When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine

When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

This outline was covered in a lecture of the same topic at the March 1998 ACAP meeting.

1. The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha. Thus, the Bible that KJV-Only advocates use omits thousands of verses originally contained in the KJV (just over 5,700) – far more than the few verses found in the KJV but omitted in the NASB, NIV, and other modern translations (such as 1 John 5:7). It is true that the Apocrypha was widely regarded by Protestants in 1611 not to have the status of full canonicity. However, in the original 1611 edition no disclaimer was included in this regard (one was added in later editions). Furthermore, if the Apocrypha were to be included today, KJV-only advocates would vehemently object to its inclusion – a sure sign that its inclusion in the 1611 edition is a significant difference.

2. Even excluding the Apocrypha, the KJV of 1611 differed slightly from editions of the KJV in common use today.. We are not referring here to spelling changes and the like, or to misprints in later, single editions. Usually the changes are improvements – for example, Matthew 26:36 now properly reads "Then cometh Jesus," where the original KJV read "Then cometh Judas." Not all the changes are for the better, though – for example, Matthew 23:34 in the KJV originally read "strain out a gnat," which is correct, while subsequent editions of the KJV to this day have "strain at a gnat." These facts prove that the extreme KJV-Only belief that even the slightest deviation from the wording of the KJV results in a false Bible is completely unrealistic. Please note that we are not claiming that the differences are vast or troubling from our perspective. We are simply pointing out that the position that the wording of the 1611 KJV is inviolable logically requires that modern editions of the KJV not be used.

3. The translators of the KJV did not believe in the KJV-Only doctrine. a. They asserted that "the very meanest [i.e., most common or rude] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession . . . containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." In other words, any translation of the Bible by Christian scholars is the word of God. b. They understood their work as a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek text, contrary to some extreme KJV-Only advocates who maintain that the original Hebrew and Greek text is nonexistent and irrelevant. c. The KJV originally included marginal notes containing alternate renderings – making it clear that the wording of the KJV is not above correction or improvement. They admitted that there were Hebrew words that appeared only once in the whole Old Testament whose precise meaning was a matter of conjecture or debate. d. They also included variant readings – an extremely important point that contradicts the KJV-Only doctrine that the slightest variation from the KJV text results in an unreliable or false Bible. In at least one instance they placed half a verse in italics because they were unsure whether it was original (1 John 2:23b). e. They acknowledged that they exercised liberty in rendering the same Greek or Hebrew word in a variety of ways for stylistic purposes, again proving that they did not regard their wording as the only possible or acceptable rendering of the Bible. f. They took as a guiding principle the belief that the Bible should be translated into the "vulgar," or common, language of the people – implying that as the English language changes new translations may be needed. g. They asserted that there was value in having a variety of translations of the Scriptures.

4. The KJV Bible itself does not teach the KJV-Only Doctrine. a. No verse of the KJV indicates that there can be only one translation in any language. Much less does any verse of the KJV teach (as some KJV-Only advocates maintain) that there can be only one language version of the Bible at a time and that the only Bible in the world today is the KJV. b. The KJV does clearly teach that God's word is pure and that God promised to preserve his word. But in no verse does the KJV indicate that this preservation would occur without variant readings or renderings. To say that God's word is "pure" is not the same thing as saying that there can be no variations from one version of the Bible to another. It is, rather, simply to say that what God has said is absolutely reliable. But we must still determine precisely what God said. Did he say what is in the Apocrypha? Did he say 1 John 5:7? The purity of God's word is an axiom, but it does not automatically answer these questions. c. The KJV does teach that no one should add to or subtract from God's word. This does place a serious responsibility on the textual scholar and the translator; but it does not tell us which English version is correct about disputed verses such as 1 John 5:7.

