The Bible Agnostic Test - Are you a Bible believer or a Bible Agnostic?

[Bee1]

Hi User Name. Interesting question. There is no specific Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek text that the King James Bible is based on 100% of the time. Neither is there any specific Hebrew and Greek text that any other bible translation follows 100% of the time. The Vatican supervised text versions like the ESVs, NASBs, NIVs, Holman Standard versions, etc. do not follow any specific Hebrew or Greek text either.

My bet is that you cannot show us any specific Hebrew or Greek text or Bible translation in any language that you really believe is the complete and inerrant words of God. If you think I am wrong about this, then all you have to do is give us a link to where we can see this inerrant Bible you supposedly believe in. But that is not going to happen, is it.

I believe God led the KJB translators to both the correct textual readings taken from the various Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (all of which have differences in them and do not match the others 100% of the time)and he guided them to the correct translation of those textual readings.

Most multiple version rummagers and unbelievers in an inerrant Bible think God is still in the process of putting one together for us and can't agree with each other on which one might be the best or closest to getting it right so far.

God bless.

You believe that the KJV translators had no outside influences other than God. Remember this KJV version came at a price. The Roman Catholic Church flayed and burn at the stake early translators of the Bible from Latin to English, an attempt was made to assassinate King James to stop this translation. So there was no love loss between the Church and King James. King James pick these men, so you have men copying from other men, God has nothing to do with it .

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

 

[brandplucked]

You believe that the KJV translators had no outside influences other than God. Remember this KJV version came at a price. The Roman Catholic Church flayed and burn at the stake early translators of the Bible from Latin to English, an attempt was made to assassinate King James to stop this translation. So there was no love loss between the Church and King James. King James pick these men, so you have men copying from other men, God has nothing to do with it .

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Bee1, can you honestly answer one basic question for us? Most Bible agnostics (they don't know for sure what God said and they have NO inerrant Bible to believe in or to show us) refuse to answer it. Once in awhile I run into an honest bible agnostic who admits that he doesn't believe any translation or Untranslated text is inerrant, but this is a rarity.

So as to not put words in your mouth and that we might know where you are coming from on the Bible version issue, can you answer this question for us?


Do you believe there IS (present tense) ANY Bible in ANY language, translated or untranslated, that you can SHOW US (Give us a link to where we can see it) that you honestly believe IS the complete and inerrant (infallible, 100% true) words of God? Yes or No?

If Yes, which one is it?

If No, or simply “I don’t know” are you honest enough to admit it?

 

[Bee1]

Bee1, can you honestly answer one basic question for us? Most Bible agnostics (they don't know for sure what God said and they have NO inerrant Bible to believe in or to show us) refuse to answer it. Once in awhile I run into an honest bible agnostic who admits that he doesn't believe any translation or Untranslated text is inerrant, but this is a rarity.

So as to not put words in your mouth and that we might know where you are coming from on the Bible version issue, can you answer this question for us?


Do you believe there IS (present tense) ANY Bible in ANY language, translated or untranslated, that you can SHOW US (Give us a link to where we can see it) that you honestly believe IS the complete and inerrant (infallible, 100% true) words of God? Yes or No?

If Yes, which one is it?

If No, or simply “I don’t know” are you honest enough to admit it?

I believe there is no "one" book of God's word. That for instance the first five books of the OT. First, God wrote it, then Moses wrote it but was inspired by God, no wait "P" wrote this segment and "J" wrote this part and so on. So right from the get- go you have discrepancy. Revelations says let no man take from or add to the Bible? The Bible is rife with deletions and additional text. Whole books were eliminated, God's name was once in the OT but the ancient Hebrews took it out because they considered it to sacred for laymen to utter, so they change it and now the whole Christian world is calling "him" by a name he does not even recognize. I have issues with certain characters and events depicted in the Bible, such as, The Flood, the Exodus, the Ten Commandments, the Resurrection, Moses, King David, Solomon, Saul/Paul
I do believe in God or a God, a higher power, a supreme being, I just don't believe Man. What "words" or "communications" is God's and what is Man's. And don't be naive enough not to admit that there has been some tampering with the Bible.

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

 

[eider]

The Bible Agnostic Test.

Just pick two of the examples listed below and let us know if you know which are the 100% true historic facts of Scripture.
...................................................................

Will Kinney

Hello.......
There is nothing wrong with not knowing what is exact and what is not exact in the KJB.

But you mentioned the New International Version in your post. I have been reading the Gospel of Mark in that bible when I visit a Baptist church and the NIV warns that the very first sentence of Mark has varied from earliest copies. Earlier copies do differ (in places) all the way through 'Mark'.

