KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant

[drbrumley]

Just for laughs, but could you Brand give us an answer to this.

KJV says thou shalt not kill.

NKJV says thou shall not murder.

Which is correct?

 

[brandplucked]

call to Bob

call to Bob

I remember that Bob pointed out that the Septuagint is often quoted in the New Testament, which shows that God is not as uptight about translations as the KJV-only crowd.

Hi Turbo, you are correct. That was my call a couple years ago. We didn't have much time; it was at the end of the program, and Bob went off into his Septuagint argument, which in effect is denying there is such a thing as an inerrant Bible.

I believe the myth about the alleged pre-Christian Greek LXX version is on the same level as the big lie about Evolution. Lot's of people believe it, but there is no evidence for the truth of it.

I have written 5 articles on the alleged pre-Christian LXX. You may be surprised by what various scholars have to say regarding the various Greek translations of the O.T.

Here is the first one, and you can link up to the others from this site.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html

By the way, when is Bob's program on in the Denver area? What station and what time? I would like to start listening to Mr. Enyart again.

God bless,

Will Kinney

 

[Turbo]

Which version do you consider to be the best ballpark approximation of what God may or may not have said?

It depends on the passage.


Which is a more accurate translation of what God commanded in Exodus 20:13:

Thou shalt not kill​

or

You shall not murder​

 

[drbrumley]

Do I hear an echo?

 

[brandplucked]

Thou shalt not kill

Thou shalt not kill

Also, the KJV states in EXODUS 20:13

"Thou shalt not kill."

Correctly translated, EXODUS 20:13 is:

"You shall not murder."

There is a significant difference between kill and murder.

Hi Shimei, may I suggest you first take a look at my website, Another King James Bible Believer, before you post your list of alleged "errors" in the KJB?

This is an old and unfounded example.

Here is my answer to it.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/notkill.html


Also, regarding the book of Mormon examples, would any of you like to prove the existene of an error in the King James Bible, when the book of Mormon plagarizes its readings? I have read these allegations before, and have found them to be totally unwarrented.

Thanks,

Will K

 

[Turbo]

Hi Turbo, you are correct. That was my call a couple years ago. We didn't have much time; it was at the end of the program, and Bob went off into his Septuagint argument, which in effect is denying there is such a thing as an inerrant Bible.

I believe the myth about the alleged pre-Christian Greek LXX version is on the same level as the big lie about Evolution. Lot's of people believe it, but there is no evidence for the truth of it.

How about the New Testament quotes that match the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew texts?

I have written 5 articles on the alleged pre-Christian LXX. You may be surprised by what various scholars have to say regarding the various Greek translations of the O.T.

One can find "various scholars" who endorse any variety of wacky ideas.

Here is the first one, and you can link up to the others from this site.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html

We generally encourage dialogue at TOL rather than posting links to arguments made elsewhere.

By the way, when is Bob's program on in the Denver area? What station and what time? I would like to start listening to Mr. Enyart again.

He's on KLTT from 3:00 to 3:30 PM, Mountain Time.

Again, any idea when that call was from two years ago? Do you happen to at least remember the month or the season?

 

[godrulz]

Hi godrulz, I find it to be of interest that the Christian who really believes God has given us an inspired, complete and inerrant Bible is considered by you to be divisive and heretical, but the person like yourself who does not believe in an inspired Bible is now considered to be orthodox and in the fold.

I also would like to challenge your assertion that no major doctrine is affected by the various versions or variant readings. Which version do you consider to be the best ballpark approximation of what God may or may not have said? You obviously do not believe any Bible or any text in any language is the inspired and inerrant words of God, so that is why I ask for a "ballpark approximation"

If you had bothered to read my initial long post, then you would see that your present position on the inerrancy of the Bible is exactly like the one I and others described. You do not have nor believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

Once you abandon the position of the inerrancy of the Book, then you are on the downward slide into apostasy and religious relativism.

Will K

You have defined inerrancy as you see fit and then use circular reasoning/begging the question to prove what you assume in the beginning. Your argument is also a non sequitur...your conclusion does not follow the premise.

 

[Lighthouse]

Looks like brandplucked is too much of a coward to set forth his arguments here, instead of continuously linking to his site. Suspicious behavior, if you ask me.

By the way, I do not believe there is such thing as an inerrant Bible, either. But I do believe that every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God is inerrant.

 

[godrulz]

Hi Shimei, may I suggest you first take a look at my website, Another King James Bible Believer, before you post your list of alleged "errors" in the KJB?

This is an old and unfounded example.

Here is my answer to it.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/notkill.html


Also, regarding the book of Mormon examples, would any of you like to prove the existene of an error in the King James Bible, when the book of Mormon plagarizes its readings? I have read these allegations before, and have found them to be totally unwarrented.