5. The KJV-Only doctrine contradicts the evidence of the KJV Bible itself. a. If the KJV-Only doctrine were true, we would expect that quotations from the Old Testament (OT) appearing in the New Testament (NT) would be worded exactly the same. But this is usually not the case in the KJV. Granted, God might legitimately inspire the NT authors to reword certain OT verses. But this explanation does not cover all the evidence. b. The fact is that the vast majority of OT quotations in the NT differ at least slightly. Why would God inspire NT authors to reword OT statements routinely if there is only one legitimate wording for each OT verse? c. In some cases in the NT the OT quotation is presented as what a person in NT times actually read, or could read, in his copy of the OT. For example, several times Jesus asked the Jews if they had never read a particular OT text – and then quoted it in a form that differs from the KJV (Matt. 19:4-5 [Gen. 1:27; 2:24]; Matt. 21:16 [Ps. 8:2]; Matt. 21:42 and Mark 12:10 [Ps. 118:22-23]; Matt. 22:32 and Mark 12:26 [Ex. 3:6]). If the Bible is properly worded in only one way and any variant is a corruption of the Bible, then Jesus was asking them if they had read something which, according to KJV-Only reasoning, they could not have read. Elsewhere we are told that a person read an OT text, where the KJV of that OT text differs from what appears in the NT quotation (Luke 4:17-19 [Isa. 61:1-2]; 10:26-28 [Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18]; Acts 8:32-33 [Isa. 53:7-8]). These facts prove that the OT text which the Nazareth synagogue, Jesus himself, the rich young ruler, and the Ethiopian ruler had differed in wording from the OT in the KJV.

6. The KJV-Only doctrine is not the historic belief of the Christian faith. In the history of Christianity only two other versions of the Bible have ever been treated as the Bible, and even in these two cases not to the exclusion of other language versions. But those two versions were the Greek Septuagint (OT) and the Latin Vulgate, both of which (especially the latter) are typically rejected by KJV-Only advocates as perversions of the Bible. The Vulgate was treated as the only valid Bible for centuries by the Roman Catholic church in order to maintain uniformity in Bible reading and interpretation. Yet KJV-only advocates commonly regard the Septuagint and the Vulgate texts as false versions or "perversions" of the Bible. To be consistent, then, they must maintain that for over half of church history (over a thousand years) there was no Bible available to anyone outside a tiny number of scholars (if to anyone at all). In Protestantism the belief that the Bible may exist in multiple versions even in the same language has freed the Bible from the monopolistic control of the clergy or the theologians. The KJV-Only doctrine is a reactionary movement, limited almost exclusively to a segment of American fundamentalists (with much smaller followings in other English-speaking countries).

7. The KJV-Only doctrine does not fit the facts about the transmission of the Bible. a. According to at least some versions of the KJV-Only doctrine, God preserved the Bible against any and all deviations, so that the true Bible has always been the same. But there is no evidence that this has happened. In fact the Bible and portions of it have been freely copied, re-copied, and translated with great freedom in the first five centuries of the church and in the last five centuries (so far). This resulted in many variations and deviations from the original text. b. The copies of the first 1500 years or so of church history were all produced by hand, and no two extant manuscripts are completely alike. It is unrealistic to expect that before the printing press an absolutely unchanging text would be preserved by anyone – and the evidence from the extant manuscripts proves that in fact it did not happen. c. In the case of the New Testament, the distinctive Greek text tradition on which the KJV was based, known as the Byzantine text, does not appear to have existed in the early church. The best evidence we have so far suggests that the Alexandrian text tradition is the earliest. This claim is vigorously rejected by KJV-only advocates, and the arguments pro and con are many and the issue too complicated for most non-scholars to follow and appreciate. However, a simple observation can here be made even here. For the KJV-only doctrine to be correct, in every place where the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts differ, the Byzantine must always be right. To base one's doctrine on such an unprovable and dubious assumption is not wise.

8. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to respect the KJV as God's word. Many evangelical Christians greatly revere the KJV, read it, quote from it, believe it, and seek to live by it, who do not subscribe to the KJV-only doctrine.

9. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to express criticisms of other translations. Many evangelicals who do not hold to the KJV-only doctrine have specific criticisms of other translations. For example, many evangelicals are critical of gender-inclusive translations such as the NRSV. Many evangelicals have pointed out weaknesses or problems in the NIV. Sober criticism of other translations assumes a humble perspective that recognizes that no translator or translators have produced a perfect translation and that translators who make mistakes are not necessarily corrupting God's word.

10. Advocacy of the KJV-only doctrine is no guarantee of doctrinal truth or interpretive accuracy. A variety of Christian sects of American origin embrace the KJV in more or less exclusivistic fashion. a. Arguably the "Ruckmanites," a fundamentalist Baptistic movement that looks to Peter Ruckman as its primary spokesperson, is a distinct subgroup of American fundamentalism with almost cultish characteristics. Their basic theology seems sound enough, but it is overlaid with such extremism and legalism in its view of the Bible as to undermine its evangelical view of salvation. b. Mormonism uses the KJV as its official Bible, even though Joseph Smith produced an "inspired" revision of the Bible (which some Mormons also use). The Mormons have a strong commitment to the KJV because it was the Bible of the early LDS prophets, the Book of Mormon quotes (indeed, plagiarizes) whole chapters from the KJV, and Mormons have found it convenient to use the KJV in evangelizing especially in English-speaking countries. c. Many Oneness Pentecostals hold to a form of the KJV-only doctrine, especially on a popular level among pastors and laity. In their case they find it convenient to stick with the KJV because in certain places its wording is more compatible with the way the Oneness doctrine is articulated than modern translations (e.g., Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16). Oneness Pentecostals often object to arguments based on the Greek or Hebrew as vain attempts to improve on the Bible.

11. The KJV-only doctrine requires that we have some sort of faith in the KJV translators. KJV-only advocates constantly complain that if we don't have one sure Bible, the KJV, then we have to trust what scholars say about the text and its translation. But they are placing their faith solely in the KJV translators. A genuinely Protestant approach to the Bible requires that we not trust any one translator or translation team. Lay Christians can compare different translations to help get at the truth about any passage – or at least to become aware of possible disputes over the meaning of the passage.

12. Advocates of the KJV-only doctrine all too commonly exhibit a spiteful and disrespectful attitude toward other Christians. Advocates of a hard-line KJV-only position commonly label all other translations (even the NKJV) "per-versions" of the Bible. They typically accuse anyone defending these other translations of lying, denying God's word, calling God a liar, and having no faith. While there are gracious, charitable advocates of the KJV-only doctrine, in general its advocates have earned a reputation for vicious name-calling, condescension, and arrogance. To quote the original 1611 edition of the KJV, these people "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." While zealous to defend the KJV, they betray its teachings by failing to exhibit love toward fellow believers in Jesus Christ. All too often they imply that to be saved one must not only believe in Christ, but must also adhere to the KJV as the only Bible. A doctrine that fosters such bad fruit must be bad. There is nothing wrong with loving the KJV and believing it to be the best translation of the Bible. There is something very wrong with condemning other Christians for not sharing that opinion.

Burgon, John W. The Revision Revised. Paradise: Conservative Classics, 1977 reprint [1883]. Fuller, Daniel O., ed. Which Bible? Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International, 1978. Hodges, Zane C., and A. L. Farstad, eds. The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text. 2d ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985. Pickering, W. N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977. 2. Evangelical Works Critiquing the KJV-Only Position

Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995. 3. On Mormonism and the Bible

Barlow, Philip L. Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-Day Saints in American Religion. Religion in America series. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

<< I made a point earlier that there are archaic words in the KJV no longer in use today and they are a distraction in reading the Word. >>

Well then, better dump the NIV and the NotKJV:

From Will Kinney,

Here are just a few from the NIV.