And so, with regard to Gospel of Mark, I'm not an agnostic, I just know that this book has been edited, adjusted and added to since the earliest copies. So why should I just accept all the other books in the KJB?

Easy.

 

[Bee1]

Hello.......
There is nothing wrong with not knowing what is exact and what is not exact in the KJB.

But you mentioned the New International Version in your post. I have been reading the Gospel of Mark in that bible when I visit a Baptist church and the NIV warns that the very first sentence of Mark has varied from earliest copies. Earlier copies do differ (in places) all the way through 'Mark'.

And so, with regard to Gospel of Mark, I'm not an agnostic, I just know that this book has been edited, adjusted and added to since the earliest copies. So why should I just accept all the other books in the KJB?

Easy.

And if one part proves to be false than that taints the whole, there is a legal statue for that use in our court system even though this is not a legal document.

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

 

[eider]

And if one part proves to be false than that taints the whole, there is a legal statue for that use in our court system even though this is not a legal document.

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Nope.
Firstly, you need to acknowledge that G-Mark has altered since earliest bibles.

Once you've done that you can treat the rest with caution, reserve and care.

So your court system, whichever, would support my tenet, not your logical fallacy.

 

[User Name]

There is no specific Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek text that the King James Bible is based on 100% of the time. Neither is there any specific Hebrew and Greek text that any other bible translation follows 100% of the time. The Vatican supervised text versions like the ESVs, NASBs, NIVs, Holman Standard versions, etc. do not follow any specific Hebrew or Greek text either.

My bet is that you cannot show us any specific Hebrew or Greek text or Bible translation in any language that you really believe is the complete and inerrant words of God. If you think I am wrong about this, then all you have to do is give us a link to where we can see this inerrant Bible you supposedly believe in. But that is not going to happen, is it.

Oh, so there was no inerrant Bible before 1611 then? Got it.

So God did not preserve his word throughout all generations then? Got it.

 

[Bee1]

Nope.
Firstly, you need to acknowledge that G-Mark has altered since earliest bibles.

Once you've done that you can treat the rest with caution, reserve and care.

So your court system, whichever, would support my tenet, not your logical fallacy.

You basically said the same thing, but which a different view.

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk
PS,
Who or what is G-Mark and you admit the Bible altered?

 

[eider]

You basically said the same thing, but which a different view.

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk
PS,
Who or what is G-Mark and you admit the Bible altered?

Since I have mentioned the Gospel of Mark to you before, I hoped you would figure out what G-Mark referred to?

I can't speak for the bible, but the Gospel of Mark seems to have changed from earliest known copies.

That would cause me to take care with other books in the bible, is all.

 

[brandplucked]

Oh, so there was no inerrant Bible before 1611 then? Got it.

So God did not preserve his word throughout all generations then? Got it.

Hi User Name. No, I do not believe there was a complete and INERRANT (100% true and infallible) Bible in any language before the King James Bible. And neither do you, right? In fact, you still don't believe there is one you can show us. Correct? Just be honest about it.

And, Yes, I do believe God preserved his words from generation to generation. He alone knows what they are and where to find them. There was a purifying process going on in the previous Bibles - the corruptions of his word began right away and these needed to be weeded out and corrected - and God put them all together in the greatest Bible ever printed and the only one seriously believed by millions of Christians in history to be the complete and inerrant words of God. You may have heard of it. When it was first published it was titled The Holy Bible. Later, when the fake bible versions began to appear on the scene, it was known as the Authorized Version or the King James Bible.

Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible?

https://brandplucked.webs.com/perfectbiblebeforekjb.htm

 

[George Affleck]

Hello.......
There is nothing wrong with not knowing what is exact and what is not exact in the KJB.

But you mentioned the New International Version in your post. I have been reading the Gospel of Mark in that bible when I visit a Baptist church and the NIV warns that the very first sentence of Mark has varied from earliest copies. Earlier copies do differ (in places) all the way through 'Mark'.

And so, with regard to Gospel of Mark, I'm not an agnostic, I just know that this book has been edited, adjusted and added to since the earliest copies. So why should I just accept all the other books in the KJB?

Easy.

The best answer for this is:

What evidence is there that the earliest copies are the best copies? They could easily be the worst copies if we consider the conditions under which copyists worked at the time.

