great Bible)

      "I shall worship to(ward) thine holy temple, and I shall acknowledge to thy name. On thy mercy and thy truth; for thou hast magnified thine holy name above all thing. (I shall worship towards thy holy Temple, and I shall praise thy name; because of thy love, and thy faithfulness; for thou hast magnified thy holy name above all things.)" (Psalm 138:2, Wycliffe)

      So, who are you to say that the King James Version's rendering of the text in question is the "God ordained" way? What evidence do you have for making this translation the standard by which others be judged?

  4. Anonymous troll,

    Firstly, your version doesn't make sense in the context of the Psalm, so I'd say there is a problem there with the KJV translators.

    Secondly, you denigrate scholarship obviously. Why are they "so-called"? Are you jealous of those with the ability to translate from other languages or are able to understand textual criticism?

    Thirdly, those who are translators are accountable to other translators. When you have reputable scholars doing the translating, you trust them.

    No wonder you post as anonymous; you only demonstrate your abject ignorance of the topic at hand.

    1. Glenn,

      Thanks for your personal attacks you are certainly manifesting forth the life of Christ!

      Bob "the anonymous idolator"

    2. Bob,

      Jesus and Paul both made personal attacks on false teachers. So in that way I am definitely "manifesting forth the life of Christ." You have proven yourself to be a deceived false teacher.

  5. I would have blocked him a long time ago. Moderate and don't post his, just delete them in moderation.

  6. Wow, that's what I wass seeking for, what a material!
    existing here at thjs blog, thanks admin of thjs site.