Ask your high schooler if he or she can define these. In the NIV bible:

abashed, abutted, adder, alcove, armlets, bier, burnished, carnelian,
citron, coney, cors, debauchery, decimated, dissipation, distill,
dissuade, dragnet, duplicity, emasculate, encrouch, enthralled, filigree,
flagstaff, forded, gadfly, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing,
hearld, henna, hoopoe, insatiable, insolence, joists, jowls, magi,
mattocks, maxiums, mina, Negev, Nephilim, Nubians, offal, oracles,
overweening, parapet, pinions, phylacteries, porphyry, portent, potsherd,
poultice, Praetorium, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence,
qualm, quarries, ramparts, ratified, relish, relent, rend, repointing,
sachet, satraps, sistrums, soothsayer, sullen, temperate, tether, tetrarch,
terebinth, thresher, throes, tiaras, tinder, unfurled, unscathed,
unrelenting, vassal, vaunts, verdant, wadi.

It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which
says; "The very sad green giant was hungry." and in the NIV it would be: "The
overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished."

So, you see, besides the very serious textual matter, the modern
versions also have words hard to be understood.

The NKJV does not always follow the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the
Authorized 1611 King James Bible. The vocabulary of the New King James
Version, along with some "helpful hints".

Abase, abashed, abode, adhere, admonish, adversity, aground, algum,
alienate, alighting, allays, allotment, alloy, aloof, alms, amend, amiss,
annihilated, anise, antitype, arbitrate, apprehended, archives, armlets,
ascertain, asps, attire, austere, backbite, banishment, baths (not to get
clean), bdellium, befalls, beggarly, begetting, behemoth, belial,
beseech, betrothal, beveled, birthstools, bittern, bleat, booty (not
modern slang), borne, breach, brandished (not drunk), bray, bristling,
buffet (not a restaurant), buckler (not a belt), bulrush, (not a stampede),
burnished, butress (not a chair), calamus, caldron, capital (not a city),
carcasses, carnally, carrion (not luggage), cassia, caulkers, centurion
(not a 100 years), chalcedony, chalkstones, chaste (not pursued by a
runner), chasten, (not related to previous chaste), chrysolite,
chrysoprase, circumspect, cistern (not feminine of brethren), citadel,
citron, clamor, cleft, cloven (not a spice), commission (not money),
commonwealth (not shared money), compound (not a barracks), concede ,
compulsory, conciliation, concubine (not a tractor), congealed,
contemptuously, confederacy (not the South), contingents (not same as large
land masses), corban, coriander, countenance (not adding up ants), couriers
(not an hordourve), covert, crags, crescents, crest (not the top of a hill),
cropped (not food), cubit, custodian (not the one who cleans the school
halls), curds, dainties (not effeminate), dandled, daubed, dappled,
dayspring, denarii, deposed (not relaxing after a foto op), deride (not
same as dismount), despoiled (not really, really rotten), diadem, diffuses
(not to disarm a bomb), dilapidation (not the act of standing up),
dispensation, disrepute, dissipation, diviner (not a grape grower),
docile, dragnet (not a detective drama), dregs, drachmas, dropsy (not
clumsiness), dross, dryshod, eczema (God bless you), edict, edification,
elaborate, embellish, emitted, enigma, enmity, entrails (not a short cut),
envoy, eventide, epistle, ephod, exorcise (not jogging), expiration (not
a date on a carton of milk), faction, fallow, famish, fare (not average
and not money), fatlings (not piglets), feigned (not passed out), festal,
fetched, fidelity (not good sound), figurehead (not a statue of a head),
filly, flanges, foreskin, fostered, fowlers (not a baseball term), fuller
(not less empty), furlongs (not cat tails), gad, garland,
garrison, gaunt, gecko, graven, Hellenists, hew (not a man's
name), homers (not baseball), hoopoe (not a garden tool),
immutability, indignant, insolence, insubordination, intervene,
itinerant, jackdaw, jeopardy (a TV show, but what does it mean?),
jubilation, kors (not a brand of beer), laden,
lamentations, laud (not Boston pronunciation of lard), lusty, mail (not a
letter), mammon, matrix (other than the movie), mattock (not a TV lawyer
show), mercenaries, mina (not a type of bird), mite (not a bed bug),
moorings, nativity, offal (not terrible), offscouring (not dandruff),
omnipotent, oracle, pangs, papyrus (not a fruit), paramours, parapet (not
a dog and a cat), penitents, perdition, phylacteries, pilfering, pillage,
pims, pins (not like needles or bowling- has to do with a chariot),
pinions (not a type of nut), plaited (not dishes), platitudes, potentate,
potsherd, poultice (not chickens), Praetorium (not a place to pray),
prattler, principality, prodigal, proconsul, prognosticators (not people
who put things off till later), propitiation, pslatery, prow, pulverize,
pyre, quadrans, quiver (not to shake), rampart (not a piece of a truck),
ravenous, ravished, raze (not to lift up), reconciliation, recount (not to
double check your arithmetic), rend, renown, reprisal, retinue, rifled
(does not have to do with guns), rivulets, rogue, salute (does not have to
do with the army), satiate, satraps, scruples, sepulcher, shamefaced,
shards, Sheol, shod, shuttle (not a type of bus or spaceship), siegeworks,
sistrums (not an affectionate term for your sisters), skiff, soothsayer,
spelt (not anything to do with spelling words), straits (not the opposite
of crookeds), superfluous, supplanted, tamarisk, tares,
tarries, temperate, terebinth, terrestrial, tetrarch, throng (not a skimpy
bathing suit), timbrel, tittle (not the name of a book), tresses, usury,
vagabond, vassal, vehement, vermilion, verdure, verity, vestments, waifs,
wane,
wanton (not desiring something), warp (not to bend), wend, wield,
winebibber, woof (not a dog or stereo), wrought.