The earliest copies perhaps survived because they were known to be incorrect and therefore stored away because they were considered unusable.
Surviving copies were written at the time of the hardest fought doctrinal controversies and could easily have been products of the many heretical groups arguing their own cause.
Originals, or copies of originals, were precious commodities and likely not subject to be borrowed for copying by just anyone. It is more likely that copies with a huge number of variants (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus) were produced solely or partially from memory which could easily account for the missing ending of Mark.
A copy that has been used for significant copying is open to the air, light, dust, moisture, sweat, for long periods of time and will wear out faster.
Christians who were aware of the importance of the accuracy of God's Word would be more likely to destroy a copy they knew to be inferior. Collectors or non-believing scholars would be more likely to store them away, but for those who were under persecution, there were no safe places to store manuscripts.
The true light of the Gospel was not hid under a bushel. It was used and copied faithfully by those who respected it the most. That is why a large group of more recent copies that agree with each other is more valuable than a few early copies that don't.

 

[eider]

The best answer for this is:

What evidence is there that the earliest copies are the best copies? They could easily be the worst copies if we consider the conditions under which copyists worked at the time.

The earliest copies perhaps survived because they were known to be incorrect and therefore stored away because they were considered unusable.
Surviving copies were written at the time of the hardest fought doctrinal controversies and could easily have been products of the many heretical groups arguing their own cause.
Originals, or copies of originals, were precious commodities and likely not subject to be borrowed for copying by just anyone. It is more likely that copies with a huge number of variants (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus) were produced solely or partially from memory which could easily account for the missing ending of Mark.
A copy that has been used for significant copying is open to the air, light, dust, moisture, sweat, for long periods of time and will wear out faster.
Christians who were aware of the importance of the accuracy of God's Word would be more likely to destroy a copy they knew to be inferior. Collectors or non-believing scholars would be more likely to store them away, but for those who were under persecution, there were no safe places to store manuscripts.
The true light of the Gospel was not hid under a bushel. It was used and copied faithfully by those who respected it the most. That is why a large group of more recent copies that agree with each other is more valuable than a few early copies that don't.

If that's your opinion........ but to me that is a massive stretch, to say the least. There is evidence to show that Christians did indeed fiddle with reports and writings, one typical example being Flavius Josephus's mention of Jesus. There is ample evidence that Josephus DID write about Jesus amongst a collection of reports about troublemakers, hardly a section where he would have written so highly of Jesus. And I do expect that the entry was modified by Christians later on. Now the the Josephus entry about the Baptist looks 100% authentic in every way, and placed nowhere near the entry about Jesus.

And so I expect it is with Gospel of Mark, and maybe other books?

 

[User Name]

Hi User Name. No, I do not believe there was a complete and INERRANT (100% true and infallible) Bible in any language before the King James Bible. And neither do you, right? In fact, you still don't believe there is one you can show us. Correct? Just be honest about it.

Everyone knows that there is a perfect Bible, and that it is the Geneva Bible, and not the KJV, that is the perfect Bible. The Geneva Bible is the Bible of the Reformation! The KJV was authorized by a king who was a closet queen.

 

[George Affleck]

If that's your opinion........ but to me that is a massive stretch, to say the least. There is evidence to show that Christians did indeed fiddle with reports and writings, one typical example being Flavius Josephus's mention of Jesus. There is ample evidence that Josephus DID write about Jesus amongst a collection of reports about troublemakers, hardly a section where he would have written so highly of Jesus. And I do expect that the entry was modified by Christians later on. Now the the Josephus entry about the Baptist looks 100% authentic in every way, and placed nowhere near the entry about Jesus.

And so I expect it is with Gospel of Mark, and maybe other books?

Well, you have not mentioned reasons why you think it is a stretch so I guess it's just a difference of opinion.

But I am not following you on the Josephus thing. What makes you suspect something was modified?

 

[eider]

Well, you have not mentioned reasons why you think it is a stretch so I guess it's just a difference of opinion.

But I am not following you on the Josephus thing. What makes you suspect something was modified?

Look at where his very short entry was placed.

Compare the writing style with his usual flow.

Now the Baptist got a most empathic and respected description from F.J. and considerably longer than his mention of Jesus, and not included in a long list of troubles etc.

I feel sure that F.J.'s entry about Jesus was meddled with. But you are entitled to your opinion. Surely.

 

[Bee1]

Look at where his very short entry was placed.

Compare the writing style with his usual flow.

Now the Baptist got a most empathic and respected description from F.J. and considerably longer than his mention of Jesus, and not included in a long list of troubles etc.

I feel sure that F.J.'s entry about Jesus was meddled with. But you are entitled to your opinion. Surely.

But most Christians read the Bible as "Gospel", (God's Word).