Thanks,

Will K

See link on post #12 and keep googling for more info.

 

[brandplucked]

The inerrant Bible

The inerrant Bible

Will, thanks for your kind opening remarks. But sadly, you are willing to misrepresent me with this title since I stand with the vast majority of fundamentalist Christian scholars and theologians and pastors who reject KJ Only, and believe that God's Word is inerrant only in its original autographs. I use the 1611 KJV quite often, and its inclusion of the Apocrypha, and also its frequent margin notes, both indicate that its own translators did not believe that they were producing an inerrant translation. I believe that your KJ Only obsession keeps you as an immature Christian, majoring in the minors, and distracting you from a substantive Christian life and influence on the world. A KJ Only pastor requested permission to present his position to us, so we invited him to Denver Bible Church for two weeks, and after the first week of his being unable to answer our simple questions, he never returned for his second opportunity. -Pastor Bob Enyart, Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

Hi Bob, thanks for coming aboard to try to defend your position on the Bible. Now, I know you are a smart man, and I respect your beliefs in most areas, but let's take a second to examine logically what you just said.

You say I am misrepresenting you by saying you do not believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Then you tell us that you believe the word of God is inerrant ONLY in the originals. Yet, as you should well know, there are no originals on this earth, and the various bible translations reflect a difference of literally thousands of words and many entire verses between and among themselves. Obviously the NIV translators think there are thousands words that are spurious, all of which are found in the NKJV which you frequently use.

There is very serious and widespread disagreement among the "scholars" as to which words, readings and various meanings are those that reflect the non-existent "originals"


There are no originals. You tell us that God's words are inerrant ONLY in the originals. Therefore, quite logically, you do not believe the Bible IS the inerrant word of God. You cannot point to any written text in any language on the face of this earth which you believe to be the inerrant words of God. If I ask you, Is the Bible the inspired words of God?, your answer is: "No, not any Bible that exists today, but only the originals" - which you have never seen and never did form a single book in the first place. So, Bob, could you please explain how I am misrepresenting your position?


As for your church and the KJB defense man goes, I would be quite willing to take his place and present to your congregation why the King James Bible is the preserved, inerrant word of God. I live here in the Denver area.

But if you prefer to discuss this most vital issue right here on the internet, that is also very good and I think would be of benefit to many others.

Also, when is your program on the radio, which station and when? Thanks.

I find it sad to see so many Christians today holding the position that the Inspiration, Preservation and Inerrancy of the Holy Bible is "a minor issue" and not worthy of our consideration or efforts to defend. "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Psalm 11:3

In His grace,

Will Kinney

 

[drbrumley]

Hi Shimei, may I suggest you first take a look at my website, Another King James Bible Believer, before you post your list of alleged "errors" in the KJB?

This is an old and unfounded example.

Here is my answer to it.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/notkill.html


Also, regarding the book of Mormon examples, would any of you like to prove the existene of an error in the King James Bible, when the book of Mormon plagarizes its readings? I have read these allegations before, and have found them to be totally unwarrented.

Thanks,

Will K

So your saying kill and murder are the same thing? Your example was a loaded trap. How about someone breaks into your house and will rape your wife? The only way for you to stop it is kill the bastard. Would you? Or would you listen to the KJV "thou shalt not kill" since you say it is the same thing?

 

[Delmar]

So your saying kill and murder are the same thing? Your example was a loaded trap. How about someone breaks into your house and will rape your wife? The only way for you to stop it is kill the bastard. Would you? Or would you listen to the KJV "thou shalt not kill" since you say it is the same thing?

Don't know about him but i'd be doing some killing!

 

[Delmar]

I always wondered why the only inerrant version was in the Kings English.

 

[Dean]

WHILE I admit that our 1769KJV Bible could be improved, I insist that it is alone the best available, and that the competing versions are all corruptions - not just rephrasings. If we do not have an agreed upon standard to which all our words are compared, then there is nothing in our disputations other than a competition between boasts of spiritual superiority. www.apostasynow.com Dean

 

[Dean]

WHY DO I PREFER THE KING JAMES VERSION?

It's as simple as this....after I did my studies, I was faced with a plethora of conflicting evidence and theories, which together conspired to leave me without any way to make a firm decision. I found it necessary to conclude (and decidedly concluded) that the God of all my hopes wouldn't have me stuck in a never ending investigation that kept me from the task of sanctification and increased faith as I went along. I decided that I would just "pick an English Bible" and LIVE WITH IT. The KJV wasn't even on my original list of possibles. I was disposed to favor the Darby (my exclusive Bible of choice for the previous 13 years), and after that the ASV, and after that the NASV - and I even momentraily considered the NEB. But as I re-examined each of these, I realized that I would have to do some "qualifying and explaining" in every case.