So, what's your score? Would you get a passing grade, even with my helpful
hints?

<< A 400 year old book will tend to have a few 'old' words in it, but not as many as commonly believed. >>

The morning newspaper has a few difficult and archaic words in it, but nobody is clamouring for modern updates.

Somehow people acquire selective ignorance. When the term “woman’s suffrage” is used, nobody has trouble understanding that women were *allowed* to do something and nobody demands up-to-date renderings. But when “suffer the little children to come unto me” is quoted, suddenly the same people no longer understand it means to *allow* the children to do something. Likewise, when these words might appear in the KJV, they are considered difficult, but they somehow escape that allegation in the modern versions. When those words are used in the KJV, like Praetorium, other passages explain it with terms like “judgment hall”, but that is not the case in most modern versions.

Likewise, there is no cry to update Shakespeare or Chaucer, in fact such calls would be met with derision. But people have no conscience about updating the words of the living God. Somebody’s priorities are out of whack.

To illustrate that, let’s take the MV challenge and put your money where your mouth is - literally!

Do you realize what were talking about? The WORDS of the ALMIGHTY CREATOR GOD!!! How DARE some of you take it so cavalierly that any old version will do so long as it has the 'message' fairly close.

You don't treat your mortgage or your car loan as carelessly as you treat the WORDS of the LIVING GOD!

Here's a test to prove it - your mortgage and car loan say if you pay several hundred dollars, you can stay in your home and drive your car for about thirty days. That's the "message". Try paying just $100 LESS on each payment and using the house/car for five days longer each period. How long will you get to keep your house/car? Hey, the "message" is still the same.

How come you won't treat your mortgage like that, but you'll treat the word of God like that? Shows which one you're more concerned about being accurate with. You'll never take that challenge because you esteem your mortgage more than you esteem God's words.

"For a magistrate no more socially loved the orderly arrangement that he adventured his mere married foal, that every it that credits him should not lose but have world life."

That's John 3:16 using legitimate Greek definitions of the words as used in that verse. See how rich the Greek is? See how much light it shines on God's word? How much clearer and deeper the scripture is!

THAT ARCHAIC KING'S ENGLISH

Lots of people complain about the “thees and thous” in the KJV, but what is one of the most criticized things about the KJV is actually one of its great strengths.