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

 

[Clete]

Hi User Name. No, I do not believe there was a complete and INERRANT (100% true and infallible) Bible in any language before the King James Bible.

Why don't you ever make any arguments that attempt to prove that claim?!

 

[eider]

But most Christians read the Bible as "Gospel", (God's Word).

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Absolutely!
But which bible?
I can't imagine that many Christians would accept them all.
And the true bible (whichever that is) can be interpreted in different ways.... true?

 

[eider]

Everyone knows that there is a perfect Bible, and that it is the Geneva Bible, and not the KJV, that is the perfect Bible. The Geneva Bible is the Bible of the Reformation! The KJV was authorized by a king who was a closet queen.

Question:-
Could you show a couple of examples to demonstrate how the Geneva Bible differs from the KJ bible?

 

[Clete]

Absolutely!
But which bible?
I can't imagine that many Christians would accept them all.
And the true bible (whichever that is) can be interpreted in different ways.... true?

That which you state as a parenthetical is really the entire point. The question "whichever that is" cannot be answered except arbitrarily which is no real answer.

This is why no one in the KJV only camp every makes any affirmative arguments to support the claim that the KJV is only "complete and inerrant words of God" not only that exists today but that has ever existed. Instead they basically make two types of arguments...

1. Linguistic Arguments (i.e. Arguments related to translation errors in other English bibles.)

(Greek or Hebrew word ABC is translated as "XYZ" in the NIV (or other English bible) but as "ZZZ" in the King James therefore the NIV is a false bible.)

This, at best, might prove that whatever other English bible being criticized is not the "complete and inerrant words of God" but does nothing to prove that the King James is the "complete and inerrant words of God". Even if you went through every other English bible in existence and did a brute force proof that none of them qualify as the "complete and inerrant words of God" then the hypothetical best you could hope for with this approach is to prove that the King James translation is superior to all other English translations. You still haven't touched any bible in any other language (including Greek and Hebrew, by the way) nor have you proven that the King James is the "complete and inerrant words of God".

And all of that assumes that the translation dispute is valid in the first place, which it rarely is. In fact, they rarely ever actually make that part of the argument. The fact that it differs from the King James is, it seems, all the evidence they need to prove to themselves that it's a incorrect translation. Instead of discussing the translation itself, they almost always slide into their other favorite form of argument...

2. Doctrinal Arguments

(The King James teaches doctrine X but this other English bible teaches not X, therefore the other English bible is a false bible.)

Even when they bring up translational differences, more often than not what they are setting up is actually a doctrinal argument rather than a linguistic argument. They'll pick a text where they think an errant translation causes the text to imply a false doctrine and from there the argument is simple because any bible that teaches false doctrine obviously cannot be the "complete and inerrant words of God".

This argument has basically the same problems as the linguistic arguments in that it, at best, only disqualifies one English bible at a time as being the "complete and inerrant words of God", As such, the hypothetical best you could hope for with this approach is to prove that the King James translation is superior to all other English translations. You still haven't touched any bible in any other language (including Greek and Hebrew, by the way) nor have you proven that the King James is the "complete and inerrant words of God".

And, once again, that is all assuming that the doctrinal point they are arguing is actually valid (sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't) and that the English bible being criticized actually teaches against it, which it rarely does.


In short, those in the KJV Only camp, think that "superior" means "perfect" which is false to begin with but worse than that, their arguments typically fail to even prove 'superior' and never get close to proving 'perfect'.

What I'd like to see is for someone in the KJV Only camp ( [MENTION=4575]brandplucked[/MENTION] or [MENTION=14087]George Affleck[/MENTION] or whomever) to make an argument that ignores the existence of every other English translation and makes an attempt to prove that the King James Bible is the "complete and inerrant words of God". I seriously doubt that they could come up with even a conceptual way in which such a claim could be argued, never mind proven. Regardless, it would still be nice to see them make the attempt. That would at least be an acknowledgement on their part that even if yours is the last translation standing doesn't mean it's the perfectly "complete and inerrant words of God".

Clete

P.S. One last thought. I wonder if it has ever occurred to anyone who speaks English that there is no evidence that God Himself has ever verbally uttered a single word in the English language? That's no proof that He hasn't done so but it sort of seems odd to publish Your "complete and inerrant words" in a language that didn't exist when the original authors wrote what would become the bible and that You had to wait 1600+ years for English to finally evolve into what it needed to be to get it just right. All the while millions of souls are born and die without ever having the "complete and inerrant words of God" in existence. One might think it better to just have the original authors get it right in the first place!

Food for thought!