The decisive element was this: I knew that I would have to qualify and explain MANY weak or obscure renditions in the KJV, and that the principle of translation did not allow you to track the repetition of Greek words (my main objection) - but all the other versions would require that I EXPLAIN some renderings AND explain the DELETIONS. I didn't agree with those deletions in the first place, and found the prospect of "version jumping" offensive - it reminded me of an adulterous man who cannot be satisfied with one wife. I wanted to present myself and my ministry as subject to a single, verifiable authority. Thus, in the end, I went back to the KJV.

It is my opinion that even if and when the KJV is obscure, it is at least not misleading. One may have to do a little investigation to completely grasp some passages. But in the other versions, I found "renderings' that I totally abhorred and vehemently disagreed with. Consider the below comparisons:

1 Cor.7:36-38 from the King James Version
36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.


The American Standard Version of 1901 (below) presents us with the picture of a man refusing to allow his daughter to marry - as if she has no rights in this matter. Notice that the word daughter is italicized; and that means that there is no word in the Greek text for daughter. The translators simply ADDED the word daughter to the text, thinking to clarify what was obscure to them. Instead they have established a doctrine in which no woman has a right to marry EVER without her dad's permission.


36 ¶ But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry.

37 But he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power as touching in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, shall do well.

38 So then both he that giveth his own virgin daughter in marriage doeth well; and he that giveth her not in marriage shall do better.
The Revised Standard Version translates this section so that a man has the right to keep his fiancee in a permanent state of unmarried but engaged.

36 If anyone thinks he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do what he wishes: let them marry - it is no sin.

37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no neccessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.

38 So that he that marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Some of the translations that I have examined, translate this section so that it seems as if the father is refusing to allow his daughter to marry because he himself is lusting after his own daughter.

Notice how The American Standard Version and the Revised Standard Version either have to add words to the text which are not in the original, or translate words into words which have no connection to the original. The word for "virgin" in the verses under consideration does NOT MEAN "betrothed" - it means virgin. There is no word for "daughter" in the text, either. WHAT the motivation was for translating this section the way they did I do not know, but in my view, they have come up with offensive and unrighteous conclusions.

Now consider another translation that not only sounds like the KJV, but which clarifies what the KJV actually said.


I Cor.7:36-38 DARBY (1881)

36 ¶ But if any one think that he behaves unseemly to his virginity, if he be beyond the flower of his age, and so it must be, let him do what he will, he does not sin: let them marry.

37 But he who stands firm in his heart, having no need, but has authority over his own will, and has judged this in his heart to keep his own virginity, he does well.

38 So that he that marries himself does well; and he that does not marry does better.

The above is the only English translation extant that adheres to the Greek and presents a clear message. The KJV above it CAN BE READ in harmony with this, but not the ASV, the NASV, the RSV, or any of the others.

I even considered using the New King James Version - but........such monstrosities as their complete reversal of the meaning of Psalm 17:13-14 totally outraged me.

Psalm 17:13-14 from the King James Version (1769 revision)
13 Arise, O LORD, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword:
14 From men which are thy hand, O LORD, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes.

The New King James Version completely changes the meaning of these verses:

13 Arise, O LORD, Confront him, cast him down; Deliver my life from the wicked with Your sword,

14 With Your hand from men, O LORD, From men of the world who have their portion in this life, And whose belly You fill with Your hidden treasure. They are satisfied with children, And leave the rest of their possession for their babes.
I may have to explain some things in the KJV, but I do not have to contradict them: which thing I must and will do in using the other versions.

I admit, allow for, and desire a TRULY "improved" KJV, and I sometimes imagine that if I was rich enough, I would hire the scholars to do it myself - but they would only be allowed to update and clarify, not change the import of the text. We can now let the "let" of 2 Thess, go and replace that with "hinder" or "restrain", and etc.

To me, any presupposition that the contents of the Bible that we all have available to us have been SO subjected to the whims and schemes of ambitious men that we do not have anything that God will honor from cover to cover smacks of Deism. I assert that there has been a PROVIDENTIAL FIAT of preservation, and that this FIAT of God is found in the text of the 1769 KJV in today's world.

Just Another Christian, and,
"US" 1 John 4:6
Main site front page
www.apostasynow.com

The Great Dream Book:
http://www.apostasynow.com/tgd/index.html

new Dutch language site
http://apostasy.info/

Highly recommended reading from 1912: War On The Saints,
by Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis and Evan Roberts; the definitive
address to the Pensacola and Toronto "revivals"

http://www.apostasynow.com/wots/index.html

Matheeno!
New Educational Math Game for children - developed specifically for
homeschool www.matheeno.cc

NEW! www.jacglobal.net
Just Another Christian Global Business Network
FRIENDS to our faith may inquire

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Hi Justin, it looks like your argument is an attempt not to prove there is an inerrant Bible on this earth, but rather to tell us there is not an inspired and inerrant Bible.