First, that language was intended for ecclesiastical accuracy - it was NOT the way they spoke even in 1611. That can be determined by reading their Preface and “The Translators to the Readers”.

Second, the modern versions use just as many difficult, archaic words. So the claim that they are more modern and easier is dismissed (see lists below).

Third, NONE of the modern versions are really written the way people talk, except possibly the Black Language Ebonic version’s renderings like “Don’t dis da big guy” in place of “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” So the argument that they are written in the common, contemporary language is demonstrably false. Nobody talks like the NIV or Living Bible any more than they talk like the KJV.

Fourth, according to several grammatical tests, including Flesch-Kincaide, Gunning-Fog, and Grammatilk, the KJV is easier than ANY major version. It uses 80% one and two syllable words. It is written at 6th grade level. The common modern versions are all 8th grade or higher.

Fifth, thee and thou and hath and shalt are really not so difficult, and any American adult who rejects the KJV based on that is being dishonest. There are a few truly difficult words, maybe 100 out of 900,000 words, but there are a few difficult words in this morning’s newspaper, and no one demands modern versions of the morning paper to make it easier.

Sixth, some of the concepts may indeed be difficult, but to communicate them in easier terminology is to dilute them and give a false rendering. Easier but WRONG is no improvement.

The thees and thous that has everybody’s undies in a bundle were used because they are accurate. They words beginning with ‘Y’ in the Bible (you, ye, your) are PLURAL. The words beginning with ‘T’ (thee, thou, thy, thine) are SINGULAR. What’s so difficult about that? It clears up a lot of confusion amongst y’all and lets us know who youse are. Do you understand that? No, not you, I was talking to her.

The word endings, like est, eth, oth, likewise are grammatically accurate. They give different tenses and nuances to words. Grade school children have no trouble learning plural endings like ‘s’ and ‘es’ or endings like ‘ed’ and ‘ing’, so why should ‘est’ or ‘eth’ be so much more difficult? A little practice and they’re not difficult at all.

Some of the truly archaic and difficult terms were retained because they are specialized things like medical terms, architectural terms, geological names, weights, measures, money, animals, chemicals, and other items that updating would make erroneous. You wouldn’t want your doctor to write a prescription for a serious illness using street language. You probably wouldn’t want him prescribing “bread mold” instead of penicillin.

Bible Page:
http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/kjv.0
KJV Inspired?
http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/kjv__inspired_.0
Pure and Sure word:
http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/pure_and_sure_word_.0

King James Authorized Bible - The King of Books!

OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCRIPTS

Rather than just pointing out flaws in the modern versions, let’s look at some of the evidences favoring the KJV. These show that the text the KJV lines up with is older and superior than the Alexandrian texts which are often claimed to be the oldest:

******* ******* *******

OLDEST AND BETHESDA

By the second or third century, the pool of Bethesda was virtually unknown. Its exact identity and location was a complete mystery. Not even Eusebius got the name right. Moreover, it is doubtful that the location and identity of Bethesda even made it into the 2nd century due to the utter destruction of Jerusalem. The actual location of Bethesda was not discovered until the late 19th century, and it was not excavated and fully confirmed until the mid 20th century. Bethesda is now a confirmed FACT.

The pool of Bethesda in the KJV in John 5:2 has been conclusively affirmed as being the correct reading since it has been irrevocably confirmed archaeologically. None of the major Alexandrian manuscripts, have Bethesda, and the modern English versions follow their lead and replace it with Bethzatha or Bethsaida. They all thought no such place as Bethesda existed, and decided to “correct” this “error” in the KJV.

The Byzantine (TR-KJV) manuscripts could not possibly have known about Bethesda unless they had come from manuscripts PRIOR to the Alexandrian manuscripts. In other words, the superior claim to antiquity goes to the Byzantine manuscripts which take us back to remote antiquity, FAR EARLIER than ANY of the Alexandrian MSS.

Thus, the evidence shows that the KJV comes from truly older sources, and is completely accurate.

******* ******* *******

JOHANINE COMMA BEFORE 250 A.D.

The “Johanine Comma” is the name given to 1 John 5:7, the definitive verse about the Trinity in scripture.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Only a few of the late Greek Received Texts contain this verse, so many scholars discount it as part of scripture. They forget that the KJV committee had source texts that are no longer available today.

But Cyprian, in 250 A.D. quoted (Second revised edition c. AD 256), De catholicae ecclesiae unitate. (CSEL 3:215) The LORD says "I and the Father are one" and likewise **IT IS WRITTEN** of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "And these three are one."

Cyprian is QUOTING scripture in 256 A.D. that (according to the critics) didn't exist until the 16th century! What an amazing feat!

Regardless of how many *extant* Greek texts contain the verse, or how old they are, the texts from BEFORE 250 A.D., that were actually USED (and worn out) contained the verse.

******* ******* *******

THE OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCRIPT

The "London Times" reported the discovery of the OLDEST New Testament manuscript remains.

Using a high-magnification device and the epifluorescent confocal laser scanning technique, the fragment was dated at 66 AD! Many of the New Testament ORIGINALS were not even written by 66 AD! You are not going to find a manuscript portion of any kind much before then. Mark had just been written (63 AD), Luke (68 AD) and John (85 AD) were not yet written.

Paparyologist Carston Theide dated the portion at 60-66 AD. Even his detractors conceded a pre-200 AD date, which would still make it older than the Alexandrian manuscripts.

The portion is from Matt 26:22, and as "fate" would have it, it's a portion that differs between the Antioch line of the KJV and the Alexandrian line of the modern versions.

The portion reads "hekastos auton" - "every one of them".

Mat 26:22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began *every one of them* to say unto him, Lord, is it I?

The Alexandrian texts read "heis hekastos" - "each one" or "one after the other". It may not be a great theological difference, but it indicates which text is accurate to the oldest manuscripts.

The REAL oldest and best manuscript supports the King James Bible!

******* ******* *******

OLDEST SCRIPTURE

In the last 25 years, two silver amulets have been discovered in the Valley of Hinnom which dated at 700 B.C., some 500 years BEFORE the Dead Sea Scrolls. These amulets were worn around the neck of OT Jewish priests and contained a small scroll with the text of Numbers 6:24-26, called the “Priestly Benediction”.

Num 6:24-26 The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: 25 The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: 26 The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

The amulets not only vindicate the KJV text, but they vindicate the Masoretic Hebrew text used by the KJV translators for rendering the Hebrew tetragrammation JHVH as Jehovah, rather than Yahweh, as other texts render it. The KJV identifies the term by capitalizing the entire word LORD, in English.

Once again, the KJV is perfectly accurate, and its sources are superior, and this is testified to by the most ancient item of scripture ever discovered. ALL of the most ancient sources vindicate the KJV and demonstrate it to be totally accurate.

***Not a perfect translation of the Hebrew, a perfect translation of God's infallible, inerrant word.
Don't you understand the difference?... We have to have faith that God is keeping his promises regarding his word, and that the Holy Spirit is guiding the obviously fallible men who do the work. You continue to ask for something that we cannot know, rather than something that we are guaranteed through faith, and prayer.***

Lucky, lucky English speaking folk. God loves us enough to inspire the King Jimmy in English. We don't need the Greek and Hebrew any more, heck we have no idea what they mean. I'm just glad I am not Japanese, or Nowegian, or German or Hungarian or Algonquin... cause then I'd need to learn English to know for sure what God has said. The Lord loves English folk so much!

Silly, silly me for taking years of Greek and Hebrew instead of Jacobean English.

E-S, sorry I believe your perfect translation is at best ludicrous if not injurious to the body of Christ.

***We don't even know if our understanding of the ancient hebrew and greek languages is correct because there are no living people who used it.***

Anybody in your church now who was alive in 1611? What a ridiculous argument. And the defenses are getting more and more inane.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.