As I am a non-Christian, it is my assertion that the Bible is the work of man--thus any discussion of "innerancy" is somewhat moot. Nevertheless, as we are speaking soecifically about the KJV1611, the topic of the human origin of the scriptures is a subject for a different time.

As for your allegation about the KJB text being from the 15th century and the Vulgate, would you care to back up this erroneous claim?

Textus Receptus (Latin: "Received Text") is the name given to the first Greek text of the New Testament to be printed with movable type. It was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus for his translation of the Bible into Latin, and later used as the basis for the translation of the New Testament in the King James Version of the Bible, for the original Luther Bible, and for most other Reformation era translations throughout Western and Central Europe. This is the text that was in use by the Eastern Orthodox Church in Erasmus' time (ca. 1500). The Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text.

Erasmus' original 1519 edition of the Greek New Testament was prepared in haste, and typographical errors abounded in the text as published. Additionally, the selection of manuscripts available to Erasmus was quite limited, being confined to a few late medieval texts most modern scholars consider to be of dubious veracity. Erasmus was often forced to make his own interpretations—back-translating from the Vulgate at best and fully fabricating material at worst.

The first edition was not used for any subsequent works, except as the basis for the second edition. With the third edition (1522) the Comma Johanneum saw inclusion, in response to Trinitarian pressures from the contemporary Church—a circumstance now subject to great debate. This was the edition used for the KJV translations.

Cite: Wikipedia.

May I suggest you take a look at my article "Is the Byzantine Text a "late" text?" It can be found here.

The "Byzantine Text" is not a text, but a text type. Knowing the proper terminology for the discussion is helpful.

That being said, Erasmus's Textus Receptus is a good text of the Byzantine text type. Like any other human document, it is not perfect.

Justin

 

[Delmar]

WHILE I admit that our 1769KJV Bible could be improved, I insist that it is alone the best available, and that the competing versions are all corruptions - not just rephrasings. If we do not have an agreed upon standard to which all our words are compared, then there is nothing in our disputations other than a competition between boasts of spiritual superiority. www.apostasynow.com Dean

That's cool.

You opinion that it is the best version is way more realistic than " it's the only inerrant version"

 

[AVBunyan]

Support for the King James

Support for the King James

Hi folks!
I just want to stand up and say I believe the King James Bible I have in my hands that anyone can get at WalMart for $5.95 is the inspired and infallible word of God. I believe it is inspired down to the italicized words and puntuation marks - wouldn't change one word of it.

I've heard most of the arguments against the AV for over 23 years now and they haven't caused me to flinch yet.

I don't really care what the translators said in the preface - the preface is not inspired scripture. I do not believe the King James translators were inspired but what God had them put down was. I take the providential viewpoint of history - do you?

Now some folks here have a hard time with bro. Will's links - what is the big deal? He can fill up space on the forum with a long post or you can go to his site and read it - no difference - the material is still the same.

All this talk about the precious originals - can you show me a verse in the scriptures where the originals were inspired? Can you show me a verse in the scriptures where the a translation cannot be inspired?

For now I will say this - I believe the AV to be the word of God for several reasons:

1. The impact the AV has had on history.
2. The impact the AV has had on the lives of sinners and saints.
3. The internal evidence of the scriptures themselves - in other words - what do the scriptures say about themselves.
4. The preeminence the AV consistently gives to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

With that - it's been nice chatting with you folks.

God bless! :BRAVO:

 

[Peter A V]

B.E.has no Bible

B.E.has no Bible

Hi saints. First of all, let me state that I like Bob Enyart and a lot of the things he says. I know he is a brother in Christ, and I agree with much of what he teaches. That being said, I would like to point out that brother Bob does not believe there is such a thing as the inspired, inerrant, complete and perfect word of God anywhere on this earth. I called him a couple years ago on his program, and he sidestepped the issue of an inerrant Bible, as do most Christians today when they are pressed against the wall to tell us exactly where the inerrant, preserved words of God are found today.

.........................
Great post,Will.The truth is out now.I have noticed that there are many similar false arguments as well,buy the Bible opposers.It could be that some are not informed of the heretical nature of the modern versions and their false Alexandrian foundations.
You are doing a valuable service to the christian community,by alerting them to this froggie in the ever increasing hotter water senario of the church's compromise,in these last apostate days of the laodicean church age.
Peter Fuhrman

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I believe it is inspired down to the italicized words and puntuation marks - wouldn't change one word of it.

The italicized words and punctuation are not present in any Greek text, including the Textus Receptus ... and we still get comments like this?

Great post,Will.The truth is out now.

Yep, the truth is out ... and the truth is that KJV-Onlyists will gladly sieve out the inconvenient gnats of facts while swallowing the camels of their own delusions.

Justin